I don't really see what forbidding measurement brings to the game. Especially when the only reason it's important is because they've decided that assault rifles should have a range of 50 yards so we have to guess the ranges of things and if we're wrong then tough luck.
Seems kind of lame to me.

Exactly, if your wrong you SHOULD be penalized.

There are many situations where the question comes up, am I within range? Should I move forward to rapid fire, or take my single shot from long range? Should I fall back to be outside assault range? Should I fire my squads assault weapons and risk killing the only models within charge range? if I move my storm raven 12", will my dreadnought be able to disembark and get into assault?

All these things are judgement calls you need to make, that DO NOT RELY ON DICE.... they are, therefore, a skill required to play the game. Removing the restriction on measurement would make many of these decisions trivial, and thus would eliminate a large part of the game in my opinion.

Horst wrote:Exactly, if your wrong you SHOULD be penalized.

There are many situations where the question comes up, am I within range? Should I move forward to rapid fire, or take my single shot from long range? Should I fall back to be outside assault range? Should I fire my squads assault weapons and risk killing the only models within charge range? if I move my storm raven 12", will my dreadnought be able to disembark and get into assault?

All these things are judgement calls you need to make, that DO NOT RELY ON DICE.... they are, therefore, a skill required to play the game. Removing the restriction on measurement would make many of these decisions trivial, and thus would eliminate a large part of the game in my opinion.

+1

It forces you to make decisions that could change the outcome of the game.

Me and my mates play with Pre Measuring as a house rule, as it just seems to add more tactics to the game, rather than addd more luck and strategy.

I do it anyway.

Chowderhead wrote:Me and my mates play with Pre Measuring as a house rule, as it just seems to add more tactics to the game, rather than addd more luck and strategy.

Yeah I find killing space goblins to be quite exciting enough without having to estimate how far 12" is.

Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Horst wrote:Exactly, if your wrong you SHOULD be penalized.

There are many situations where the question comes up, am I within range? Should I move forward to rapid fire, or take my single shot from long range? Should I fall back to be outside assault range? Should I fire my squads assault weapons and risk killing the only models within charge range? if I move my storm raven 12", will my dreadnought be able to disembark and get into assault?

All these things are judgement calls you need to make, that DO NOT RELY ON DICE.... they are, therefore, a skill required to play the game. Removing the restriction on measurement would make many of these decisions trivial, and thus would eliminate a large part of the game in my opinion.

+1

It forces you to make decisions that could change the outcome of the game.

Agreed. Can't add anything that hasn't already been said.

It's a core game mechanic, your ability to estimate range leads to some really exciting gameplay moments, for example, will an ASM squad make it into CC with my guard? I've been saved by it before. Being able to optimise your strategy by pre-measuring takes away a lot of drama and turns the game into a process instead of a game (based on challenges).

I don't see how the act of measuring is innately any more, or less, dramatic, than not measuring. You're still going to get there, or not get there.

To me, the ability to guess a distance is a skill that is unrelated to actually making any sort of strategic or tactical gameplay decisions. I would rather my opponent decide to charge, or shoot, based on what he feels is smarter, and not have them lose a game because they mis-guessed a fraction of an inch. To me, this is not dramatic, it's just stupid.

My ability to estimate a range should have as much ability on playing the game as my ability to hit a target at a pistol range, or my ability to survive a gunshot. I don't have to hit a target when I want my toy soldiers to shoot, why should I have to guess distances if I want to know if they're in range.

Maybe we should play with rubberband guns instead of dice, and allow player skill to dictate the shooting phase too.

I could see it possibly being forbidden in tournament play or the like.

Doesn't the rule book say something about measuring to check when using templates because of the parallax issue from a one side of the board point of view?

Agree on no measuring, but that's just because I'm old school and it was flat out forbidden in the older rule sets, and one would not want to be so unmanly as to need to measure distances ahead of time.

Besides, that would have made some more of my more epic unit splattering Whirlwind IDF barrages less impressive. I know it isn't a simulation game, but taking out the few elements of uncertainty it does have makes it even less of a wargame than it already is.

Because being in range of 2 units (one in range and one not) gives you a tactical choice to make based on estimated range, you can either declare it and do it or you don't do anything because you got it wrong. The alternative is you want to assault a unit you're not in range so after premeasuring you just assault something else, which removes the skill (and associated failure penalty) of estimating.

It's a classic risk vs reward game mechanic. You take the risk that you have the range to perform the action, the reward for success is that you get to do that action.

It also could be very important to the result of a game, if you there are unit of assault terminators on an objective 5 inches away and a unit of scouts on an objective that are 7 inches away and you declare a charge against the scouts with your ASM squad, you can lose the game entirely because the ASM wouldnt get to do anything. Which is fairly important stuff. Premeasuring would mean you'd charge the terminators and providing one survived and the game ended, you could be contesting to draw/win the game.

I like the rubber band idea, but only if you varnish my models first.

Joey wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Me and my mates play with Pre Measuring as a house rule, as it just seems to add more tactics to the game, rather than addd more luck and strategy.

Yeah I find killing space goblins to be quite exciting enough without having to estimate how far 12" is.

It's funny how you can't resist a chance for a snide remark even when it goes against the argument you make. So much of 40K is ridiculous from a realism standpoint, and I see many people wishing to change it from that way(see overwatch). Having to eyeball range adds a slightly realistic aspect to the game without sacraficing fun. Plus it creates memorable moments when it fails, such as a deathstar unit being 1 inch out of firing range from your point capturing unit.

Being able to estimate the distance is a nice skill, but takes a while to learn giving somewhat of an advantage to the more experienced player. However it's likely there will be premeasure in 6th anyway and it wouldn't really open up more tactics but would put everyone on a more even level.

Horst wrote:Exactly, if your wrong you SHOULD be penalized.

There are many situations where the question comes up, am I within range? Should I move forward to rapid fire, or take my single shot from long range? Should I fall back to be outside assault range? Should I fire my squads assault weapons and risk killing the only models within charge range? if I move my storm raven 12", will my dreadnought be able to disembark and get into assault?

All these things are judgement calls you need to make, that DO NOT RELY ON DICE.... they are, therefore, a skill required to play the game. Removing the restriction on measurement would make many of these decisions trivial, and thus would eliminate a large part of the game in my opinion.

Being able to accurately guess multiples of 6 inches is not a skill worth rewarding.

Kaldor wrote:

Horst wrote:Exactly, if your wrong you SHOULD be penalized.

There are many situations where the question comes up, am I within range? Should I move forward to rapid fire, or take my single shot from long range? Should I fall back to be outside assault range? Should I fire my squads assault weapons and risk killing the only models within charge range? if I move my storm raven 12", will my dreadnought be able to disembark and get into assault?

All these things are judgement calls you need to make, that DO NOT RELY ON DICE.... they are, therefore, a skill required to play the game. Removing the restriction on measurement would make many of these decisions trivial, and thus would eliminate a large part of the game in my opinion.

Being able to accurately guess multiples of 6 inches is not a skill worth rewarding.

Oh? And being able to roll a bunch of 6's is? Lets face it, there is very little skill in 40k as it is. Rewarding or not, its still something many newer players struggle with.... meaning more experienced players win more often against them, as they should.

I'm curious... how many of you who say that it should be removed are new to the game, or have trouble measuring distances? I honestly rarely miss something by an inch or two, so it wouldn't effect me if it was changed... but it might make my opponents better. Not sure.

To be honest, the ability to judge distances across the table top has hardly anything to do with tactics or skill with commanding your army. What it does do is make people second guess and make risky decisions which might pay off big or end up being that half a inch too short. These risky decisions add to the game's tension without the addition of more dice rolls. The main issue at least in my mind is that the ability to judge distances is not something really only related to the world of war gaming. I mean if someone works at a job that requires the use of measuring tapes all day and can judge distances very well already, judging distances in a war game isn't that much of a challenge gives me a good start.

If someone could create a way to allow pre-measuring but keep the same feel of risk then I be all for it. The way 8th edition fantasy does it with random charge distances does nothing for that, dice aren't ALWAYS the solution now.

With that said, if my opponents like to pre-measure and ASKS AT THE START OF THE GAME then i have no problem with it. Its those that do so mid-game that are annoying.

Horst wrote:
Oh? And being able to roll a bunch of 6's is? Lets face it, there is very little skill in 40k as it is. Rewarding or not, its still something many newer players struggle with.... meaning more experienced players win more often against them, as they should.

I'm curious... how many of you who say that it should be removed are new to the game, or have trouble measuring distances? I honestly rarely miss something by an inch or two, so it wouldn't effect me if it was changed... but it might make my opponents better. Not sure.

If I ever beat someone because of my superior measuring skills I think It'd be a pretty hollow victory.
I've never miss-measured anything. Anything with a range I'm not sure about I'll shoot at the nearest unit just to be sure.
If I really really wanted I'd memorise how far 6" was when my head was a certain distance from the table but I have better things to do, like playing warhammer.

Joey wrote:

Horst wrote:
Oh? And being able to roll a bunch of 6's is? Lets face it, there is very little skill in 40k as it is. Rewarding or not, its still something many newer players struggle with.... meaning more experienced players win more often against them, as they should.

I'm curious... how many of you who say that it should be removed are new to the game, or have trouble measuring distances? I honestly rarely miss something by an inch or two, so it wouldn't effect me if it was changed... but it might make my opponents better. Not sure.

