|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Apr 23, 2017 21:15:22 GMT
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. Wait, what makes Krielstone aura (an ability which triggers when a model is in a range) and wyrmwoods feat (an ability which triggers when a model is in range) not the same a s counter charge (an ability which triggers when a model is in range). I don't see a definition for 'static effects' in the rulebook or anywhere. Also, if you don't get my polio example or why I said it, then maybe you should do more of your beloved 'interpretation'. Just because something is the way it was doesn't make it good or desirable. Tradition is an idiotic argument and doesn't support anything validly. |
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588 
|
Post by spideredd on Apr 23, 2017 21:41:48 GMT
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. Good news, what you describe is legal under the current CID SR2017 rules. You can have one table marker on the table and as many measuring devices as you need to complete the measurement although you can't leave them on the table when you're not measuring. I'll post the rules here so you can read for yourself:
A 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 greytemplar on Apr 23, 2017 22:57:01 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. The game already has a immense learning curve. Requiring you to guess some distances doesn't alter it in any meaningful way. However, what it does do is add depth to the game. It makes the overall game a deeper and more meaningful one where you can hone a bigger skill set. Its not really a coincidence that games never used to allow premeasuring. It was a integral part of table top wargaming, having to make judgement calls and educated guesses. It made games much more interesting with 2 players playing a game of cat and mouse over charge and threat ranges. It also kept shooting in check, unlike Mk3 where shooting has gotten ridiculously powerful. |
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Apr 23, 2017 23:23:53 GMT
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. The game already has a immense learning curve. Requiring you to guess some distances doesn't alter it in any meaningful way. However, what it does do is add depth to the game. It makes the overall game a deeper and more meaningful one where you can hone a bigger skill set. Its not really a coincidence that games never used to allow premeasuring. It was a integral part of table top wargaming, having to make judgement calls and educated guesses. It made games much more interesting with 2 players playing a game of cat and mouse over charge and threat ranges. It also kept shooting in check, unlike Mk3 where shooting has gotten ridiculously powerful. "This game is hard, so there is no problems in making it harder" is a bad argument. Its learning curve isn't so ridiculous and i've been seeing a lot of new players picking it up reasonably quickly. Difficulty in learning the basic rules is bad, it suggests a game is far too complex. Difficulty in learning good strategy is good, it suggests gameplay has a lot of depth. Extra, annoying, rules that you can get around is the prior rather than the latter. It is actually coincidence that games never used to allow premeasuring, or rather it was because games generally were made as a response to other games. GW didn't have premeasuring, so neither did Warmachine. It takes effort to think outside of the box about the tools that we use to play the game and forcing people to just guess distances is a tool that people didn't consider. There is no coincidence that Warmachine cmd check rules were nearly exactly the same as Warhammer cmd check rules, same with premeasuring. Also, sorry, but 'educated guesses' aren't 'fun' innately, they are done because of necessity or because you aren't able or are unwilling to do the maths. And finally the current game was 2 players playing cat and mouse over charge and threat ranges, it just happens to come from player choices and strategy rather than whether one can eyeball it or not. It was tense before because the chance of failure becomes so high and the risks of a failed charge are so massive that it just isn't worth the mental effort. Also, people complained about Gunlines in Mk 2. Any gunline player worth their salt didn't care about not being able to premeasure because their ranges were longer than their opponents and thats all that mattered. This hasn't changed. I can still shoot a player off the table with 99% not having to measure if they play badly into a gunline. Also, if you think that the game is more fun without knowing what ranges are what, you can agree that with your opponents to not use premeasuring. There is no reason to screw over people who find their fun comes from strategy rather than from randomly losing/winning the occasional game. |
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 24, 2017 1:21:53 GMT
How is ''you're only allowed to measure 1 thing/activation/effect at a time'' complicated?
