princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Jun 19, 2017 4:56:28 GMT
Apart from noughts and crosses there aren't any perfect information games that reduce you to just mindlessly making the best decision.
|
|
|
Post by celeb on Jun 19, 2017 5:29:22 GMT
I think the new rule is fine. The way I played, I think it won't affect me at all. I never ran into anyone prxying out their full turn, though. I can see how this can be boring. On the other hand, having 60 minutes for 7 turns in the new SR (with 7 turns being exceptionally long in 2016), I think you would get into time problems very fast if you proxied out a full turn.
|
|
tort
Demo Gamer
Posts: 18
|
Post by tort on Jun 19, 2017 6:50:24 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. kind of. Those measurements have still been made, they have game impact. So lets say I have a complicated interaction between multiple models - I'll pick a real example it's Stryker2 and I want to get positive charge from a warjack and be in Stryker's control area and I want my cav to be in Laddermore's command for that bonus. I can check this. Now because of the rule change I have to check this is a ridiculously stupid way picking up markers and then putting them back down again to maintain only two on the table - but I can check it. So I do and I move Stryker remeasuring anything I had to pick up then the warjack remeasuring again and I move Laddermore remeasuring again then I go to move the Cav that I wanted to get in position and it's out. Well either we both saw it was in earlier or a judge came and confirmed it was in earlier. As a judge you handle those situations in SR2017 the same way you handle them in 2016 - if nothing has actually impacted the game state - just that either something has been nudged or shifted - then you can still rely on the original measurement. The difference is now you have to remeasure everything a bunch of times and you might forget a thing. So you can't check everything once, leave all the bases then just place the models on the bases. If when you move the warjack you forget to check control range and just check the 3" for positive charge then you can't rely on the original measurement because you couldn't leave that base down. You could have that warjack out of control even though you intended to have it in, measured and checked that it could be in. That's the difference.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 19, 2017 7:17:12 GMT
I think the new rule is fine. The way I played, I think it won't affect me at all. I never ran into anyone prxying out their full turn, though. I can see how this can be boring. On the other hand, having 60 minutes for 7 turns in the new SR (with 7 turns being exceptionally long in 2016), I think you would get into time problems very fast if you proxied out a full turn. Thing is that 99% of the time in a game you don't need more than 2 proxies, but sometimes you do. There is a lot of space between "2" and "Your whole turn", like Tort spoke about above.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Jun 19, 2017 7:51:05 GMT
The difference is now you have to remeasure everything a bunch of times and you might forget a thing. Yep, that's how I see it too. And this is clearly intentional from PP's side. I think allowing premeasuring in Mk3 was something they felt compelled to do, because all their competititors do it, and people like it. But it's not part of their vision for the game. They want the movement of a model to be something that feels a bit dangerous and dramatic, because depending on how you move, you might mess up. That uncertainty is meant to be there. And that's what you're describing. If you can't put down markers, it's much harder for you to make sure that your models don't get in each others' way. And PP want that to be hard for you. They want the potential for error. For the same reason they like random numbers of shots on models. Unpredictability is exciting in PP's eyes. And I still think that if we want to be able to plan out turns where we know exactly how far every model on the table can move at all times, we should play on a board with a grid, like Blood Bowl or Monsterpocalypse.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 19, 2017 9:03:49 GMT
The difference is now you have to remeasure everything a bunch of times and you might forget a thing. Yep, that's how I see it too. And this is clearly intentional from PP's side. I think allowing premeasuring in Mk3 was something they felt compelled to do, because all their competititors do it, and people like it. But it's not part of their vision for the game. They want the movement of a model to be something that feels a bit dangerous and dramatic, because depending on how you move, you might mess up. That uncertainty is meant to be there. And that's what you're describing. If you can't put down markers, it's much harder for you to make sure that your models don't get in each others' way. And PP want that to be hard for you. They want the potential for error. For the same reason they like random numbers of shots on models. Unpredictability is exciting in PP's eyes. And I still think that if we want to be able to plan out turns where we know exactly how far every model on the table can move at all times, we should play on a board with a grid, like Blood Bowl or Monsterpocalypse. I find errors due to a trick of the eye aren't meaningful. Errors in judgement pushing your luck too far or errors in strategy are meaningful. Also, why is a grid necessary when regular premeasuring did the job just fine?
