|
Post by schostoppa1 on May 3, 2017 16:17:26 GMT
I have a poor short term memory. If someone is placing ten measure-markers, all for different things, I'm going to forget what the first one represents by the time you get to the fifth. I'm not against the idea of multiple measure-markers, they really are a valuable tool, but I am against the idea of excessive measure-markers. Why do you need to know what the measurements and markers mean? This is an IGoUGo game, there's nothing for you to do during your opponent's turn outside of things like Counter Charge and even then they only happen when something actually activates and triggers the conditions. to verify legal moves and to plan your counter accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by DemonCalibre on May 3, 2017 16:30:03 GMT
Why do you need to know what the measurements and markers mean? This is an IGoUGo game, there's nothing for you to do during your opponent's turn outside of things like Counter Charge and even then they only happen when something actually activates and triggers the conditions. Because sometimes you have to remind your opponent that the Proxy base on the board, is actually one of his models, not the Woldwyrd, he is thinking about moving.(This actually came up in a game) I have put a ton of thought into this as an TO, and while the rule might be too Draconian, I think scaling back of premeasuring is important. While I was at KC, I actually noticed at least one spot where a player did some premeasuring and his opponent had no idea what was going on, and it was confusing.(The player in question needed to be clearer about what he was proxying, but that is a slightly different issue)
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on May 3, 2017 16:57:16 GMT
So maybe a rule towards transparency would help? Something like "anything you leave on the table needs to be labeled as what it is or will be.". Don't we already have that for effect markers (for spells, etc.) and proxy bases (as stand-ins for actual model placement)?
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on May 3, 2017 17:47:07 GMT
I need to know what they all represent because, during my opponent's turn, I'm trying to plan my turn out or I clock myself. Okay that's a valid argument. To counterpoint, your opponent still needs to go through all their activations and actually get the models to where they intend them to go, which isn't going to be much faster than if they had never put any markers down and just kept an image in their head of where they wanted those models to end up. If trying to keep track of all the markers is confusing why not simply ignore them and focus on actual model placement? to verify legal moves and to plan your counter accordingly. I'm honestly confused as to how markers on the board impact your ability to verify legal moves. Because sometimes you have to remind your opponent that the Proxy base on the board, is actually one of his models, not the Woldwyrd, he is thinking about moving.(This actually came up in a game) A) This isn't actually addressed by the marker limitation rule, you can have as many proxies on the board as you need. B) This is covered by the sportsmanship rules: "Players must accurately execute the rules of the game and fully cooperate with opponents to honestly answer any questions that arise before and during the game." If there are so many proxies on the board that someone can't tell which is which you've failed in that regard. Personally if I require that many proxies I solve the problem by marking which proxy represents which model.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on May 4, 2017 6:49:59 GMT
So from the updated rules it seems like there will not be a compromise. That is very disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by Morganstern on May 4, 2017 10:51:38 GMT
Given that they are having a development discussion on increasing the markers to 2 i don't think it's going to be a huge issue. That means unless you have a crap opponent then you would be able to have up to 4 markers on the table at a time (2 of yours and 2 of your opponents).
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on May 4, 2017 10:59:56 GMT
Oh wait, that's allowed? Seems needlessly roundabout, but at least that's workable.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on May 4, 2017 11:02:18 GMT
Given that they are having a development discussion on increasing the markers to 2 i don't think it's going to be a huge issue. That means unless you have a crap opponent then you would be able to have up to 4 markers on the table at a time (2 of yours and 2 of your opponents). They mentioned asking your opponent if they can help you out with their marker, I can think of some pretty awkward opponents I have played, asking them for help in beating them would be super cringe
|
|
|
Post by Morganstern on May 4, 2017 11:09:11 GMT
Given that they are having a development discussion on increasing the markers to 2 i don't think it's going to be a huge issue. That means unless you have a crap opponent then you would be able to have up to 4 markers on the table at a time (2 of yours and 2 of your opponents). They mentioned asking your opponent if they can help you out with their marker, I can think of some pretty awkward opponents I have played, asking them for help in beating them would be super cringe I've experienced the opposite, where my opponent was more than happy to place a marker down for me.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on May 4, 2017 11:37:39 GMT
Oh wait, that's allowed? Seems needlessly roundabout, but at least that's workable. So starting from not being allowed to use too many markers I'm now actually assumed to bring several, not even so I can use them but so I can let my opponent use them? "Needlessly roundabout" and then some...
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on May 4, 2017 11:51:54 GMT
Just bring your SO to a tournament and get them to put any extra markets down that you need. Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on May 4, 2017 11:52:25 GMT
They mentioned asking your opponent if they can help you out with their marker, I can think of some pretty awkward opponents I have played, asking them for help in beating them would be super cringe I've experienced the opposite, where my opponent was more than happy to place a marker down for me. For the vast majority of my opponents over the years, I would agree that they would be more than happy to help, it is only a few I have encountered who are very socially awkward and/or douchey that it would be a problem.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on May 4, 2017 12:51:30 GMT
Interesting point... it is my impression that normally, a TO doesn't police individual games during a tournament. Generally, players will call over a TO or judge if they have some sort of dispute or question. But if both players are in total agreement about how to play the game, can't they usually pretty much do it in the way they want without getting hassled by organisers?
By which I mean, if you play a steamroller game, and you ask your opponent "how would you feel about using as many board markers as we want during this game?", is there not a good chance that they will say "yeah, let's totally do that"? And if you do, do you think that the TO will be keeping an eye out, and come over and go "hey! stop that!" if you do?
To me it seems similar to how the Prime rules say that you have to keep your focus and fury markers either on the card or next to the model (I forget which). So people always argue that if you do it the other way, you are breaking the rules and cheating. Yet, I feel like at a tournament, no organiser will care in any way whatsoever where the players keep their markers, as long as nobody complains.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on May 4, 2017 13:18:45 GMT
You're mostly right. In a regular game of WMH anything is legal that all players agree upon - of course within confines of relevant laws. That's the same for every game. If we agree to make a handstand every time a crit is rolled then that is now part of the game.
Now in a tournament you technically still need to follow whatever the TO says under threat of disqualifications. I have however not seen TOs taking offense in anything remotely reasonable that both players agree to.
This is why it would make a lot of sense for PP to aim for a compromise, because otherwise they'll just end up with a needlessly restrictive rule (like in the week3 draft) that will just get widely ignored.
|
|
|
Post by Permutation Servitor on May 4, 2017 20:24:40 GMT
Given that they are having a development discussion on increasing the markers to 2 i don't think it's going to be a huge issue. That means unless you have a crap opponent then you would be able to have up to 4 markers on the table at a time (2 of yours and 2 of your opponents). Where is this? I thought you couldn't put down markers on your opponent's turn?
|
|