|
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Apr 24, 2017 4:04:58 GMT
How is ''you're only allowed to measure 1 thing/activation/effect at a time'' complicated? What is a thing/activation/effect? |
|
tort
Demo Gamer
Posts: 18
|
Post by tort on Apr 24, 2017 6:44:31 GMT
Am I allowed to measure whether my warjack can advance to a spot, whether it is in my control area and whether it is in range to an enemy model it wants to target? is that one or 3 measurements? Do I have to remove all the war sticks I use to check control and then replace them after I check range and then again after I check my advance? What if I am trying to move around an object but I am also affected by a feat or an ability that restricts my movement, if I can only advance towards the avatar can I place down a proxy base for the first part of my movement, checking that it is towards the avatar and then a second base for where I intend my movement to end? Say I intend to feat and fail charge with my caster (haley2, Magnus2 or one of the many others where the feat is an aura) - Can I measure where I want my caster to go and then check that the place I want my warjack to go will be in control next turn? How many things am I measuring there?
|
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Apr 24, 2017 7:33:21 GMT
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. The game already has a immense learning curve. Requiring you to guess some distances doesn't alter it in any meaningful way. However, what it does do is add depth to the game. It makes the overall game a deeper and more meaningful one where you can hone a bigger skill set. Its not really a coincidence that games never used to allow premeasuring. It was a integral part of table top wargaming, having to make judgement calls and educated guesses. It made games much more interesting with 2 players playing a game of cat and mouse over charge and threat ranges. It also kept shooting in check, unlike Mk3 where shooting has gotten ridiculously powerful. It really doesn't add depth. I know players who can read distances over most of the table with a margin of error of less than half an an inch. I know others who can't really tell whether something's closer to 8" or 11" off. If they play each other without premeasuring, it's pretty clear who is the cat and who is the mouse - and it's not much of a game for the latter. As for keeping shooting in check... Come on, between the good players eyeballing distances and the faux premeasuring that pretty much everyone learned to do the first time they played anyone seriously Mk II shooting barely suffered. Besides, looking at Ret (supposedly one of the better shooting factions) their best lists rely apparently very little on shooting. Cygnar (supposedly the best shooting faction) has a glut of ranged units and barely uses two of them competitively. Ranged combat isn't inordinately strong, melee units that can't survive crossing the field are inordinately weak. And not because of premeasuring, they'd just get mulched without it too. |
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 24, 2017 7:51:01 GMT
Am I allowed to measure whether my warjack can advance to a spot, whether it is in my control area and whether it is in range to an enemy model it wants to target? is that one or 3 measurements? As far as I understand it that is a single measurement. Do I have to remove all the war sticks I use to check control and then replace them after I check range and then again after I check my advance? That is probably not necessary. What if I am trying to move around an object but I am also affected by a feat or an ability that restricts my movement, if I can only advance towards the avatar can I place down a proxy base for the first part of my movement, checking that it is towards the avatar and then a second base for where I intend my movement to end? This would be illegal, as you can only place one "proxy base" at a time. Same with charging partially through terrain. That measurement would require 3 proxies (end location, place where you enter terrain, place where you leave terrain) and thus be illegal. Say I intend to feat and fail charge with my caster (haley2, Magnus2 or one of the many others where the feat is an aura) - Can I measure where I want my caster to go and then check that the place I want my warjack to go will be in control next turn? How many things am I measuring there? That would require you to "proxy" two models and thus be illegal. |
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 24, 2017 7:55:04 GMT
The game already has a immense learning curve. Requiring you to guess some distances doesn't alter it in any meaningful way. However, what it does do is add depth to the game. It makes the overall game a deeper and more meaningful one where you can hone a bigger skill set. Its not really a coincidence that games never used to allow premeasuring. It was a integral part of table top wargaming, having to make judgement calls and educated guesses. It made games much more interesting with 2 players playing a game of cat and mouse over charge and threat ranges. It also kept shooting in check, unlike Mk3 where shooting has gotten ridiculously powerful. It really doesn't add depth. I know players who can read distances over most of the table with a margin of error of less than half an an inch. I know others who can't really tell whether