According to this article on the front page of BoLS, 8th Edition WHFB allows players to measure any distance at any time. (Although in a bizarre turn of events, charge ranges are randomly rolled for?). But the article discusses several pros of allowing measuring at all times, namely that it eliminates the skill gap between people who are good at eye-balling and those who are not. The author argues that this create a more even playing field which is good for fun and fairness. I tend to agree.

So, if that is the direction that GW seems to be going, what do folks think about applying pre-measuring to 40k?

I think it's a nice crutch for bad players. I won't be doing it, even if it is legal.

Meh, I don't know. Really, there aren't THAT many instances in a game of 40K where the last inch matters that much. If you're well practiced in your army, you know your movement, shooting, and charge ranges pretty damn close and it usually doesn't matter a whole lot, or is variable like moving through terrain. I doubt it will have much effect on the game. Frankly, I hope they allow a single unit to split its fire and charge whatever they want long before I care about adding premeasurement.

Silly, if your going to do that, you might as well take "G 6-18" weapons out, or just completely get rid of guess weapons...

Thay did get rid of guess range weapons.

I support this fully for exactly the stated reason - some people are just plain better at estimating range than others - a few people will never be able to do it accurately no matter how much they practice. C'est la Vie. I don't see why they should be excluded from the game.

I also don't see why someone granted superior spacial reasoning by a fluke of nature should have a concrete advantage in the game.

It's not a crutch for bad players - it's the elimination of a barrier that has no reason to exist.

A wargame ought to be a test of a player's tactical skill, puzzle-solving, understanding of probability, cunning - hell, even a test of his understanding of psychology and game theory. It oughtn't be a test of spacial reasoning.

Side note, it may make games take alot longer, which is dreadful since alot of games don't get finished in tournaments anyway.

I played a few game were you could pre-mesure and I lked it. Once we got used to it it made the game move quicker.

To play devil's advocate, it does reduce some of the uncertainty and risk involved in maneuvers. Are you within charge range next turn or not? With pre-measuring that is easy to know.

That said, I'm not very good at measuring distances while my roommate (a horde player who lives and dies by the charge) has exceptional eye-balling skills. It would be nice to even the playing field a bit.

Though I do wonder if 40k 6th edition will bring in the random charge distance that WFB is adding? Apparently units charge their movement plus 2D6 or 3D6 if they are cavalry.

Will be easier to keep those players with "generous" movements in check, too. Measuring to make sure you are outside of charge range while declaring "I'll just place these guys right outside your charge range..." and the like will prevent shenanigans.

Slarg232 wrote:Silly, if your going to do that, you might as well take "G 6-18" weapons out, or just completely get rid of guess weapons...

Yeeaaaah.... Definitely some silly things going on there.

I don't like the idea myself. Very few things come down to the last inch, but knowing you're in/out of Assault range changes tactics a great bit. Think of casualty removal or Fleet units deciding to run/shoot. It takes something away from the game to me.

I'm wholly against this. I'm a "bad" WHFB player (albeit because I've got about 3 games under my belt) but I feel that being able to tell distance is crucial and a good part of the learning curve. It's not just eyeballing. My "mentor" so to say is a man named Boldo who has won a few GT's and taught me that it's never truely guess range after the first shot, let me explain.

He guesses 37" with his cannon, he's 3 inches too far.
My turn the unit wheels and marches for a total of 8"
He now takes his 37 guess, subtracts 3 that's 34 and takes into account that I wheeled 3 inches and marched 5 so he should reduce the distance by a further 3" now 31 and fires for a direct hit.

In this way it's not really guess.

Alternatively since that cannon shot was 37" and his empire spearmen were 24" from the cannon (which he mentally noted during the measuring of his shot last turn) and my troops moved aprox 3 more inches closer his charge range is:

37-3 (overshoot)
34-3 (troop movement)
31-24 (distance from his spearmen to his cannon)
7" - The aproximate distance between his spearmen & my troops which tells him that either he can charge me, or he needs to move back a bit or I may charge him.

As for 40k my stance doesn't change, just Fire your longest range guns first & you should have a relative understanding of distances on the board (though some find this unsportsman like)

Azezel wrote:I also don't see why someone granted superior spacial reasoning by a fluke of nature should have a concrete advantage in the game.

You could make the same argument though for tactical decision making, or mathematical ability, or any number of other things that go into making someone a better player than someone else.


I would argue that being able to accurately estimate distances between units is a very large part of the tactics in a wargame. Not being able to do that as well as someone else doesn't exclude you from the game... it just means you're not as good at that particular aspect of the game.

Having said that, I've played other games that do allow for measurements at any time, and it doesn't remove the tactical element... just focusses it slightly differently and removes that element of uncertainty.

Why not just play on a grid? You won't need to measure anything.

*Groan* THIS IS NOT DnD!!!!!!

I've always been against pre-measuring, but after reading the article I have changed my opinion and now think it's a good thing. I'm willing to bet this will come to 40K 6th edition and make things better.

Zip Napalm wrote:Why not just play on a grid? You won't need to measure anything.

Exactly.

Wargames are played on a scale board with terrain to emulate reality, and model something in the unknown.

Pre measuring takes away a large amount of the appeal for playing on a table instead of a map/board in the first place.

Having to do math on the fly
Having to remember how far things go
Having to calculate risk
Order of operations
Occasionally missing because of the unknown
Imperfect situations
Bluffing

These are all important game elements that pre measuring destroys.

IMO most gamers like pre measuring because they simply can not handle the unknown, are to incapable to keep track of ranges or do the math, and won't commit to making a risk analysis call during a game.

Sad

Pre measuring is complete failure. If that rule is really in the new Warhammer book, then I'd say they let the insecure player/designers go to far.

Did I mention I hate pre measuring?

Let's allow people that are bad at eyeballing distance premeasure as it is an unfair advantage.

Can we also just only be allowed to use pre-made Army list? After all some people are better at list building than others and that is an unfair advantage.

Indeed, lets let all people with an IQ under 80 have 125% of the normal points limit too...

I've got mixed feelings about this. I pretty bad at eye balling but at the same time I know that its always an advantage if the opponent doesnt know the exact range of anything I dunno about this.

I personally have eyesight issues which comprimises my depth perception to some degree. This can make judging distances a bit of a pain, but I have learned to accept this and play around it.

The problem is that premeasuring removes the risk factor. I think allowing premeasuring is only really a good idea in a system of non-fixed movement. An example might be that infantry can move D6 inches plus/minus some profile number. Make running and assaulting the same, and presto you still have risk involved in your maneuvering without the need for judging distances.

Well a lot of the pre-measuring will be offset by the random charge distance as well.

I'm absolutely terrible at guessing distances. I think this is a positive change

There's no reason that the ability to know the difference between 46" and 49" should impact a game. I don't have shoot rubber bands to knock my opponent's men over, why should I have to use a personal skill that has nothing to do with the abilities of the models on the table to accomplish anything.

Pre-measuring doesn't change the dynamics of the game from an open-movement tabletop to a grid.



1) Having to do math on the fly? Of course you still have to do math on the fly. You need to do your probability calculations.

2) Having to remember how far things go? Excuse me? You can always look that up. Pre-measuring has no impact at all here.

