|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Apr 24, 2017 11:23:25 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. The great thing about current pre-measuring is that you don't have to do that if you don't want to. You have the choice, and if you choose not to then yeah you may not do as well as players who do learn that skill. But I would rather that be a requisite skill for a good player then being able to eyeball distances, turn planning with proxies is based purely on your mental ability to come up with complex strategies, having a good carpenters eye is a physical skill and imho has no place in a tabletop game.
|
|
|
Post by jest on Apr 24, 2017 11:35:43 GMT
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. Oh thats great! I missed the "melee gauge" not being a "table marker"!
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Apr 24, 2017 12:43:27 GMT
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. Classic wargame problem here. GW relied heavily on appealing to the "spirit of the game", because it makes sense to a lot of people, including almost all designers. However, WM became popular largely by being seen as the "anti-GW", and not having any concepts like "power gamer" or "spirit of the game". If it was legal, you could do it. But issues like this one show that like it or not, "spirit of the game" does exist in all games of this 3D, hand-measured type. It's just a question of whether we notice or not.
|
|
|
Post by schostoppa1 on Apr 24, 2017 12:52:47 GMT
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. Classic wargame problem here. GW relied heavily on appealing to the "spirit of the game", because it makes sense to a lot of people, including almost all designers. However, WM became popular largely by being seen as the "anti-GW", and not having any concepts like "power gamer" or "spirit of the game". If it was legal, you could do it. But issues like this one show that like it or not, "spirit of the game" does exist in all games of this 3D, hand-measured type. It's just a question of whether we notice or not. The issue with GW wasnt the company catering to the "spirit of the game." It was the way too lax rule set. Everytime a new codex came out that faction was typically on the top end of the power curve and most of your old army became worthless and you had to buy into the newest meta just to stay competitive. Secondly in Dev Talk i know Soles specifically said the current way premeausuring is used is not what they had in mind and dont see it as the direction they want the gane to go. i happen to agree. I hate knowing everything at all times. I want some excitement and surprise. Someone called it Cat and Mouse and thats the perfect explaination. Players need a way to capitalize on and punish a bad placement. (And opportunities to make that bad placement) This whole argument of wether or not "eyeballing" or "proxy planning" are skill sets that should be valued over the other in the game has been solved with the communication by PP. They value "eyeballing."
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Apr 24, 2017 13:01:27 GMT
"Spirit of the game" was one issue that some people had with GW. I.e. the idea that there was a "right way" to play the game that wasn't defined technically, because it was a spirit thing rather than a technical thing. And some people didn't like that attitude, and wanted to follow their own spirit and not be criticised for it. They wanted to "power game" because that's what they thought was fun.
If you didn't have an issue with that, cool, me neither. But some people did.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Apr 24, 2017 14:10:12 GMT
Classic wargame problem here. GW relied heavily on appealing to the "spirit of the game", because it makes sense to a lot of people, including almost all designers. However, WM became popular largely by being seen as the "anti-GW", and not having any concepts like "power gamer" or "spirit of the game". If it was legal, you could do it. But issues like this one show that like it or not, "spirit of the game" does exist in all games of this 3D, hand-measured type. It's just a question of whether we notice or not. The issue with GW wasnt the company catering to the "spirit of the game." It was the way too lax rule set. Everytime a new codex came out that faction was typically on the top end of the power curve and most of your old army became worthless and you had to buy into the newest meta just to stay competitive. Secondly in Dev Talk i know Soles specifically said the current way premeausuring is used is not what they had in mind and dont see it as the direction they want the gane to go. i happen to agree. I hate knowing everything at all times. I want some excitement and surprise. Someone called it Cat and Mouse and thats the perfect explaination. Players need a way to capitalize on and punish a bad placement. (And opportunities to make that bad placement) This whole argument of wether or not "eyeballing" or "proxy planning" are skill sets that should be valued over the other in the game has been solved with the communication by PP. They value "eyeballing." If PP valued eyeballing that much, they'd revert measuring restrictions to Mk II. Even with the limitations currently in CID you don't really need to eyeball anything ever. PP seems to be trying to find/impose a balance between being able to map out and verify your chosen course of action while not being able to try out two dozen possible turns before committing. Premeasuring is ok. Testrunning your turn six ways to Sunday is not.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Apr 24, 2017 14:27:24 GMT
If PP valued eyeballing that much, they'd revert measuring restrictions to Mk II. Even with the limitations currently in CID you don't really need to eyeball anything ever. PP seems to be trying to find/impose a balance between being able to map out and verify your chosen course of action while not being able to try out two dozen possible turns before committing. Premeasuring is ok. Testrunning your turn six ways to Sunday is not. As long as people do it on their clock I don't have a problem, I just don't find it to be a negative play experience. Deathclock is the great balancing force, it makes you take your turns quickly and decisively otherwise you fall too far behind on the clock, but it allows you to spend time to make those really important decisions (Assassinations), if there was no clock I could concede PPs point, but seeing as there is I don't see a problem.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Apr 24, 2017 14:58:14 GMT
I'm a casual player but am familiar with the general idea of the deathclock. What is the standard amount of the time per player and how much is usually consumed in a "normal, tournament setting?" Maybe the clock should just be decreased slightly to discourage people from planning out their entire turns before activating anything.
