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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

You still haven't explained how measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speeds up the game or reduces the chances of cheating and arguments.

I already did but guess I am on ignore.........

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

You still haven't explained how measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speeds up the game or reduces the chances of cheating and arguments.

I think Mr. Morden explained it just fine in his above post. Scroll up and read it.

I don't think one way is better than the other, just different.

 Vash108 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

You still haven't explained how measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speeds up the game or reduces the chances of cheating and arguments.

I think Mr. Morden explained it just fine in his above post. Scroll up and read it.

He didn't explain at all, because the things that he "explained" are based on assumptions and on behaviours that don't actually happen during gameplay.

"You don't need to constalty measure anything" - No you don't, but there will be allot more measurements being taken, this will NOT speed up the game, it will actually slow it down and it was something that was apparent in both the transition from 7th ed WHFB to 8th edition and in the transition from 5th ed. 40k to 6th.

"We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever" - What is the difference between agreeing during the movement phase or when the actual shot needs to be taken? This doesn't diminish any need for an actual agreement to exist between the players so where is the reduced arguments?

"means no queries later if the table is knocked" - What if the table is knocked before anything was actually measured? Or are you capable of memorising all the measurements that were made during a game in order to perfectly replicate a board state?

"or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake" - Again, this also could happen before any measurement was taken and you wouldn't know anything unless you memorised every measurement made during the game.

"Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on. "

Funnily enough, all the cheaters in our play group stayed with 40k and WHFB. Pre-measuring doesn't reduce cheating, a cheater can still move a model in the middle of the game and unless you record every single measurement made, you'll have no way to prove him wrong.

It's a bit of a mixed bag whether it speeds up or slows down a game for me personally. I've both spent too much time over analyzing whether or not I was in charge range and measuring out the table state. For most people this tends to be a rare occurrence that happens on crucial turns. Tfgs are going to be the ones over doing it, but rules shouldn't be decided solely upon tfgs. And yeah, cheating happens regardless of ruleset, the one rule will do little to change that.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

You still haven't explained how measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speeds up the game or reduces the chances of cheating and arguments.

I think Mr. Morden explained it just fine in his above post. Scroll up and read it.

He didn't explain at all, because the things that he "explained" are based on assumptions and on behaviours that don't actually happen during gameplay.

"You don't need to constalty measure anything" - No you don't, but there will be allot more measurements being taken, this will NOT speed up the game, it will actually slow it down and it was something that was apparent in both the transition from 7th ed WHFB to 8th edition and in the transition from 5th ed. 40k to 6th.

"We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever" - What is the difference between agreeing during the movement phase or when the actual shot needs to be taken? This doesn't diminish any need for an actual agreement to exist between the players so where is the reduced arguments?

"means no queries later if the table is knocked" - What if the table is knocked before anything was actually measured? Or are you capable of memorising all the measurements that were made during a game in order to perfectly replicate a board state?

"or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake" - Again, this also could happen before any measurement was taken and you wouldn't know anything unless you memorised every measurement made during the game.

"Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on. "

Funnily enough, all the cheaters in our play group stayed with 40k and WHFB. Pre-measuring doesn't reduce cheating, a cheater can still move a model in the middle of the game and unless you record every single measurement made, you'll have no way to prove him wrong.

They happen in our group and games club and other I have attended- obviously different worlds - I am talking from actual expereince rather than opinion - I assume you are the same

Everything I have stated works for us EXACTLY as I stated. If its not for you then fine but don't call me a liar thank you very much and the stram man arguements that you keep throwing out are just weak - I have told you how this improves the game for us in games we play. Observation not just retoric.

No you don't, but there will be allot more measurements being taken, this will NOT speed up the game, it will actually slow it down and it was something that was apparent in both the transition from 7th ed WHFB to 8th edition and in the transition from 5th ed. 40k to 6th.

Nope that never happened to us - people prevaracate whether or not they presmeasure, guess - or use their oh so awesome "skill" In estimating. People can actuall look at actual tactics in the game when they are not considering whether or not their are 1mm our of range.

"or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake" - Again, this also could happen before any measurement was taken and you wouldn't know anything unless you memorised every measurement made during the game.