3) Having to calculate risk? You still have to calculate risk. What you don't have to do is lose a shooting phase because your rapid fire guns would prevent you from charging when you're 6.1 inches from an opponent. I'd rather play a game where I win because I made the right decision, not because my opponent misjudged a distance by 1%.

4) Order of operations? Still important. Knowing a distance doesn't change that distance. I still have to decide which unit to shoot first and risk my opponent pulling casualties that would put another unit out of range.

5) Occasionally missing because of the unknown? This is the first one that is actually an effect of pre-measuring. And, honestly, I can't say I'm sad to see it go. I'd rather play a game where the results come down to decisions that my opponent and I make, rather than having a couple of millimeters mean the difference between a tight game and a blow-out.

Did you know that a quarter inch is less than 1% of the range of a heavy bolter? This isn't a level of precision that I want deciding games.

6) Imperfect situations? Situations will still be imperfect. Angles will still exist. Your assault troops will still be left in the open sometimes. You're still going to fail difficult terrain tests.

7) Bluffing? How exactly does pre-measuring affect the ability to bluff, at all?

Augustus, you're ascribing way too much to this.

I like that it would reduce the amount of movement-fudging that goes on at the local GW.

I don't like that it would take an element of skill away from the game.

Tough call.

I used to think premeasuring would eliminate a lot of the skill involved in tabletop gaming, but then I played Hordes of the Things and premeasuring was allowed at all times. Instead of simplfying the tabletop manuevers it increased them the tactical aspect of them. Arguments also dropped as I would premeasure a charge distance at the end of my current turn to ensure that we both knew I was in charge range. I think it can be a positive move to enhance the tabletop play.

Azezel wrote:Thay did get rid of guess range weapons.

I support this fully for exactly the stated reason - some people are just plain better at estimating range than others - a few people will never be able to do it accurately no matter how much they practice. C'est la Vie. I don't see why they should be excluded from the game.

I also don't see why someone granted superior spacial reasoning by a fluke of nature should have a concrete advantage in the game.

It's not a crutch for bad players - it's the elimination of a barrier that has no reason to exist.

A wargame ought to be a test of a player's tactical skill, puzzle-solving, understanding of probability, cunning - hell, even a test of his understanding of psychology and game theory. It oughtn't be a test of spacial reasoning.

Having the ability to eyeball something does not happen by fluke, it happens with practice, I used to suck at eyeballing measurements and say nut or socket sizes but practice (work) has made me better. I think no premeasuring is an integral part of the game, changing it would change so much.

Slarg232 wrote:Silly, if your going to do that, you might as well take "G 6-18" weapons out, or just completely get rid of guess weapons...

Sorry for the minor derail...What's a guess weapon? I thought these now use the barrage rules...

The main reason I'd support this is because it helps keep a reign on cheaters.

Me and my group of friends always premeasure, it speeds things up.

I'd welcome the change. I think that list building and tactical decision making are far more interesting skill sets to focus on than being able to eyeball a distance.

Well a lot of the pre-measuring will be offset by the random charge distance as well.

I think this is a much more interesting way of adding an element of uncertainty. It's based on a known element of the game state. You can take calculated risks since you know for sure what the variance is and how likely each outcome is. You don't get that with eyeballing.

VoxDei wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Silly, if your going to do that, you might as well take "G 6-18" weapons out, or just completely get rid of guess weapons...

Sorry for the minor derail...What's a guess weapon? I thought these now use the barrage rules...

Guess Weapons are weapons you have to guess the range of before you shoot. A G 6-18 has a minimum range of 6" with a max of 18" and you have to guess in that range.

And if they already have gotten rid of G-Weapons, I appologize, as I still do not have the 5th edition.

They are no longer called guess weapons, they're called barrage. You don't guess a distance at all, you pick a model you want to shoot at, and then measure range, just like for any other shot. If it's out of range (or too close), it auto-misses, just like any other shot.

Pre-measuring is just going to involve different skills. The skill of estimating differences to a 1% degree of accuracy will be replaced with the tactical skill of knowing what to do with the information that you're not in range of something.

Slarg232 wrote:Guess Weapons are weapons you have to guess the range of before you shoot. A G 6-18 has a minimum range of 6" with a max of 18" and you have to guess in that range.

And if they already have gotten rid of G-Weapons, I appologize, as I still do not have the 5th edition.

'Guess' range weapons have not been around since 3rd edition, so evidently you still don't have 4th edition either.

Cheexsta wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Guess Weapons are weapons you have to guess the range of before you shoot. A G 6-18 has a minimum range of 6" with a max of 18" and you have to guess in that range.

And if they already have gotten rid of G-Weapons, I appologize, as I still do not have the 5th edition.

'Guess' range weapons have not been around since 3rd edition, so evidently you still don't have 4th edition either.

Considering the Tau Codex has a Guess weapon......

You see my point

IIRC, the BRB says that "Guess" weapons now count as "Barrage" weapons. But I might be mistaken.

Monster Rain wrote:I think it's a nice crutch for bad players. I won't be doing it, even if it is legal.

Or you could say that a lack of pre-measuring is a nice cover for cheaters that either fudge their movement or play on tables they are intimately familiar with.

Plus, there is something to be said about not having games decided when your big charge falls short by .25".

Having played many variedgames that either allow or disallow pre mesuring far prefer the former due to:

Speed
Reduces manipulation of distance moved
people use workaround already - "when I fired my gun I was 11" away and no one has moved"
Getting rid of it in WFB is excellent - having played Dwarf players on tables made up of blocks of known dimensions - no guessing about it.

from a fluff point of view - Given the levels of technology it makes more sense.

Babylon 5 allows you to premeasure. Battlefleet Gothic does not. The games otherwise share a LOT of mechanics. I've never found B5 to suffer tactically from the ability to pre-measure; you still have to think several turns ahead, and plan for where your ships will encounter the enemy.

I'm a fan of pre-measuring because....

1) I'm good with estimating distances, I don't enjoy playing against someone's physical limitations.
    Some people just have poor depth perception or have a poor vantage point if they're stuck in a chair.
2) Budgers can't budge if you can check them.
3) Janthkin's example matches my experience as well.
4) The short charge does make a weak-sauce game ending.
    I don't want to win a game based on my opponent poorly estimating that fraction of an inch.
5) It allows for mechanics that target the closest model to take effect more smoothly.

Azezel wrote:Thay did get rid of guess range weapons.

I support this fully for exactly the stated reason - some people are just plain better at estimating range than others - a few people will never be able to do it accurately no matter how much they practice. C'est la Vie. I don't see why they should be excluded from the game.

I also don't see why someone granted superior spacial reasoning by a fluke of nature should have a concrete advantage in the game.

It's not a crutch for bad players - it's the elimination of a barrier that has no reason to exist.

A wargame ought to be a test of a player's tactical skill, puzzle-solving, understanding of probability, cunning - hell, even a test of his understanding of psychology and game theory. It oughtn't be a test of spacial reasoning.

yeah but maybe that's what YOU are good at. I happen to be able to judge distances well while you may have an advantage at number crunching. Who is to say what shouldn't be an aspect of the game? I believe they all should, your god given 'tactical' intelligence (play chess), my god given instinct (play poker), the other guy's god given wealth (play stock market)that gives him whatever advantage we can get. Why should this one be denied to us who are good at it? and you look down on us who can guess ranges precisely. We all, as human beings, have our pros and cons. Why does my precise measurement eyeballing capability deny me the advantage it gives me... while your Mathhammer number crunch is still allowed to make you superior?