If I ever beat someone because of my superior measuring skills I think It'd be a pretty hollow victory.
I've never miss-measured anything. Anything with a range I'm not sure about I'll shoot at the nearest unit just to be sure.
If I really really wanted I'd memorise how far 6" was when my head was a certain distance from the table but I have better things to do, like playing warhammer.

Its usually a case of the player underestimating his charge distance. And to me, there is nothing sweeter than that moment where he commits everything to that one assault, goes to measure, and finds himself 6.5" out instead of 6" like he thought... should have taken his time and spent another turn posturing for the assault instead of risking it all on a shoddy estimate.

Well that's fair enough, I rarely if ever charge into combat.
Though unless they have Fleet it's not much of an issue surely? Since it's a choice between shooting and assault or running and not assaulting, may as well stand and shoot.

The rule about no premeasuring is there to add some realism to the game. Does a soldier in the field get to measure to see if he is in range to fire his rifle effectivly? No. He has to take a chance. Does he aim at the guy he knows he can hit, or try to take out the guy with the heavy machine gun further back? It is one of the game mechanics I really like, as it actually involves an element of skill.

Joey wrote:Well that's fair enough, I rarely if ever charge into combat.
Though unless they have Fleet it's not much of an issue surely? Since it's a choice between shooting and assault or running and not assaulting, may as well stand and shoot.

its always a choice. For example, say your obviously within 6" of an opponent.... but for example, say only 2 of his models are within that 6". Does he realize this? Does he know that if he shoots you, you can just remove those 2 models and he can't charge? Does he think that perhaps the second rank of your models is also within charge range, so its a non-issue to him?

Or, what if you have rapid fire weapons on your models.... Are you SURE your within 6"? Or would you rather not risk the charge, and open up with rapid fire guns, and risk being counter-charged or shot up yourself?

All of these decisions become completely trivial non-issues if your allowed to know EXACTLY how far away your opponent is. What if you see your opponent with his heavy support completely in the open, with a sweet side shot on the armor? But your not sure if your within 48"? Do you risk the shot with your lascannons, or do you go for the safer target of the battle tank closer to you. Do you do guaranteed damage, or take the risk that your not within range, but possibly cripple his support?

Again, these are all non-issues with measuring. You say you don't want to win because of his ability to measure better than you.... well it is more than just that. Its a question of him understanding risk and reward in his actions. Nobody will ever be able to look at something and eyeball it, saying "yea, thats 43, I'm in range!". Its always a risk for everyone to make that choice. And without that choice, you remove an element of the game.

Horst wrote:
Its usually a case of the player underestimating his charge distance. And to me, there is nothing sweeter than that moment where he commits everything to that one assault, goes to measure, and finds himself 6.5" out instead of 6" like he thought... should have taken his time and spent another turn posturing for the assault instead of risking it all on a shoddy estimate.

Right, "posturing". You mean another turn getting shot, or, getting charged yourself. And this is the sweet part of the game that you enjoy the most? When your opponent loses a game because they couldn't estimate six inches to 2% precision. That's gotta feel great.

Horst wrote:
its always a choice. For example, say your obviously within 6" of an opponent.... but for example, say only 2 of his models are within that 6". Does he realize this? Does he know that if he shoots you, you can just remove those 2 models and he can't charge? Does he think that perhaps the second rank of your models is also within charge range, so its a non-issue to him?

Or, what if you have rapid fire weapons on your models.... Are you SURE your within 6"? Or would you rather not risk the charge, and open up with rapid fire guns, and risk being counter-charged or shot up yourself?

All of these decisions become completely trivial non-issues if your allowed to know EXACTLY how far away your opponent is.

Not at all. Let's say only 2 models are within 6". If he wants to avoid the charge, he's going to remove models starting with the closest. This isn't super-exciting maybe he'll pick the wrong guy, it's oh, did you kill too many or not. And, even if you premeasure, you still need to decide if you want to shoot, and risk killing too many, or not shoot. Even if you are within 6", you need to decide, do I rapid fire or do I charge. The possibility of being outside of 6" doesn't change that, that's still a choice you need to make.

I'd rather my opponent get to make this choice based on what they thought was the better course of action, not how well they can guess a distance.

What if you see your opponent with his heavy support completely in the open, with a sweet side shot on the armor? But your not sure if your within 48"? Do you risk the shot with your lascannons, or do you go for the safer target of the battle tank closer to you. Do you do guaranteed damage, or take the risk that your not within range, but possibly cripple his support?

Neither are guaranteed damage, you still need to roll to hit. Again, I'd rather my opponent make the decision about what they're firing on based on what they believe will benefit their game the most, not how well they can guess distances.

Again, these are all non-issues with measuring. You say you don't want to win because of his ability to measure better than you.... well it is more than just that. Its a question of him understanding risk and reward in his actions. Nobody will ever be able to look at something and eyeball it, saying "yea, thats 43, I'm in range!". Its always a risk for everyone to make that choice. And without that choice, you remove an element of the game.

An element that adds nothing of value to the game. What if you had lazy-eye, and couldn't judge distances because you had no depth perception? What if you lost an eye? Why should someone's physical ability to guess a distance impact a game that is, with this sole exception, based entirely on making decisions around probabilities.

If you wanna premeasure... they sell hexagoned playmats.

That way you can always skirt the edges of ranges and generally be less able to use your tactical judgment.

Not at all. Judging distance is one of the few things in this game that really rely on experience as a player, and to remove it would be a bad thing. There's more elements of risk and uncertainty when you can't just make a measurement wherever, whenever. I don't like the idea of any game strongly featuring shooting as a mechanic with a premeasuring option. The amount of dickery that can also be had by intentionally staying 1" out of range or what have you is palpable, and I'd like to live in a world where that's not a regular issue.

No to premeasuring in 40k. I hate the idea in any game really.

haha right now its 28/28

I say you should be allowed, because the game houldnt be affected by things like the players ability to eye measure.

The biggest issue for me is the time factor. Allowing measurement whenever you like can result in players wasting an inordinate amount of time measuring everything rather than just guessing, hoping for the best and getting on with it.

insaniak wrote:The biggest issue for me is the time factor. Allowing measurement whenever you like can result in players wasting an inordinate amount of time measuring everything rather than just guessing, hoping for the best and getting on with it.

This too. I might take a minute to mull over some options and whether or not something's in range, but I'm not doing that for every unit every turn. Premeasuring would just make the game take longer.

insaniak wrote:The biggest issue for me is the time factor. Allowing measurement whenever you like can result in players wasting an inordinate amount of time measuring everything rather than just guessing, hoping for the best and getting on with it.

well yeah, thats a point! There are so many things that slow down a game. AARGH

Brother SRM wrote:Not at all. Judging distance is one of the few things in this game that really rely on experience as a player, and to remove it would be a bad thing. There's more elements of risk and uncertainty when you can't just make a measurement wherever, whenever. I don't like the idea of any game strongly featuring shooting as a mechanic with a premeasuring option. The amount of dickery that can also be had by intentionally staying 1" out of range or what have you is palpable, and I'd like to live in a world where that's not a regular issue.

But, some people can do that now. My brother has worked as a carpenter. He can eyeball distances with amazing accuracy, and, well, as you say, he has been known to hop around that in-range/out-of-range line. He's done it with things like Death Jesters in a Harlequin unit (range 24") with a shadowseer, so he'll sit at 24", exactly, shooting with his jester, and knowing that you need boxcars to shoot him back.

Dickery isn't due to premeasuring, it's due to ranges at all. All premeasuring does is level the playing field, so that it's not limited to the handful of people who can make those measurements offhand. Seriously, don't we all have better things to do that learn to guess that last half-inch?

What's more, premeasuring limits a lot of dickery. If I measure, on my turn, and move my guys to be 12.5 inches from yours, I can tell you, upfront, that you can't charge me the next turn. You can't surf your guys, you can't accidentally nudge one and make up that last half-inch.

insaniak wrote:The biggest issue for me is the time factor. Allowing measurement whenever you like can result in players wasting an inordinate amount of time measuring everything rather than just guessing, hoping for the best and getting on with it.

I don't believe this is the case. I think people might take one or two measurements to get their bearings and then get on with it. Which, is going to take no more time than getting on with it, and then measuring to see what happens.

Joey wrote:If I really really wanted I'd memorise how far 6" was when my head was a certain distance from the table but I have better things to do, like playing warhammer.

To some people, that's part of playing Warhammer. To some, painting armies is part of Warhammer, to others it's a pointless irritance. Warhammer encompases a lot of things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:Right, "posturing". You mean another turn getting shot, or, getting charged yourself. And this is the sweet part of the game that you enjoy the most? When your opponent loses a game because they couldn't estimate six inches to 2% precision. That's gotta feel great.

As opposed to losing to him because I allowed him an extra crutch to avoid having to gamble? Screw that. That's for the weak. And I'm not in any way a "Win at all costs" type player. But war is full of uncertainty. It only makes sense that a war game should have a little of it.

An element that adds nothing of value to the game.

Your opinion. Many others seem to think it does.

What if you had lazy-eye, and couldn't judge distances because you had no depth perception?

Did you even stop for a second to think about what you typed there? You do understand how depth perception is the ability to gauge the distance between two items without immediate reference points. Six inches on a table looks the same whether you have one eye, two, and probably three.