something's closer to 8" or 11" off. If they play each other without premeasuring, it's pretty clear who is the cat and who is the mouse - and it's not much of a game for the latter. As for keeping shooting in check... Come on, between the good players eyeballing distances and the faux premeasuring that pretty much everyone learned to do the first time they played anyone seriously Mk II shooting barely suffered. Besides, looking at Ret (supposedly one of the better shooting factions) their best lists rely apparently very little on shooting. Cygnar (supposedly the best shooting faction) has a glut of ranged units and barely uses two of them competitively. Ranged combat isn't inordinately strong, melee units that can't survive crossing the field are inordinately weak. And not because of premeasuring, they'd just get mulched without it too. This. Premeasuring is not what made gunlines OP in early Mk3. Massive buffs to guns were. Think of the Winter Guard Rockets + Joe for example. These have since been nerfed sufficiently that a roundabout indirect nerf via arbitrary measurement restrictions is not necessary. Not only is it not necessary, but it also wouldn't help. Gunlines need Measurement Markers the least. They can get by just fine on a single measuring tape 99% of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Apr 24, 2017 9:10:22 GMT
I feel like this move just creates an awkward halfway house, I used to hate having to monitor my opponents every move it Mk 2 to ensure they were not measuring something they were not supposed to, or them declaring a charge and moving the model before they checked, and it miraculously being in, when I could be pretty certain it was out.
I do not want to have to police the amount of measuring devices my opponent is using, I just want to play a clean, fair and transparent game, and full pre-measuring allows that the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Apr 24, 2017 10:37:11 GMT
Wow, everyone is taking this so seriously. The group I play with barely use tape measures let alone other measuring devices. We were not fans of the premeasuring because it took some of the guess work and mystery out of the turn. Though the premeasuring has grown on me personally a bit, as I never understood why you couldn't just measure something out if you wanted to. But anyhow, I don't know anyone nor have I seen anyone take much time at all or use more than a tape measure and a 1-2" stick to check melee ranges, but I guess that is just me. I can see how people would get into it in very competitive play, I guess that is not my meta. Even small tournaments I have been to.
|
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Apr 24, 2017 11:17:42 GMT
The less proxymachine the better. Each feature you introduce into a competitive game makes management of that feature a must have skill to compete. Planning my turn with proxies is not a skill I want to compete in.
I would personally allow only measurements and los from models and removed all the "measure markers", but then the issue of model placing would arise so 1 proxy/marker is the correct decision I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Apr 24, 2017 11:17:55 GMT
Wow, everyone is taking this so seriously. The group I play with barely use tape measures let alone other measuring devices. We were not fans of the premeasuring because it took some of the guess work and mystery out of the turn. Though the premeasuring has grown on me personally a bit, as I never understood why you couldn't just measure something out if you wanted to. But anyhow, I don't know anyone nor have I seen anyone take much time at all or use more than a tape measure and a 1-2" stick to check melee ranges, but I guess that is just me. I can see how people would get into it in very competitive play, I guess that is not my meta. Even small tournaments I have been to. That is why this change does not make sense, as you said it only really affects the higher level of players and competitive play, who seem for the most part to prefer current pre-measuring, as it allows a much cleaner game, and means you can put together complex plans and not fail because one measurement was a quarter inch out. |
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Apr 24, 2017 11:18:35 GMT
There is a tremendous amount of misinformation/misinterpretation here.
As of the writing of this post, you can:
Measure any distance with your tape measure
Measure any distance to and from a single marker
Use multiple widgets for a single measurement (ex: a 10" and 4" wars tick for 14", a stepper tool for corner movements, etc)
This means that you are allowed to put down a proxy base for one model, then measure from that location and see if something else will be in range at the end of its movement. If you are clever enough you can hold the tape measure in place, then remove the old proxy and put down the new one, then measure from that new one to another model. In this way you can measure virtually everything you could before. Is there a loss of resolution? Yes, absolutely, and that can be accounted for by giving yourself margins of error through intelligent placement. Is the rule unclear? Yes, definitely, and it needs to be reworded until it makes it crystal clear what the true bounds of the restriction are. But the above is clearly laid out and answers most of the questions I see above.
|
|