They removed a strategy (fixed charge distances) and replaced it with a variable charge range but the ability for you to be able to make a Tactical decision whetehr or not to charge based in knowing the probabilities.

It adds a great deal of depth as you know have to consider the likelihoods involved, as opposed ot knowing with 100% certainty what will happen.

If they brought this into 40k they would likely add some kind of random assault move element

40K is actually rather unusual as a widely played wargame that prohibits pre-measuring.

Variable charge range is a feature in a number of rules. It has been controversial for the kinds of reasons people have mentioned here.

Some games have variable turn lengths and this has also been controversial.

However these things are a matter of perspective.

From this perspective, if an enemy regiment decides to charge you, they don't move for 5 minutes then run for one minute and stop 15 feet away if they don't reach contact. They simple move into contact unless your defensive fire stops them. The fight isn't over at the end of the turn, it's over when it's over.

40K effectively includes a random assault move by the use of the Run rule.

Guitardian wrote:yeah but maybe that's what YOU are good at. I happen to be able to judge distances well while you may have an advantage at number crunching. Who is to say what shouldn't be an aspect of the game? I believe they all should, your god given 'tactical' intelligence (play chess), my god given instinct (play poker), the other guy's god given wealth (play stock market)that gives him whatever advantage we can get. Why should this one be denied to us who are good at it? and you look down on us who can guess ranges precisely. We all, as human beings, have our pros and cons. Why does my precise measurement eyeballing capability deny me the advantage it gives me... while your Mathhammer number crunch is still allowed to make you superior?

Well - my spacial reasoning is pretty damn good (seriously, 100% when I took the RAF exam) - but you raise a fair point to which the answer is 'Calculator'.

If someone is bad at eyeballing, let him use a tape measure, if someone is bad at maths, let him use a claculator, if someone's poor, let him proxy (to an extent, at least). If someone's bad at list building, let him use Army Builder, or net lists.

If I beat you, I want to know it's because I am the better tactician (or just lucky on the dice) - not because you can't tell the difference between six inches and five-and-a-half.


You rightly say we all have our pros and cons but I believe (and I admit this is nothing other than personal prefference, there is no objective solution here) that the game should test some things, and not others.

Azezel wrote:If someone's bad at list building, let him use Army Builder

Hey I am not bad at list building, just lazy!

The ability to eyeball the tabletop in six inch steps is in my opinion irrelevant to wargaming or any kind of simulation of tactics.

It is a pretty easy rule to do an end-run around by using movement measurement and legal range measurement to semi-measure the distances you aren't allowed to measure -- this leads to further controversies about whether people are cheating if they do this.

I can't see the attraction of it or a reason to keep it.

Obviously some people like it -- if GW remove it from the rules you can still by agreement with your opponent decide to use it.

Well there's always space hulk, chess, battletech, axis and allies, sorry, and hundreds of avalon hill style hexgrid games. Part of 40k that makes it appealing is the slight uncertainties like distance, TLOS (how many people own a laser pointer since 5th came out?), model size, terrain placement. That's why it's a miniatures game, not a board game.
edit:
sorry for doubleclick there

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I've always found games that allow pre-measuring (Flames of War, to a limited extent Warmachine/Hordes) to be more tactically interesting experiences, because I can focus on position and overall strategy (much like chess) rather than arguing over inch fractions.

Just eliminating the argument and cheating aspects in tournaments is worth the change, in my opinion.

I'm just afraid that they won't change anything assault-wise and mobile shooty armies will just stand directly outside of charge range.

You mean just like they try and do now?

Monster Rain wrote:I think it's a nice crutch for bad players. I won't be doing it, even if it is legal.

Oh please. Guessing ranges accurately isn't much of a skill - the only people who don't learn to do it well within a half-dozen games generally have a physical handicap effecting their depth perception. That's like saying a guy on crutches lacks skill because he can't run as fast as you.

The kids in the school gaming club I run pre-measure all the time in their 40k games, and other than losing the lamest special ability in the game from 2 units, it doesn't really change much about how the game works. There's a marginal increase in players who park less than an inch outside of an opponent's threat range, and a similarly marginal decrease in players who think that 6" is bigger than it actually is. Other than that, it really doesn't change the strategy of the game as much as people seem to think. It's a bigger deal in WFB, where maneuvering is more important, but anyone who's played War of the Rings or any of the countless other games that allow pre-measuring can tell you that those games are just as fun, tactical, and challenging.

Exactly.

Most miniature tabletop wargames allow pre-measuring and ignore TLoS in favour of some system of abstraction.

These are pretty much peculiarities of 40K and arguably cause more trouble than they are worth.

(OT: the LoS rules in 40K are a jumbled heap of nonsense IMO.)

Kilkrazy wrote:(OT: the LoS rules in 40K are a jumbled heap of nonsense IMO.)

So true...

So wait, your Battle Tank can shoot my Grey Knights through two forests and a big rock because you can see the outstretched foot of one of them? Fine, roll... a direct hit? Dammit, wounds and saving throws ... great, all dead, DAMN YOU, LEFT FOOT!!!

Azezel wrote:It's not a crutch for bad players ...

Yes it is.

kill dem stunties wrote:

Azezel wrote:It's not a crutch for bad players ...

Yes it is.

That depends on how you define a bad player.

Is being able to estimate 5 inches compared to 7 inches the key ability of a good player?

One might say that requiring an opponent not to measure distances is a crutch to those whose ability to Use Tactics is poor.

Pre-Measuring sounds like a decent enough idea. I generally give my opponents that odd 1/2" on a charge or weapon range anyway, and this would just make games run smoother.
Personally, I like TLOS. Solid things block bullets better than trees and leaves. The 3rd edition woods rules were insanely stupid in that regard.

I think pre-measuring would be a good thing just to in the fact that it prevents a type of cheating. I've seen people fudge movements all too often. Some of the seedier players will take any advantage of when you're not looking at the table. Lining out what can and cannot be done during my turn, allows me to relax and not have to watch my opponent like a hwak just to make sure he isn't cheating.

I thikn people are focusing only on 6" too much. What about tanks. Are my Heavy bolters out of range? Do I need to move forward 6" and not fire to make sure they are in range next turn?

Oh wait... I will measure and if I am in range I will just park and fire.

To me that is an important part of the game. Do i take a risk that I am in range or do I sac a turn of shooting to know I am in range next turn.

Also being .25" out of range arguement is not valid. You are out of range if you measure or if you don't measure. Premeasuring will still not prevent people from fudging movement.

To me that isn't an important tactical decision, and the annoyances from not pre-measuring (gaming it, up to cheating, etc.) make the rule not worth the hassle.

I take your point about being out of range whether you measure or not. It works both ways. Of course people do measure and fudge when moving normally or charging.

I think both systems have advantages and disadvantages. I do like the slight risk element involved in not 100% knowing the distances, but I also like not having to worry about it in games with premeasuring. It would be a neutral change, in my mind.

WM/H has an interesting variant where you can premeasure inside the control area of your leader (generally about 12-14"). This adds an extra dimension to the game, because if you want certainty you've gotta move your (vitally important) leader forward and expose them to risk.

It comes down to do you think the uncertainty of distance is an important element to the game or not. Personally I feel it is a good element to the game.