I not for pre-measuring. Yeah, its cost me when I think I'm outta range or that extra "nudge" happens (which does bother me) but, it has also gone my way a few times. I like the risk factor involved as it's always nice to see an assaulty unit try to get into CC with a 20 strong blob of Necron warriors only to be just outta range and then getting gaussed into the dirt.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:As opposed to losing to him because I allowed him an extra crutch to avoid having to gamble? Screw that. That's for the weak. And I'm not in any way a "Win at all costs" type player. But war is full of uncertainty. It only makes sense that a war game should have a little of it.

There is plenty of uncertainty in the game. It's called dice. And those apply equally to each player. The ability to measure distances doesn't. Some people have professions that afford them the luxury of having a trained eye, and others have better things to do with their life than work out tenths of an inch without measuring, especially when perfectly good tape measures are sitting right there.

What if you had lazy-eye, and couldn't judge distances because you had no depth perception?

Did you even stop for a second to think about what you typed there? You do understand how depth perception is the ability to gauge the distance between two items without immediate reference points. Six inches on a table looks the same whether you have one eye, two, and probably three.

You speak from experience I take it? I play with an opponent who has an uncorrected lazy eye, and they're honestly unable to do what you're saying. It doesn't look the same to someone who cannot see depth, and that's kind of the point. It's a stupid mechanic that takes a player's physical abilities into a game where this is not needed. It is little different than replacing 'roll to hit' with 'shoot rubber bands'. Plenty of games have no restrictions on measurements, and don't suffer any of the issues you, or others in this thread, have mentioned. It's a throwback mechanic that is no longer needed, and we'd be better off without it.

I love how the arguements against free measuring are that it removes a tactical elements and we are guffawing simpletons for wanting to measure all the time, then saying how great it feels to win because your opponant's measurment was off by half an inch.
The irony...

Redbeard wrote:I don't believe this is the case. I think people might take one or two measurements to get their bearings and then get on with it. Which, is going to take no more time than getting on with it, and then measuring to see what happens.

Going by my experience with Star Wars and D&D minis, which allow for pre-measuring due to being played on a grid, it most definitely is the case. Players wind up checking distances to every conceivable thing they can in the process of deciding what to do.

Joey wrote:I love how the arguements against free measuring are that it removes a tactical elements and we are guffawing simpletons for wanting to measure all the time, then saying how great it feels to win because your opponant's measurment was off by half an inch.
The irony...

I personally prefer it when I win because the risky charge paid off, I like it because it adds more tension to the game. However, I can see where you are coming from with your points as well.

Joey wrote:I love how the arguements against free measuring are that it removes a tactical elements and we are guffawing simpletons for wanting to measure all the time, then saying how great it feels to win because your opponant's measurment was off by half an inch.
The irony...

Agreed. Especially the bit where people call 'being able to tell if a distance is 6" or so' a 'tactic'.

In the interest of this thread, I decided to go through the games that I play, have played, or have the rules for, and see if they have premeasuring in them.

Allowed:
Epic: Armageddon
Warhammer Fantasy
Kings of War
Battletech (you know... hexes)
Warpath
Flames of War
Warmachine/Hordes (caster's control distance)
Black Powder
Hail Caesar
Field of Glory
Battlefleet Gothic

Not Allowed:
Full Thrust
Malifaux
Warhammer 40k

So, it looks as though (to me, at least), premeasuring seems to be the more popular option at the moment. And I'm curious - how will players react once their opponents are given a 'crutch' when GW puts premeasuring into 6th edition?

Of course it's the more popular option. But that's because players flock to simplicity because complexity is intimidating. I've never had a profession where I measured things on a regular basis, if at all. And yet, I stand firmly in the corner of no measuring. It is by far one of the easiest things for new players to learn how to do. I mean, to get better at the tactics and maneuvering you have to actually play. You could simply walk around your house and guess measurements between objects if you felt so inclined.

But yeah, some of the more dramatic moments in 40K games I've played, now that I think back, have come in cases where guessing distances was a huge part of it. But, then again, I look at the evolution of SimpleK, and it is of no surprise. People were lamenting assaults that lasted more than one round in one of the threads about 5th/6th Edition, lol. People just want the game to be easy as possible so they can get to rolling lots of dice and removing lots of models.

Fair enough. But don't pretend like that makes the game better, or forbidding pre-measurement doesn't add anything to the game, because well, that's flat out wrong. It's just your preference. Yeah, it's a mechanic that has a very slight physical requirement to it. Guess it sucks to be some people. I know guys not smart enough to grasp complicated rules and people whose shaky hands make it hard to paint. Guess you live with it, or you find a way to overcome. But some kind of minority distinction to remove a tried and true mechanic? Stupid. Tell you what. If I ever play a one-eyed guy who can't gauge distances on a two dimensional plane, I'll be a good sport and let him pre-measure everything. For the other 99.9% of people I will ever play, they don't need the crutch.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Of course it's the more popular option. But that's because players flock to simplicity because complexity is intimidating. I've never had a profession where I measured things on a regular basis, if at all. And yet, I stand firmly in the corner of no measuring. It is by far one of the easiest things for new players to learn how to do. I mean, to get better at the tactics and maneuvering you have to actually play. You could simply walk around your house and guess measurements between objects if you felt so inclined.

I'm amused by the notion that I, a recreational programmer, am "intimidated" by complexity; or that complexity is inherantly a good thing.
You are not making love to a beautiful woman, you are playing a war game.

I'm amused that we are now considering using a measuring tape 'simple' and guessing 'complex'. Here I thought the use of tools was was separated us from simple animals.

Joey wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Of course it's the more popular option. But that's because players flock to simplicity because complexity is intimidating. I've never had a profession where I measured things on a regular basis, if at all. And yet, I stand firmly in the corner of no measuring. It is by far one of the easiest things for new players to learn how to do. I mean, to get better at the tactics and maneuvering you have to actually play. You could simply walk around your house and guess measurements between objects if you felt so inclined.

I'm amused by the notion that I, a recreational programmer, am "intimidated" by complexity; or that complexity is inherantly a good thing.
You are not making love to a beautiful woman, you are playing a war game.

Maybe my love of challenge and complexity is why I do both.

But programming is an entirely different monster. In fact, it isn't very complex it all. Programming has rules and structure. Disallowing pre-measurement presents an element of chance and uncertainty that does not exist in programming. So yeah, it makes perfect sense that you'd be uncomfortable with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:I'm amused that we are now considering using a measuring tape 'simple' and guessing 'complex'. Here I thought the use of tools was was separated us from simple animals.

Maybe. I thought what separated man from animals was that we aren't afraid of vacuum cleaners.

However, tool use is a product of man's ingenuity and inventiveness. Ingenuity and inventiveness relied on risk and attempts to tackle the unknown, not a fear of it. That, and animals have been known to use tools. So there's gotta be something more.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Joey wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Of course it's the more popular option. But that's because players flock to simplicity because complexity is intimidating. I've never had a profession where I measured things on a regular basis, if at all. And yet, I stand firmly in the corner of no measuring. It is by far one of the easiest things for new players to learn how to do. I mean, to get better at the tactics and maneuvering you have to actually play. You could simply walk around your house and guess measurements between objects if you felt so inclined.

I'm amused by the notion that I, a recreational programmer, am "intimidated" by complexity; or that complexity is inherantly a good thing.
You are not making love to a beautiful woman, you are playing a war game.

Maybe my love of challenge and complexity is why I do both.

But programming is an entirely different monster. In fact, it isn't very complex it all. Programming has rules and structure. Disallowing presents an element of chance and uncertainty that does not exist in programming. So yeah, it makes perfect sense.

Rules and structure create the logical framework for complexity, hence complexity can be quantified in terms of the relationships of the rub-routines that make up the event.
Having to guess the range of things just adds an irksome variable to the procedure, one that the game would be much more enjoyable without.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Disallowing presents an element of chance and uncertainty that does not exist in programming. So yeah, it makes perfect sense.

First, to state that there is no uncertainty in programming is to state that you don't understand complex programming. Second, to state that disallowing premeasuring introduces chance indicates that you don't understand what chance is.

The models are on the table. They're either in range to do something, or they're not. We're not talking about atomic level stuff here, there's no uncertainty principle at work, it is either in-range or it is out-of-range, and measuring, either pre-decision or post-decision does not change that.

What pre-measuring does do is reduce inaccuracy caused by incomplete data for some people, those who are not good at guessing. For some people, like my brother, allowing pre-measuring does not change the game at all. He knows what the distances are with, or without, a measuring tape. For other people, like my wife, pre-measuring allows her to enjoy the game without the handicap of not being able to judge distances. If my brother and my wife play, and pre-measuring is not allowed, he has a huge advantage over her that has nothing to do with his skill at the game, only his skill at spatial awareness. She will make poor decisions, not due to any uncertainty over where the models are, or any randomized event, but based on her poor spatial awareness skills. And you think this makes for a more enjoyable game...

I simply cannot get on board with that. There is no inherent need for any strategic game to involve a person's ability to recognize distances. That stuff is great for canival games, and darts, but has no redeeming value, in my opinion, in a strategy game. If you want ranges and charges to have an element of chance, factor in a die roll, like fantasy does. At least it will impact all players equally.

Programming isn't easy, but it always has an answer, even if you don't necessarily know what it is. If your program doesn't work, it is because you did it wrong, not because of some kind of variable. I didn't say programming was easy.

