|
Post by lonehunter on Apr 23, 2017 9:12:11 GMT
I think it's a good rule, seen people measure multiple charges and placements so they can maximise synergy/flank/gang etc. whilst I like pre measuring in mk3 I do miss the guess work of calling charges not knowing if you were in range.
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on Apr 23, 2017 9:21:01 GMT
A lot of what you are seeing as a problem is easily overcome with clear communication between you and your opponent. You don't need a zillion markers for that. I personally don't give a crap about how many markers people use for something. Eat that clock! I can see PP's point, however, and I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth is a bit excessive. First of all, use of templates, proxy bases, etc. is communicating with your opponent, but I'm going to assume you mean verbal communication. Please explain to me how clearly visualing a 90 degree arc of maximum threat range from my opponent's Stormwall on the table is possible solely through verbal communcation. Or measuring where I need Typhon to go to get a good spray coverage and the position within 6" of that location to Overrun him back to in order to minimise retaliation. Use a laser? Use a single marker and tape measure? This isn't rocket science. The game doesn't need to be played with slide rules. Next, people will complain dice are random.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 23, 2017 9:32:07 GMT
It's mind-boggling to me how they can even consider this a good idea. WMH has sold itself on being a clean and precise RAW-playable game from the wording of each rule to how the game as a whole is played. Trying to shift it to 'that game with the pretty tables' seems like a lost cause as WMH is really terrible at that in every other aspect.
I used to be sceptical of pre-measuring. But over the course of almost a year it has really grown on me. Pre-measuring and proxying have been integral both to the competitive and cooperative aspect of the game. Cleaner play has lead to a generally higher level of play as it allows for moves that would have been impossible without our current level of precision. And yet the game feels more cooperative to me as clear communication with my opponent through declaration of intent and prediction of important measurements has lead to more mutually enjoyable games. PP taking this away for nebulous reasons leaves me admittedly somewhat agitated.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Apr 23, 2017 9:44:11 GMT
Be a petulant eye roller all you want, but CID is for testing and when the rule doesn't allow you to do something simple like measure deployment without ridiculous levels of qualification to make things work, then it is a non functional rule. PPs point is based on nothing of note, premeasuring was the best part of mark 3 and they are trying to pull it back so occasionally people will lose games because they lack information. How fun. Insert Eyeroll x 2 here. Your interpretation of the measurement rules and deployment is...reaching. At best. PP has already said that measuring static, in game effects does not count as the use of 'table markers' (e.g. krielstone aura, wurmwood feat.) It's waaaaay more reasonable to think that deployment zones would fall into the same category. I am in favor of the limitation, though they need to clean up the wording some. Frankly, if anyone is being petulant here, it's you - PP has stated that overuse of proxy bases and markers is counter to the direction they want to take the game (I, for one, agree.) We played for years without pre-measuring at all, now you're whining because it's being limited such that planning out multiple interactions with absolute precision before taking any of them isn't possible any more.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 23, 2017 10:13:42 GMT
PP has stated that overuse of proxy bases and markers is counter to the direction they want to take the game (I, for one, agree.) What direction is that? All I keep reading is that they want more uncertainty. That is certainly a direction. But it's a direction away from 'clean and precise, competitively playable wargame' which is the very foundation of the game's success. This does not speed up the game. Having to remeasure everything a thousand times slows it down unnecessarily. Currently we can measure everything once, achieve consent, then execute. It's fast and it's clean. It does not make it prettier. Painting requirements and rules that encourage 3d maps and movement would. Admittedly both of those are incredibly hard to implement, but at least the latter is doable. And I fail to see how it makes it more exciting. Executing complex plans that succeed because you planned well and fail because you failed to plan well enough is exciting. Succeeding or failing based on information you could easily have but are not allowed to acquire is just tilting to the highest degree. I keep hearing that some players are sick of their opponent using long (probably exaggerated) periods of time like 20 or 30 minutes to plan their turns. Well they are going to do that anyway, but with measurement markers you at least get to watch them think. Lack of information doesn't magically make slow players play fast. It increases uncertainty and thereby slows them down even more. If time is an issue, use a chess clock. We've been doing that for years now (~1 year with premeasuring) and it works just fine.