Personally I feel the game would be hurt more if they allowed premeasuring and went to random assault ranges. Too much of the game is dependant on luck and chance. Now making a key element of the game reliant on chance just to happen is too much.

I think pre-measuring at any time is completely fine. There are many reasons for this but, most importantly; I believe the game should be about tactics, strategy, list building, and army construction – not about one’s ability to see the world in 6 inch increments.

We’ve all had a game or two in our lives where the outcome of the game had less to do with the elements I mentioned and whether the uber CC unit was a fraction of an inch inside or outside its 6” assault range. That outcome has nothing to do with skill, and I think that’s a bad thing.

I have also observed situations where one squad was clearly within 24” of an opposing squad for Rapid Fire weapons but it was uncertain whether any models were within 12”. The shooting player was reluctant to measure 12” to his target, preferring to simply take one 24” shot with his squad, because it was advantageous to keep that information unknown to the opponent who would be moving 6” and assaulting 6” in his next turn. The opposing player insisted the shooting player measure 12” so he would know what to do in his next turn.

If pre-measuring were always possible, there’s added tactical flexibility in the above situation – the shooting player would know exactly how many shots he had AND judge whether it would be advantageous to take a run move backward to eliminate the possibility of being assaulted, simply waiting until next turn to bring the entire strength of his rapid firing squad to bear. The assaulting player could also know whether he would be in assault range and adjust his tactics appropriately. The focus shifts from ambiguity, to tactical/strategic play and I consider that a good thing.

Additionally, there are some scenario’s in which the entire game is based on whether you’re within 3” of an objective. Usually it isn’t an issue… but when a game’s outcome is decided on whether a player should run to guarantee the 3” distance to an objective or shoot to finish off that ONE remaining gaunt or Boy that could potentially contest it in the last round of the game, it’s not only anticlimactic, but completely dependent on a players ability to eye-ball distances instead of make objective decisions on sound information.

Incara,

Just a mild point, but when firing rapid fire weapons you must fire twice if with in 12, so you are required to measure in that situation.

Also I think it is important to point out that premeasuring will not make a unit .25" away be closer you will just know before the turn starts if they are within assault range.

That information takes away any risk, and there for tactics are made easy.

jbunny wrote:Incara,

Just a mild point, but when firing rapid fire weapons you must fire twice if with in 12, so you are required to measure in that situation.

Ah yes… I’m an Eldar player so I don’t often deal with this situation so sometimes I forget. The situation still holds true for squads with mixed weaponry through – say a squad of guardians with 12” Shuriken Catapults who are armed with a weapons platform with greater range or a squad of Havocs/Devastators armed with long-range weaponry accompanied by sergeants who have pistols.

jbunny wrote:Also I think it is important to point out that premeasuring will not make a unit .25" away be closer you will just know before the turn starts if they are within assault range.

Measuring at ANY time means you can measure after your movement phase to see if you’re within 6”. If you aren’t, you can run backward in your shooting phase in hopes of denying your opponent the charge, move to cover, moving to deny LOS, or run instead of shooting if you’re fleet (Eldar, Orks, Dark Eldar). If you are within 6” you can shoot as normal and charge.

jbunny wrote:That information takes away any risk, and there for tactics are made easy.

There’s always risk – the dice are the game’s risk factor. Your run move might not be sufficient or you could tank your to-hit’s or to-wounds in assault. Distance eye-balling is not an element that adds to the game tactically or strategically and I am therefore a supporter of pre-measuring in all instances.

incarna wrote: Distance eye-balling is not an element that adds to the game tactically or strategically and I am therefore a supporter of pre-measuring in all instances.

This we will agree to disagree on.

Its funny how all the people who say distance estimation isnt something that adds to the game, are all probably completely terrible at eyeballing distance ... lol

I always found it odd that in the 40k universe they figured out how to make lasers into devastating weapons, but range finders (which we have right now) are far too advanced for normal infantry to have standard on their weaponry.

As far as pre-measuring goes, I have been playing w/o it for years and am fine w/o it, but I wouldn't be upset if it came into 6th edition.

kds - I'm very good at distance estimatng and I dont think it adds anything of worth to the game. I'd much rather it came down to the decisions we make, not on how good we are at judging 5.9-6.1".

I get the feeling yuor entire statement was based on no real evidence though

As the rules stand it wouldnt add to much, however randomised elements to movement, aka variable charge in WHFB, would ho

kds - I'm very good at distance estimatng and I dont think it adds anything of worth to the game. I'd much rather it came down to the decisions we make, not on how good we are at judging 5.9-6.1".

I get the feeling yuor entire statement was based on no real evidence though

As the rules stand it wouldnt work, however randomised elements to movement, aka variable charge in WHFB, would however redress this so you have a more *tactical* decision to take, as opposed to a *strategic* one (like chess)

Premeasuring sucks. Learn how to read distances or suffer the consequences. Part of the thrill of playing is guesstimating the assault range of your unit for that crucial assault.

Wow, I never realised so many players looked upon guessing distances as a major skill part of the game.

But then I play Orks and I play in-character, meaning I just charge forward without care for the actual distance - if I can attack I attack, if I can't I can't, it's no big deal to me. Dakka Dakka!

kill dem stunties wrote:Its funny how all the people who say distance estimation isnt something that adds to the game, are all probably completely terrible at eyeballing distance ... lol

It could be said that players who rely upon their ability to estimate distances use that mechanism to compensate for their own poor tactical and strategic game play – of course, I’m basing that assumption on as much evidence as you’re basing yours.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Premeasuring sucks. Learn how to read distances or suffer the consequences. Part of the thrill of playing is guesstimating the assault range of your unit for that crucial assault.

Guess you wont be playing 8th ed then.

the point is the "thrill" of being able to see the world in 6" increments will be replaced with *gasp* tactics.

I love how all these 'tactical and strategic' masterminds are incapable of incorporating just another element into the game. How much tactical genius does it really take to ram your ridiculously powerful assault unit into my weaker shooty unit? Let's see: some other genius tactical ideas that float around: save some troops for the endgame, hit the most dangerest thing first, tarpit the things you can't kill... um.. keep scouts in cover...

Sheesh it's not like we're planning D-day here guys, these are all no-brainers in my mind. Distance is a key element in what makes this a miniatures war game, and not just a board game. If your tactical genius cannot deal with the occasional uncertainty go play space hulk. 'flanking' is a joke in 40k compared to actual 'tactics' where it is used for one team member to distract while the other blindsides (on any scale). Yeah you are all such stragegic gods when your reserve roll comes in the turn you want it. How ever did you plan such a masterwork of sheer mind boggling strategy and I ran right into your trap?!

Remember the winner is always the best tactician and the loser is the one who made more mistakes according to the winner. According to the loser it's bad dice rolls. I kind of resent the implication that people who can eyeball distances (which is part of the game) are somehow tactically inferior, when assaulting in 40k is essentially just a matter of ramming your figures into mine. Wow, tactical genius you are!

Being able to eyeball distances doesnt make you tactically inferior, at all. that isnt what people are saying.

just that it doesnt actually *add* much in the way of "tactics" to the game.

Guitardian wrote:I love how all these 'tactical and strategic' masterminds are incapable of incorporating just another element into the game. How much tactical genius does it really take to ram your ridiculously powerful assault unit into my weaker shooty unit? Let's see: some other genius tactical ideas that float around: save some troops for the endgame, hit the most dangerest thing first, tarpit the things you can't kill... um.. keep scouts in cover...