And you are correct that models are either in range, or they are not. But just like in real war, you don't always know how far the enemy is away from you. You can tell what is way too far, and what is definitely close enough, but there's a middle ground where you might not know exactly. That's what range guessing introduces. That element of risk that forces you to imitate the snap decisions your models would have to if they were real people. "Are we going to be able to close that distance safely or will we get caught flat footed and cut down?" That's what chance is. There's the chance you're right, and the chance you're wrong. What you want is a safety net to catch you if you're wrong. It's part of the dynamic of the "everyone gets a trophy" generation. I get it.

Pre-measuring removes inaccuracy caused by incomplete data, sure. But the world is full of incomplete data that you must brave every day. Don't be scurred. There's a big wide world out there that's accessible if you put on your man pants and venture into it. Accepting the uncertainty of pre-measuring is just part of it. The greatest generals and tacticians of history didn't pre-measure. Neither should you.

Sorry your wife sucks at distances and your friend has one good eye? I mean, that's what you want me to say. I wasn't big enough in high school to play football well enough to get a scholarship for it and an injury left me with nerve damage in my left leg and it kept me out of MARSOC. So I moved on and went back to finish a graduate degree instead. We're not all equal and nobody is a unique snowflake. Some people have certain natural advantages. For wargames, some of it comes with aptitude for spatial awareness and a grasp of good table top strategy.

This game has been simplified enough as is. It's an insipid shadow of its former self, dumbed down enough for them to teach an especially apt chimp to play. It already coddles the inexperienced, middling gamer and doesn't need to be any easier.

insaniak wrote:Going by my experience with Star Wars and D&D minis, which allow for pre-measuring due to being played on a grid, it most definitely is the case. Players wind up checking distances to every conceivable thing they can in the process of deciding what to do.

This isn’t really an argument under the basis that in any tabletop game, there will always be players who assess every single possible course of action (twice) before making a move. This happens in 40k, even without pre-measuring.

Although to be fair, you have raised an interesting point (and the only valid one so far in favour of “no pre-measuring”) in that implementing it could add additional time to the game.

Personally though, I’d reach a compromised solution whereas pre-measuring is allowed except with additional fat trimmed elsewhere to make up for the time impact. “No pre-measuring” would be included as an optional add-on mechanic (listed alongside the optional scenario and campaign rules).

I can see no measuring in WFB but in 40K, You mean to tell me that my powered armor guys and vehicles have no range finders......I mean really.

If you could measure at any point in the game it would remove any moment where you would have worries about getting charge distance. For instance if I move 12 inches with my bikers, then want to charge 6 it wouldn't be fair for me to measure 18 inches to see if I could do that in the movement phase because they arnt charging in the movement phase and in all reality they wouldnt know if they would get there in time before the enemy got a chance to shoot at me. So I have to hope that im within 18 inches of their squad so I dont get rapid fired on their turn. So I might not go after that squad because if they are a heavy shooty I could take heavy casualties with no rewards to show for it. Adding more risks adds more tatics to the game if anything becuase you are increasing the chances of a tatic to fail. So you have to commit more time to the consideration of said tatic. You can have a very risky tatic and hope for the best in rules as they are now. Or you could use the same risky tatic with the ability to measure what ever when ever and have a much easier time exicuting it because you know how your whole round with go right from the get go. In the movement phases you'll know you have your charges so those units wont rapid fire. Or you'll know they can't get their charges so you'll move backwards to stop your opponent from geting their charges in the following round. It just doesn't make since to me.

Isn't that what technology is for though?

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Of course it's the more popular option. But that's because players flock to simplicity because complexity is intimidating. I've never had a profession where I measured things on a regular basis, if at all. And yet, I stand firmly in the corner of no measuring. It is by far one of the easiest things for new players to learn how to do. I mean, to get better at the tactics and maneuvering you have to actually play. You could simply walk around your house and guess measurements between objects if you felt so inclined.

Please, please tell me you don't consider 5th Edition 40k to be a 'complex' wargame.

Redbeard wrote:

What pre-measuring does do is reduce inaccuracy caused by incomplete data for some people, those who are not good at guessing. For some people, like my brother, allowing pre-measuring does not change the game at all. He knows what the distances are with, or without, a measuring tape. For other people, like my wife, pre-measuring allows her to enjoy the game without the handicap of not being able to judge distances. If my brother and my wife play, and pre-measuring is not allowed, he has a huge advantage over her that has nothing to do with his skill at the game, only his skill at spatial awareness. She will make poor decisions, not due to any uncertainty over where the models are, or any randomized event, but based on her poor spatial awareness skills. And you think this makes for a more enjoyable game...

I simply cannot get on board with that. There is no inherent need for any strategic game to involve a person's ability to recognize distances. That stuff is great for canival games, and darts, but has no redeeming value, in my opinion, in a strategy game. If you want ranges and charges to have an element of chance, factor in a die roll, like fantasy does. At least it will impact all players equally.

Hear, hear! You know, I think I've made a realization. In a game like 40k, premeasuring isn't as important since a shot at 12" will be much the same as it is at 6", or 24". Sure, the actual amount of shots you get may differ, but that's it.

Now, in Flames of War (my 'main' game), there's a hard limit at 16". Once a gun goes to shoot pass that range, suddenly you're hitting at +1 on the die roll, making it twice as difficult to hit. Add to that the various other factors (if they're conscripts, trained, veterans, whether or not they've gone to ground, if they're concealed, in cover, etc.), and suddenly you're going to want to know if shooting at another platoon is even worth it, or if the combined modifiers are going to make you need to roll a 7 on a d6. Likewise, with my 7th Armoured list, I want to try to stay beyond 16 inches, since my British can basically lob shells instead of firing them directly, making it easier to hit at longer distances. Of course, I can only do this while remaining still, so positioning is key.

Oh, oh! Another thing (sorry, I was at work all day, and I finally get to unload my thoughts on this). Someone said that guessing ranges adds to the 'realism' of the game, that the soldier's couldn't be able to tell the 'ranges' of their guns.

...What?

No, seriously. Take a look at the average table size for 40k - 4x6. At 28(32?)mm scale, it's about the size of an American Football field. Now, as to why, say, a bolter has a 24" range, you can make sense of that. General battlefield haze, smoke, dust, confusion - I personally prefer Force on Force unlimited range for guns, but whatever. But as someone who's handled guns a lot - like, near 'gun-nut republican' level a lot - I can tell you this. In an area that small, there's no adjusting for range. You aim, you pull the trigger, and if you're a good shot (which is decided by the dice gods) you'll hit something. This isn't archery, where I have to make sure I know where 10, 20, 30 yards is in order to hit something. If the game was played in 15mm, 6mm, or even 2mm scale, then I could see how not allowing premeasuring would make more sense, since the distances are so much greater.

But as such a small distance, with over half the armies in the game either using laser beams or miniature-exploding rocket bullets you would think that being able to know you can hit something wouldn't be outside the range of possibility.

/rant

epil wrote:If you could measure at any point in the game it would remove any moment where you would have worries about getting charge distance. For instance if I move 12 inches with my bikers, then want to charge 6 it wouldn't be fair for me to measure 18 inches to see if I could do that in the movement phase because they arnt charging in the movement phase and in all reality they wouldnt know if they would get there in time before the enemy got a chance to shoot at me.

So I have to hope that im within 18 inches of their squad so I dont get rapid fired on their turn. So I might not go after that squad because if they are a heavy shooty I could take heavy casualties with no rewards to show for it. Adding more risks adds more tatics to the game if anything becuase you are increasing the chances of a tatic to fail. So you have to commit more time to the consideration of said tatic. You can have a very risky tatic and hope for the best in rules as they are now. Or you could use the same risky tatic with the ability to measure what ever when ever and have a much easier time exicuting it because you know how your whole round with go right from the get go. In the movement phases you'll know you have your charges so those units wont rapid fire. Or you'll know they can't get their charges so you'll move backwards to stop your opponent from geting their charges in the following round. It just doesn't make since to me.

Firstly, please use punctuation and paragraphing when you post.

Secondly, this post makes the assumption that pre-measuring would be allowed during every phase. To be fair though, no one in this thread has thought this far ahead (as everyone is approaching the topic from either a surface level or theoretical perspective).

Realistically, pre-measuring would probably only be allowed during the shooting phase if the unit wishes to make a shooting attack (maybe also during the assault phase for determining if the unit can make an assault move). If the unit is moving/running and not making an attack of any kind, pre measuring probably wouldn’t be allowed as a) it would slow down the game, b) they could do 12-18” positioning shenanigans and c)pre measuring wouldn't be needed anyway.

I have 2 arguments against premeasuring.

First, on units with large charge ranges, such as a land raider with termies and their 21.5 inch charge range (more with fleet) you are using information useful in the assault phase to dictate the placement of models in both the shooting phase and movement phase with perfect accuracy. Yes, people can guess about 21.5 inches now, BUT with premeasuring there is absolutely no dramatic moment in the assault phase in determining if you will be in range.

Second, with premeasuring, you can do things like place yourself EXACTLY 12.001/18.001/ect.001 inches away from an enemy unit for example, so that there is zero chance of your opponent being able to whatever action they want to do. Again, seems boring. I still cringe when players place their models exactly 2 inches away from each other by premeasuring coherency so that blast weapons cant hit more than 1 model. Imagine if everything was moved in machine precision form that circumvents certain weapons or abilities all together.

candy.man wrote:This isn’t really an argument under the basis that in any tabletop game, there will always be players who assess every single possible course of action (twice) before making a move. This happens in 40k, even without pre-measuring.

