|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Apr 26, 2017 13:33:15 GMT
I don't want to be too disparaging of PP, as I do love their game, however one does wonder what they are thinking sometimes. Mk3 has just been a long litany of mistakes and retractions, which does make me question how well they know their own game.
You start off with the fiasco of not being able to chare stationary or Knockdown models being an oversight, but not being able to get gang or flank against them working as intentional, no one believed them, they could just not admit they screwed up, and they then changed it a week later, making them look like idiots.
Them having to nerf Mad Dogs into Oblivion, and change Una 2 shortly after release, anyone could have told them just looking at Una 2s rules she was busted as hell (I was screaming blue bloody murder about it when she came out, but people told me that unless I played it I knew nothing, well I have a brain and could tell just by reading he cards she was too good, and lo and behold I was right).
their oversight in the Band of Heroes theme that Take Down stopped Cleave and Overtake, and then changing it later, despite Rengrave and Bull having the exact same problem at the advent of Mk3, they overlooked literally the same issue again.
not realising that winterguard Guard command gave sac pawn to the gun carriage and allowed jacks to Advance move with no winterguard...in the winterguard theme
this pre-measure fiasco is just another mistake in a long line of screw ups
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 26, 2017 13:42:07 GMT
To me all of those are understandable mistakes amplified by bad communication. I'm sure PP know their game rather well, even if they make mistakes. It's just that their style of communication makes them seem rash and sometimes even arrogant. I guess it's legitimately hard to be both a good designer and a good PR guy.
|
|
|
Post by robobengt on Apr 26, 2017 13:49:13 GMT
They started the discussion on premeasuring by saying that they aren't going to remove it, that it's going to happen. Not the way CID should happen. That just makes it sound like you have a different idea for what CID is than PP is having. They're apparently going for something like "we want this bird to be able to swoop in and eat things. Here are the rules we decided on. What do you think?" and expecting "Well, those rules mean that these interactions won't work. How about changing it to something like this..." and you seem to want to be able to go "That's all well and good, but how about changing it to a giant frog instead?" and then getting angry that they just say no.
|
|
|
Post by zerodaimaru on Apr 26, 2017 14:10:48 GMT
They started the discussion on premeasuring by saying that they aren't going to remove it, that it's going to happen. Not the way CID should happen. That just makes it sound like you have a different idea for what CID is than PP is having. They're apparently going for something like "we want this bird to be able to swoop in and eat things. Here are the rules we decided on. What do you think?" and expecting "Well, those rules mean that these interactions won't work. How about changing it to something like this..." and you seem to want to be able to go "That's all well and good, but how about changing it to a giant frog instead?" and then getting angry that they just say no. Or you know, its nothing like that... at all
|
|
|
Post by Gaston on Apr 26, 2017 14:23:06 GMT
Here is the actual language from Hungerford for clarity:
In full fairness, there is more written, I just snipped out that paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Apr 26, 2017 15:07:34 GMT
Here is the actual language from Hungerford for clarity: In full fairness, there is more written, I just snipped out that paragraph. Heres hoping the update released today i CiD will help with clarification. Kind of disheartening that they wont even consider increasing the number of markers you can use. I was hoping you could use at a minimum of 3 or 4. Per model that is normally what I need to provide myself and my opponent a clear and precise understanding of where a model can go or will go.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 26, 2017 17:16:07 GMT
So, it seems they are intent on forcing this ruling through. Or am I missing any functional difference in the week 2 wording?
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Apr 26, 2017 17:23:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by spitfire72 on Apr 26, 2017 18:48:47 GMT
So, it seems they are intent on forcing this ruling through. Or am I missing any functional difference in the week 2 wording? Week 2 now lets you place a second marker before removing the first marker.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 26, 2017 18:51:45 GMT
If we're going to approach a workable solution at this pace the CID will need to last until L+L.
|
|
Xarlaxas
Junior Strategist
Hoards models more than he plays.
Posts: 192
|
Post by Xarlaxas on Apr 26, 2017 21:58:35 GMT
So, it seems they are intent on forcing this ruling through. Or am I missing any functional difference in the week 2 wording? Week 2 now lets you place a second marker before removing the first marker. That sounds a bit better, although I find the thread title that Swampmist posted (not a CID member) a little worrying, as it sounds like we're now adding physical gymnastics to the rule along with the tactical planning. Honestly, I'm not very invested in the debate as I've only played a tournament in mk2, and I don't particularly want to invest the effort in planning my turns to the nth degree that would require me to put down so many tokens, but I don't see why my opponent, on their own clock, shouldn't be allowed to, might even give me a better chance to win on clock! Watching your opponent placing tokens and planning his moves openly means that you're getting a very good idea of what their overall plans are. That seems very useful to me, especially as a new player. I saw some people commenting that it happens in pick up & play games, but that is not something that would be definitively solved by changing the SR rules. If you're in a PU&P game, the amount of measuring, proxying, etc. (especially with no clock) is something that you should discuss with your opponent before-hand, and, of course, you can always just not play with a person if you find that they spend way too long proxying/staring at the table. I'm quite disappointed that PP's response is "we're not going to change the 1 token rule, we just want your feedback." Even though it seems they're already slightly back-tracking on that: PP needs to be more honest about the possibility of making a U-turn on unpopular decisions: they've done enough of them since Mk3 came out already!
|
|
|
Post by tanarii on Apr 26, 2017 21:58:47 GMT
|
|
Xarlaxas
Junior Strategist
Hoards models more than he plays.
Posts: 192
|
Post by Xarlaxas on Apr 26, 2017 22:06:16 GMT
Well. . . that's certainly an interesting way to protest the decision. I mean, PP's forums are more tightly policed than before, so I guess a petition kind of makes sense as a way to get a, more or less, accurate idea of the general opinion on the matter, but. . . yeah.
|
|
|
Post by tanarii on Apr 26, 2017 22:09:07 GMT
The fb thread where the poster for it announced it is..... entertaining
|
|
Xarlaxas
Junior Strategist
Hoards models more than he plays.
Posts: 192
|
Post by Xarlaxas on Apr 26, 2017 22:10:22 GMT
The fb thread where the poster for it announced it is..... entertaining You gotta share that, man!
|
|