|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 20, 2017 1:33:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Jun 20, 2017 1:39:21 GMT
*How* does it immediately eliminate the vast majority of potential outcomes? Unless you are talking about just attacking models that are obviously out of range then this opinion makes no sense. The Chess analogy is pretty close to perfect because it shows that even with perfect information you can still make mistakes. Not only that but in Chess there often is a clear single outcome which is better than the others, but due to the possibilities of dice and terrain and other factors that isn't true in Warmachine. Strategies are far more nuanced because there isn't always a best choice. The fact that you think that knowing measurements immediately leads to finding the best choice (which doesn't necessarily exist) is ludicrous. Of course you can still make mistakes. I suppose I was being a little hyperbolic earlier, but I hope we can all agree that eliminating premeasuring has reduced the skill level of the game. It's just that some people don't like the skill of guessing distances, IMO because they were unwilling to put in the effort needed to develop it, to be relevant to the game. Which is fine for an opinion. But given that uncertain distances has been a fixture of table top gaming since the beginning, it's clearly something important to the genre. It's only been recently that the premeasuring fad appeared, and it was not to the benefit of the games. Sure, more people are playing, but the skill level and complexity of the games has gone down. It's just part of the general trend of making games more "accessible" instead of mentally stimulating. It's not just wargames either. Video games have also suffered from this general trend away from being complex or interesting. I like complex and interesting, and I hate anything that takes away from that. My main point is that IMO, premeasuring has eliminated too much skill. The game needs grey area for the critical thinking to exist, its why the game is enjoyable. Without distances being an uncertain variable, the game becomes less skill based. Too little in my opinion. And that is bad. The main appeal of this game is that it is genuinely a challenge. Taking away any of that challenge is bad. Most people that would get scared away by not being able to measure everything are more likely to have been scared away by any number of other things with the game. The alleged benefits are just not justified by what was lost. I 100% do not agree that premeasuring reduced the skill level of the game. It moved the trait "eyeballing" from relevance, good riddance.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Jun 20, 2017 1:42:16 GMT
It's only because of premeasure that he had perfect information to come up with the best reply. Sorry. that wasn't nice... That wasn't anything.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 20, 2017 2:35:06 GMT
It's only because of premeasure that he had perfect information to come up with the best reply. Sorry. that wasn't nice... That wasn't anything. somebody isn't a fan of bad jokes. noted. -.-"
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Jun 20, 2017 2:39:33 GMT
So, back to the markers and measuring limitation. At two markers I find it doesn't really impact the vast majority of games I play except in the case of not being able to use beads to mark out my opponent's threat ranges, instead I have to constantly re-measure threat ranges, which is annoying but I can ultimately get the same results.
|
|
|
Post by celeb on Jun 20, 2017 5:59:24 GMT
So, back to the markers and measuring limitation. At two markers I find it doesn't really impact the vast majority of games I play except in the case of not being able to use beads to mark out my opponent's threat ranges, instead I have to constantly re-measure threat ranges, which is annoying but I can ultimately get the same results. I just use one of my Wall Templates for that now.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jun 20, 2017 11:52:58 GMT
Yeah marking out your opponents control range is going to be really annoying now
|
|
|
Post by celeb on Jun 20, 2017 12:48:48 GMT
Yeah marking out your opponents control range is going to be really annoying now Why is that? The only thing I can think of where you need to mark that is when a spell, feat or other effect that affects the control area of your opponent is in play. In this case, you can use as many tokens as you want to mark it, since you are merking an in-game-effect and not using a table marker.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jun 20, 2017 14:55:06 GMT
Yeah marking out your opponents control range is going to be really annoying now Why is that? The only thing I can think of where you need to mark that is when a spell, feat or other effect that affects the control area of your opponent is in play. In this case, you can use as many tokens as you want to mark it, since you are merking an in-game-effect and not using a table marker. The fact i don't understand the difference between the two doesn't fill me with confidence
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 20, 2017 15:18:56 GMT
That would be using markers, not tokens. Tokens do indicate an effect, but not a distance. Marking a distance (control range) requires a marker (in this case probably a bead) that marks a point x" away from another point. You are limited to two of those, and may also have a "continuous measurement" which is functionally the same in this instance.
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Jun 20, 2017 15:59:39 GMT
Good news, a 4 foot piece of string winding through the middle of the board to represent my opponent's threat ranges only counts as 1 marker.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 20, 2017 16:03:11 GMT
Good news, a 4 foot piece of string winding through the middle of the board to represent my opponent's threat ranges only counts as 1 marker. Wow. But a series of beads wouldn't?
|
|
|
Post by zerodaimaru on Jun 20, 2017 16:04:36 GMT
Good news, a 4 foot piece of string winding through the middle of the board to represent my opponent's threat ranges only counts as 1 marker. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but a bit of string is not on the list of approved table markers: " Players can use only the following items as table markers: 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm, and 120 mm markers; 3˝, 4˝, and 5˝ AOE templates; wall templates; and small beads or coins."
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Jun 20, 2017 16:09:26 GMT
Good news, a 4 foot piece of string winding through the middle of the board to represent my opponent's threat ranges only counts as 1 marker. No, it would not count as a marker. They wrote in detail what sizes the markers can be.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jun 20, 2017 17:16:10 GMT
A piece of thin chain would make a good marker for someone's control range. It also look cool on the table.
|
|