Sheesh it's not like we're planning D-day here guys, these are all no-brainers in my mind. Distance is a key element in what makes this a miniatures war game, and not just a board game. If your tactical genius cannot deal with the occasional uncertainty go play space hulk. 'flanking' is a joke in 40k compared to actual 'tactics' where it is used for one team member to distract while the other blindsides (on any scale). Yeah you are all such stragegic gods when your reserve roll comes in the turn you want it. How ever did you plan such a masterwork of sheer mind boggling strategy and I ran right into your trap?!

Remember the winner is always the best tactician and the loser is the one who made more mistakes according to the winner. According to the loser it's bad dice rolls. I kind of resent the implication that people who can eyeball distances (which is part of the game) are somehow tactically inferior, when assaulting in 40k is essentially just a matter of ramming your figures into mine. Wow, tactical genius you are!

Guitardian my suggestion that players who rely on their ability to judge distances to compensate for poor tactical and strategic play was more of a jab at kill dem stunties unfounded assumption that players who advocate pre-measuring are doing so out of self interest due to being at a disadvantage in their inability to estimate. I don’t actually believe that players who don’t like the idea of pre measuring are poor players and I think most rationally minded players would agree.

I’m actually very very good at estimating distances; particularly the 12” to 18” Dire Avenger bladestorm sweet spot and I almost never have issue with coming up a fraction of an inch short. As a competitive tournament player I don’t believe distance eye-balling is a valuable component of the game and, more often than not, results in some extremely anti-climactic game outcomes – particularly when charges, shooting, and objective grabbing is a fraction of an inch short. I believe that pre-measuring will alleviate many of these issues and add strategic flexibility to the game. Some people disagree with me and that’s perfectly fine. I’ll argue my point, they can argue theirs.

My point was an indirect way to counter an attempt to undermine the validity of my position by assuming I was being motivated by self interest – which I am, but not in the way kill dem stunties implied.

In the meantime I’d suggest breathing into a paper bag for 60 seconds, double check to make sure Aunt Flow isn’t on her way, and cut back on the coffee. It’s been a while since I’ve seen that kind of nerd rage.

If you do a little bit of trig, you can estimate distances pretty close.

Guitardian wrote: I kind of resent the implication that people who can eyeball distances (which is part of the game) are somehow tactically inferior, when assaulting in 40k is essentially just a matter of ramming your figures into mine. Wow, tactical genius you are!

a) you don't seem to know the difference between tactics and strategy.

b) S'far as I can tell, no-one's claimed that 'people who can eyeball distances are somehow tactically inferior'.

What we have argued is that the ability to eyeball distances should not be necessary in a game which is ostensibly testing the player's tactical skill.


Moreover, if my assault phase is just a matter of ramming my my figures into yours then you have done something wrong. Particularly if it's a case of my 'ridiculously powerful assault unit' assaulting your 'weaker shooty unit'.

Were you a better tactician, you would never have given me the oppertunity to ram my assault unit into your shooty unit - and if you had, it would only be because you wanted me to destroy your shooty unit that turn, leaving me easy pickings for the other shooty unit seven inches away.

Which of course, brings us to pre-measuring. Tactics are about choice, and choices depend on information. The better the information, the better my choices are likely to be and the harder-fought the game becomes.

I don't think I can lay it out more clearly than that.

As a former infantryman, there is a lot of guess work, estimation, and gut checking in a tactical situation.

Alpha team is suppressing, bravo team is flanking. I'm leading Bravo team, and flanking through an environment that means I can't see the enemy unit, unlike a 40k gamer with their god like view of the battlefield (strange how enemy units drive directly towards those stealth suits none of them can actually see). I also can't travel in a convenient 90 degree series of turns, but have to run down angled, twisting streets. Have I gone far enough? Too far? And oh, by the way, Alpha team only has so much ammo to suppress with, so you better make your decisions quick.

To me, adding in pre-measuring removes the only true human element from the game. With a perfect, godlike knowledge of the battlefield dimensions at all times it makes list building, unit profiles, and dice the only thing that matters.

Your assault failed by .25" and it cost you the game? That's pretty epic, The enemy holding the line and the death stroke of the assault terminators strove to bring the conflict to resolution, but came up just short as reinforcements began to arrive along enemy lines. And even better, it wasn't because you rolled on your assault through cover check, it was because of a mistake you genuinely made as the general of your army.

On BoLS I made the comment that pre-measuring is like the pause function in an RTS. It helps you play the game, but defeats the real time nature of the conflict and mitigates the pressure and decision making speed that it is supposed to simulate.

IG Stormtroopers are supposedly allowed to premeasure ranges. That, we assume, is figured into their point cost. If everybody gets to do it, then stormies would have their advantage made obsolete and would ideally cost less. They just got their new codex though (relatively speaking) so they'll probably stay at the same price for a while, while everyone else can do what they had to pay to do? That's not cool. It's part of the rules. There are many parts of the rules I don't agree with and I believe give lopsided advantages to some units in whichever army, but I play by them anyway because they are the rules. If everybody rejects the ones they don't like, there wouldn't be any rules.

Regarding tactic = choice= imformation from the previous point I agree. However: Part of the fun is not having all the information and sometimes having to take a chance in my opinion. Real life war planning people don't have all the information either. Not that I'm suggesting real world warfare is fun, but a little 'fog-of-war' uncertainty certainly makes the game cooler in my opinion. That's why we're not playing chess.

I can only repeat that 40K and WHFB are rather unusual in prohibiting pre-measuring (in a couple of situations -- it's allowed in others).

The great majority of wargamers have been pre-measuring all their lives and didn't think they were missing the best part of the game.

Kroot Loops wrote:As a former infantryman, there is a lot of guess work, estimation, and gut checking in a tactical situation.

No doubt. All I said was that the better my information is, the better my choices are likely to be.

This is the reason why, if you ask me 'what's in that Rhino', I have to tell you. Not exactly realistic, but it makes for a better game.

The Human Element (and I only think I know what you mean by that) lies in understanding probabiity curves, and psychology.

'What are the odds that my Seraphim can bust up his Land Raider in one shooting phase?' (about 27%)

and 'If I fail, where is he going to park the Terminators within?'

I actually like uncertainty in the game - I'd be in favour of random charge distances for example. I don't think the game benefits from making an unrelated skill (spatial reasoning) critical to success though.

To put it ridiculously - how about we settle close combat results with a fencing match? My skill with a sabre seems about as relevent to the game as my skill at eyeballing distance.

I guess on that line of thinking we could also resolve assaults with a brawl in the alley behind the store.

I am myself not a particularly mathematically inclined person. I could whip out a calculator and figure out probability too, I just don't do it fast in my head. If I slowed the game down every time I wanted to take a shot by spending a half hour predicting outcomes, people would get kind of irritated. Some people have a natural ability to crunch numbers on the fly, while I just say "whoot! trust the dice gods!" because I want the game to keep moving. Exact measurement on everything slows the game down just as much as me whipping out my probability calculator does. Nobody has any fun in such a scenario. And yeah I could take you in a sword fight (My wakazashi beats your sabre) but I would rather we all just play the gentleman's game.

