|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 18, 2017 13:47:01 GMT
I still find it strange that PP didn't feel the need to define what a measurement is. That should be the first thing defined. The proxy base and marker sections work fine, but the continuous measurement thing needs further refinement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trollock on Jun 18, 2017 19:50:39 GMT
I still find it strange that PP didn't feel the need to define what a measurement is. That should be the first thing defined. The proxy base and marker sections work fine, but the continuous measurement thing needs further refinement. I think this will work very well since it becomes a sportsmanship issue. A measurement is like pornography, "i know it when i see it". If you repeatedly try and convince ppl you are in fact not making a measurement when you are measuring stuff, a judge will be called and you could be disqualified. We al understand the intent of the ruling, and we understand how it is supposed to work. If you repeatedly try and dance around the edges, you will get an infraction. Basically, you are allowed to use any method to measure where a table marker will be, but you are only allowed to have 2 of them on the table. Still, i prefer the way it works in 2016, but i can totally live with this, and PP will possibly get cleaner looking games that they can take pictures of from conventions. The game also bevomes easier to grasp visually for some one seeing a game for the first time if there are fewer table markers lying around, and that could at least in theory be good for getting new ppl in to the game. |
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Jun 18, 2017 21:42:03 GMT
In hindsight, the "proxy turn" was pretty much inevitable, given how the game works. You move all of your models in one turn, armies are big enough that your guys will often be tripping over each other, ranges are all-or-nothing, and a colossal's charge can fail if it clips a swamp gobber on the way in. Mapping out whole turns is obnoxious and tedious, and it's also the optimal way to play this game.
|
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jun 18, 2017 22:42:26 GMT
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. Yeah, with unlimited measuring and proxying you could still make mistakes. And people usually did. But what would happen is that, after planning out this meticulously long and convoluted turn, if they did make an error and it fails they would then claim that I am being unfair for not allowing them to back it up because "we already checked that it would work!". To which I would have to say "tough luck man, you made an error somewhere and that's not my fault" At which point the game has taken a turn for the worst. Only allowing someone to have 2 proxy measurement indicators out at once eliminates this problem of one player feeling jilted because his allegedly perfect set of measurements were messed up by his own human error. And yes, I have had this happen to me. A guy planned out an eMadrak assassination run that involved no less than 10 activations, and at least 20 individual advances from Madrak overtaking through a unit of Temple Flameguard after charging them, killing a jack and overtaking into more units to get refilled on fury, till he eventually would be in melee of my caster. His plan failed about halfway through when he wasn't able to overtake into melee. I suspect that he failed to account of having to move around my jack's base with his overtakes from the other models instead of being able to walk through it. He then got pretty butthurt when this happened and insisted that because we'd agreed to all the measurements it had to be in range. The TO did not agree fortunately. This new packet at least will eliminate awkward situations like this because you'll never be able to claim perfect knowledge of distances at all times. |
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jun 18, 2017 22:43:41 GMT
In hindsight, the "proxy turn" was pretty much inevitable, given how the game works. You move all of your models in one turn, armies are big enough that your guys will often be tripping over each other, ranges are all-or-nothing, and a colossal's charge can fail if it clips a swamp gobber on the way in. Mapping out whole turns is obnoxious and tedious, and it's also the optimal way to play this game. Indeed. That's why premeasuring should never have been implemented in the first place. It just makes the game less enjoyable, while also making it less skill based. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 18, 2017 23:09:52 GMT
TrollockIf it was supposed to be a sportsmanship issue, it should have been in the sportsman ship section of SR. Instead, there are now official rules around pre-measuring. If you break those rules, you aren't a bad sport, you're a cheater. Pre measuring was already balanced in SR17 because deathclock is the new default. If you do "the proxy turn", then it's your time burning. These rules should be alternate rules like timed turns.