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Apr 23, 2017 10:41:43 GMT
First of all, use of templates, proxy bases, etc. is communicating with your opponent, but I'm going to assume you mean verbal communication. Please explain to me how clearly visualing a 90 degree arc of maximum threat range from my opponent's Stormwall on the table is possible solely through verbal communcation. Or measuring where I need Typhon to go to get a good spray coverage and the position within 6" of that location to Overrun him back to in order to minimise retaliation. Use a laser? Use a single marker and tape measure? This isn't rocket science. The game doesn't need to be played with slide rules. Next, people will complain dice are random. Solutions which are less accurate and more time consuming. Personally, I prefer greater precision and the ability to measure something out once and keep a record of that measurement for as long as it is relevant.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Apr 23, 2017 11:28:47 GMT
Or, you know, you could not be intentionally obtuse. PP isn't rolling anything back. They are suggesting you can play a game without using a token for every model. Communicate with your opponent. It will be fine. Stop providing hyperbole where it isn't needed, requested or helpful. I don't want to 'use a token for every model', I want to use a token when its appropriate for me to use it. When it is appropriate is when I want to expend my time to make sure that a given action or set of actions is legal and beneficial to me. I've tested their current rules and found them extremely lacking. Have you?
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Apr 23, 2017 11:35:40 GMT
Be a petulant eye roller all you want, but CID is for testing and when the rule doesn't allow you to do something simple like measure deployment without ridiculous levels of qualification to make things work, then it is a non functional rule. PPs point is based on nothing of note, premeasuring was the best part of mark 3 and they are trying to pull it back so occasionally people will lose games because they lack information. How fun. Insert Eyeroll x 2 here. Your interpretation of the measurement rules and deployment is...reaching. At best. PP has already said that measuring static, in game effects does not count as the use of 'table markers' (e.g. krielstone aura, wurmwood feat.) It's waaaaay more reasonable to think that deployment zones would fall into the same category. I am in favor of the limitation, though they need to clean up the wording some. Frankly, if anyone is being petulant here, it's you - PP has stated that overuse of proxy bases and markers is counter to the direction they want to take the game (I, for one, agree.) We played for years without pre-measuring at all, now you're whining because it's being limited such that planning out multiple interactions with absolute precision before taking any of them isn't possible any more. Call it reaching? Its following the rules to the letter. This is not a GW game where arguing about the *intention of the rules* is part of the game. Rules as written you cannot measure your deployment in the most accurate way. PP made a random extension to their ruling which goes against the rule which again overturns the entire reason for having the rule. Why does Krielstone aura count but Counter Charge or Admonition not? If Counter Charge and Admonition are able to measured out, then what the hell is the point of this limitation when it clearly doesn't apply? PP has stated that they want CID for us to tell them how we want to play the game. They can order upon high that this is the direction and I am free to tell them it is a stupid decision to sacrifice good play on the altar of "sometimes new people lose because they didn't do the math necessary to avoid failing a charge". We played for years without pre-measuring and you know what? It was bad. We lived for years with Polio and that sucked too. Get with the times, grandpa.
|
|
|
Post by theadept on Apr 23, 2017 12:17:52 GMT
I gave up on reading the CID thread - far too long, not enough time. Do you have a link to this ruling? I'd like to see how they've worded it.
|
|
SeBM
Junior Strategist
Posts: 102
|
Post by SeBM on Apr 23, 2017 12:20:36 GMT
I am hoping that they change the rule a little bit. For instance, when snaking around a model, they should allow you to use more then one proxy for the same model to see if you can land. Otherwise, this won't change much how I play. I tend to measure one thing at a time. Stuff like having multiple beads for some feats is nice and I hope they still allow that.
Let's try to give some feedback to see how we can make this new rule as good as it can be since it clearly seems to be the intent of PP to move away from infinite markers.
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Apr 23, 2017 14:57:59 GMT
I can live with the rule changing how PP want it to change. I can also live with the rule staying as is.