That's no reason to give them another way to dither.

epil wrote:If you could measure at any point in the game it would remove any moment where you would have worries about getting charge distance.

Not when it's combined with random Run and Charge movement distance.

Although I would preferably want to then see that balanced against shooting with Nightfight or other random vision restrictions imposed to remove the edge that pre-measuring would give to static Shooty armies.

Joey wrote:You do understand how depth perception is the ability to gauge the distance between two items without immediate reference points. Six inches on a table looks the same whether you have one eye, two, and probably three.

Depth perception is the ability to gauge the difference between two visual inputs (one from each eye) to estimate distance between objects. With only one eye, it is impossible to judge distance without immediate reference points.

infinite_array wrote:Please, please tell me you don't consider 5th Edition 40k to be a 'complex' wargame.

40K is very complex. Think about the issues of shooting a squad of Devastators at something. Perhaps 'complicated' would be a better word to use, lol.

Kaldor wrote:

Joey wrote:You do understand how depth perception is the ability to gauge the distance between two items without immediate reference points. Six inches on a table looks the same whether you have one eye, two, and probably three.

Depth perception is the ability to gauge the difference between two visual inputs (one from each eye) to estimate distance between objects. With only one eye, it is impossible to judge distance without immediate reference points.

But only in three dimensions. Estimating distance between objects on a table top is two dimensional, and contains reference points (such as the known width of a base, for example).

infinite_array wrote:Battletech (you know... hexes)

The sections for the realm of battle board are 24" across, just saying.

infinite_array wrote:Please, please tell me you don't consider 5th Edition 40k to be a 'complex' wargame.

If you read all of the posts before asking this question, it would have been unnecessary.

No, seriously. Take a look at the average table size for 40k - 4x6. At 28(32?)mm scale, it's about the size of an American Football field. Now, as to why, say, a bolter has a 24" range, you can make sense of that. General battlefield haze, smoke, dust, confusion - I personally prefer Force on Force unlimited range for guns, but whatever. But as someone who's handled guns a lot - like, near 'gun-nut republican' level a lot - I can tell you this. In an area that small, there's no adjusting for range. You aim, you pull the trigger, and if you're a good shot (which is decided by the dice gods) you'll hit something.
...
/rant

You should have used your /rant before it even began. You look like a fool. I was a weapons trainer in the Marine Corps. If you've never bothered to shoot a weapon at a moving target that is consciously trying to not get hit, while loud noises and distracting events are occurring all the while trying not to be hit in return, I can imagine you have no relevant opinion to offer on this topic. Gun nut republican. Good lord. That's like someone who owns a Porsche giving advice on how to drive in Formula 1. Let's get off of the realism wagon for just a second. Nothing in 40K makes any real sense in terms of scale. Weapons fire too accurately but at too short of range and too slow of a rate of fire, people run too fast, vehicles go too slow. It's a set of rules to make a playable game. We're discussing what makes a better game here.

n0t_u wrote:

infinite_array wrote:Battletech (you know... hexes)

The sections for the realm of battle board are 24" across, just saying.

Heh, I used to use knowledge like that - though it preceded the RoB board - to make my guess range weapons have a high degree of accuracy. Like my Whirlwind firing at infantry coming across the board toward it. I knew the board was 48" from end to end. The back of my tank was about 6" from my end, the end of the weapon about 2" past that. So subtract 8" from the width there for 40". Figure the enemy assault units started fully forward, so subtract 12". BUT! Add 2" to get it into the middle of the unit. So that gives me 30" It's the bottom of the second turn, so they've had two movement phases. Subtract 6" of movement for each movement phase. So fire it at 18". [This was before running, so I didn't have to worry about that at all.]
*note, these are not exact numbers from a game, they're just to demonstrate how I figured the distance.

Let's just say that my mental math skills for simple addition and subtraction were better than my skills at judging relative distances. MUCH better. And it didn't take very long for me to figure these things out.

A memorable one was when that Whirlwind I mentioned fired at a Vyper to the west, got the distance exactly right. The next Eldar turn, the Vyper moved at full speed, moving across the diagonal from one corner to its opposite. I fired the same Whirlwind at it again, got the distance right again. On the next turn, the Vyper moved again, and again I got the distance exactly right. Of course, the shot didn't always hit, due to scatter, but meh.

insaniak wrote:The biggest issue for me is the time factor. Allowing measurement whenever you like can result in players wasting an inordinate amount of time measuring everything rather than just guessing, hoping for the best and getting on with it.

Actually, this is the only argument that actually convinced me against premeasuring. I have two friends who will take ages to figure out what to do in critical situations. If they were able to measure, it would even take longer.

So I'd say halfway. You should be able to pick a new target if the original one is not in range, just like if you try to shoot a target which is not in LoS. That way people aren't going to measure the hight of every ruin in the game, but you still don't lose the game simply to "oops, guessed wrong".

I don't let people pre measure, its not right because people can over use it to their advantage.

Assessing your ranges is a vital part of being a general, Warmachine give you an official way around it within a certain distance from your caster only, not model to model, which is a great idea, whereas in 40k, the ranges are so far and variable that pre measuring allows you to counteract things which shouldn't be counteracting and allows people to get it right every time which just isn't fun.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Programming isn't easy, but it always has an answer, even if you don't necessarily know what it is. If your program doesn't work, it is because you did it wrong, not because of some kind of variable. I didn't say programming was easy.

As a professional programmer with over fifteen years of real-world development experience, I can tell you that the only thing you got right is that it isn't easy. There is not always an answer, and if it doesn't work, it is not always because you did it wrong. I can give you real-world examples of both of these things, but don't really want to drag the thread off-topic that much.

...that forces you to imitate the snap decisions your models would have to if they were real people...

Right, like I said before, this has bearing on a strategy game. We already have methods for figuring out what my models would do, if they were real people, and they all involve the dice. Some of my models are Space Marines, genetically enhanced super-humans with integrated range finding devices wired to their bodies via a black carapace, and heads-up displays in their helmets. To insinuate that my models, with their sci-fi technology, should be subject to the vagaries of me guessing is a poor argument.

What you want is a safety net to catch you if you're wrong. It's part of the dynamic of the "everyone gets a trophy" generation. I get it.

I'm probably older than you, so don't go talking down to me about generational issues. I don't want a safety net in case of being wrong, I want a well-designed game that takes unnecessary human skills out of the picture, and, if the chance of being wrong is somehow important to the realism or excitement of the game, replaced with a die roll that puts all players on level ground.

...Don't be scurred. There's a big wide world out there that's accessible if you put on your man pants and venture into it....

Again with the personal attacks? It's pretty clear that your argument is weak if you have to resort to this sort of name calling.

...The greatest generals and tacticians of history didn't pre-measure. Neither should you....

And here you reveal a thorough lack of understanding of what great generals actually did. You don't think that Napoleon, walking the fields at Austerlitz and sighting his guns appropriately was premeasuring? You don't think that the Germans having the ranges to the beaches at Normandy already dialed in was premeasuring? And, dealing with more modern tech, you think that the battle systems of an M1 Abrams tank don't count as pre-measuring either? Really?

Jidmah wrote:

insaniak wrote:The biggest issue for me is the time factor. Allowing measurement whenever you like can result in players wasting an inordinate amount of time measuring everything rather than just guessing, hoping for the best and getting on with it.

Actually, this is the only argument that actually convinced me against premeasuring. I have two friends who will take ages to figure out what to do in critical situations. If they were able to measure, it would even take longer.

Or perhaps not. Maybe, by removing this uncertainty, they'd be more decisive. It worked for people in fantasy.

adameast wrote:I don't let people pre measure, its not right because people can over use it to their advantage.

You understand that if both players are allowed to do something, it isn't an advantage, right? The only advantage is for those who are really good at measuring without a tape measure when pre-measuring is not allowed.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:But only in three dimensions. Estimating distance between objects on a table top is two dimensional, and contains reference points (such as the known width of a base, for example).

I know this isn't the exact topic of the thread, but no, estimating distances on a table top is NOT two dimensional. I understand what you're saying, that there is no variable of depth or height, only width and length.

When we judge how far away one thing is from another, we take two visual images of it (one from each eye) and compare them. The differences are evaluated and give us an estimation of how far away they are. This doesn't change if we are looking at an image on a flat surface, or a three dimensional object. When we lack those two images, or both images are the same (looking at a picture, for example) we use other frames of reference to form an estimation of distance. It's why so many visual illusions are possible with simple drawn lines.

Anyone who can only see through one eye must rely on those other frames of reference. And they simply don't exist on a regular tabletop. In fact, many models may create illusions. A larger model will seem much closer than a smaller one, for example.

Maybe you're right, Redbeard, but at least one of them will suddenly start measuring all over the place. He is the kind of guy who takes five minutes to place a single flamer template to make absolutely sure he hit the most models. When shooting four flamers.

First things first, I'm new to 40k pretty unbiased seeing as I've played only 1 unfinished game. And premeasuring shouldn't be allowed, reasons:

Redbeard wrote:I don't see how the act of measuring is innately any more, or less, dramatic, than not measuring. You're still going to get there, or not get there.

