spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Apr 23, 2017 16:10:33 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. But they're not trying to limit premeasurement. They're trying to limit how many measurement markers are on the board. Even under the changed rules, you'll be able to premeasure to your hearts content, you'll just have the number of markers on the table that represent those premeasurments limited to only one. Here's the more up-to-date version of the rule that has everyone in a such a state, from cid.privateerpress.com/forum/dev-talk/7334-dev-talk-sr-2017-markers-round-2A table marker is an item from the following list used by a player to mark a specific place on the board that does not represent an in-game effect or a model’s current placement. For example, a player might use a table marker to indicate the threat range of an enemy warjack, or to determine if a friendly model will fit into a specific space after charging an enemy. A player cannot leave more than one table marker on the table at any time. The following items are allowed as table markers: 30mm base, 40mm base, 50mm base, 120 mm base, 3” AOE, 4” AOE, 5” AOE, wall template. A measuring device is an item used to measure a specific range, such as a tape measure, melee gauge, blast gauge, or War Stick. A player can use any number of these items to make a measurement, such as the range of an attack or a model’s advance. The player can place these devices on the table while making the measurement, but cannot leave measuring devices on the table when not making the measurement. Some situations will arise where a player will need to make simultaneous measurements, such as making an advance and determining if their model will suffer a free strike. During these situations it is acceptable for a player to use multiple measuring devices independently of each other, as long as the device is not left on the table after the simultaneous measurements are complete.
|
|
|
Post by jpgreat1 on Apr 23, 2017 16:13:34 GMT
Adminttingly I stopped reading when you said "But they're not trying to limit premeasurement. They're trying to limit". Thats like saying I'm not racist but...
They are limited pre-measuring, either A. get rid of the rule or B. keep it in and keep all the tokens, sticks, etc... Do not limit anything.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 23, 2017 16:44:24 GMT
And why is that? And why are players the problem? Players (which imcludes you!) are who the game is for. If players collectively decide to play the game a certain way then that is because they (we) want to. What higher arbiter for good design could there possibly be? It's the same with time. Death Clock was a variant for how many years? Yet it's how every timed game I saw/played since 2013 was played. Not because PP mandated it, but because it works best.
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Apr 23, 2017 16:48:00 GMT
They are limited pre-measuring, either A. get rid of the rule or B. keep it in and keep all the tokens, sticks, etc... Do not limit anything. I do not like being compared to a racist in any way, I suggest that you refrain from that in the future. That's not the important line of your post, however. I'll state again that I have no issue with the rules as they are in Prime and that I have no issue with adapting to the rules as they stand in CID. If you need multiple memory aids (which let's face it, is what a measurement marker is for) for your premeasuring, then there is an increased chance that either you or I will forget what one, some or even all of the measurement markers represent which could lead to debate or discussion that is likely to require a judge's intervention. The rules as they presently stand in CID (which are not finalised as yet) require you to commit to a course of action when placing your measurement marker. You can still measure from that measurement marker as much as you want.
|
|
|
Post by jpgreat1 on Apr 23, 2017 17:00:06 GMT
You weren't compared to a racist. Your comment on "they aren't limiting X, they are limiting X by" made no sense in the similar sense of when someone goes "I'm not racist but <incoming racist comment>". Its a silly notion to make especially if you are starting a point out with that. Either They get rid of it or keep it. No grey lines in between.
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on Apr 23, 2017 17:00:50 GMT
I don't know that we have enough actual data to declare what the players have collectively decided. CID is supposed to provide that kind of feedback. My own anecdotal experience is that most people don't use a ton of markers anyway. I don't really care which way PP decides, but I can see the merits of the argument that the game wasn't intended to be played using marbles and empty bases.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Apr 23, 2017 17:02:20 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. So we're back to new players having yet another barrier compared to the more experenced ones? Being able to estimate distances accurately is still a useful advantage to have even with unrestricted premeasuring, it shouldn't be a requirement to be able to play.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 23, 2017 17:07:39 GMT
I mean, can you find me a battle report from 2017 of high-level play that does not use measurement markers of some kind? I think we're past the point of admitting that movement markers (in some shape, form or number) have been accepted by the playerbase. I personally only ever use 1-3, but I see no reason to restrict my opponents or my future self in that way.
|
|
|
Post by jest on Apr 23, 2017 18:12:30 GMT
As a new player, I don't think I would have picked up or enjoyed the game as quickly/easily without premeasuring. It's already a game where your expected winrate as a newbie is like 15%, if I was failing every other charge trying to learn the game while also honing my eyeball measuring skills (also don't get why that's a "cool" thing) I would have been totally lost to the point of feeling bad I wasn't providing good games to more experienced players at my LGS.
I can't speak for experienced folk, but I don't quite understand the argument "back in the day we couldn't measure anything and things were [great],[better],[etc.] so who cares?!" I'd rather have a game where the skill set is a mix of tactics, appropriate risk taking, list building etc. not some honing of depth perception. I can't imagine it's fun when your opponent gives up his heavy since he was short on the charge eyeballing.
Therefore, I tend to think a happy middle ground is best here. I can get why no one wants to watch as the table gets littered with rulers because your opponent needs to perfectly map out his/her entire turn. I personally wouldn't mind but I can see how that could wear on people. However, I would like to test this and provide feedback because I have a feeling 2-3 widgets is going to be the sweet spot rather than 1. It allows you to simply put a melee range widget on the table along with a proxy base, and that's all I really need.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Apr 23, 2017 18:18:11 GMT
I have not personally seen one of these games with an explosion of markers and measuring devices all over the board, or experienced a game where my opponent pre-plans their turn by placing markers everywhere. So, I really haven't experienced the situations that the CID measuring rules seem to be trying to prevent.