So - as I said it helps in any other circumstance - pretty obvious to many of us who play a variety of games..............

Again what truely tactical game suffes from premeasuring? Are you saying Malifaux does, do you think Chess is less of a "proper" game because the board is subdivided into equal squares and you actually know if you can reach your opponents pieces or not - leaving you to actually use tactics to win?

I felt like warhammer fantasy lost something when they went with premeasuring, namely cannons became insanely good. I simply declared the impact 6 inches in front of what ever I wanted to hit and the bounce usually took care of the rest. 7th Ed and before I would have to declare a direction and distance than measure the impact point, then random overshot and bounce. That and they came in with random charges to balance out premeasuring, true Los worked its way in killing wood elves, ranged got worse from being able to kite out of effective range and the chance of a long charge getting your archer in combat a turn before they should have. GW games are the only game I can think of that has done a before and after picture of premeasuring and I don't like it at all, but mostly because they traded that tactile risk for random risk and other stupid changes they did or refused to do. There's very little imperial evidence to prove premeasuring is good or bad, but there are a lot of anecdotes for it. I will say that premeasuring in Warmachine would probably break the game as certain feats would get out of hand and there's a lot of little things that moving into a perfect position that has been calculated out just wouldn't feel good to go against.

 Surtur wrote:
I felt like warhammer fantasy lost something when they went with premeasuring, namely cannons became insanely good. I simply declared the impact 6 inches in front of what ever I wanted to hit and the bounce usually took care of the rest. 7th Ed and before I would have to declare a direction and distance than measure the impact point, then random overshot and bounce. That and they came in with random charges to balance out premeasuring, true Los worked its way in killing wood elves, ranged got worse from being able to kite out of effective range and the chance of a long charge getting your archer in combat a turn before they should have. GW games are the only game I can think of that has done a before and after picture of premeasuring and I don't like it at all, but mostly because they traded that tactile risk for random risk and other stupid changes they did or refused to do. There's very little imperial evidence to prove premeasuring is good or bad, but there are a lot of anecdotes for it. I will say that premeasuring in Warmachine would probably break the game as certain feats would get out of hand and there's a lot of little things that moving into a perfect position that has been calculated out just wouldn't feel good to go against.

I'm curious what feats would break the game? A lot of those are based on Ctrl which can be premeasuring anyways.

If you play Steamroller then you can generally "premeasure" most things that are important. You know zones, starting zones, ctrl areas, etc. And certain casters pretty much allow you to premeasure everything. I haven't seen it break the game nor do I feel casters are more powerful because they usually can premeasure.

The only thing that not premeasuring does is make it harder for newbies. Which WM/H has a pretty steep learning curve as is so reducing that would be beneficial as it would get more people in the game and focus more on tactics instead of spatial awareness. The only people who should worry about premeasuring are vets who need an advantage over newbies.

 Mordekiem wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
I felt like warhammer fantasy lost something when they went with premeasuring, namely cannons became insanely good. I simply declared the impact 6 inches in front of what ever I wanted to hit and the bounce usually took care of the rest. 7th Ed and before I would have to declare a direction and distance than measure the impact point, then random overshot and bounce. That and they came in with random charges to balance out premeasuring, true Los worked its way in killing wood elves, ranged got worse from being able to kite out of effective range and the chance of a long charge getting your archer in combat a turn before they should have. GW games are the only game I can think of that has done a before and after picture of premeasuring and I don't like it at all, but mostly because they traded that tactile risk for random risk and other stupid changes they did or refused to do. There's very little imperial evidence to prove premeasuring is good or bad, but there are a lot of anecdotes for it. I will say that premeasuring in Warmachine would probably break the game as certain feats would get out of hand and there's a lot of little things that moving into a perfect position that has been calculated out just wouldn't feel good to go against.

I'm curious what feats would break the game? A lot of those are based on Ctrl which can be premeasuring anyways.

If you play Steamroller then you can generally "premeasure" most things that are important. You know zones, starting zones, ctrl areas, etc. And certain casters pretty much allow you to premeasure everything. I haven't seen it break the game nor do I feel casters are more powerful because they usually can premeasure.

