zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Apr 21, 2017 18:30:07 GMT
Not in a game I was part of. But I've heard that the Haley3 + Trenchers + Grenadiers list from Courage of Caspia is about the most extreme proxying example out there. So if you're looking for an example, that's probably it. But for every example of a proxy-littered table there are thousands of games cleaned up by play with proxies. That sounds like a good deal to me.
In short, I don't see this making it into week 2. If they want games to look prettier, they should enforce painting instead. And I don't see that happening.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Apr 21, 2017 19:04:47 GMT
Scrub writes
"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. "
I would have usually, if at ALL distracting, asked him to stop. It isn't just that it is probably clutter it is that it is distracting and he is making it harder for ME to carry out my turn. But again, sportsmanship damm it. Keep it out of the rules.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Apr 21, 2017 20:17:02 GMT
If they want to keep games looking pretty for casual observers, perhaps they could compromise and allow as many table markers as necessary for a single model/unit activation, but once that activation was over, pick everything up. Then, on top of that they could have a limit of "one table marker" - maybe to mark where a Hordes caster will move so as to have a reference to check whether beasts will be in control range later by the end of the turn (knowing the caster will move to that spot at the end of the turn). That would keep people from planning out entire turns, but still allow for a complicated activation and a little leeway to place a marker in conjunction with that activation to help plan complicated multi-part assassinations or something like that.
|
|
gdnerd
Junior Strategist
Posts: 656
|
Post by gdnerd on Apr 21, 2017 20:49:43 GMT
My main issue for only allowing it for the currently activating model is it messes with Hordes being able to plan out when/where they have to move their warlocks to ensure that their beasts are in forcing range at their intended targets.
From personal experience with Trolls, there's a lot of planning with where the warlock and krielstone are going to go before any activations are started.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Apr 22, 2017 1:17:43 GMT
The pre measuring rules seem overly complicated. It does alot of collateral damage to harmless uses of pre measuring. By switching deathclock to the default, the problem PP is talking about isn't going to be a major issue in SR. Maybe a rule like this could work if included with the timed turn alternative. Anyway, I hope it gets purged with CID.
|
|
|
Post by bakemono on Apr 22, 2017 3:19:08 GMT
Get rid of pre-measuring entirely and the issue is solved. I have seen no positive benefit to having it in the game. It hasn't increased the speed or fun of the games. In fact, it has slowed them down for obvious reasons (people constantly measuring and tinkering to get precision). It has gotten so annoying they have to start testing rules to modify rules on pre-measuring.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 22, 2017 3:59:56 GMT
Get rid of pre-measuring entirely and the issue is solved. I have seen no positive benefit to having it in the game. It hasn't increased the speed or fun of the games. In fact, it has slowed them down for obvious reasons (people constantly measuring and tinkering to get precision). It has gotten so annoying they have to start testing rules to modify rules on pre-measuring. I completely and utterly disagree. And even if I agreed then removing it by this point would shatter the core rules of the game more then just be a minor alteration. I like pre-measuring. Has 90% less "Gotcha!" which doesn't feel strategic or smart as much as random and benefitting those that are good at estimating ranges which PP even said was not their intent.
|
|
gdnerd
Junior Strategist
Posts: 656
|
Post by gdnerd on Apr 22, 2017 5:27:56 GMT
Get rid of pre-measuring entirely and the issue is solved. I have seen no positive benefit to having it in the game. It hasn't increased the speed or fun of the games. In fact, it has slowed them down for obvious reasons (people constantly measuring and tinkering to get precision). It has gotten so annoying they have to start testing rules to modify rules on pre-measuring. This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Apr 22, 2017 11:35:42 GMT
Get rid of pre-measuring entirely and the issue is solved. I have seen no positive benefit to having it in the game. It hasn't increased the speed or fun of the games. In fact, it has slowed them down for obvious reasons (people constantly measuring and tinkering to get precision). It has gotten so annoying they have to start testing rules to modify rules on pre-measuring. Just no. The premeasuring sucks arguments died within a month because even the haters found it to be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 22, 2017 13:45:41 GMT
Just no. The premeasuring sucks arguments died within a month because even the haters found it to be awesome. I disagree. Mob mentality does not make something truth. But again, I like Pre-measuring myself.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Apr 22, 2017 19:28:12 GMT
Get rid of pre-measuring entirely and the issue is solved. I have seen no positive benefit to having it in the game. It hasn't increased the speed or fun of the games. In fact, it has slowed them down for obvious reasons (people constantly measuring and tinkering to get precision). It has gotten so annoying they have to start testing rules to modify rules on pre-measuring. Just no. The premeasuring sucks arguments died within a month because even the haters found it to be awesome. Eh, I prefer it to the old system, but premeasuring hasn't been an unalloyed positive. It doesn't feel like guns were adjusted for being able to hang right on the edge of their range or never missing a chance to aim. And really, I don't see how you can really escape "plot out your whole turn in proxies" as a logical endpoint of unlimited premeasuring.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 22, 2017 21:03:30 GMT
Ok, I just gotta say one thing.
Scoring sucks so far in this scenario packet. Its basically impossible to win on scenario. We need to eliminate the turn limit and the win margin because needing to score 6 more points than the opponent in only 7 turns is not happening. The scenario has basically become almost irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Morganstern on Apr 22, 2017 21:12:16 GMT
Just no. The premeasuring sucks arguments died within a month because even the haters found it to be awesome. Eh, I prefer it to the old system, but premeasuring hasn't been an unalloyed positive. It doesn't feel like guns were adjusted for being able to hang right on the edge of their range or never missing a chance to aim. And really, I don't see how you can really escape "plot out your whole turn in proxies" as a logical endpoint of unlimited premeasuring. I find it's been interesting how different gaming communities approach pre measuring. When pre measuring was introduced in 40k most people used it to make sure they were in range to shoot, or to ensure that they were safe from extreme charge ranges. There didn't seem to be this pre measuring to the nth degree. I think that this was not the intention of the game designers.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Apr 22, 2017 21:15:28 GMT
Ok, I just gotta say one thing. Scoring sucks so far in this scenario packet. Its basically impossible to win on scenario. We need to eliminate the turn limit and the win margin because needing to score 6 more points than the opponent in only 7 turns is not happening. The scenario has basically become almost irrelevant. What? The goal is to end with more points than your opponent, 40k-style. The 6 points thing will only end the game early. It's an attempt to force people for assassination if they want a guaranteed win.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Apr 22, 2017 22:45:28 GMT
Ok, I just gotta say one thing. Scoring sucks so far in this scenario packet. Its basically impossible to win on scenario. We need to eliminate the turn limit and the win margin because needing to score 6 more points than the opponent in only 7 turns is not happening. The scenario has basically become almost irrelevant. I think that's what they wanted. Death clock will almost never allow a game to go to turn 7. You are really just playing a game of assasination with points thrown in now. Scenario is only relevant if your opponent allows it to be. Every game I've played so far has pretty much just been trying to pull off an assasination. No scenario pressure at all. At least in SR 2016 even though most games were decided by assasination scenario was an incredibly relevant and active win condition. Now it's just one of those things that's there but never really comes up. I'm not very happy with that but I've always loved playing for scenario so that's probably just me.
|
|