There was a scenario in 4th where we had a contested objective that was the all-or-nothing for the game. I had IG surrounding the place, which was kind of rough terrain, and hard for him to stand his crisis suits on all the angles of the actual board. He had to keep shifting them here or there so their bases would stay balanced. That extra 'adjust' move could have given him the win so we agreed on a push. A quarter inch does make a difference, but when the math guy keeps shuffling his miniatures to fit the base onto the terrain, while the instinct guy just puts them where he knows is right, it makes it kind of unfair.

Some people have an instinct for distance, some for probability. Some people have both (and probably are tournament winners) but my point is; strategy and tactics have nothing to do with flash math probability any more than they have anything to do with knowing what 18" looks like.

So you work in an office doing computer stuff, I bet you math skills are wonderful. I worked carpentry for years so yeah I know exactly what a foot looks like. You have your advantage, I have mine. Too bad if your perfectly calculated assault fails. That's just how it is.

That's exactly it, Azezel. Everything else in the game is handled with abstraction. Our little men shoot at the other little men, and we don't need to knock them over with rubber bands to know if we hit or wounded. We don't decide if our tanks can move through the terrain with pull-back-and-go engines. Player-skill in boxing, fencing, target shooting, or driving aren't relevant to the abstractions on the tabletop.

So why is the player-skill of judging distances relevant? It isn't.

It's still an open board, measured or not. Measuring distances doesn't suddenly turn it into a grid-based game. There is no less tactical or strategic element to measuring - or not measuring. All you do is add a player-skill to a game that really is about abstractions. It doesn't really belong.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote: Exact measurement on everything slows the game down...

This is an erroneous argument. The debate isn't about measuring, it is about pre-measuring. I still have to measure in either case, the question is simply whether I do it before, or after, I commit to an action.

Guitardian wrote: And yeah I could take you in a sword fight (My wakazashi beats your sabre) but I would rather we all just play the gentleman's game.

Sword fight? Who said anything about a sword fight? I challenged you to a fencing match. (Well, I didn't actually, but if you're ever on this side of the pond...)

Redbeard wrote: We don't decide if our tanks can move through the terrain with pull-back-and-go engines.

Although that would be pretty cool.

I sneak them in anyway. Just remember that when you complain about my vindicators actually being in range

There are so many abstractions though. That is just another one of them. We used to have to call all of our shots before resolving any of them. That prediction skill of the likely outcome of what shoots at what was also a skill in the game. You tell all your little men to fire at one target, and the first hit pops the tank, you had an entire turn of wasted shooting. Rules change over years, but miniatures games traditionally have had ambiguous range as a variable in decision making. All the old school wargames like napoleonics or chainmail or armada had you estimate the range of your artillery and you just had to learn how to guestimate because it simulates (slightly) the actual difficulty of the commander sitting on top of the hill overseeing the way things unfold. Those are the games that Jervis and RIck and all those guys grew up on. I think they are just carrying the torch.

Fair 'nuff mate.

It's a matter of which player abilities we believe ought be necessary to play the game.

For what it's worth, I do get your point even if I don't agree.

Azezel wrote:


I actually like uncertainty in the game - I'd be in favour of random charge distances for example. I don't think the game benefits from making an unrelated skill (spatial reasoning) critical to success though.

.

So you would rather remove a skill however "unrelated" to the game and replace it with pure random chance? There is already enough luck in the game as is for me.

Ugh, no. I would I think I would hate random charge distance. It is already silly enough that a unit could decide to charge another and then if they are 0.5 inches short they just stand still and don't move at all. Adding a random element would be hugely frustrating.

On the other hand, I am open to hearing reports of how it works in fantasy. Maybe it does work afterall.

Kolath wrote:Ugh, no. I would I think I would hate random charge distance. It is already silly enough that a unit could decide to charge another and then if they are 0.5 inches short they just stand still and don't move at all. Adding a random element would be hugely frustrating.

On the other hand, I am open to hearing reports of how it works in fantasy. Maybe it does work afterall.

Same system is already used in War of the Ring. Makes for some interesting tactical choices during maneuver as you decide how close you're willing to be, knowing that your opponent's unit can charge up to 16", but most of the time will only get 11" or less.

The uncertainty factor has shifted from "Am I at least 12.5" away?" to "How much risk am I prepared to tolerate?" It's a good change.

Hmm... so in war of the ring, if they are out of range, does the charge just not happen, or do they move forward and stop X inches away?

Lots of wargames already have randomisation of things like charge distance, move distance , turn length, game length and range. (In the case of range there is a modifier that reduces your chance to hit at longer range.)

Random charge distance is coming in WHFB.

That will mean between 40K and WHFB we have random factors for charge distance, move distance (Run and Move through cover) and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
40K already has randomisation of the Run move, move through difficult terrain, range in night fights, and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.

I like pre-measuring, but this random assault move thing is awful. I'm sure, at first, it'll make assault armies a little less nuts, but we'll get that inevitable codex creep of "your ultra-fancy assault unit gets +7" to charge range".

nosferatu1001 wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Premeasuring sucks. Learn how to read distances or suffer the consequences. Part of the thrill of playing is guesstimating the assault range of your unit for that crucial assault.

Guess you wont be playing 8th ed then.

the point is the "thrill" of being able to see the world in 6" increments will be replaced with *gasp* tactics.

Yeah OK buddy you got me there.

I don't play fantasy and I have no desire to play fantasy.

The idea of handing distances to you on a silver platter is exceptionally stupid, especially when combined with the new random charging distance rule. They've basically replaced good generalship with luck. Which is what I'm assuming you meant by "tactics", right?

NuggzTheNinja wrote:I don't play fantasy and I have no desire to play fantasy.

The idea of handing distances to you on a silver platter is exceptionally stupid, especially when combined with the new random charging distance rule. They've basically replaced good generalship with luck. Which is what I'm assuming you meant by "tactics", right?

Here's a scenario for you: two armies face each other, each with a number of units with a 16-inch threat radius, and each handled by a player with an exceptional grasp on spatial relations. What happens?

Answer: both armies dance around at about 17 inches, until/unless a spell that affects the situation manages to go off (luck), or the game ends. Neither of these "masters of tactics" is going to put their units into a threatened situation, everything else being equal.

What value a superb understanding of tabletop distances, if the other player has the same?

Now, the same scenario in 8th edition WHFB. Each unit now has a threat radius of 8 + 2d6 inches. The players now get to make a very real risk tolerance assessment - if they move within 20 inches, they are (theoretically) in range for a charge, but their opponent probably won't declare one, as a failed charge will make a counter-charge far more likely. What about at 19 inches? 18? 16? How close are you, the general, willing to move your units in order to tempt your opponent into trying for a charge?

Is luck involved? Sure. Both systems involve MANY dice rolls; "luck" is an inherent part of any system where you're rolling 3 or more dice, just to remove a single model from play. But responses like the above reveal either a lack of understanding of what tactical decisions are opened up by pre-measuring, or a willful tendency towards reactionary absolutism.

Randomization with two dice works well since the results bellcurve lets you play the odds. Single dice rolls are a total shot in the dark.

Janthkin wrote:... if they move within 20 inches, they are (theoretically) in range for a charge, but their opponent probably won't declare one, as a failed charge will make a counter-charge far more likely. What about at 19 inches? 18? 16? How close are you, the general, willing to move your units in order to tempt your opponent into trying for a charge?