The only thing that not premeasuring does is make it harder for newbies. Which WM/H has a pretty steep learning curve as is so reducing that would be beneficial as it would get more people in the game and focus more on tactics instead of spatial awareness. The only people who should worry about premeasuring are vets who need an advantage over newbies.

Some feats would be bonkers. Especially ones that you might need to be advance forward to use. Like Denny's feat. If she wants to catch your warcaster, but isn't sure if she will with an advance/charge, if she could premeasure she'd know. Otherwise its a risk/reward type of deal.

Fantasy doesn't need the element of unknown in the current rules. Warmachine does.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Mordekiem wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
I felt like warhammer fantasy lost something when they went with premeasuring, namely cannons became insanely good. I simply declared the impact 6 inches in front of what ever I wanted to hit and the bounce usually took care of the rest. 7th Ed and before I would have to declare a direction and distance than measure the impact point, then random overshot and bounce. That and they came in with random charges to balance out premeasuring, true Los worked its way in killing wood elves, ranged got worse from being able to kite out of effective range and the chance of a long charge getting your archer in combat a turn before they should have. GW games are the only game I can think of that has done a before and after picture of premeasuring and I don't like it at all, but mostly because they traded that tactile risk for random risk and other stupid changes they did or refused to do. There's very little imperial evidence to prove premeasuring is good or bad, but there are a lot of anecdotes for it. I will say that premeasuring in Warmachine would probably break the game as certain feats would get out of hand and there's a lot of little things that moving into a perfect position that has been calculated out just wouldn't feel good to go against.

I'm curious what feats would break the game? A lot of those are based on Ctrl which can be premeasuring anyways.

If you play Steamroller then you can generally "premeasure" most things that are important. You know zones, starting zones, ctrl areas, etc. And certain casters pretty much allow you to premeasure everything. I haven't seen it break the game nor do I feel casters are more powerful because they usually can premeasure.

The only thing that not premeasuring does is make it harder for newbies. Which WM/H has a pretty steep learning curve as is so reducing that would be beneficial as it would get more people in the game and focus more on tactics instead of spatial awareness. The only people who should worry about premeasuring are vets who need an advantage over newbies.

Some feats would be bonkers. Especially ones that you might need to be advance forward to use. Like Denny's feat. If she wants to catch your warcaster, but isn't sure if she will with an advance/charge, if she could premeasure she'd know. Otherwise its a risk/reward type of deal.

Fantasy doesn't need the element of unknown in the current rules. Warmachine does.

I play both Dennys and never have really had that issue. It is a huge threat range as is. And still don't see it as game breaking. No rules are changed. She gains no additional threat or abilities. All it does is reward the person with good spatial judgement. Which has zero to do with tactics and is usually only a benefit to longtime players.

Again, it comes down to precision of placement. The warcaster has limited premeasuring and in that faucet can get quite good information that base decisions on and good eyeballing will get good results. The ability to plant a tape measure down before you move and begin measuring out the perfect spot before risking anything is a bit much. eGaspy figuring out perfect charge angles, eHaley catching the maximum amount of your army with precision, these sorts of things can cause major balance problems. Harry's feat would essentially become useless as everyone could figure out how to move and avoid it. These actually negate tactics and risk and bring it to cold calculation of is this good or bad instead of am I making a good risk?

All it does is reward the person with good spatial judgement. Which has zero to do with tactics and is usually only a benefit to longtime players.

Exactly - it may well be a skill - well sorta - but its nothing to do with tactics - how you use information is tactics not whether you gain that by "skill" , informed guess work or by simply pre-measuring.

 Mr Morden wrote:

All it does is reward the person with good spatial judgement. Which has zero to do with tactics and is usually only a benefit to longtime players.

Exactly - it may well be a skill - well sorta - but its nothing to do with tactics - how you use information is tactics not whether you gain that by "skill" , informed guess work or by simply pre-measuring.

Information gathering is still an important tactical skill. As is how you decide to act upon uncertain information.

 Surtur wrote:
Again, it comes down to precision of placement. The warcaster has limited premeasuring and in that faucet can get quite good information that base decisions on and good eyeballing will get good results. The ability to plant a tape measure down before you move and begin measuring out the perfect spot before risking anything is a bit much. eGaspy figuring out perfect charge angles, eHaley catching the maximum amount of your army with precision, these sorts of things can cause major balance problems. Harry's feat would essentially become useless as everyone could figure out how to move and avoid it. These actually negate tactics and risk and bring it to cold calculation of is this good or bad instead of am I making a good risk?

