|
Post by cainuslupus on Jun 17, 2017 22:28:13 GMT
It is more complicated for sure, but PP wanted to get rid of the "proxy turn" where you played out multiple activations without actually committing to them, and this rule should get rid of that while still allowing you to measure if a charge will reach the target, or a complicated S-shaped walk or what ever. 1" steppers remain legal for example. This wording achieves what they want to achieve while having only a slight impact on the "normal" game play. Now, i too prefer the standard universal pre-measurement, but i can totally live with this, unlike the rules that were tested in the CID. That shit would have me looking for other games :S The "proxy turn" was never an issue unless you made a mistake and didn't like your opponent capitalising on it. Bad change is bad. Let's agree that current rules are imperfect compromise between clean play and need to check all things beforehand. Proxy turns really irked me TBH.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jun 18, 2017 0:44:12 GMT
PP wasn't going to back down on something they wanted for the game in some form or another.
Yes, this is objectively worse than the laissez-faire universal measuring we had until now, but it's a compromise, and right now it's the best iteration we've had so far.
This will improve over time with more iterations, but right now digging in our heels with a middle finger up in the air pointed at PP will not help us improve on the compromises.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 18, 2017 1:43:28 GMT
PP wasn't going to back down on something they wanted for the game in some form or another. Yes, this is objectively worse than the laissez-faire universal measuring we had until now, but it's a compromise, and right now it's the best iteration we've had so far. This will improve over time with more iterations, but right now digging in our heels with a middle finger up in the air pointed at PP will not help us improve on the compromises. Making a compromise between a good thing and a bad thing will *always* result in a inferior product. Digging our heels in and telling PP that they are wrong is exactly what customers should do when a business makes their product worse.
|
|
|
Post by mikethefish on Jun 18, 2017 1:45:22 GMT
Seems worse that standard premeasuring in every meaningful way. Your definition of meaningful is different than others'
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jun 18, 2017 1:51:35 GMT
Digging our heels in and telling PP that they are wrong is exactly what customers should do when a business makes their product worse. What customers should do is stop buying the product, this is a business after all, not a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 18, 2017 1:54:25 GMT
Digging our heels in and telling PP that they are wrong is exactly what customers should do when a business makes their product worse. What customers should do is stop buying the product, this is a business after all, not a democracy. Well, the complaints come before the boycotts. They serve as a warning.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jun 18, 2017 2:14:32 GMT
Well, the complaints come before the boycotts. They serve as a warning. If history has taught me anything is that gamer boycotts don't mean shit, they rarely get the traction they require and nerds usually cave. Which is why the decision has to be made on an individual level, and has to be done in a way that it doesn't cause friction for those that still enjoy the product. I for one recognize the product has flaws, but they're not so big that I want to stop using it, and they're not so big that I want to turn them into a hill to die upon.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 18, 2017 2:52:51 GMT
Well, the complaints come before the boycotts. They serve as a warning. If history has taught me anything is that gamer boycotts don't mean shit, they rarely get the traction they require and nerds usually cave. Which is why the decision has to be made on an individual level, and has to be done in a way that it doesn't cause friction for those that still enjoy the product. I for one recognize the product has flaws, but they're not so big that I want to stop using it, and they're not so big that I want to turn them into a hill to die upon. Shouldn't have said boycott, that wasn't what I meant. Complaints come before individuals leaving comes before player exodus. I understand what you mean, though. However, with the CID process and the dynamic nature of this edition, it is only natural for people to express their concerns in hopes that things will change. You're probably right that pre-measuring restrictions are here to stay, but if we continue to voice objections, the rules will likely be cleaned up and made better.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jun 18, 2017 3:38:43 GMT
PP wasn't going to back down on something they wanted for the game in some form or another. Yes, this is objectively worse than the laissez-faire universal measuring we had until now, but it's a compromise, and right now it's the best iteration we've had so far. This will improve over time with more iterations, but right now digging in our heels with a middle finger up in the air pointed at PP will not help us improve on the compromises. Making a compromise between a good thing and a bad thing will *always* result in a inferior product. Digging our heels in and telling PP that they are wrong is exactly what customers should do when a business makes their product worse. Indeed. It would be better all round if we just eliminated premeasuring all together. But that ship sailed. This rule has at least eliminated the stupidity of someone proxying out an entire turn or an extremely complicated assassination run, and also eliminated the inevitable indignation of the person who does this but happened to make a mistake somewhere and his allegedly "perfect plan" fails due to him actually performing it incorrectly. It's much healthier to have this than the full on pants on head stupidity of unlimited premeasuring and proxy measuring.