I've looked at both side of the argument and can genuinely not see the problem with this rule. Granted, I am a player that has been to a mere three tournaments in nearly fifteen years.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Apr 23, 2017 15:06:46 GMT
Honestly, the problem here is the players. Seriously, this one is 100% on us. I am painfully indecisive and I probably do a dozen measurements and hem and haw before I commit to something but I'm loathed to change (at least positioning) once I have committed to it. Frankly, that really has been a disadvantage and I'm pretty sure that opponents have taken advantage of that more than once.
When we were not allowed to pre-measure, we got sick of losing games because we couldn't guess distances and we abused the exception for measuring CTRL area.
Now that we are allowed to pre-measure, we're abusing that. Yes, we absolutely are. We've all seen it and I'm willing to bet we've all done it. Even just watching games on Youtube it's getting freaking annoying.
It is NOT about aesthetics. If it were then every format would require fully painted armies and ban the use of 2D terrain. The clutter is a nuisance but that's not what's breaking the game.
If the clock had proved a sufficient deterrent, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If spending 30 minutes on one turn wins the game, then that is what people will do... while their opponents get to sit there and watch them fiddle with widgets. Then neither of them is actually playing the damn game. Perfect.
You are not supposed to be able to plan out your entire turn with complete information and perfect precision.
You are not supposed to be able to thoroughly test five different assassination vectors and take the one that gives you two free strikes at MAT 7 PS 12 over the one that gives you one free strike at MAT 6 PS 18.
You are not supposed to move a proxy base all up and down my front lines before you find the perfect place to which to charge Molik Karn so that he won't be in Tibber's way four moves later.
I am not supposed to be able to place a spray template seven different ways to see which one gets me the greatest number of likely kills before I move my Mountain King. Even though the rules allowed that I should not have done it.
This crap is completely against the spirit of the game. THAT is what it is about. Yes, gotchas over guessing distances wrong are also against the spirit of the game, but more permissive rules, of necessity, put more responsibility on the players.
PP gave an inch and we took a mile, pun intended. When they posted the first draft of the new rule the arguments and frustrations were totally understandable, but the responses of the rules-lawyers were the hardest to bear. Octavius raised the example of deployment zones, and while that was intentionally asinine, I think it proves the point. This and other similar quibbles demonstrate that we are basically still at square one.
We're in a hell of a bind here, we really are. We need some kind of pre-measuring and we need some kind of limits on it. But- if a new rule is not useful and enforceable, then the best case scenario has that rule being ignored, while the worst case has it being enforced arbitrarily or selectively.
The best I can think of is to allow distances between models to be measured at any time, but not the placement of a proxy base unless that model physically won't fit and it has activated and moved there, and widgets like spray templates cannot be used unless to resolve an attack or determine if one is possible.
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on Apr 23, 2017 15:26:12 GMT
Or, you know, you could not be intentionally obtuse. PP isn't rolling anything back. They are suggesting you can play a game without using a token for every model. Communicate with your opponent. It will be fine. Stop providing hyperbole where it isn't needed, requested or helpful. I don't want to 'use a token for every model', I want to use a token when its appropriate for me to use it. When it is appropriate is when I want to expend my time to make sure that a given action or set of actions is legal and beneficial to me. I've tested their current rules and found them extremely lacking. Have you? I have. You could try not being so antagonistic, eh?
|
|
|
Post by jpgreat1 on Apr 23, 2017 15:54:40 GMT
What many of you are describing is not playing a game with pre-measuring. Please let us not kid ourselves here. PP is the issue not the player. Either A. they take away pre-measuring and we use measuring control area again or B. we have pre-measuring and all the tokens, marker sticks, and templates to go with it. Trying to limit the pre-measuring is just simply killing the spirit of the game not the player.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 23, 2017 16:08:25 GMT
You could I don't know, try and develop some actual skills to eyeball distances instead of trying to get your hand held through the entire process.
Having the ability to visually estimate distances in 3 dimensional space is something you use everyday to avoid stumbling into walls, grasping small objects, etc... You know, just every day life stuff. You can develop those skills to a finer level for a wargame. Anybody who has enough vision to adaquately play this game can do this. So ''what about people with poor vision?'' is not an excuse. If you have the vision to be able to play in the first place, its necessary for the fine motor skills to move these figures accurately, you have enough vision to eyeball distances. No trigonometry or anything else is needed either.
|
|