Yet again, no mechanics are actually changed in anything you mentioned. eGaspy either will or will not have those charge angles. eHaley either will or will not be able to catch more or less of your army. Either your models are close enough to catch al of them or they are not. And again, with feats that are CTRL they are pretty darn easy to use as is. OTOH the opposing player can also premeasure to make sure his models are the right distance apart so they both won't get caught. Wouldn't that weaken these abilities? Not really, it would come down to both players having the same information and then the decisions they make based off of that info are more important.

And by Harry, I assume you mean Harby? It is possible that people may use that info to move around perfectly. But the feat still does mechanically the exact same thing. It stops people from moving closer to her. models who are just going to skirt around her are still going to skirt around.

Again, nothing game breaking I am seeing. If anything it evens the playing field and makes the game more dependent on your actual skills and tactics instead of one person having an innate advantage over the other based off an ability that really has nothing to do with tactics and moving around little men at all.

I understand the mechanics are the same, it's the precision that changes, and that changes the outcomes and the decision making process. There are times when measuring out changes a lot. I had a feat turn with eThangs that would have destroyed my friends entire jack force (this was a 100 point game with two casters) provided everything went to plan. I was off by a fraction of an inch. I've had an opponent misguess the distance between my models thinking they could squeeze through for a caster kill attempt. Being able to premeasure has the ability to change a great number of variables that to say it wouldn't matter in the least is oversimplifying the situation. Perfect vs imperfect information matters a lot.

And yes I meant harby my phone love to correct me.

 Surtur wrote:
I understand the mechanics are the same, it's the precision that changes, and that changes the outcomes and the decision making process. There are times when measuring out changes a lot. I had a feat turn with eThangs that would have destroyed my friends entire jack force (this was a 100 point game with two casters) provided everything went to plan. I was off by a fraction of an inch. I've had an opponent misguess the distance between my models thinking they could squeeze through for a caster kill attempt. Being able to premeasure has the ability to change a great number of variables that to say it wouldn't matter in the least is oversimplifying the situation. Perfect vs imperfect information matters a lot.

And yes I meant harby my phone love to correct me.

Whoa whoa whoa. You are putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say things wouldn't change in how you play the game. I said they would not be Game Breaking or cause major balance issues which is what others claimed. You could play the game with pre-measuring and it would still be a very balanced and playable game. How the game plays changes slightly, but I don't see how it would ruin balance or make it unplayable. Yes, the game would change slightly. It would be more tactical and less luck. Not a bad thing in my book.

The situations you described above (and in previous posts) are not game breaking or cause balance issues. Ultimately the situations you described are pure luck and chance. Luck on your opponents part that his forces were a fraction of an inch apart. Or luck on your part that your models were a fraction of an inch closer together than your opponent thought. And luck is what this all comes down to. You are making a guess which may or may not be correct. Which when you are coming down to fractions of inches you really are just guessing.

Also, premeasuring works both ways. So it balances out in that respect, too. And as stated earlier by others it helps deal with potential conflicts and cheating much easier as well.

I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

 Mordekiem wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
I understand the mechanics are the same, it's the precision that changes, and that changes the outcomes and the decision making process. There are times when measuring out changes a lot. I had a feat turn with eThangs that would have destroyed my friends entire jack force (this was a 100 point game with two casters) provided everything went to plan. I was off by a fraction of an inch. I've had an opponent misguess the distance between my models thinking they could squeeze through for a caster kill attempt. Being able to premeasure has the ability to change a great number of variables that to say it wouldn't matter in the least is oversimplifying the situation. Perfect vs imperfect information matters a lot.

And yes I meant harby my phone love to correct me.

Whoa whoa whoa. You are putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say things wouldn't change in how you play the game. I said they would not be Game Breaking or cause major balance issues which is what others claimed. You could play the game with pre-measuring and it would still be a very balanced and playable game. How the game plays changes slightly, but I don't see how it would ruin balance or make it unplayable. Yes, the game would change slightly. It would be more tactical and less luck. Not a bad thing in my book.