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jun 19, 2017 9:37:05 GMT
The difference is now you have to remeasure everything a bunch of times and you might forget a thing. Yep, that's how I see it too. And this is clearly intentional from PP's side. I think allowing premeasuring in Mk3 was something they felt compelled to do, because all their competititors do it, and people like it. But it's not part of their vision for the game. They want the movement of a model to be something that feels a bit dangerous and dramatic, because depending on how you move, you might mess up. That uncertainty is meant to be there. And that's what you're describing. If you can't put down markers, it's much harder for you to make sure that your models don't get in each others' way. And PP want that to be hard for you. They want the potential for error. For the same reason they like random numbers of shots on models. Unpredictability is exciting in PP's eyes. And I still think that if we want to be able to plan out turns where we know exactly how far every model on the table can move at all times, we should play on a board with a grid, like Blood Bowl or Monsterpocalypse.
I love blood bowl, it's an awesome game. Best game from GW.
In a Blood Bowl field it costs the same to move in any direction whe clearly you are not moving the same distance. It works great when the only shooting comes from passing, not so great when attacking at range is a big part of the game.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Jun 19, 2017 9:42:22 GMT
Also, why is a grid necessary when regular premeasuring did the job just fine? A grid is just infinitely easier to deal with. No measuring tapes, no widgets, no markers, no discussions. Just simple counting. But I suppose there is no point in making that point. It's not like playing Warmachine on, say, a hex grid is actually possible. I just mentioned it because I feel very strongly that introducing premeasurement is trying to make the game experience more into a grid game, and the whole table marker thing and its awkwardness shows that since the game isn't a grid game, the result is an imperfect compromise.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Jun 19, 2017 9:44:23 GMT
In a Blood Bowl field it costs the same to move in any direction whe clearly you are not moving the same distance. It works great when the only shooting comes from passing, not so great when attacking at range is a big part of the game.
When you have the grid, actual range is irrelevant though, since you never measure anything (well, you do measure passing in BB, but that's stupid to begin with - everything should be measured in squares). But if that is a bother for some reason, just make it a hex grid.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 19, 2017 10:04:40 GMT
Id say critical hits are exciting uncertainty. Random rof and failed charges arent.
|
|
|
Post by celeb on Jun 19, 2017 10:17:39 GMT
Thing is that 99% of the time in a game you don't need more than 2 proxies, but sometimes you do. There is a lot of space between "2" and "Your whole turn", like Tort spoke about above. True, but you need to draw a line somewhere. I think that 2, which covers most cases, is fine. I am not in favor of the rule in general (but, as said, have never been on the receiving end of whole turn proxying), and I was always in favor of raising the limit to 2 or 3. But PP said they wanted this rule, so you can't raise the limit too high an therefore 2, which covers almost all situations is a good spot. If a measurement is really close and important, there are always judges to be called.
|
|
regleant
Junior Strategist
Sometimes things go right
Posts: 267
|
Post by regleant on Jun 19, 2017 10:25:45 GMT
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. What you explained there in quotes is exactly what a strategy game should be. If you assume that a player will always choose the optimal action simply because they can make measurements, then you're assuming all of your opponents are geniuses. The strategy aspect is choosing better tactics than your opponent, not being able to eyeball whether you're within 10.5" vs 11"... EDIT: Based on discussions last year, I realize this is something that people on either side of the camp will never agree on. We just have to accept that it 'is'.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 19, 2017 10:55:25 GMT
Thing is that 99% of the time in a game you don't need more than 2 proxies, but sometimes you do. There is a lot of space between "2" and "Your whole turn", like Tort spoke about above. True, but you need to draw a line somewhere. I think that 2, which covers most cases, is fine. I am not in favor of the rule in general (but, as said, have never been on the receiving end of whole turn proxying), and I was always in favor of raising the limit to 2 or 3. But PP said they wanted this rule, so you can't raise the limit too high an therefore 2, which covers almost all situations is a good spot. If a measurement is really close and important, there are always judges to be called. Actually you don't need to draw a line somewhere, that's the thing. This whole 'infinite proxies' problem has never been a real problem. 1. Players are allowed to use their clock time as they see fit, dropping proxies, chatting, going to the bathroom, whatever. That's the players perogative. 2. Clock time is limited. Thus, all of the above are limited. A player cannot drop unlimited proxies because there is a game going on. If a player has a complex assassination on the table it should be their right to know the particulars of it (just as its the right of an opponent to test to see if its coming). Like everyone says that they don't like it when Rahn takes a 30 minute turn to kill them, but: 1. The Rahn player can take as long as they want, its their clock 2. Wouldn't it be nice if you could place some proxies down where the Rahn player has to position their pieces so you can try to block them without remeasuring each time? There is a natural limit on proxies in play, players can do what they want. Enforcing players pantomime certain actions doesn't help anyone, doesn't help player engagement and doesn't make the game clearer or better. My solution to the "problem" of proxy bases is to make a rule stating that proxies standing in for models currently in play need to be labelled and proxies not representing models currently in play must be removed at the end of your turn. Then, introduce the current proxy base rules PP are moving towards as a variant to steamroller so metas can decide to incorporate them or not. There, literally noone can be unhappy with that.