Just to make sure I understand... is the new WFB rule that if the charge fails to make the whole distance, you still move the distance rolled (thus moving close and "making a counter-charge far more likely")?

Kolath wrote:

Janthkin wrote:... if they move within 20 inches, they are (theoretically) in range for a charge, but their opponent probably won't declare one, as a failed charge will make a counter-charge far more likely. What about at 19 inches? 18? 16? How close are you, the general, willing to move your units in order to tempt your opponent into trying for a charge?

Just to make sure I understand... is the new WFB rule that if the charge fails to make the whole distance, you still move the distance rolled (thus moving close and "making a counter-charge far more likely")?

From what I recall, a failed charge results in moving the lower of the two dice (e.g., roll a '2-4', fail your charge, unit moves 2" forward; it might be the higher of the two dice, though).

Given that a +10" result is 6 times more likely than a +12" result, I stand by my "far more likely"

Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of wargames already have randomisation of things like charge distance, move distance , turn length, game length and range. (In the case of range there is a modifier that reduces your chance to hit at longer range.)

Random charge distance is coming in WHFB.

That will mean between 40K and WHFB we have random factors for charge distance, move distance (Run and Move through cover) and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
40K already has randomisation of the Run move, move through difficult terrain, range in night fights, and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.

Will they offset this advantage to shooting units by making their shots random range?

If GW changes the assault range to random, then I will either sell my armies, play 5th, or wait until 7th and hope they change it back.

Nuggz - you confuse strategy (like chess) with tactics

Perfect knowledge of charge distances = strategy
Imperfect knowledge = tactics.

What is it when one player has perfect knowledge and one player has imperfect knowledge?

Redbeard wrote:What is it when one player has perfect knowledge and one player has imperfect knowledge?

Life.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nuggz - you confuse strategy (like chess) with tactics

Perfect knowledge of charge distances = strategy
Imperfect knowledge = tactics.

Not really.

I see how you're attempting to apply them here, but it's a very shallow interpretation of the two words in this context. Either way, I think that measuring distances is for crybabies.

jbunny wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of wargames already have randomisation of things like charge distance, move distance , turn length, game length and range. (In the case of range there is a modifier that reduces your chance to hit at longer range.)

Random charge distance is coming in WHFB.

That will mean between 40K and WHFB we have random factors for charge distance, move distance (Run and Move through cover) and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
40K already has randomisation of the Run move, move through difficult terrain, range in night fights, and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.

Will they offset this advantage to shooting units by making their shots random range?

If GW changes the assault range to random, then I will either sell my armies, play 5th, or wait until 7th and hope they change it back.

Assault range already is random if you Run your assault units or move them through difficult terrain.

Janthkin wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:I don't play fantasy and I have no desire to play fantasy.

The idea of handing distances to you on a silver platter is exceptionally stupid, especially when combined with the new random charging distance rule. They've basically replaced good generalship with luck. Which is what I'm assuming you meant by "tactics", right?

Here's a scenario for you: two armies face each other, each with a number of units with a 16-inch threat radius, and each handled by a player with an exceptional grasp on spatial relations. What happens?

Answer: both armies dance around at about 17 inches, until/unless a spell that affects the situation manages to go off (luck), or the game ends.

This situation is far more likely in Fantasy than in 40k. Unfortunately, ever since 3rd edition when GW decided to dumb down vehicle movement rules, the movement of forces has been more or less predictable, especially since there has been a shift toward mech builds in 5th edition.

Regardless, it's a problem that exists only in a vacuum and, perhaps, in WHFB. In reality, either people are not playing opponents with the exact same build, or they aren't *that* good at estimating range. It adds an element of randomness to the game without the need for rolling dice.

Killkrazy,

If you run you can't assault so that does not belong in the same conversation. As for assaulting through cover, yes you are right, but you can avoid that situation as much as possible. And when the late turn assault comes up an inch short due to a roll of a die it really takes alot of the tactics out. Esp when you are 2 inches away and roll snake eyes.

Like I said the game needs less luck not more.

Depends if you consider assault to be the process of running six inches or the process of moving across the battlefield and into contact.

Besides, Fleet allows you to Run and Assault.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:This situation is far more likely in Fantasy than in 40k. Unfortunately, ever since 3rd edition when GW decided to dumb down vehicle movement rules, the movement of forces has been more or less predictable, especially since there has been a shift toward mech builds in 5th edition.

Actually, while it's somewhat easier to describe in terms of Fantasy, it's more likely to come up in 40k - there are a LOT of units with identical threat ranges. As-is, I often see my opponents having to address this issue - genestealers have a threat range of 13-18 inches, which constrains deployment/movement both near board edges (outflanking) and near my front lines. See also fleeting Wyches, orks, Thunderwolf cav, and daemons.

40k does have more guns with wildly-variable ranges, I'll grant you.

Regardless, it's a problem that exists only in a vacuum and, perhaps, in WHFB. In reality, either people are not playing opponents with the exact same build,

Doesn't take the exact same build, just a few similar units - 7" heavy cav in WHFB, fleeting foot troops in 40k (or even dueling assault-mech builds)

or they aren't *that* good at estimating range. It adds an element of randomness to the game without the need for rolling dice.

The underlying discussion is that some people ARE that good at estimating range. For those of us who have an over-developed ability to estimate tabletop distances, not pre-measuring isn't introducing any randomness, and it's not really contributing to the tactical elements of the game.

Janthkin wrote: For those of us who have an over-developed ability to estimate tabletop distances, not pre-measuring isn't introducing any randomness, and it's not really contributing to the tactical elements of the game.

This I think hits on the real point, none of the folks I see arguing in favor of barring measurement claim it impedes them, so they must like the advantage it gives them over others.

Marc

It isn't really about having an advantage or not for me and yes I can eyeball 18" easy, I worked construction.

What it means to me is that random element that makes the game fun. In war movies, sometimes troops charge an enemy position and get gunned down horribly as they 'assault'. Cavalry gets tired because its galloping too far right before it hits the enemy line. Alexander the Great's horse gives out right before he charges the elephant, etc. That is why assault distances are kept deliberately 'iffy'... because a successful assault can make or break a game, so it should be risky and uncertain.

Assault is far far overrated in this game and has been, for as far back I can remember, an extremely overpowered method of what some people mistakenly call 'tactics'. At least 5th got rid of using assault to avoid getting shot at, which IMO was about as abusively rules-system scrounging as you can get (yeah I played 3rd/4th ed. guard versus speed freaks so I know all about it).

We cannot 'pre-roll' the dice before we declare our shots either. All this talk about 'strategy' and 'tactics' is just plain silly since they mean different things to different players, and usually are defined in whatever way makes the player defining them sound like their method is genius.

Playing the system is (gasp)'tactics'? removing the weaker models in the rear to retain your tarpit, or the base-to-base ones so you can have a counter charge or fire phase is theoretical 'tactics' by the system... but it's not like exactly realistic tactical genius, just playing the system. Why don't we premeasure the dice rolls while we're at it? Oh yeah! because uncertainty makes things fun!

(edit: sorry double clicked)

Guitardian wrote:It isn't really about having an advantage or not for me and yes I can eyeball 18" easy, I worked construction.

What it means to me is that random element that makes the game fun.

These are contradictory statements. In the first, you say that you can eyeball distances easily. In the second you say it is a random element that makes the game fun. If you can accurately gauge the distances, then it isn't random for you, it's only random for the person you're playing against.