|
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 18, 2017 23:43:54 GMT
In hindsight, the "proxy turn" was pretty much inevitable, given how the game works. You move all of your models in one turn, armies are big enough that your guys will often be tripping over each other, ranges are all-or-nothing, and a colossal's charge can fail if it clips a swamp gobber on the way in. Mapping out whole turns is obnoxious and tedious, and it's also the optimal way to play this game. I play in a meta that makes use of proxies as much as possible because of these things and you will *RARELY* see more than 2-3 proxies out at once because they know the odds of each thing working decreases with each step of the process. If more than that is needed (and it happens) its usually needed for clarity on both sides of the table. |
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 18, 2017 23:49:54 GMT
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. Yeah, with unlimited measuring and proxying you could still make mistakes. And people usually did. But what would happen is that, after planning out this meticulously long and convoluted turn, if they did make an error and it fails they would then claim that I am being unfair for not allowing them to back it up because "we already checked that it would work!". To which I would have to say "tough luck man, you made an error somewhere and that's not my fault" At which point the game has taken a turn for the worst. Only allowing someone to have 2 proxy measurement indicators out at once eliminates this problem of one player feeling jilted because his allegedly perfect set of measurements were messed up by his own human error. And yes, I have had this happen to me. A guy planned out an eMadrak assassination run that involved no less than 10 activations, and at least 20 individual advances from Madrak overtaking through a unit of Temple Flameguard after charging them, killing a jack and overtaking into more units to get refilled on fury, till he eventually would be in melee of my caster. His plan failed about halfway through when he wasn't able to overtake into melee. I suspect that he failed to account of having to move around my jack's base with his overtakes from the other models instead of being able to walk through it. He then got pretty butthurt when this happened and insisted that because we'd agreed to all the measurements it had to be in range. The TO did not agree fortunately. This new packet at least will eliminate awkward situations like this because you'll never be able to claim perfect knowledge of distances at all times. So your opponent got butthurt because they messed up measuring? How is this different whether they were premeasuring it or not? Players who make bad decisions and get salty about it get salty regardless of if its premeasuring or not. And yes I can claim perfect knowledge of distances of all times in this packet, nothing restricts that. It just means I have to go through annoying rigmarole multiple times (or call over a judge whenever I want to make a complicated movement.) This change doesn't fix whatever problem you have with clean play premeasuring, it just makes it take more time and be more annoying for both participants in the game by adding an extra step between the "plan- measure- action" paradigm. In your game, if you agreed that he was in range and neither of you caught that overtake then neither of you were correct. The rules assume that both players are competent at measuring distances. With premeasuring at least your opponent could have measured correctly and not gone for a plan when it was clear that it didn't work in theory and learn from their mistake. They mismeasured, sucks for them and sucks for you, but it has nothing to do with the current debate about premeasuring. |
|
regleant
Junior Strategist
Sometimes things go right
Posts: 267
|
Post by regleant on Jun 19, 2017 2:04:28 GMT
In hindsight, the "proxy turn" was pretty much inevitable, given how the game works. You move all of your models in one turn, armies are big enough that your guys will often be tripping over each other, ranges are all-or-nothing, and a colossal's charge can fail if it clips a swamp gobber on the way in. Mapping out whole turns is obnoxious and tedious, and it's also the optimal way to play this game. Indeed. That's why premeasuring should never have been implemented in the first place. It just makes the game less enjoyable, while also making it less skill based. Obligatory "Weaponized Trigonometry is not a skill" comment, here.  Seriously, Premeasure is a good thing and I would argue adds more skill, rather than takes away. It reduces guessing and randomness. but PP's implementation of markers / measurements restrictions is frustrating, even as someone who didn't take a "proxy turn". |
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 19, 2017 2:15:38 GMT
Indeed. That's why premeasuring should never have been implemented in the first place. It just makes the game less enjoyable, while also making it less skill based. Obligatory "Weaponized Trigonometry is not a skill" comment, here. Seriously, Premeasure is a good thing and I would argue adds more skill, rather than takes away. It reduces guessing and randomness. but PP's implementation of markers / measurements restrictions is frustrating, even as someone who didn't take a "proxy turn". Gonna have to disagree. Being able to gauge distances through eyesight and mental calculations is most definitely a skill. The question is whether or not they are skills that belong in WMH. The new measurement system isn't necessarily more skillful, but it does use a different set of skills. But that's all I disagree with you on. Premeasuring was a net positive in Mk3, which I was pleasantly surprised by. It allowed for cleaner games where neither player had to worry about the proper order of when to measure something (Playing Haley1 felt so darn mean. You'll find out if you're affected by temporal barrier after declaring run/charge or walk.) |
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 19, 2017 2:37:37 GMT
Obligatory "Weaponized Trigonometry is not a skill" comment, here. Seriously, Premeasure is a good thing and I would argue adds more skill, rather than takes away. It reduces guessing and randomness. but PP's implementation of markers / measurements restrictions is frustrating, even as someone who didn't take a "proxy turn". Gonna have to disagree. Being able to gauge distances through eyesight and mental calculations is most definitely a skill. The question is whether or not they are skills that belong in WMH. The new measurement system isn't necessarily more skillful, but it does use a different set of skills. But that's all I disagree with you on. Premeasuring was a net positive in Mk3, which I was pleasantly surprised by. It allowed for cleaner games where neither player had to worry about the proper order of when to measure something (Playing Haley1 felt so darn mean. You'll find out if you're affected by temporal barrier after declaring run/charge or walk.) I personally believe that the best games (from a competitive standpoint) are the ones that hand the players equal information as well as the least amount of interference between will and action. When you want to do something for a purpose, the less barriers between that will and the action being completed the better (within limitations of rules that both players are beholden to of course) because it means that the game becomes a contest of planning and execution. Not being able to measure before doing a plan is an impediment to this because it means that strategy means less. This version of the proxy rules limits some kinds of actions but not others. Vlad 1 can easily plan out 2 14" threating charges on his feat because he can put out 2 proxies with infinite permutations because with his feat and a charge only start points and end points matter. Strakhov 1 can sometimes need more than 2 for a single activation because his threat extension is done in stages. Why? For what purpose is the less engaging caster held up while the more intricate strategy is held down? If PP wants to cater to their players more, they would make limited proxies a tournament variant, then all the people who want to deal with that quagmire can opt into it. |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Jun 19, 2017 2:48:52 GMT