I personally don't pre-measure/mark out anything more than charge and move+shoot ranges, but I don't really mind other people doing what they want so long as they game is moving at a decent pace.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Apr 24, 2017 15:00:52 GMT
I'm a casual player but am familiar with the general idea of the deathclock. What is the standard amount of the time per player and how much is usually consumed in a "normal, tournament setting?" Maybe the clock should just be decreased slightly to discourage people from planning out their entire turns before activating anything. I personally don't pre-measure/mark out anything more than charge and move+shoot ranges, but I don't really mind other people doing what they want so long as they game is moving at a decent pace. The standard time per player is 1 hour for a 75 point game, my local tourneys however play 50 minutes usually, I agree that reducing the time would promote decisive play
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 24, 2017 15:15:48 GMT
The game already has a immendidn't start wiarning 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. Of course it adds depth. Immense depth. Maneuver estimation has been a part of wargaming since wargaming was a thing. It didnt start with GW. Games which require you to plan movement carefully while also including an element of uncertainty are the most enjoyable and rewarding types of games. Sadly wmh is moving away from this intoma watered down game. Them deciding to limit premeasuring is a good step towards helping prevent this. As for players who don't yet have their skill for distance evaluation developed yet, they need to practice. Just like any other skill in this game, it takes practice. Its not an inherent ability you are born with. Some have natural talent, some don't. But all can practice and improve their skill.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 24, 2017 15:19:33 GMT
I'm a casual player but am familiar with the general idea of the deathclock. What is the standard amount of the time per player and how much is usually consumed in a "normal, tournament setting?" Maybe the clock should just be decreased slightly to discourage people from planning out their entire turns before activating anything. I personally don't pre-measure/mark out anything more than charge and move+shoot ranges, but I don't really mind other people doing what they want so long as they game is moving at a decent pace. Deathclock time depends on the point scale. At 75 points, the steamroller says to give each player 60 minutes. So 2 hours total. It slides up and down for other point limits.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Apr 24, 2017 15:27:53 GMT
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. Of course it adds depth. Immense depth. Maneuver estimation has been a part of wargaming since wargaming was a thing. It didnt start with GW. Games which require you to plan movement carefully while also including an element of uncertainty are the most enjoyable and rewarding types of games. Sadly wmh is moving away from this intoma watered down game. Them deciding to limit premeasuring is a good step towards helping prevent this. As for players who don't yet have their skill for distance evaluation developed yet, they need to practice. Just like any other skill in this game, it takes practice. Its not an inherent ability you are born with. Some have natural talent, some don't. But all can practice and improve their skill. I'm just going to conclude you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes depth. The problem I have with your logic specifically though is that there's often no element of uncertainty even without premeasuring, depending on the army type and the player's skill at eyeballing. As for just needing practice, I don't see the point. For me eyeballing distances shouldn't be a relevant skill other than as a time saver. We could just as well require the player who is not active to juggle 5 dice until it's his turn again. That'd feel about equally pertinent to me.
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on Apr 24, 2017 15:42:50 GMT
Of course it adds depth. Immense depth. Maneuver estimation has been a part of wargaming since wargaming was a thing. It didnt start with GW. Games which require you to plan movement carefully while also including an element of uncertainty are the most enjoyable and rewarding types of games. Sadly wmh is moving away from this intoma watered down game. Them deciding to limit premeasuring is a good step towards helping prevent this. As for players who don't yet have their skill for distance evaluation developed yet, they need to practice. Just like any other skill in this game, it takes practice. Its not an inherent ability you are born with. Some have natural talent, some don't. But all can practice and improve their skill. Eh, no. All eyeballing distances does is tell us who has the best eyesight, or has spent too much time staring at a table. It isn't part of the game, and I don't know many people who mourn its passing. I don't know that anyone ever actually found ending up .002" short to be rewarding or enjoyable. I suspect most people don't particularly enjoy watching their opponent move a dozen or so tokens around for 10+ minutes either. PP has offered a middle ground.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Apr 24, 2017 15:50:41 GMT
PP wants to put an end to unsightly clutter on their video streams and people pre-planning their turn with bases, measuring sticks, beads, etc., before moving a model. The tricky thing is where do you draw the line. PP has already said "one table marker" is allowable, so they acknowledge that being able to place such a thing is useful. Many (myself included) feel that "one" isn't enough, for reasons frequently repeated in this discussion. But, where do you draw the line? Is 2 enough? 3? In general, I think you will know bloat when you see it on the table, but it's not necessarily clear where to draw the line for a broad rule.
As a side note, I wonder what the makers of the many useful measuring gadgets and proxy markers, etc., think of this proposed rule. I've accumulated a number of such devices from Muse on Minis and Broken Egg Games, which I may not be using all that often very soon.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 24, 2017 16:40:23 GMT
Of course it adds depth. Immense depth. Maneuver estimation has been a part of wargaming since wargaming was a thing. It didnt start with GW. Games which require you to plan movement carefully while also including an element of uncertainty are the most enjoyable and rewarding types of games. Sadly wmh is moving away from this intoma watered down game. Them deciding to limit premeasuring is a good step towards helping prevent this. As for players who don't yet have their skill for distance evaluation developed yet, they need to practice. Just like any other skill in this game, it takes practice. Its not an inherent ability you are born with. Some have natural talent, some don't. But all can practice and improve their skill. I'm just going to conclude you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes depth. The problem I have with your logic specifically though is that there's often no element of uncertainty even without premeasuring, depending on the army type and the player's skill at eyeballing. As for just needing practice, I don't see the point. For me eyeballing distances shouldn't be a relevant skill other than as a time saver. We could just as well require the player who is not active to juggle 5 dice until it's his turn again. That'd feel about equally pertinent to me. You yourself have admitted why being able to guess distances correctly is a relevant skill. It saves time, and it is a way to gather vital information. That makes it a relevant skill, unlike juggling dice which serves no purpose at all. Im sure you can agree that its no fun waiting for 10 minutes while some d-bag measures out a ''perfect turn'' to avoid all possible retaliation. Sure, its on his clock, but its still no fun.
|
|