That said, the new regulations seem misguided. In a friendly game it might become annoying to watch my opponent putting out bases to pre-plan the placement of every model, and it would likely feel like it slowed everything down. We don't need that super precision in a friendly game - just go for it. If you end up being out of range, or whatever, we just keep going and have fun and finish the game ... and then play another game! All of the proxy bases (again, which I haven't seen used to extreme levels) would disrupt the flow of a fast, friendly game. In a competitive Steamroller event you want precision. You want to make sure that your opponent knows exactly what you intend to do and gets an opportunity to call attention to potential mistakes, etc. before you start moving models around. The limit to all of the marker/measuring stick laying nonsense is the clock. Do all your stuff on your own clock, clean up your mess on your own clock, and then it's my turn. If I can do all of my moves without wasting time dropping bases everywhere, then I can get an advantage on clock. And, when it comes time to execute a complicated sequence of events with multiple moving parts, we can lay out whatever markers and measuring tools on the board to make sure both players agree about what is about to happen before we move models. Clean and precise, with the benefit of preventing disputes. So, in my mind, the new rules on markers are better suited to friendly, non-competitive games, than to competitive Steamroller environments.
Again, I haven't seen maker explosion, so maybe the problem is greater than I think. Most turns players drop maybe one or two bases to indicate where their caster and/or a significant other model will end up. Only one complicated turns do we put out multiple markers to show the sequence of events before we move models. Even then, it all cleans up nicely at the end of the player's turn, or as each action is executed.
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Apr 23, 2017 18:22:08 GMT
[...] However, I would like to test this and provide feedback because I have a feeling 2-3 widgets is going to be the sweet spot rather than 1. It allows you to simply put a melee range widget on the table along with a proxy base, and that's all I really need. I actually think that PP will come to the same conclusion. I think that the limit is going to be here throughout SR2017 because PP have stuck to their guns about it so far. Whether people follow it or not is another matter. I think that they wanted to test the waters with 1 marker because it was the midpoint of their own internal testing (I think they tested 0, 1 & 2 and had an internal discussion about it).
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Apr 23, 2017 18:30:59 GMT
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. Firstly, there isn't a complex rules system made where there isn't room for some degree of interpretation. Doesn't matter how tightly it's written, or how exhaustively you define your terms, there's always going to be disagreements, and intention always plays a role in interpreting those disagreements. even if the 'intention' is simply 'PP did not intend to create a broken or absurd interaction (barring clear language to the contrary.) Seriously, law is...what I do, and arguing intention is a substantial part of legal argumentation. Secondly, we're still in the CID. Moreover, we're still in the FIRST WEEK of CID. They have plenty of time of clear up wording and rules ambiguities created by the new rule, and they've already said that they're making a wording change in the next update. Feel free to bring up your deployment zone interpretation on the CID forums - then they can decide if it's a bona fide interpretation of their wording (and change it as necessary) or not. Third, Admonition and counter charge are not 'in game effects' in the sense of being a constant aura causing an effect on the board - they are abilities that trigger when certain things happen, and allow a certain amount of movement - they're not 'static abilities' in the sense of a krielstone aura or a wurmwood feat. Not being able to mark them out seems perfectly in line with both the wording an intention of the rule (though again, it could be clearer - perhaps they can at tags for 'triggered' and 'aura' abilities, etc.) Fourth, did you seriously just analogize playing without pre-measuring to polio? I don't think you get to call ANYONE else out for being petulant or overreacting at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Apr 23, 2017 19:15:57 GMT
And why is that? And why are players the problem? Players (which imcludes you!) are who the game is for. If players collectively decide to play the game a certain way then that is because they (we) want to. What higher arbiter for good design could there possibly be? It's the same with time. Death Clock was a variant for how many years? Yet it's how every timed game I saw/played since 2013 was played. Not because PP mandated it, but because it works best. That's just not the way the game was originally intended or designed. As such, it may be that it doesn't cope with it well. However, you are right that games do change over time, and high-level competition is among the strongest catalysts for such change. Hell, Warmachine doesn't cope with infantry swarms well, but people still play it that way. I will make no secret of the fact that I do not like unlimited pre-measuring, but not only am I at a loss as to exactly what a workable limit would be, I may very well simply be outvoted on this. I'm also terrible at forgetting to check threat ranges or just plain getting them wrong, so it is entirely possible that I am simply biased against an advantage that I am reluctant to use and don't use well. I can admit to that. I do like pre-measuring, but the way it's being used honestly still feels kind of cheap and obnoxious to me, but- it seems that the cat is out of the bag and there's just no undoing this.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Apr 23, 2017 21:06:40 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. I have an excellent eye for guessing distances. It isn't a skill that matters for the game.
|
|
|
Post by jest on Apr 23, 2017 21:07:08 GMT
[...] However, I would like to test this and provide feedback because I have a feeling 2-3 widgets is going to be the sweet spot rather than 1. It allows you to simply put a melee range widget on the table along with a proxy base, and that's all I really need. I actually think that PP will come to the same conclusion. I think that the limit is going to be here throughout SR2017 because PP have stuck to their guns about it so far. Whether people follow it or not is another matter. I think that they wanted to test the waters with 1 marker because it was the midpoint of their own internal testing (I think they tested 0, 1 & 2 and had an internal discussion about it). I hope so. It's just a widget (or two in some circumstances) and a base marker. If I have that I'm good and I think others will say the same. Anecdotally, of the ~12 players I play with I only know one who litters the board with stuff. It's actually fun helping your opponent set up a couple widgets to get the right charge engagement, etc. Although Steamroller is about competitive you can bet it will tricky down and casual games will start to follow the Steamroller rules as players want to stay in tournament shape.
|
|