As the change in Warhammer 8th edition replaces a fixed charge distance with a variable one based on the models movement plus a dice roll, the random element is not only preserved, but made equal for both players. It actually increases the random element that you claim is fun, because even someone who has worked construction will then see their troops fail the occasional charge. If that's what you think is fun, why are you opposed to a rules change that increases that?

Hey I'm all for it bro. The more random the better in my opinion. Not everyonce can micro-manage an army list to a tournament standard either, but those of us who can don't always exploit that as the all powerful factor in the game either. Whatever 8th ed WFB is doing (which I couldn't care less about because there are far better cheaper fantasy games out there but thats besides the point) may add that general's indecision to it as well and more power to em. However, In 40k you are not allowed to premeasure a charge, if you can't get up the hill while being gunned down by the machinegun then that's just how it works. You can look at your 12" long shoe as a point of reference or I can look at my L-shape thumb, but if its a quarter inch off then I just don't get in there. It seldom comes up, but it is the rules. If you worry about 6" charge, or 2" backhatch, then get a chess board. I would rather suffer my mistakes of that quarter inch for dramatic idealism.

Remember Shawn arguing with me over a fraction of an inch when he was the one that kept repositioning his models so their bases could fit in the terrain? It's not that he was trying to cheat or be a poor sport, but that quarter inch made all the difference in the endgame, which is why we called it a draw, because he is a good sport. I believe missing the occasional shot or charge is the risk you take for dancing around the perimeters of threat ranges, and we're all in the same boat. Some of us may have a canny eye for it, but some of us have newer codex, or fatter wallets, or better math skills too. It all adds up. It's that kind of ambiguity that I feel people should just go with because it IS FUN and dramatic when the uber-charge of the super-dooper command squad falls short by a half an inch, and both players laugh about it after it epicly fails.

Premeasuring based off of the fact that some people can't estimate distances well is stupid.

That's like saying we need to cut all basketballplayers somewhere in the shins so that everyone is only 6' tall so there is no 'personal advantage'. Some people are better at some things than others..it's not fair, but that's life.

If we were going to start premeasuring it should be on the premises that forces will have these low-tech devices called range finders (much like what even golfers use today), of course if we are basing it off of real life aspects, then most of 40k wouldn't exist...

My vote goes to not premeasuring. No reason to change that. People don't need crutches. At this rate, by 10th edition there won't be codexes, only prebuilt army lists designed by GW to ensure that their overpriced models are sold.

Kilkrazy wrote:Depends if you consider assault to be the process of running six inches or the process of moving across the battlefield and into contact.

Besides, Fleet allows you to Run and Assault.

Well, considering that I am talking about a rule, I thought it was implied that I was talking about the moving 6".

As far as fleet goes, not every army has that rule. You should never based game wide rules around one rule that 90% of armies can not benefit from. You also can't say they have a random assault range cause they can run and then assault since they are forgoing their shooting. The run happens in the shooting phase and not the Assault phase so therefor the assualt is not random.

Semantically you are correct.

From the viewpoint of the overall game the randomness of Run and difficult terrain mean that moving a unit into H2H nearly always involves some random factor even without specific die rolling for the actual assault move.

If a player's unit doesn't have Fleet, it is his choice whether to Run and Assault or to shoot and assault. It is a tactical decision and doesn't affect the fact that the Run movement is of random. Players often just Run their troops through difficult terrain to get through it faster.

There are many units which have or don't have all kinds of rules. In one sense the game is about the large number of exceptions to core rules. I don't see a problem with this specific rule just because there are lots of units which don't have it. Besides, GW could make sure at least one unit in every codex has Fleet if it is important for game balance.

My main point is that the game already contains several instances of randomisation of movement and range, so adding a specific randomisation to the Assault move perhaps is not a major departure from established practice.

Would it be a great departure? No. I just feel it would add more luck to a game that is already heavily dependant on luck. Something that is not needed.

And while we are talking semantics, units WITHOUT fleet can not run and assault.

Maybe it's where I play, but I have gone whole games without ever making a Difficult Terrain test for any unit. So like I said before, you can limit if not completely remove most of the random assault ranges due to terrain.


Edit: Also just because the game contains an element does not mean the game automaticly needs more of that element. Just ask Tau if the game needs more assaults?

You assume there will be more assaults if this rule is brought it.

That would depend on how the rule works. It might produce fewer assaults due to players needing to move closer to the enemy before launching an assault move with at least 75% chance of contacting.

I'm not sure how it works in WHFB8. I think each unit typ gets a base assault move + the better one of two dice.

A new edition also gives the opportunity to change some other rules. For example, a rule allowing the target of a failed assault to counter-fire would be very beneficial to Tau.

I am not assuming more assaults. I was just making a pioint that just because something is already in the game (luck), does not mean more of it (luck) needs to be added to the game. If you made random assaults then luck plays a bigger role in the game.

I made arefference to Tau, because they suck in HtH. I am sure that they would not want rules added to make assaults easier. Esp with the logic of since there is already assualts in the game it is ok to add more.

It seems those in favor of pre-measuring and those opposed are firmly divided into separate camps at this point. What GW does in 40k 6th ed is anyone’s guess and thankfully it’s probably a long way off. I will add to this discussion however that pre-measuring would have a positive impact on a players ability to cheat. There are tricks – tricks which I refuse to use, but are “pre-measuring” without pre-measuring.

If my hand is roughly 6” from pinky finger to thumb I can very easily place my hand next to some models to support my weight while I measure a distance somewhere else or move models. I can use the placement of my hand to more accurately guage distances.

Many players have seen the video of a player locking his measuring tape at 12”, measuring something, then setting his ruler down with the tape extended next to another unit to get a clearly pre-measured distance without overtly pre-measuring while he moved the unit he originally measured (to keep his opponents attention distracted from what he was doing).

Likewise, if I know the base of my model is just over 1” in diameter I can stand back from the table, hold my measuring tape up to my eye, and measure the distance between units, then divide it by my measurement of a model base at the same perspective to determine almost exact distance.

These techniques are very underhanded but they do happen and I think most players would consider them a form of cheating. Pre-measuring would eliminate all of this by simply allowing blatant measuring for both players as they see fit.

jbunny wrote:I am not assuming more assaults. I was just making a pioint that just because something is already in the game (luck), does not mean more of it (luck) needs to be added to the game. If you made random assaults then luck plays a bigger role in the game.

I made arefference to Tau, because they suck in HtH. I am sure that they would not want rules added to make assaults easier. Esp with the logic of since there is already assualts in the game it is ok to add more.

Another way to look at it is that the more dice rolling there is, the more the luck evens out due to the law of averages (or regression to the mean.)

Random assault move distance will not add luck if players make sure to move inside the minimum possible strike range in order to make the dice irrelevant. However it will reduce the number of assaults because players doing this will take longer to get into range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

incarna wrote:It seems those in favor of pre-measuring and those opposed are firmly divided into separate camps at this point. What GW does in 40k 6th ed is anyone’s guess and thankfully it’s probably a long way off. I will add to this discussion however that pre-measuring would have a positive impact on a players ability to cheat. There are tricks – tricks which I refuse to use, but are “pre-measuring” without pre-measuring.

...
...

I agree. In my opinion it is perhaps the best argument in favour of pre-measuring.