Switch Theme:

Skirmish Game Design - Checking Range or Fire Blind?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot




Chandler, AZ

Is there a consensus on the idea of measuring/verifying range before declaring a shot? Do players like this or not?

If designers out there don't like the idea, please explain.

Thanks

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

One issue to consider is that if the game doesn't let you pre-measure, players will try to find ways to pre-measure. They will twist rules and use tricks to try and get a rough idea about measuring.

This was one issue with the old MK2 rules for Warmachine/Hordes as experienced players would use a range of tricks even down to eyeballing distances to get around the lack of some pre-measuring options.



As a result this can introduce eyeballing measuring, quick maths (trigonometry) and a way of playing to trick things - which can then either be game skills or game barriers to newbies.



This isn't so much saying that its good nor bad, just highlighting that if you prevent players from having that information directly, some will work out ways to find it (or at least get close to it) indirectly. At that point you have to decide if these skills are something you want in the game or not; and if you do then how you can best present and introduce them to newer players as concepts.

Otherwise you can end up with experienced players who constantly wipe the floor with newbiews, creating a hard barrier of skill advance.

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot




Chandler, AZ

@Overread: Good feedback, thanks.

 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Overread is right, premeasuring leads to much cleaner games with fewer misunderstandings and abused rules .
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Seattle, WA USA

Kinda depends on the feel for the game you're going for. Vast majority of the time, premeasuring does make it a little easier/friendly game, and removes some disadvantages to those not as experienced in tabletop as mentioned above. Experienced wargamers are pretty good at eyeballing distances (I can usually do so within a 1/4 inch accuracy).

There is an argument for not allowing premeasuring in some cases, especially if it fits the setting/feel you're trying to go for. Personally, I don't think there's many cases there and it doesn't usually add a whole lot (one notable exception might be for off-board artillery strikes or the like, which can be great fun to "designate" coordinates or degrees and the like, and feels pretty thematic).

Generally, I lean towards allowing pre-measuring, and will only disallow it if it really adds something interesting to the game (and no, trig and stupid measuring tricks a la WM/H Mk 2 are not interesting elements).
   
Made in ch
Been Around the Block





I like pre-measuring much better as it reduces randomness and makes the game more thematic („you can‘t shoot at him, he‘s a quarter of inch too far away - really?“).

Next step is adding a grid and removing the tape measure

   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot




Chandler, AZ

Good feedback folks, thank you

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I think no premeasuring works best when you have more granular concepts of range. Infinity for example, rarely results in a model being unable to act entirely, but just a change in modifiers. Failing an action due to range is honestly just never fun and generally almost impossible to make up for.

The one thing to be aware of with premeasuring though is it makes small advantages monumental. A 0.5" reach advantage can let a player completely bully the opponent in a way that is much harder to do eyeballing it. The best solution I've seen to this is to just keep range differences pretty large. The modern widget games like Legion and MCP have a pretty big difference between say, range 2 and range 3 (or whatever) to the point where they can pretty easily say that 1 additional range is a significant advantage and balance accordingly.
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Like all things, it depends on what you are trying to capture on the table.

For example, I prefer games set-in ancient and medieval times to dis-allow pre-measuring and force you to eye ball it. Games set in more modern time periods you should be able to pre-measure away. That is a personal preference.

The ability to measure before making a decision does change the feel and flow of the game. Therefore, be aware of what it brings or does not bring to the table when making the choice for your game.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





While I do miss the old no premeasure rules of 40k, it's almost purely because I'm bad at gauging distances and it forced me to practice.
I suppose it also injected a bit more suspense into the game (suspense might not be quite the right word). That said, from a game design perspective, there's a lot of be said for the simplicity of allowing premeasure. When I first played 40k during the no premeasure era, my default assumption was that premeasuring was allowed (to which my friends kindly informed me of my error). My leaning (as an enjoyer of games, not a designer of them) is to allow premeasure unless you have a solid reason not to allow it.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User






My opinion is that the ability to pre measure fixes some of the "feel bad" moments in the game. It also streamlines the decision process of players.
Personally I like both systems. If there is no premeasuring, I prefer a system like Infinity with range bands that really enhance the feel of the weapons you're firing.
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot




Chandler, AZ

Wow, thanks for all the answers. I think we have reached a consensus that pre-measuring is the best way to go, although not the only way

 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Best way to do what?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




To go ;D
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Go should use pre-measuring? Aren't all movements in Go set?