The situations you described above (and in previous posts) are not game breaking or cause balance issues. Ultimately the situations you described are pure luck and chance. Luck on your opponents part that his forces were a fraction of an inch apart. Or luck on your part that your models were a fraction of an inch closer together than your opponent thought. And luck is what this all comes down to. You are making a guess which may or may not be correct. Which when you are coming down to fractions of inches you really are just guessing.

Also, premeasuring works both ways. So it balances out in that respect, too. And as stated earlier by others it helps deal with potential conflicts and cheating much easier as well.

How are either of those 'just luck'? Its lucky that I positioned my models just so to block a charge lane? That's not luck. Luck is random. I chose my position.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

It would go like any other change that PP makes: the internet would erupt with a million cries that the game was over!

After the beta period, the change would be appraised and would be reversed or maintained if PP thought that it was prejudicial / beneficial to their ideals of what the game should be and the game would go on.

But since pre-measuring has no practical benefit over the current system and has in fact quite a few drawbacks from a tactical depth standpoint, I highly doubt that even if MK3 ever comes, that pre-measuring will be a part of it.

PhantomViper wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

It would go like any other change that PP makes: the internet would erupt with a million cries that the game was over!

After the beta period, the change would be appraised and would be reversed or maintained if PP thought that it was prejudicial / beneficial to their ideals of what the game should be and the game would go on.

But since pre-measuring has no practical benefit over the current system and has in fact quite a few drawbacks from a tactical depth standpoint, I highly doubt that even if MK3 ever comes, that pre-measuring will be a part of it.

You don't like pre-measuring so its automatically "bad" - we get that................. lots of people do like it in many many games as has been stated on numerous occasions - somehow you keep ignoring all those many games that use it and are somehow not poorer for I?

Again is Chess or Go reduced in its gameplay or "tactical depth" because its uses set grid of squares, is Malifuax because you can premeasure?

There are clear and well explained reasons that it can help games - it may or may not be right for WM/H but that's a different argument entirely. As has been said - part of tactics is using information in the correct, most appropriate and beneficial manner- its got absolutely nothing to do with if you can eyeball a distance or not or if the rules allow you to measure x but not y.

If people want the potential to win games because they have slightly better or even massively superior spatial awareness rather than actual in game tactics that too is obviously their decision.

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

It would go like any other change that PP makes: the internet would erupt with a million cries that the game was over!

After the beta period, the change would be appraised and would be reversed or maintained if PP thought that it was prejudicial / beneficial to their ideals of what the game should be and the game would go on.

But since pre-measuring has no practical benefit over the current system and has in fact quite a few drawbacks from a tactical depth standpoint, I highly doubt that even if MK3 ever comes, that pre-measuring will be a part of it.

You don't like pre-measuring so its automatically "bad" - we get that................. lots of people do like it in many many games as has been stated on numerous occasions - somehow you keep ignoring all those many games that use it and are somehow not poorer for I?

Again is Chess or Go reduced in its gameplay or "tactical depth" because its uses set grid of squares, is Malifuax because you can premeasure?

There are clear and well explained reasons that it can help games - it may or may not be right for WM/H but that's a different argument entirely. As has been said - part of tactics is using information in the correct, most appropriate and beneficial manner- its got absolutely nothing to do with if you can eyeball a distance or not or if the rules allow you to measure x but not y.

If people want the potential to win games because they have slightly better or even massively superior spatial awareness rather than actual in game tactics that too is obviously their decision.

There you go again throwing that "bad" word around. No one but you is stating that a game is better or worse for allowing or disallowing pre-measuring. You seem to have a huge inferiority complex over this for some weird reason...

And to address your examples, yes, chess is a game with a very reduced tactical depth that is based around memorizing a finite number of piece placement options and what their correct counter is. There is absolutely 0 innovation in tactical play in chess because all of the possible moves and counter moves are recorded, that is why all the major players use computers to figure out the best openings and the best set of moves, its all pre-determined.

You prefer tactically less complex games that allow pre-measurement and so don't need that much thought put out in things like model placement or math, we get it, there is nothing wrong with it and a game isn't bad or good because of it.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

It would go like any other change that PP makes: the internet would erupt with a million cries that the game was over!