To me, the ability to guess a distance is a skill that is unrelated to actually making any sort of strategic or tactical gameplay decisions. I would rather my opponent decide to charge, or shoot, based on what he feels is smarter, and not have them lose a game because they mis-guessed a fraction of an inch. To me, this is not dramatic, it's just stupid.

My ability to estimate a range should have as much ability on playing the game as my ability to hit a target at a pistol range, or my ability to survive a gunshot. I don't have to hit a target when I want my toy soldiers to shoot, why should I have to guess distances if I want to know if they're in range.

Maybe we should play with rubberband guns instead of dice, and allow player skill to dictate the shooting phase too.

Your confidence in distance has everything to do with your tactics and strategy. Are you confident your unit can make that shot/charge? Or are you gonna play it a little more conserved and inch forward or backward so you eliminate both parties shot chances?

Secondly, your role is that of the commander of your army, not the individual soldiers, a commander doesn't run around the field grabbing thier soldiers' "rubberbands" and firing for them, you tell them what and where to shoot and hope your tactics are so that the enemy dies and not your units!

SirRouga wrote:To be honest, the ability to judge distances across the table top has hardly anything to do with tactics or skill with commanding your army. What it does do is make people second guess and make risky decisions which might pay off big or end up being that half a inch too short. These risky decisions add to the game's tension without the addition of more dice rolls. The main issue at least in my mind is that the ability to judge distances is not something really only related to the world of war gaming. I mean if someone works at a job that requires the use of measuring tapes all day and can judge distances very well already, judging distances in a war game isn't that much of a challenge gives me a good...

That would be a good trait to have as a commander, like some people remember all the point values to most army's units, much the same can be said for those with an eye for distance.

Not to mention when the option of pre-measure is in effect your better players are going to meassure EVERYTHING before they even start thinking of a plan of attack, cause it's simply the smarter thing to do. Then our 4-5 hour games will quickly turn into 10+ hour games O.o who really wants that?

Plain and simple it's part of the game, and so long as we are all following the same rules the game doesn't favor anyone. If you don't like the rules don't play the game? ( I mean that last statement in the most non-chalant of tones, I'm not being aggro when I say it )

P.S. Did this all on my iPhone sorry for any typos

Rejn wrote:
Plain and simple it's part of the game, and so long as we are all following the same rules the game doesn't favor anyone. If you don't like the rules don't play the game? ( I mean that last statement in the most non-chalant of tones, I'm not being aggro when I say it )

If you don't like it, don't play is hardly a good way to foster discussion of what could be. 7th ed WFB didn't allow pre-measuring. WFB 8th ed does - rules change. I don't play Fantasy, but I know that my friends who do enjoy 8th a lot more, and one reason they mention is that pre-measuring removes a lot of arguing and fudging. You're making decisions based on probabilities, not on estimations. There's no reason this wouldn't work just as well in 40k, and more reasonable justification for it (i.e. Space Marines have integrated targeting systems in their helmets, as do many xenos races.) As I mentioned earlier, even 20th century tech utilizes sophisticated range-finding technology. Why shouldn't 40,000th century?

And I agree in the 40k'th century why shouldn't everyone have range finding? But your arguement was it's not pertinent to tactics and I disagreed. When there is doubt and question it plays MORE to your play style and tactics.

Yes I do agree "if you don't like it, don't play it..." is not a good discussional arguement, and I appologize, this topic is rather heated and that is my go to to dissipate the heat.

My ultimate stand when it comes to any topic of discussion is, if it was designed to play a certain way, then that's the way it should be played. But I rather enjoy the limitations of measurement, I'm an Orc player, and from what I've gathered, it will hurt more than help me.

Pre-measuring could lengthen turns, as players carefully check every single unit-unit distance, every single turn, but I really doubt it would be that bad. Those types of players are usually the same ones who agonize over every decision, spending a significant portion of time mentally math-hammering things out, anyway. For a number of those, I imagine being able to lock their tape measures in and quickly sweep an arc from the unit in question might actually help them firm up their decisions faster. Being that the time added or saved would depend entirely on the player - just as the time spent looking up stats and clarifying rules does, or the time spent calculating probabilities on the fly - I don't feel it's justified, rejecting it based solely on the worst case scenario.

Personally, I'd love to see measuring at any time allowed. Note that I say "at any time," as opposed to "pre-measuring" - if you've spent any time playing games that allow it, you've likely noticed that it's more a matter of "mechanically aided eyeballing" to get a more reliable general sense of things than it is making decisions, measuring, then changing your mind, ad nauseam. Granted, I'd also like units to have individual movement values, coupled with randomized charge/run ranges. All together, I think this would add more tension and tactical complexity. I know many are loth to add more stats and die rolls, but I'm confident that it would improve gameplay and function as a better representation of the fictional world we're trying to recreate and the mock battles we fight therein.

oadie wrote:All together, I think this would add more tension and tactical complexity. I know many are loth to add more stats and die rolls, but I'm confident that it would improve gameplay and function as a better representation of the fictional world we're trying to recreate and the mock battles we fight therein.

This is my opinion also. I believe (after playing WHFB 8th and WotR) that premeasuring coupled with a random element in the assault phase is the best way to keep the tension of declaring a 'long' charge that might fail, while not rewarding people who are good at guessing ranges (because thats not the same thing as being good at warhammer, and nor should it be).

The movement rules in 40K could be completely re-worked to simplify the entire system, adding a random element to charge distances while removing the random element to difficult terrain tests and run distances.

Horst wrote:Exactly, if your wrong you SHOULD be penalized.

There are many situations where the question comes up, am I within range? Should I move forward to rapid fire, or take my single shot from long range? Should I fall back to be outside assault range? Should I fire my squads assault weapons and risk killing the only models within charge range? if I move my storm raven 12", will my dreadnought be able to disembark and get into assault?

All these things are judgement calls you need to make, that DO NOT RELY ON DICE.... they are, therefore, a skill required to play the game. Removing the restriction on measurement would make many of these decisions trivial, and thus would eliminate a large part of the game in my opinion.

Bears repeating IMO.

For me, one of the fun aspects of the game is making the decision on what to do. Do I move forward 6 inches to be within the 12" rapid fire distance or stay where I'm at and just hit them once. Quite often there is a risk that I won't be within 12" after moving my full 6" and then can't fire at all. (I have to admit it's more fun if it's the other guy that can't fire, can't assualt, or whatever). I don't enjoy the random component of the game (i.e. rolling dice) as much as I enjoy the tactics. I have a lot more control on which direction I move a squad, and what I ask that squad to do than I do over how the dice are going to roll.

Not to say that I don't enjoy the randomness, rolling 15 wounds out of 10 tesla shots is nice when it's me, and still fun if it's the other guy, gives me something to talk about (and an excuse for why I lost, because that's what I'm going to blame, even if it didn't have any real effect on the game).

Pre-measuring makes things almost a forgone conclusion sometimes, If my Necron Immortals are 11.9" away from an an assault unit on my opponents turn and he gets to pre-measure, then it's a foregone conclusion that they are not going to be a factor the rest of the game. If he doesn't get to pre-measure, then he has to decide is it 11.9" or 12.1" and maybe he decides to send them to cover to protect them for one more turn and assault me next turn. That is tactics. If I have a squad of Necron Warriors that are somewhere between 17.9" and 18.1" away from that same assault unit on my turn, do I move them 6" up to get 20 rapid fire shots instead of 10 at long range?

Maybe some people don't like this aspect of the game, I do. I think Fantasy allows pre-measuring and then put in random charge distances to make up for the foregone conclusion issue of a shooting unit getting wiped out by an assault unit. So, they put more randomness in the game and took out tactics, that's fine but it exchanges something I enjoy more for something I enjoy less.

If it was up to me, I'd vote to leave it how it is (only allow measuring after the decision has been made). (But it's not up to me, so I guess I just wait till 6th comes out). If I'm playing a for-fun game and my opponent wants to pre-measure (or he's a new player really struggling with distance judgement) then I'd be fine to allow it in that game, but not as a general rule.

BTW: When I started playing, I really struggled with distance judgement, I decided to move a squad forward to make sure they were within 12" rapid-fire and when I measured for the move, I was already within 12", I'm better at it now, but it was a funny moment.

Tye_Informer wrote:
Pre-measuring makes things almost a forgone conclusion sometimes, If my Necron Immortals are 11.9" away from an an assault unit on my opponents turn and he gets to pre-measure, then it's a foregone conclusion that they are not going to be a factor the rest of the game. If he doesn't get to pre-measure, then he has to decide is it 11.9" or 12.1" and maybe he decides to send them to cover to protect them for one more turn and assault me next turn. That is tactics.

No, that's your opponent making a mistake. For one thing, why would his models be 11.9" away from necron immortals without those warriors trying to shoot him on their turn? Did your necron warriors forget that they get a shooting phase, or were you counting on him making this mistake? And, if you did shoot him, then he should know exactly how far his guys were from yours. So either you had models that close to him that you didn't try to shoot, in which case you made a mistake, or you did shoot him, and he didn't pay attention to the range you shot him at, which would be his mistake. Either way, neither of those cases are a matter of tactics, they're simply a matter of paying attention. (Unless your tactic was deliberately not to shoot him, hoping that he'd mis-estimate the range to your guys and fail the assult... but that would be a very poor, and very risky, tactic.)