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Set is a completely different game from Go.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Before you play Set and Go I recommend trying out Ready.
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Cyel wrote:
Before you play Set and Go I recommend trying out Ready.


*claps*
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




Au'taal

One thing to keep in mind is that not allowing measuring at any time heavily incentivizes cheating. Need to know if a unit is in range? Measure a nearby unit and "accidentally" drag the tape measure across the unit you care about. Want an advantage on your home table? Make sure the "random" terrain details are actually spaced at specific intervals so you can use them as measurement references, and don't tell anyone else about your hidden grid. Need to measure a 3" distance? Better hold that tape measure out to 48" so you can "accidentally" measure some other stuff while you're doing it. Or there's the old X-Wing classic of "checking for a target lock" against a ship on the other side of the table. You get to do a different action if you fail but it gives lots of opportunities to place that range ruler on the table and make 200% sure you're out of range (even though the distance is clearly 3-4x the length of the ruler). And make sure you always keep an eye on your opponent's cheating so you can stop them and ensure they only measure the one permitted thing. The more fights over measurement the better!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/08/02 20:51:12


One of their light walkers carried a weapon of lethal effect. It fired a form of ultra-high velocity projectile. I saw one of our tanks after having been hit by it. There was a small hole punched in either flank - one the projectile's entry point, the other its exit. The tiny munition had passed through the vehicle with such speed that everything within the hull not welded down had been sucked out through the exit hole. Including the crew. We never identified their bodies, for all that remained of them was a red stain upon the ground, extending some twenty metres from the wreck.

Bow before the Greater Good, gue'la. 
   
Made in gr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Not a fan of premeasuring, and less a fan of poor sports. I say get rid of both of them.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




point to consider with "no pre-measuring", you are then actively discriminating against anyone who has poor or no depth perception for medical reasons - not to say "don't do it!" but keep this in mind and make sure you have a reason to do it

also as noted people find a way around it, and also do you really want the game won or lost not because of tactical knowledge of the players but because one has better eyesight than the other?

thats said regardless of a rulebook it is very easy to just house rule it to be the other way around

but if you want something to be uncertain, like "can unit X charge unit Y?" make the charge distance variable is probably a much better way to go (even if only slightly variable)

personally have not yet played a "no pre-measuring!" game where it didn't feel like an attempt to try and add some variability into a game where the rules were lacking.

I understand the theme concept of fog or war and not knowing etc, but its just far too easy to try and work about it to really add anything
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I am glad you mentioned this. No matter what a designer does, games are inherently unfair.

For example, my friend who is a professional poker player, can calculate odds in their head better than I can. Does that mean he has an unfair advantage that as I designer I should build the odds calculations into the rules for a variety of interactions and "show the work" in the rules? No one expects this.

Chess masters are really good at memorizing approaches and visualizing future moves than I am. Does Chess create any special rules to "balance" these advantages? Not that I can think of?

However, when we start to talk about pre-measuring vs. not pre-measuring if is often framed as a "fairness issue" which I struggle to wrap my head around.

Some people are better at X than other people. Therefore, games need to mechanically "level the playing field" does not seem accurate to me?



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/09/26 14:50:43


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Enginseer with a Wrench






Personally, I greatly prefer a default of allowing pre-measuring as it makes gaming over complex modelled terrain less stressful. It's harder to measure and assess accurately around a proper scenic board, and that contributes to the potential for disagreement. It's an example of messy real world effects that can't really be ruled for in advance – and allowing pre-measuring helps to ameliorate that.