After the beta period, the change would be appraised and would be reversed or maintained if PP thought that it was prejudicial / beneficial to their ideals of what the game should be and the game would go on.

But since pre-measuring has no practical benefit over the current system and has in fact quite a few drawbacks from a tactical depth standpoint, I highly doubt that even if MK3 ever comes, that pre-measuring will be a part of it.

You don't like pre-measuring so its automatically "bad" - we get that................. lots of people do like it in many many games as has been stated on numerous occasions - somehow you keep ignoring all those many games that use it and are somehow not poorer for I?

Again is Chess or Go reduced in its gameplay or "tactical depth" because its uses set grid of squares, is Malifuax because you can premeasure?

There are clear and well explained reasons that it can help games - it may or may not be right for WM/H but that's a different argument entirely. As has been said - part of tactics is using information in the correct, most appropriate and beneficial manner- its got absolutely nothing to do with if you can eyeball a distance or not or if the rules allow you to measure x but not y.

If people want the potential to win games because they have slightly better or even massively superior spatial awareness rather than actual in game tactics that too is obviously their decision.

There you go again throwing that "bad" word around. No one but you is stating that a game is better or worse for allowing or disallowing pre-measuring. You seem to have a huge inferiority complex over this for some weird reason...

And to address your examples, yes, chess is a game with a very reduced tactical depth that is based around memorizing a finite number of piece placement options and what their correct counter is. There is absolutely 0 innovation in tactical play in chess because all of the possible moves and counter moves are recorded, that is why all the major players use computers to figure out the best openings and the best set of moves, its all pre-determined.

You prefer tactically less complex games that allow pre-measurement and so don't need that much thought put out in things like model placement or math, we get it, there is nothing wrong with it and a game isn't bad or good because of it.

Wow what a staggering amount of arrogance and passive aggressiveness allow me to retort...........

I said "bad "as you constantly in all you posts say how the specific game you enjoy and its mechanisms are so very superior - espeically in regard to "tactics" - its entirely obvious that you feel that very people could ever reach your high plateau of skill and tactical knowledge - it must be very cold up there on the mountain.

Yeah you are so right - Malifaux does not require thought - no does any other game except your perfect WM/H...................

Love the way you gnore other people saying the same as me that perhaps maybe games are better with it but I guess that selective reading comprehension for you.

Well, premeasuring would mean that there were fewer games decided by silly things like someone thinking they're in range, going for something, then finding out they weren't in range and subsequently losing because of it. Personally, I think moments like that tend to rob both players of a cool game, so I wouldn't really miss them.

When it doesn't come down to win or lose it's not so bad. It's usually when someone estimates a charge wrong and a heavy or caster ends up flatfooted half a millimetre away from where they were trying to go.

Trying to estimate distances can be kinda fun, though. Either way is OK!

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Well, premeasuring would mean that there were fewer games decided by silly things like someone thinking they're in range, going for something, then finding out they weren't in range and subsequently losing because of it. Personally, I think moments like that tend to rob both players of a cool game, so I wouldn't really miss them.

When it doesn't come down to win or lose it's not so bad. It's usually when someone estimates a charge wrong and a heavy or caster ends up flatfooted half a millimetre away from where they were trying to go.

Trying to estimate distances can be kinda fun, though. Either way is OK!

On the flip side, you would also lose out on moments where players try to take a long-shot maneuver, find themselves just out of range, and lose their gamble. Or succeeds, because they guessed better than their opponent. Instead, people would simply measure stuff, and that would be that. A lot fewer risky plays.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Wow what a staggering amount of arrogance and passive aggressiveness allow me to retort...........

I said "bad "as you constantly in all you posts say how the specific game you enjoy and its mechanisms are so very superior - espeically in regard to "tactics" - its entirely obvious that you feel that very people could ever reach your high plateau of skill and tactical knowledge - it must be very cold up there on the mountain.

Yeah you are so right - Malifaux does not require thought - no does any other game except your perfect WM/H...................

Love the way you gnore other people saying the same as me that perhaps maybe games are better with it but I guess that selective reading comprehension for you.