Which brings up another point... There are times when I am allowed to measure. I am allowed to measure distances for any of my units, up to their move range, during my movement phase. The rulebook even says I'm allowed to do this. (From page 11: "It is perfectly fine to measure a unit's move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all.") If I have a Dark Eldar skimmer with aethersails, I can roll those dice, and measure an average of 31" from that skimmer, in all directions, even if I have no intention of moving it. This measurement is explicitly allowed by the rules. And, as specified in the vehicle movement rules, my moves must consist of straight line movements, and pivots.

So, let's say I've got my unit of wyches that are maybe 11.9" from your immortals, and maybe 12.1". I'm legally allowed to measure my skimmer's move to my wyches, and then pivot, and then measure to your immortals, and, I'm legally allowed to notice the distance between those two units.

In fact, with me being allowed, by the rules on page 11, to measure as many possible moves as I want, I can take that one skimmer and envision as many of these possible pivots as I want. And, that's all legal.

It's also legal for me to over-measure the range of certain weapons. Let's say I have a unit, somewhere in my backfield, that's doing nothing but holding an objective. Maybe they've got pistols. According to the rules on page 17, I can declare them to fire at any unit they can see, and "measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit.." Note, it doesn't say, measure the range of your gun and see if they're within that range, the rules state that I measure the distance from my model to yours. And, if my line of sight happens to go across other units of mine, well, I can notice the difference there too.

But, you say, that doesn't sound right. You know, I agree, it doesn't pass the smell test. But, it's legal. Seems kind of funny that only some armies have the tools to gather this data, but, I guess that's how it is. And, for those espousing the argument that pre-measuring would slow down the game, imagine how much I'd slow it down if I had to take all my measurements in this way. I'd probably even need to take notes so I didn't forget, as I was going along. But, it's all legal under the current rules.

A canny player can already obtain all sorts of measurements legally. Do you really want them slowing the game down by measuring moves they don't intend to make just to gather data? Do you really want people declaring shots that are obviously out-of-range just to gather data? Wouldn't it just be simpler to concede that measuring, whatever, whenever, isn't that awful?

I believe that premeasuring is a big no no, but the friendly group we play with does not have a problem with it at all. It's easier to just go with the flow in friendly games.
On a competitive level, no way should it be allowed.

I think premeasuring should be allowed as was stated that not being able to eyeball a range should penilize a general. Add a random roll like in fantasy but why should a unit always be able to move and assault X"? For simplicity's sake. And I would play faster knowing if I'm in range to shoot or out of range to assault. To the argument that it adds tension to see if you're in range or not, why should that make you a good general? Shouldn't it be about your tactics and stradegy and not whether you're in range? Too many times have I argued and rolled off on whether that was in assault range or a hair out of rear armor. By premeasuring both players know the gist of the other's intentions to agree on cover, shots and assaults before a turn later when manuevers were made to take said shots.

Joey wrote:I don't really see what forbidding measurement brings to the game. Especially when the only reason it's important is because they've decided that assault rifles should have a range of 50 yards so we have to guess the ranges of things and if we're wrong then tough luck.
Seems kind of lame to me.

Them's the breaks, sometimes.

Anyway, it would slow down the game immensely, especially with shooty armies, measuring every single range before and after moving. Sometimes when you go to shoot, you may be out of range, it happens. Quit complaining and move on.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Joey wrote:I don't really see what forbidding measurement brings to the game. Especially when the only reason it's important is because they've decided that assault rifles should have a range of 50 yards so we have to guess the ranges of things and if we're wrong then tough luck.
Seems kind of lame to me.

Them's the breaks, sometimes.

Anyway, it would slow down the game immensely, especially with shooty armies, measuring every single range before and after moving. Sometimes when you go to shoot, you may be out of range, it happens. Quit complaining and move on.

Yeah that's what all this is about, me being out of range with my weapons.
Obviously if I can measure the range beforehand, I will no longer be out of range.
Trolling, much?

Joey wrote:Yeah that's what all this is about, me being out of range with my weapons.
Obviously if I can measure the range beforehand, I will no longer be out of range.
Trolling, much?

Let's not accuse people of trolling just because we've misunderstood the point they were making, hmm?

Under the current system, the decision as to whether or not to move before shooting is generally made on guesswork. Allowing players to measure freely would thus be a huge boost to shooty armies, because you're always going to know before you choose to move whether or not it is actually necessary.

I think the current rules do generally give players with a strong spatial awareness and understanding of geometry an advantage. I mean if both players deploy as far forward as they can in a pitched battle, you know there is a 24" range there. on top of that, If you know where the center of the board is you now have accurate data in 1 foot lengths across the table, and even horizontally if one knows the terrain set up.

Barring that, a bit of trig can go a long way in guessing ranges. I'm not saying you should pull out a calc in the middle of a game, but If you know some simple stuff like pythagorean triples ( I had to memorize a dozen of these, ) You can guess ranges between things very effectively.

While I'm not totally In favor of saying "go and measure whenever". I do think there needs to be some premeasuring to even the field.

Sunoccard wrote:I think the current rules do generally give players with a strong spatial awareness and understanding of geometry an advantage.

Which is true in so far as it goes... where it would appear we disagree is over whether that is a problem.

Some Chess players can plot out an entire game in their heads each time either player moves a piece. Some can't. Does the player who can have an unfair advantage... or are they just better at one of those things that potentially makes you a better Chess player?

Remove too many of the things that rely on a player's own abilities and you might as well be playing Ludo.

insaniak wrote:Which is true in so far as it goes... where it would appear we disagree is over whether that is a problem.

Some Chess players can plot out an entire game in their heads each time either player moves a piece. Some can't. Does the player who can have an unfair advantage... or are they just better at one of those things that potentially makes you a better Chess player?

Remove too many of the things that rely on a player's own abilities and you might as well be playing Ludo.

Hear, hear!

insaniak wrote:
Which is true in so far as it goes... where it would appear we disagree is over whether that is a problem.

Some Chess players can plot out an entire game in their heads each time either player moves a piece. Some can't. Does the player who can have an unfair advantage... or are they just better at one of those things that potentially makes you a better Chess player?

Remove too many of the things that rely on a player's own abilities and you might as well be playing Ludo.

I would agree that personal ability is supposed to be a major factor and I strongly feel that measuring needs to be limited. The Idea that was floating around my head was limiting (pre)measuring to only a single phase of the game. (probably the shooting phase)

Again, Joey, as I said, them's the breaks sometimes. I have missed assaults and shooting every once in a while due to range. Yes, premeasuring would have helped, but it would have dragged the game down into slow mode. One of out gaming group in a sniper a his ranges, he is usually within an inch or closer of calling his ranges. He's just good.

To paraphrase what Insaniak said, if you take too many of the players' abilities out of the game, what is the point?

I would say that I would have no problem with pre-measuring except I have 1 problem: My buddy Joe.

He's the guy that counts off 15 different moves in battle tech.

He does 10 different placements of fireballs and other radius or cone shaped spells in D&D to determine the best configuration.

40k games with him already take 50% longer than anyone else because he thinks and rethinks every move.

He plays gunline and mech IG. I will NOT be playing him if he gets to premeasure everything.

I have a friend who did that with his Eldar. Move a Falcton, walk over and check all my LOS to it, and if unhappy move it back and try again. Rinse and repeat for the other 5 tanks in his army, and for every Vyper. Eventually put a stop to it and but it can drag games outwards. But that's more to do with the player than the process of pre-measuring. Pre-measuring for me is looking at a squad of Devs with 4 ML's, putting my tape measure out to 48" and swinging it in an arc while saying "Who can I shoot?" rather than measuring range for each gun to each unit and checking everything. It's more a general "who's near me?" than something complex and game-slowing.

Anyway, we've never had any issues with pre-measuring. I've been doing it since 2nd Ed and it has never been a problem. Frankly I find the idea of troops not knowing the range of their own guns to be somewhat silly. It's never slowed down a game nor 'unbalanced' any particular scenario or whatever. And as we don't have Guess ranged weapons any more, it's hardly a problem.

The only thing we don't do is measure the opponent's weapons and charge ranges. You can infer those things from your own measurements, but you don't move your troops, measure their charge range, then re-move your troops to stay out.

Redbeard wrote:
Which brings up another point... There are times when I am allowed to measure. I am allowed to measure distances for any of my units, up to their move range, during my movement phase. The rulebook even says I'm allowed to do this. (From page 11: "It is perfectly fine to measure a unit's move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all.") If I have a Dark Eldar skimmer with aethersails, I can roll those dice, and measure an average of 31" from that skimmer, in all directions, even if I have no intention of moving it. This measurement is explicitly allowed by the rules. And, as specified in the vehicle movement rules, my moves must consist of straight line movements, and pivots.

So, let's say I've got my unit of wyches that are maybe 11.9" from your immortals, and maybe 12.1". I'm legally allowed to measure my skimmer's move to my wyches, and then pivot, and then measure to your immortals, and, I'm legally allowed to notice the distance between those two units.

In fact, with me being allowed, by the rules on page 11, to measure as many possible moves as I want, I can take that one skimmer and envision as many of these possible pivots as I want. And, that's all legal.

