Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.