In hindsight, the "proxy turn" was pretty much inevitable, given how the game works. You move all of your models in one turn, armies are big enough that your guys will often be tripping over each other, ranges are all-or-nothing, and a colossal's charge can fail if it clips a swamp gobber on the way in. Mapping out whole turns is obnoxious and tedious, and it's also the optimal way to play this game. Indeed. That's why premeasuring should never have been implemented in the first place. It just makes the game less enjoyable, while also making it less skill based. You could not be more wrong, even if you tried. Premeasuring added a greater level of intricacy of play and clarity of intention. Both constructs that are of supreme importance to a clean competitive game. Anyone in disagreement wants a sloppier game with less interesting tools available. I am sorry you prefer a dumbed down game with more arguments. That totally sounds better, like the most bestest game ever. Really? You would prefer a physical ability to be more relevant than an opponent who can make optimal decisions based on open information. You prefer to beat an opponent's eyes vs their brain, impressive. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 19, 2017 2:49:50 GMT
Gonna have to disagree. Being able to gauge distances through eyesight and mental calculations is most definitely a skill. The question is whether or not they are skills that belong in WMH. The new measurement system isn't necessarily more skillful, but it does use a different set of skills. But that's all I disagree with you on. Premeasuring was a net positive in Mk3, which I was pleasantly surprised by. It allowed for cleaner games where neither player had to worry about the proper order of when to measure something (Playing Haley1 felt so darn mean. You'll find out if you're affected by temporal barrier after declaring run/charge or walk.) I personally believe that the best games (from a competitive standpoint) are the ones that hand the players equal information as well as the least amount of interference between will and action. When you want to do something for a purpose, the less barriers between that will and the action being completed the better (within limitations of rules that both players are beholden to of course) because it means that the game becomes a contest of planning and execution. Not being able to measure before doing a plan is an impediment to this because it means that strategy means less. This version of the proxy rules limits some kinds of actions but not others. Vlad 1 can easily plan out 2 14" threating charges on his feat because he can put out 2 proxies with infinite permutations because with his feat and a charge only start points and end points matter. Strakhov 1 can sometimes need more than 2 for a single activation because his threat extension is done in stages. Why? For what purpose is the less engaging caster held up while the more intricate strategy is held down? If PP wants to cater to their players more, they would make limited proxies a tournament variant, then all the people who want to deal with that quagmire can opt into it. Oh, I agree. I was only saying that the mk2 measuring was also a skill. I don't miss it. As you say, it interfered with player strategy, a skill which should be more important in a war game. And, yes, the new measurment restrictions are similar interference. I would certainly prefer that the restrictions be made into a tournament option, or that a lack of such resfrictions be made into a variant. Either way. |
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jun 19, 2017 3:29:10 GMT
Insituation beca's why premeasuring should never have been implemented in the first place. It just makes the game less enjoyable, while also making it less skill based. You could not be more wrong, even if you tried. Premeasuring added a greater level of intricacy of play and clarity of intention. Both constructs that are of supreme importance to a clean competitive game. Anyone in disagreement wants a sloppier game with less interesting tools available. I am sorry you prefer a dumbed down game with more arguments. That totally sounds better, like the most bestest game ever. Really? You would prefer a physical ability to be more relevant than an opponent who can make optimal decisions based on open information. You prefer to beat an opponent's eyes vs their brain, impressive. I want to face actual critical thinking skills instead of ''this is the optimal choice in this situaation because i measured everything and have perfect information'' which is more mindless than actually having to gauge distances and then make conclusions from that. The game is more mindless than it was previously because you always have perfect information, and thus always know what choices are the best ones. Before, you had to actually deduce what the possibilities for your movements were, and then decide which was best. Now in mk3 we shortcutted all that out. Now you know all the possibilities and thus can immediately know the best course of action. |
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 19, 2017 4:54:49 GMT
You could not be more wrong, even if you tried. Premeasuring added a greater level of intricacy of play and clarity of intention. Both constructs that are of supreme importance to a clean competitive game. Anyone in disagreement wants a sloppier game with less interesting tools available. I am sorry you prefer a dumbed down game with more arguments. That totally sounds better, like the most bestest game ever. Really? You would prefer a physical ability to be more relevant than an opponent who can make optimal decisions based on open information. You prefer to beat an opponent's eyes vs their brain, impressive. I want to face actual critical thinking skills instead of ''this is the optimal choice in this situaation because i measured everything and have perfect information'' which is more mindless than actually having to gauge distances and then make conclusions from that. The game is more mindless than it was previously because you always have perfect information, and thus always know what choices are the best ones. Before, you had to actually deduce what the possibilities for your movements were, and then decide which was best. Now in mk3 we shortcutted all that out. Now you know all the possibilities and thus can immediately know the best course of action. False. How is "knowing how far things are away from each other" immediately leading to "knowing the best action"? Seriously, explain the logic to me because I seriously don't get it. |
|
But that ship sailed. 
Seriously, Premeasure is a good thing and I would argue adds more skill, rather than takes away. It reduces guessing and randomness. but PP's implementation of markers / measurements restrictions is frustrating, even as someone who didn't take a "proxy turn".
