|
Post by Azuresun on Apr 21, 2017 13:22:42 GMT
I, for one welcome the chance to weaken gunlines. I'm not exactly what one might call a good player, and I cannot into shooting no matter how hard I try (reason why I dropped Menoth). It's not fun having to chase around models who stay just out of my threat range, and I'm not of the crowd that lies or deliberately keeps info to themselves to make their threat ranges seem shorter. It doesn't weaken gunlines at all, because you can still kite 0.1" within maximum range without widgets.
|
|
|
Post by malnorma on Apr 21, 2017 13:26:31 GMT
Yeah, pure shooting lists are probably the least affected by this, since they don't really need complicated manoeuvres planned out - moving to max range is basically one measurement.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Apr 21, 2017 13:28:00 GMT
To be fair, the requirement to have Los blocking terrain in the middle of the board in 2/3 terrain generators is a definite hit to gunlines.
|
|
|
Post by Scrub_of_Menoth on Apr 21, 2017 13:47:52 GMT
To be fair, the requirement to have Los blocking terrain in the middle of the board in 2/3 terrain generators is a definite hit to gunlines. Which is why some of the other aspects of SR2017 were included, I'm going to guess. More LOS-blocking terrain and scenarios force gunlines to move up or get pushed out of most of the board.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 21, 2017 14:48:51 GMT
Yeah everything else in that scenario package feels great. The objectives might use a bit of balancing, but that's all I can say for now. Scenario elements being more spread out over the table is an amazing change. Combined with how the scoring limit works it moves the focus of the game a bit more from tactics towards strategy, which I currently consider a good thing. Or so it seems to me at first glance.
On the CID forums some PP guy made the point that excessive pre-measuring makes the game harder on new players. The second SR17 game I played was against a new player. And I did not tell him to put that second proxy base (sorry, I mean measurement widget) he used away. The game is hard enough to learn, no need to learn it with one hand tied to your back. So I couldn't disagree more there. Hope they get rid of this fast.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Apr 21, 2017 15:31:19 GMT
The new rules on the use of "table markers" and "measuring devices" and the number of said items that can be on the board still seem confusing. If they wish to keep these rules, I'm sure they'll find a way to clarify them, but it seems like a lot of work to craft limits to pre-measuring markers that were being used for clarification and to avoid disputes. It seems to me that these rules might be better applied to non-Steamroller games (games for funsies) to speed things along and cut back on having to watch your opponent proxy their whole turn before moving anything. Those are the games where watching your opponent fiddling with proxies and measuring sticks all over the table might become annoying. In Steamroller you have a clock to limit what your opponent does - if they want to use their time dropping proxies and measuring sticks everywhere that seems fine to me, so long as they clean up all their stuff before shifting clock back to me. I also wonder how you'd handle infractions in practice: "Judge! Judge! My opponent just left a second measuring device on the table! Judge!" In many cases, I'm guessing I'd probably ignore things like that rather than calling in a judge.
On a personal note, I don't think I abuse the use of proxies, but the limit on one "table marker" is a little concerning to me. For example, in games where I run huge models (Kraken or Deneghra3), I often like to drop a base to reserve their landing zone before I move them (say if I want to activate them later in the turn) so that I don't accidentally put other stuff in their way (unfortunately, something I have tended to do more often than I'd like). That would be my "one" marker, so I wouldn't later be able to measure the movement for my Stalker, drop a table marker (base), and then measure its leap move, since that would be a second table marker - at least as I understand things. I understand not wanting to see a littering of bases on the board, but the example I offer doesn't seem unreasonable. So, where do you want to draw the line between useful makers and clutter? All I'm suggesting is that "one" seems too limiting to me, but I'm not a super strong Steamroller player, so maybe I need to just suck it up and get better (which I will, with only a little whining).
|
|
Xarlaxas
Junior Strategist
Hoards models more than he plays.
Posts: 192
|
Post by Xarlaxas on Apr 21, 2017 16:50:36 GMT
I think the easiest thing really is "clutter the board all you want, on your clock, before you hand the clock over, you have to remove all your wibbly-wobbly widget devices."
Sure, you can meticulously plan out your WGI Kommand army's movement to the last 0.1 of an inch, but then you'll have to spend more clock team picking up after yourself.
I'd add a caveat of being able to use a measuring tape or whatever in your opponent's turn, so long as it doesn't leave your hand, so you're not "placing" anything.
That would be a much simpler set of rules to write. . . .
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Apr 21, 2017 16:50:42 GMT
To be fair, the requirement to have Los blocking terrain in the middle of the board in 2/3 terrain generators is a definite hit to gunlines. Which is why some of the other aspects of SR2017 were included, I'm going to guess. More LOS-blocking terrain and scenarios force gunlines to move up or get pushed out of most of the board. This bugs me from a repetition standpoint. I get why it's happening, sure, but with how center specific scenarios are you're literally always going to be playing right through it now. I feel like they're taking this to an extreme on purpose to normalize people to cluttered boards, and will then soften the requirements later.
|
|
|
Post by Scrub_of_Menoth on Apr 21, 2017 17:07:51 GMT
I think the easiest thing really is "clutter the board all you want, on your clock, before you hand the clock over, you have to remove all your wibbly-wobbly widget devices." Sure, you can meticulously plan out your WGI Kommand army's movement to the last 0.1 of an inch, but then you'll have to spend more clock team picking up after yourself. I'd add a caveat of being able to use a measuring tape or whatever in your opponent's turn, so long as it doesn't leave your hand, so you're not "placing" anything. That would be a much simpler set of rules to write. . . . Yeah, I've been a fan of a similar idea and posted earlier, like "Only the active player may place board markers during his/her turn. After the final activation all board markers must be removed before the next player's turn begins" Also an idea I like is to limit board marker placement that is relevant to a model/unit only on that model/unit's activation...though I have no idea how to word that or if it even makes sense.
|
|
Xarlaxas
Junior Strategist
Hoards models more than he plays.