|
|
tort
Demo Gamer
Posts: 18
|
Post by tort on Jun 18, 2017 8:41:49 GMT
Making a compromise between a good thing and a bad thing will *always* result in a inferior product. Digging our heels in and telling PP that they are wrong is exactly what customers should do when a business makes their product worse. Indeed. It would be better all round if we just eliminated premeasuring all together. But that ship sailed. This rule has at least eliminated the stupidity of someone proxying out an entire turn or an extremely complicated assassination run, and also eliminated the inevitable indignation of the person who does this but happened to make a mistake somewhere and his allegedly "perfect plan" fails due to him actually performing it incorrectly. It's much healthier to have this than the full on pants on head stupidity of unlimited premeasuring and proxy measuring. You can still premeasure out, even using "proxy" bases an entire turn or an extremely complicated assassination run. You absolutely can still do this - what you can't do is leave the proxy bases indicating the place you want models to be on the board for more than two models. This makes it much more likely that their plan fails as their opponent is now well within their rights to dispute measurements that have already been made - after all there was no marker left on the table, how do we know that the models are in the same place as the markers in the original measurement. This is the reason I've chosen to pull out of running tournaments at least in early SR2017 because people don't seem to realise - this packet does not prevent premeasuring. There is no change to premeasuring. All premeasuring is still legal, you can premeasure absolutely anything. All this does is regulate the way you do it. Instead of using whatever markers you feel you need to ensure accuracy you can only use what is permitted in the packet. Your opponent must still agree to all your premeasurements. If they do not agree that your measurement is correct you can call a judge and they must confirm any and all premeasurements including those required to plan out a full turn or execute an extremely complicated assassination run. Because and this is key - you can still measure anything at any time for any reason. You want premeasuring to go - fine. This is not a change to premeasuring.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 18, 2017 12:20:35 GMT
Making a compromise between a good thing and a bad thing will *always* result in a inferior product. Digging our heels in and telling PP that they are wrong is exactly what customers should do when a business makes their product worse. Indeed. It would be better all round if we just eliminated premeasuring all together. But that ship sailed. This rule has at least eliminated the stupidity of someone proxying out an entire turn or an extremely complicated assassination run, and also eliminated the inevitable indignation of the person who does this but happened to make a mistake somewhere and his allegedly "perfect plan" fails due to him actually performing it incorrectly. It's much healthier to have this than the full on pants on head stupidity of unlimited premeasuring and proxy measuring. The rule hasn't eliminated basic planning of a turn, it would take a 40k level of rules rewrite to do that. Noone actually could plan out a long turn without their opponent making some kind of a mistake on the way or relying on a certain level of luck. The 'indignation' experienced due to plan failure was never a thing as I saw it, it was more annoyance at themselves that they made a mistake on the way (forgetting a rule or relying on overly rosy maths). The real stupidity is walking into range of someones assassination and getting annoyed when they are allowed to take it. Premeasuring was only a good thing.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Jun 18, 2017 12:25:21 GMT
You want premeasuring to go - fine. This is not a change to premeasuring. Could you maybe say that this is a restriction not on premeasuring itself, but on the extent to which you are able to "save" your premeasurements? Because that's what it's all about, right? You can premeasure at any time, but putting down a table marker is the only way you can "log" that measurement for future reference.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 18, 2017 12:34:25 GMT
The claim that this isn't a change to premeasuring is misguided. The definition of premeasuring was: "you may measure any THING at any TIME for any REASON.
The second aspect, any time, has now been altered. You may now measure any ONE THING at any ONE TIME for any REASON. The number of measurements one may perform at a time has been limited.
Being able to measure many things and MAINTAIN those measurements visibly was a part of premeasuring. PP might not have accoubted for this, but it is what they wrote. That's what you get for making a one sentence rule.
Maybe the change is OK, but let's not pretend it isn't change.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Jun 18, 2017 12:41:19 GMT
It's an interesting question, because based on just my own intuitive understanding of how wargames are usually played, when I read the sentence "you may premeasure anything at any time", I don't automatically think "that means I can also maintain those measurements indefinitely by leaving markers on the table too".
Whether you can do this or not seems to be a follow-up question to me. To which it is very reasonable to say "no". I would never have thought that this is something that people would do. But I guess that is because I'm not really used to complex wargames that allow premeasuring. I think for a complex game like this to work well with premeasuring, it should really be played on a board with a grid, where the whole board is its own measurement marker.
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Jun 18, 2017 13:36:10 GMT
Logically if I can measure anything at any time one of those times may be while I am also measuring something else.
|
|