It's also legal for me to over-measure the range of certain weapons. Let's say I have a unit, somewhere in my backfield, that's doing nothing but holding an objective. Maybe they've got pistols. According to the rules on page 17, I can declare them to fire at any unit they can see, and "measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit.." Note, it doesn't say, measure the range of your gun and see if they're within that range, the rules state that I measure the distance from my model to yours. And, if my line of sight happens to go across other units of mine, well, I can notice the difference there too.

But, you say, that doesn't sound right. You know, I agree, it doesn't pass the smell test. But, it's legal. Seems kind of funny that only some armies have the tools to gather this data, but, I guess that's how it is. And, for those espousing the argument that pre-measuring would slow down the game, imagine how much I'd slow it down if I had to take all my measurements in this way. I'd probably even need to take notes so I didn't forget, as I was going along. But, it's all legal under the current rules.

A canny player can already obtain all sorts of measurements legally. Do you really want them slowing the game down by measuring moves they don't intend to make just to gather data? Do you really want people declaring shots that are obviously out-of-range just to gather data? Wouldn't it just be simpler to concede that measuring, whatever, whenever, isn't that awful?

I haven't run into anyone who plays that way, so I still vote to leave them the way they are.

Redbeard wrote:Which brings up another point... There are times when I am allowed to measure. I am allowed to measure distances for any of my units, up to their move range, during my movement phase. The rulebook even says I'm allowed to do this. (From page 11: "It is perfectly fine to measure a unit's move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all.") If I have a Dark Eldar skimmer with aethersails, I can roll those dice, and measure an average of 31" from that skimmer, in all directions, even if I have no intention of moving it. This measurement is explicitly allowed by the rules. And, as specified in the vehicle movement rules, my moves must consist of straight line movements, and pivots.

Just a nitpick on that... technically, you're not allowed to measure in a direction that you have no intention of moving in. As the rule you quoted is written, you are allowed to measure in a given direction, and then change your mind and go a different way. It doesn't give you permission to measure anywehre other than where you are intending to move... it just gives you permission to change you mind as to just what you intend.

In practice though, until we develop the ability to read each others minds to determine their actual intentions, that's a little unenforcible.

I'm against premessuring because it gives shooting armies a better advantage than assault armies.

Chowderhead wrote:Me and my mates play with Pre Measuring as a house rule, as it just seems to add more tactics to the game, rather than addd more luck and strategy.

Trolling , right?! This would be seriously annoying and would slow down game play at epic levels. Might as well get rid of dice and scatters that might add more "tactics" too


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luke_Prowler wrote:I'm against premessuring because it gives shooting armies a better advantage than assault armies.

It would give assaults an insane advantage too... its just silly... like getting rid of Queens in chess, since they're annoying and take away from strategy

Lobukia wrote:
Trolling , right?! This would be seriously annoying and would slow down game play at epic levels. Might as well get rid of dice and scatters that might add more "tactics" too

No because they're completely different things. One is a ransomised outcome of an event, the other is a needless complication.

insaniak wrote:
Just a nitpick on that... technically, you're not allowed to measure in a direction that you have no intention of moving in. As the rule you quoted is written, you are allowed to measure in a given direction, and then change your mind and go a different way. It doesn't give you permission to measure anywehre other than where you are intending to move... it just gives you permission to change you mind as to just what you intend.

Hmm I'm going to move in this direction *measures*
Actually no I'm going to move here *measures*
Actually no I'm going to move here *measures*
ad nausium. It's completely legal.

Lobukia wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luke_Prowler wrote:I'm against premessuring because it gives shooting armies a better advantage than assault armies.

It would give assaults an insane advantage too... its just silly... like getting rid of Queens in chess, since they're annoying and take away from strategy

And what "insane" advantage is that? Yes, it's nice to not fall short on the charge, but it's nowhere as useful as being able to know if a unit is with in double tap or whether or not a target is in a basilisk's min range.

Joey wrote:Hmm I'm going to move in this direction *measures*
Actually no I'm going to move here *measures*
Actually no I'm going to move here *measures*
ad nausium. It's completely legal.

Yes, that's legal... so long as you are actually considering moving there each time. That was the point: The rules allows you to change your mind and move elsewhere, not just to measure everything in sight. You're still technically restricted to measuring to places where you actually want to move...

H.B.M.C. wrote:I have a friend who did that with his Eldar. Move a Falcton, walk over and check all my LOS to it, and if unhappy move it back and try again. Rinse and repeat for the other 5 tanks in his army, and for every Vyper. Eventually put a stop to it and but it can drag games outwards. But that's more to do with the player than the process of pre-measuring. Pre-measuring for me is looking at a squad of Devs with 4 ML's, putting my tape measure out to 48" and swinging it in an arc while saying "Who can I shoot?" rather than measuring range for each gun to each unit and checking everything. It's more a general "who's near me?" than something complex and game-slowing.

This is exactly what I was talking about - sure, some players would take ages to measure everything, but those people tend to be slow and... methodical anyway. The average player wouldn't likely take much, if any, longer than he does now. That's been my experience with different games that allow free measurement and, while mechanical differences in other departments make a direct comparison impractical (e.g. in Infinity, range affects how likely you are to hit a target, not simply whether you get to roll any dice), I'm confident that it would hold true in 40K, as well. Honestly, people have jerked their collective knee so hard at the time-consumption issue it seems like no one is bothering to consider anything but the worst case scenario, which is less than productive.

This isn't a crazy special rule for a new unit that could shatter the (arguably already shoddy) internal game balance - this is a background mechanic that affects the players, not the armies. Yes, one can argue that certain types of armies benefit more than others, but how many times has the all-(internet)-important metagame shifted (MSUs, mech, etc.) in the past because of universal mechanical changes? The game changes and players have to learn to adapt, or blame the 'inferior new system' for all of their losses and go whine on the internet (See? Pro-measuring people can be dismissive too! ). Free measurement is far more general than a new vehicle damage table or the like - it shifts the tactical focus by giving the players - BOTH players, mind you - more information. You don't stop having to determine target priority just because you know definitively who is in range, and you don't stop having to decide whether to shoot, charge, or fall back just because you know whether you can reach the enemy unit or the nearest cover.

Honestly, isn't the focus of the game supposed to be on strategy and tactics? At the risk of appearing to fight fire with flame, a lot of the more strongly worded posts here are sounding a bit like some people just don't want their (natural or learned) advantage taken away. 40K already has a sufficiently bloated and convoluted ruleset that experienced players have a distinct advantage beyond a honed tactical sense. To claim unrestricted measuring is a crutch for the unskilled paints a rather unflattering picture of that player - even "it's my Warhammer, damn it, you hippies leave it the way it is" is more justifiable than that.

No, sorry. I strongly disagree with pre-measuring.

Pre-measuring strongly favors static, long range shootie armies.
And is a huge disadvantage for small elite armies.

Knowing the exact threat range of every highly effective melee unit will almost completely negate their primary threat. The opponent will always be out of range, because they will know exactly where they need to be.

Large horde-like armies will always have the advantage. They will be able to saturate objectives with multiple units, knowing that they will get there at the time they want them there.

You would almost completely eliminate over compensating asset assignment, to complete a goal. You would know exactly which unit could reach where, and when.

No, sorry, in a game where almost every unit is a ranged threat, pre-measuring would be almost devastating.

ToBeWilly wrote:Knowing the exact threat range of every highly effective melee unit will almost completely negate their primary threat. The opponent will always be out of range, because they will know exactly where they need to be.

How is this any different to now? Players with a 'good eye' can already judge that distance. Should they be the only ones allowed?

Large horde-like armies will always have the advantage. They will be able to saturate objectives with multiple units, knowing that they will get there at the time they want them there.

Again, this is already currently the case. It'sd why the Kill Points system was brought in, to give players a reason to NOT simply spam cheap units.

Kaldor wrote:How is this any different to now? Players with a 'good eye' can already judge that distance. Should they be the only ones allowed?

No matter how good your eye is, there's always going to be a margin for error. Until you allow everyone to just measure and remove any uncertainty.

Kaldor wrote:How is this any different to now? Players with a 'good eye' can already judge that distance. Should they be the only ones allowed?

Guesstimating distances is never a guarantee. Just because you have a 'good eye' you still need to reassess threats every turn, and make tactical adjustments. You can never be sure!

Pre-measuring allows for considerably less asset reassessment. Which means a less tactical game.

Pre-measurement simply takes the advantage away from one player who has a good eye, and gives it to the players with "no lives who have memorized all the units and only play this game every week/day" and the players who are simply good at math equations and mathmatically figgure the best position for the units.

The game turns away from chance and becomes a number crunch game... Insert (random MMORPG) here anyone?

ToBeWilly wrote:Knowing the exact threat range of every highly effective melee unit will almost completely negate their primary threat. The opponent will always be out of range, because they will know exactly where they need to be.

The board is only so large. If they're always out of range, that means the assaulting unit is controlled by an imbecile, or the shooting unit is forced to move to stay out of range, reducing or eliminating entirely the effectiveness of their firepower. To say that premeasuring makes shooty units nigh invulnerable is to suggest that failed charges due to misjudged distances are the only reason they can survive. Is that all you rely on? If you know how quickly an assaulting unit can reach you, you still have to decide whether to stand and shoot or to fall back out of range/into cover. It's just a shift in tactical focus - the question of "can they reach me if I sit here?" is eliminated, but "do I care and, if so, what should I do about it?" remains. Even that ignores the potential for randomized run distances, let alone (fingers crossed for a movement characteristic!) the potential for faster units.