|
|
|
Post by Korianneder on Jun 19, 2017 13:02:59 GMT
My solution to the "problem" of proxy bases is to make a rule stating that proxies standing in for models currently in play need to be labelled and proxies not representing models currently in play must be removed at the end of your turn. If this was standard then I would be fine with infinite proxy bases. I understand my opinion is very different then most people, but I agree with PP's proxy base rule. I've had people plan out entire turns during a tournament game. I get it, they want to be precise as possible. I don't mind them using up their time, and I don't mind sitting there watching them do it. The problem I run into is that I have ADD and it causes me to lose focus. As an example, at one tournament I went to my opponent took a 30 minute turn and planned out all of his activations. He also had to be careful because I had Axis so he was measuring against my countercharges too. Most of the way through his turn I realized that I had no idea what half the proxy bases were representing. I had been worrying about my lunch, and my blood sugars, and what to get my wife for her birthday, and whether that itch on my foot was something in my shoe or it was going to fall off when I stood up cause me to have to get a peg leg. Would I look good as a peg legged pirate? The usual stuff. He had those standard muse on minis proxy bases and they all looked the same. So then at this point I just had to take his word for it. Now I'm not saying he was cheating, but I wouldn't have known if he was anyway. I didn't want to say anything and make him repeat a bunch of stuff because that would just have used up more of his time. I don't have this problem with a limited number of bases because I don't have to remember that far back, or with only two bases I can usually figure out what's going on if I zone out. It's only when there's like 12-15 similar bases just sitting all across the table where I just look at it and go "I forgot what the Firetruck is happening." If they all had to be labelled then I'd be fine with that. I'd be able to quickly see what everything was.
|
|
|
Post by celeb on Jun 19, 2017 13:42:38 GMT
Actually you don't need to draw a line somewhere, that's the thing. This whole 'infinite proxies' problem has never been a real problem. 1. Players are allowed to use their clock time as they see fit, dropping proxies, chatting, going to the bathroom, whatever. That's the players perogative. 2. Clock time is limited. Thus, all of the above are limited. A player cannot drop unlimited proxies because there is a game going on. If a player has a complex assassination on the table it should be their right to know the particulars of it (just as its the right of an opponent to test to see if its coming). Like everyone says that they don't like it when Rahn takes a 30 minute turn to kill them, but: 1. The Rahn player can take as long as they want, its their clock 2. Wouldn't it be nice if you could place some proxies down where the Rahn player has to position their pieces so you can try to block them without remeasuring each time? There is a natural limit on proxies in play, players can do what they want. Enforcing players pantomime certain actions doesn't help anyone, doesn't help player engagement and doesn't make the game clearer or better. My solution to the "problem" of proxy bases is to make a rule stating that proxies standing in for models currently in play need to be labelled and proxies not representing models currently in play must be removed at the end of your turn. Then, introduce the current proxy base rules PP are moving towards as a variant to steamroller so metas can decide to incorporate them or not. There, literally noone can be unhappy with that. I am just saying that if you want such a rule, then a line neds to be drawn somewhere, and I believe that 2 is the sweet spot. I would be more than happy to have it as a variant, but as it stands, the current measurement marker rule stands. I agree that a Rahn assasination(as I play Rahn myself a lot) can have a lot of moving pieces, but I can see myself planning out such an assasination with 2 markers. I think Seikishi makes a good point. Infinite proxies can become confusing and then you can have players that get pissed because he talked everything through, but messed up his plan during his activations (this is a sportsmanship issue and should only be seen as a little sidenote). I don't love the marker limitation, but I can live with it.
|
|