Secondly, it's less contentious to have a default position of allowing pre-measuring and for players to opt not to use it, than it is to have pre-measuring not allowed and for players to opt to use it – as it's a case of choosing to take additional restrictions for an extra challenge, rather than ignoring part of the rules as they stand.

One of the things I like a lot about games like Gates of Antares, is that bad results are often ameliorated, so there aren't as many 'feel bad' moments.

Taking that idea as a concept... an option in between allowing pre-measuring or firing blind would be to have 'effective range' limits on weapons, rather than hard range limits. No pre-measuring is allowed, but if the target is within 3in (or whatever distance) outside of the weapon's range, you'll hit on a 6 (or similar negative) rather than just wasting the model's shots entirely.

Likewise, if a unit's a small distance away from making contact in a charge, perhaps they move the extra Xin, but suffer some slight detriment.

Basically a bit of fudging to ensure that if you're good at estimating ranges you'll do better, but that a game doesn't hinge on a fraction of an inch.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/09/26 15:08:19


+Death of a Rubricist+
My miniature painting blog.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Depends on your system.

So for example people often don't realise how blood hard it is to shot moving human sized targets. At 20 yards pistol shoot outs resemble blindfolded darts matches. I have seen novel systems work with the assumption everyone hits at point blank, but beyond that? Typically roll a D20 and add skill, weapon, target and equipment modifiers. If you equal or exceed the range you hit. All depends on level of detail you want.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Easy E wrote:
I am glad you mentioned this. No matter what a designer does, games are inherently unfair.

For example, my friend who is a professional poker player, can calculate odds in their head better than I can. Does that mean he has an unfair advantage that as I designer I should build the odds calculations into the rules for a variety of interactions and "show the work" in the rules? No one expects this.

Chess masters are really good at memorizing approaches and visualizing future moves than I am. Does Chess create any special rules to "balance" these advantages? Not that I can think of?

However, when we start to talk about pre-measuring vs. not pre-measuring if is often framed as a "fairness issue" which I struggle to wrap my head around.

Some people are better at X than other people. Therefore, games need to mechanically "level the playing field" does not seem accurate to me?





its a good point and its made well, however its perhaps not quite aligned to the point I made, say in poker everyone has the same cards, and can learn to play the game better, yes some people are way better than others at calculating the odds. this is the nature of the beast, the same as how in say a skirmish game some will have a better grasp of the rules and some a better grasp of what is possible tactically and some even what it or is not a good idea.

I think that is something that is always there, however as has been noted a ban on pre measuring can hit actual disabilities (though its accepted it generally doesn't and anyone sensible playing in that situation will make allowances for the specific circumstances if they are reasonable people), it does however artificially bring in a whole range of other issues which are outright avoided by simply measuring in advance - e.g. shots that accidentally fall short or long, people with curiously precise terrain

Part of it comes down to the scale of the game, the OP title is "Skirmish game design" so Its reasonable here to discount outright large scale actions where the player is representing a senior commander far from the action and focus on smaller, e.g. take the likes of Bolt Action or Sharp Practice as a scale, a few dozen models in maybe half a dozen units of some description - here the player is closer to the action but is still not at the individual scale.

For example the order is given to fire the cannon at the approaching enemy, that cannon has a game range of say 24", the enemy is approaching over a few turns but is 24.5" out of range - quite obviously the shot won't hit, the question is, should the shot be fired? the commander has issued an order to the cannons crew, however they are the ones best placed to determine the range, not the force commander.

you now have a few choices, all of which are viable

- the shot must be fired but will as its out of range miss, but maybe there is a chance for a misfire so this should be rolled, the weapon may take time to reload
- the shot is out of range so is not fired, but is it now fair for it to stay loaded or not?
- the shot is not fired but the crew know they could hit a closer target and reload before the nominated target gets in to range, should they be permitted to fire at something else? e.g. nominate a target, if that cannot be hit something of a 'higher priority' can be, should that be allowed?
- should the cannon crew be able to report viable targets to the commander before the order is given (in effect pre-measure)?