And there you go again...

In the very next post to the one that I say that a game isn't better or worse than the other you again resort to putting terms like "superior" and "better" in my mouth...

More Complex != Superior / Inferior, one thing doesn't have anything to do with the other. And I didn't said anywhere that Malifaux didn't require thinking. What I said was that it didn't require as much thinking when it comes to model placement, because all the measurements are known beforehand, and that it didn't require as much thinking put into mathematically analysing the distances involved, because all distances are known.

Malifaux's tactical complexity come from an even more complex unit activation model and from the bigger impact that the resource management aspect has in the outcome of the game. It presents its players with a distinct range of tactical choices than the ones that are presented in a game of WMH. AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE GAME BETTER OR WORSE THAN WMH, JUST DIFFERENT!

Is English your first language? You flag implies that it is, but with the difficulties that you continuously demonstrate, first in interpreting simple game rules and now in interpreting simple posts, it is starting to make me wonder.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Well, premeasuring would mean that there were fewer games decided by silly things like someone thinking they're in range, going for something, then finding out they weren't in range and subsequently losing because of it. Personally, I think moments like that tend to rob both players of a cool game, so I wouldn't really miss them.

When it doesn't come down to win or lose it's not so bad. It's usually when someone estimates a charge wrong and a heavy or caster ends up flatfooted half a millimetre away from where they were trying to go.

Trying to estimate distances can be kinda fun, though. Either way is OK!

On the flip side, you would also lose out on moments where players try to take a long-shot maneuver, find themselves just out of range, and lose their gamble. Or succeeds, because they guessed better than their opponent. Instead, people would simply measure stuff, and that would be that. A lot fewer risky plays.

That's what I'm okay with, I think? I mean, there would still be lots of risky plays, just they'd be about whether you succeed in your dice rolls and stuff, whether you weighed the odds properly, not oh, you're out by 1mm so your entire activation was pointless and now you probably lose.

I have not seen many people who are really excited when they guess wrong and fail. Usually people seem disappointed or unhappy that their model or half their unit or whatever got to do literally nothing. I wouldn't mind getting rid of that.

I mean, when I picked up the Warmachine box, I wasn't thinking "wow I am going to have a blast trying to guess ranges." The models smashing into each other, throwing each other around the table, being cute, etc. That's what makes me want to play, not "oh, you're out by 1mm, you lose." That isn't fun for anyone really, at least that I've seen.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That isn't fun for anyone really, at least that I've seen.

Except for your opponent that perfectly positioned his models to lure you into making and failing that charge.

PhantomViper wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That isn't fun for anyone really, at least that I've seen.

Except for your opponent that perfectly positioned his models to lure you into making and failing that charge.

It's not fun for the opponent either because it just made the rest of the game pointless and it is intensely silly and boring.

Tonight I played a game that came down to my opponent trying to kill my warlock. He thought he could probably get his colossal into melee. I thought he probably couldn't. It turns out I was right, and so instead of getting to do something interesting like, say, make attacks with his 19-point model, he failed his charge and the game was essentially over. That is dumb and not as fun as if he had been able to say, well, okay, this isn't going to make it into melee so I'll attack something different and maybe it will be a game.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That isn't fun for anyone really, at least that I've seen.

Except for your opponent that perfectly positioned his models to lure you into making and failing that charge.

It's not fun for the opponent either because it just made the rest of the game pointless and it is intensely silly and boring.

Tonight I played a game that came down to my opponent trying to kill my warlock. He thought he could probably get his colossal into melee. I thought he probably couldn't. It turns out I was right, and so instead of getting to do something interesting like, say, make attacks with his 19-point model, he failed his charge and the game was essentially over. That is dumb and not as fun as if he had been able to say, well, okay, this isn't going to make it into melee so I'll attack something different and maybe it will be a game.

If you opponent's colossal was trying to get into melee with your Warcaster, then you could have known 100% if he was going to fail or succeed by simply measuring your warlock's control range and so would your opponent.

If the game was dependant on that single movement, then your opponent shouldn't have made it if he wasn't 100% sure that he was going to make it. He took a gamble and he lost. Worse than that, he took a gamble that he could have avoided. That is not the game's fault, that is the player's.