Posts: 192
|
Post by Xarlaxas on Apr 21, 2017 17:41:42 GMT
Yeah, I think it's the simplest solution: A player place unlimited measurement markers on the table during their own turn, but must ensure they have removed all of their measurement markers from the table before ending their turn.A player may use measuring devices (widgets, measuring tapes) etc. at any time, so long as they are not *placed* on the table.The idea for the above is: you can clutter the table on your clock all you want, but you clean up for after yourself, on your clock. During your opponent's turn, you can play around with widgets, measuring tapes etc. but they can't leave your hands. That way there's no clutter. I'm not in the CID, but if someone is and thinks it's good, feel free to suggest it.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Apr 21, 2017 17:46:30 GMT
Isn't that exactly how it is now? Do whatever you want on your turn and clean up your crap before the opponent's turn?
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Apr 21, 2017 18:00:56 GMT
OK, honest poll. Has ANYONE played/played against someone who actually "plotted out their whole move"? I have, at MOST plopped down maybe 4 proxies for a complicated synergistic assassination run. I don't have the patience (or clock) to do more. To me this feels like a solution in search of a problem and one which EASILY could be handled in the sportsmanship section (and/or with the explicit admonition to clean up your stuff when done). I laid out a situation in yesterday's CID whose legality hinged on the player remembering to pick up a base during a particular step. The player got all the same information either way - he just needed to not skip a step of picking up a proxy base. And without any sanctions what are we going to do, DQ someone for THAT? It doesn't work unless we eliminate "measurement markers" and that, in turn, then gets us into measurement wars as people/companies work to exploit whatever loopholes (sticks with bulges on the ends that just "happen" to be 40 and 50 MM. I really hope that TOs just reject it. I am going to strongly push for every SR I go to do that.
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Apr 21, 2017 18:26:08 GMT
OK, honest poll. Has ANYONE played/played against someone who actually "plotted out their whole move"? I have, at MOST plopped down maybe 4 proxies for a complicated synergistic assassination run. I don't have the patience (or clock) to do more. To me this feels like a solution in search of a problem and one which EASILY could be handled in the sportsmanship section (and/or with the explicit admonition to clean up your stuff when done). I laid out a situation in yesterday's CID whose legality hinged on the player remembering to pick up a base during a particular step. The player got all the same information either way - he just needed to not skip a step of picking up a proxy base. And without any sanctions what are we going to do, DQ someone for THAT? It doesn't work unless we eliminate "measurement markers" and that, in turn, then gets us into measurement wars as people/companies work to exploit whatever loopholes (sticks with bulges on the ends that just "happen" to be 40 and 50 MM. I really hope that TOs just reject it. I am going to strongly push for every SR I go to do that. I did exactly once. He got DQ'ed for wasting time (the deathclocks were MIA that day so it was simple 90 minute timed rounds. he used more than half the game on his second turn. Since it would certainly have led to a deathclock kill anyway by that point, it doesn't matter much).
This rule will impct me once every 5 games or so, end even then it's mostly because I tend to drop a proxy base BEFORE checking if I can fit though a gap. Beyond that, I usually get a measurement of threat, and just mentally mark the area. it's imprecise, but I get through in the end and have fun.
|
|
|
Post by Scrub_of_Menoth on Apr 21, 2017 18:26:49 GMT
OK, honest poll. Has ANYONE played/played against someone who actually "plotted out their whole move"? I have, at MOST plopped down maybe 4 proxies for a complicated synergistic assassination run. I don't have the patience (or clock) to do more. To me this feels like a solution in search of a problem and one which EASILY could be handled in the sportsmanship section (and/or with the explicit admonition to clean up your stuff when done). I laid out a situation in yesterday's CID whose legality hinged on the player remembering to pick up a base during a particular step. The player got all the same information either way - he just needed to not skip a step of picking up a proxy base. And without any sanctions what are we going to do, DQ someone for THAT? It doesn't work unless we eliminate "measurement markers" and that, in turn, then gets us into measurement wars as people/companies work to exploit whatever loopholes (sticks with bulges on the ends that just "happen" to be 40 and 50 MM. I really hope that TOs just reject it. I am going to strongly push for every SR I go to do that. Not personally, but the friend of mine who suggested with the "only active player may place markers" idea had a game where he was active player, and his opp was putting down proxies for all his WG (20+), essentially playing out opp's turn on my buddy's clock.
|
|
Xarlaxas
Junior Strategist
Hoards models more than he plays.
Posts: 192
|
Post by Xarlaxas on Apr 21, 2017 18:29:04 GMT
Isn't that exactly how it is now? Do whatever you want on your turn and clean up your crap before the opponent's turn? For Steamrolled 2016, yeah, but not by the rules that they're suggesting. I don't think that the current situation is a problem, as, if someone wants to spend half their death-clock imagining how they'll make their moves, that's their own decision.
|
|