similar with movement, though there I find games that have a random element to the distance moved with pre-measuring work better than a fixed distance but no pre-measuring, horses for things horses run around


tl;dr, I have yet to find a game that states "no premeasuring!" where it cannot be worked around or where the game wouldn't flow a lot smoother with pre-measuring, for myself personally, again again I accept opinions vary, if I win, or indeed as is more often the case lose, I want to to be something out of my control (dice or where my own poor assessment of probability comes back to bite me), something definitely in my control (brought a rubbish list, deployed badly, poor tactical choices) or my opponent (damned them!) being better at these things.

I tend to find it a lot less satisfying when a win or a defeat comes down to who is better at guessing/estimating/calculating is that 17.5" or 18.5"?

I also find sets of rules where things are declared as intent work nicely, especially at skirmish level e.g. my infantry unit here are going to move there so your infantry unit over there cannot see them without moving... and then measuring or laser pointers don't come into it.

it also tends to allow for much more streamlined rules when you have "you can measure anything at any time" without having to worry about things like is terrain placement or construction random?

That said I do play games with no premeasuring, and invariable find a way around it, the classic being some sort of small unit as a "ranging shot" at something quite a distance, and oh look I now have a pretty good idea that my larger unit is "x" from its actual target thats along a similar line, is that really a "skill" though, or its that gaming the rules?

there is of course a slightly different approach, one where you nominate a target and then measure range. speed etc, which is no longer a yes/no result but just a modifier, better suited to games with less than half a dozen figures on a side though
   
Made in us
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman




I will say, in my experience, allowing premeasuring at any time leads to a lot less arguments. If no premeasuring is allowed, player may very well come to blows over how the tape measure is being held to determine if that charge distance grazes the edges of the enemy base. I can also say it just never feels good to misjudge a distance by less than a quarter of an inch, and forfeit actions for that call.

However, to maintain that element of uncertainty in gameplay, I would always try to implement some form of randomness in range or movement. A player can still premeasure to gauge their odds, but there will always be cases where the result lies purely in the realm of probability instead of certainty.

Heck, and as mentioned many times before, disallowing premeasuring just encourages the practice of skirting around it, no matter how good a sport you are. You'll remember things like how wide the table is and how deep the deployment zones are. Hell, before premeasuring was allowed in 40k, I knew that from my elbow to my wrist was just a smidgen shorter than a move and a charge. If I flaunted this to my opponent, what would they do? Ban me from using my own hands to move my models? I know an average codex is about eleven inches tall, and lord knows that thing is gonna rest on the table even if we try not to let it end up there.

TL;DR - All for premeasuring because people can't NOT find ways around it, but also introduced at least a little randomized movement/range to reintroduce uncertainty.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 Easy E wrote:
I am glad you mentioned this. No matter what a designer does, games are inherently unfair.

For example, my friend who is a professional poker player, can calculate odds in their head better than I can. Does that mean he has an unfair advantage that as I designer I should build the odds calculations into the rules for a variety of interactions and "show the work" in the rules? No one expects this.

Chess masters are really good at memorizing approaches and visualizing future moves than I am. Does Chess create any special rules to "balance" these advantages? Not that I can think of?

However, when we start to talk about pre-measuring vs. not pre-measuring if is often framed as a "fairness issue" which I struggle to wrap my head around.

Some people are better at X than other people. Therefore, games need to mechanically "level the playing field" does not seem accurate to me?






I think the key is to work out if the skill of being able to judge distances and use whatever tricks you can find (size of the table, size of terrain parts etc...) to measure distances; is a skill you want the game to rely upon.

Eg you raise the example of poker and predicting the odds. That's very much a "skill" that the game is designed to rely upon. It is neither good nor bad, it is simply a skill that the game is built around. Other games are built around other elements. Some might have more varied skill types they rely upon and then at the other end you've games like Snakes and Ladders which basically rely on zero skill (unless you include trick trolling dice - which many would consider a form of cheating as the concept of the dice is to provide a purely random numerical value).


So it swings back to the games core design and intentions. For many wargames denying pre-measuring introduces a skill many don't feel is fair to include nor one that they expect/desire to have as part of the game. It also introduces an angle of potential "cheating" that can be hard to prevent (you can't guess the distance but you can work it out because you know the table length and terrain size and the distance from your elbow to wrist etc...). You also have to consider the manual of the game and how its presented to players. If you chose to have no premeasuring but then you layer that by introducing all the methods people could use to "cheat" it as a function of the game then new players start with the expectation of developing that skill and of that skill being part of the game experience.

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

leopard wrote:


That said I do play games with no premeasuring, and invariable find a way around it, the classic being some sort of small unit as a "ranging shot" at something quite a distance, and oh look I now have a pretty good idea that my larger unit is "x" from its actual target thats along a similar line, is that really a "skill" though, or its that gaming the rules?


Or is that what the designer actually intended for players to do all along, and it was not a "work around" at all?



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/28 19:32:37


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Easy E wrote:
leopard wrote:


That said I do play games with no premeasuring, and invariable find a way around it, the classic being some sort of small unit as a "ranging shot" at something quite a distance, and oh look I now have a pretty good idea that my larger unit is "x" from its actual target thats along a similar line, is that really a "skill" though, or its that gaming the rules?


Or is that what the designer actually intended for players to do all along, and it was not a "work around" at all?





possibly, doesn't seem to provide a great deal of entertainment though, more of a grind really, would suggest that where "no pre-measuring" is in a ruleset it may be worth a paragraph to explain why, not an "in universe" thing, but what the designer of the game intended the in game purpose to be. keeping in mind that a lot of the time something is quite clearing in or out of range and its only in effect edge cases where it matters.

to that thought I'd actually find a "designers notes" section or sidebars about what some rules were intended to do remarkably useful for a lot of games
   
Made in fr
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot




 Easy E wrote:
Or is that what the designer actually intended for players to do all along, and it was not a "work around" at all?


The designer intended for it to be a mechanic that you cheat by "measuring" a shot with 48" range against a target 6" away and waving your tape measure (fully extended to at least 60") all over the table to "accidentally" measure range for more important shots? I doubt it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Easy E wrote:
For example, my friend who is a professional poker player, can calculate odds in their head better than I can. Does that mean he has an unfair advantage that as I designer I should build the odds calculations into the rules for a variety of interactions and "show the work" in the rules? No one expects this.


No, of course that's not unfair. Poker is nothing more than odds calculation, obviously a player who is better at the core mechanic of poker will be better at the game as a whole. But that's not at all comparable to eyeballing distances in a miniatures game. In a miniatures game you're supposed to be commanding your forces and making strategic choices, not being an expert at seeing 6" increments without measuring them. It should be assumed that the actual soldiers on the battlefield are capable of evaluating ranges, and that the level of precision that we measure on the table doesn't matter in a real battle. After all, remember that distance increments are nothing more than a crude approximation. In reality the accuracy of a shot forms a continuous cone, without any of the discrete steps in the tabletop rules where it's vital to know if a unit is 11.5" or 12.3" away. The accuracy difference between those two distances would be negligible so being able to measure that distance accurately should not be a relevant skill for the players.

And yes, the designer can add whatever mechanics they want to include. But having measuring be a skill makes about as much sense as having your air combat game decide hits and misses by the players having a wrestling match. Whether or not it's 'fair" is irrelevant, deciding the outcome of a dogfight by which player is physically stronger and better at martial arts is a fundamentally stupid idea.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/29 09:53:21


 
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: