Unbalanced things

[Arachas]

That chess clock idea is brilliant. That way you actually get to finish a game for once!!

[MARC C]

My other pet peeve for unbalanced things is measuring.

I was disappointed pre-measuring was not allowed with N3. A player shouldn't have an advantage over another because he is a carpenter or very good at judging distances. Its an unfair advantage outside the rule set. It shouldn't be a requirement to be in the top players of an event. Also, some people have eye disabilities that prevent them from judging distances correctly. They shouldn't be penalized because of that.

Most games are moving towards pre-measuring anyway. Warmachines is allowing it in MK3 coming out in June.

[Darek_CTR]

It's like saying that good players shouldn't have an advantage over poor players...

[MARC C]

It's like saying that good players shouldn't have an advantage over poor players...

As a architectural designer I have excellent judgement if distances. I don't see evaluation of distances as a wargaming skill. Its a skill you bring to the gaming table. Some excellent wargamers (tactics /strategy/evaluation of odds/superior use of the ruleset) don't have that skill. It shouldn't be a factor during game play. Pre-measuring also solves many measuring disputes and lessens the burden of the TO during events.

[H1ghlander]

Do soldiers in the future not have integrated HUDs in their helmets?

[!vg3g@%71]

@!vg3g@%71: What are those 4 pts. regular orders for Morats? If you think about Imetrons, then Morats can't field those, and neither can Shasvastii. They're available only in vanilla CA.

4 pt Gakis and 7 pt Pretas linked with the Oznat. With MAFs fighting Lt. order from the built in "CoC", it's easy to pull in 8+ orders at 150 pts with some quality troops to spend the orders on.

The pre-measuring argument... It is undoubtedly a way to add a skill curve to a game, the argument always boils down to whether or not the game should have that additional skill curve. My 2 cents are that games with zero sum measurement, ie things are in shooting/charge range or they are not like WM/H or Kings of War benefit more from pre-measuring because it puts less pressure on the player to "get it right". Games that have scaling ranges like Infinity or X-Wing are more forgiving for being out that 0.01" and don't need it as much.

Personally I'm selfish and like the steepness of the Infinity skill curve so anything that adds to that sounds good to me.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

In Infinity, the challenge of guessing the ranges is not that difficult and most of the time not that decisive. I imagine the game would be slowed down even more if pre measuring was allowed.

On the other side, pre-measuring would clear up a lot of situations and would put less of a disadvantage to people who are bad at guessing ranges. (I don t see that as a wargaming skill.)

One of the few things I was happy about when Warhammer 8th edition came out was that guessing ranges was out. Because guessing ranges was so important in previous editions, the game was a bit annoying to play. Too many arguments.

With Infinity, I am happy either way. But the next edition is hopefully far away, so we will have to guess ranges.

[Scorch]

I feel that the N3 approach to ranges (cutting everything up in parts of 8") makes it easier to guess and eyeball ranges. It's definitely an improvement over 2nd edition, which covered all kinds of intervals.

But you're right.. guessing ranges is not a wargame skill. Some people have better spacial awareness than others. Although with something as flexible as Infinity, I feel like it would definitely bog down the game even more.

[ARCangel]

I don't know, I feel like the argument that it will bog down the game needs to be weighed against the fact that most players would probably use some form of premeasurement primarily for important things, such as placing their HMG just right. Not for every possible interaction and ARO.

[MARC C]

I feel that the N3 approach to ranges (cutting everything up in parts of 8") makes it easier to guess and eyeball ranges. It's definitely an improvement over 2nd edition, which covered all kinds of intervals.

But you're right.. guessing ranges is not a wargame skill. Some people have better spacial awareness than others. Although with something as flexible as Infinity, I feel like it would definitely bog down the game even more.

That is why its important to use ChessClocks with pre-measurements in tournaments.

In casual play you can just tell your opponent to stop the shenanigans get on with it. I don't see that problem in Malifaux/Batman casual games I play these days.

[Bobman]

Personally I'm neither here nor there on pre measuring. The guess can be fun but it does give an advantage to those that have a knack for it. But similarly point values. If you've got a great memory you've only got to look at the army builder and point values are no longer secret.

[Stiopa]

point values are no longer secret.

Quite the opposite, from what I know they weren't secret before, but are now.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

Personally I'm neither here nor there on pre measuring. The guess can be fun but it does give an advantage to those that have a knack for it. But similarly point values. If you've got a great memory you've only got to look at the army builder and point values are no longer secret.

I find that part a bit annoying, too. The reason points and SWC are secret because they could give away your lt. But it is pretty stupid that you are not allowed to ask for the points value in a mission like Frontline or Supremacy. Someone who happens to be in the know simply has an advantage.

[Darek_CTR]

So now knowing the game is considered to be an unfair advantage as opposed to not knowing the game?

[Mob of Blondes]

Load outs are partially public and checking docs or using a calculator are not forbidden. The secrets are things like Lt, non deployed troops and so on.

[!vg3g@%71]

Almost every player frowns on pulling out a calculator to point lists but if you can do it internally and quickly there's no way to prevent a player from doing it let alone tell they are. If you're familiar enough with an army and have a sharp memory you can figure out most hidden deployment without even looking at a courtesy list. It undoubtedly rewards skills that are not directly associated with the game. Much like how no pre-measuring rewards skills not directly associated with the game.

The difference is you can absolutely prevent players from getting an advantage from eyeballing distances by adding pre-measuring while you cannot prevent players from quickly pointing lists for hidden info unless you remove hidden info from the game. You can only level the field against that by requiring courtesy lists or changing the opinion of players that pointing your opponent's list openly is acceptable behavior.

[ARCangel]

I don't really think we can call knowing point values an unfair advantage. That's the kind of the thing that depends on who you're playing with. I have an amazing memory so when my fiance throws down a list I can usually reason it out and figure things she can't from looking at mine. However we're friendly and I don't use that to my advantage, otherwise the game is short and not nearly as fun. Knowledge of the other player's list and its application is up to the person with it, the kind of people he plays with, and the kind of games he plays.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

So now knowing the game is considered to be an unfair advantage as opposed to not knowing the game?

No. An experienced player has an advantage over a less experienced player, and that is not unfair.

Knowing points off by heart as an advantage is a bit annoying because it encourages people to waste their time learning them off by heart. The most likely case of "unfair advantage" is when a player faces a force he/she also owns and thus knows the point value, but that is not mutual. This has happened to me a number of times. However, I don t think that advantage is very decisive.

The second issue was with the pre measuring. playing a lot may improve the ability to guess ranges, but some people are just better at this than others. And guessing ranges is not really considered a wargaming skill.

The ideal is that only the appliance of tactics and strategy counts, not knowledge gained from gazing at lists for hours or being able to know intuitively how far 8 inches are.

[Bobman]

point values are no longer secret.

Quite the opposite, from what I know they weren't secret before, but are now.

What I'm saying is they are supposed to be secret but I'd you know the army builder they are not.

[Arachas]

I like pre-measuring. I hate that "omg I came short 0,01" and now my turn is wasted" and if it happens to my opponent, I regularly allow him to do something else instead.

Stuff like that shouldn't matter.

[Stiopa]

From my experience wrong estimates happen mostly at large distances, as in "I thought I'm just outside that HMG range, but I was just inside it". We simply move on with the results. I see no problem with estimating range being a gaming skill, even if I don't have the perfect eye rangefinder myself.

There are two different cases where point values are concerned:

First one is that good knowledge of my opponent's army allows us to guess at hidden parts of its composition, as in "30-something points and 1,5 SWC unaccounted for, probably a Crusader with heavy weapon or TO sniper". This gives me no knowledge about their position and my opponent's plans for them - when does he plan to ARO, where will he drop his AD unit, and so on. This is part of the game, just as knowledge of my opponnent's unit stats, weaponry, or skills is. What's important is that it can be countered by skillful use of Camo, TO Camo, AD and Holo units.

Second case is that hiding point and SWC values prevents us from learning more specific Hidden Information: for example you can't say that any specific Alguacil is Lt. if you don't know if he costs 0 or 1 SWC, and no amount of knowing your enemy's army will tell you if his Myrmidon Officer is a Lt. or CoC version (CoC became Hidden Info in HSN3). This is something that mostly couldn't be countered, and as such would provide an unfair advantage.

[Scorch]

There are but a few actions really 'lost' in Infinity. You can still take a shot, even if it gives you 0 or -3 range. ZoC can be a different matter, but to my understanding is something that can be measured during reactive phase (but correct me if I'm wrong).

There are not many situations where you literally come 0.01 inch short of something. And if you take it to such an extreme precise level.. what the fuck, just take the shot and get it over with... It's a game, I'm not going to whine and have an argument about millimeters.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

Guessing ranges is not as important in Infinity as it was in earlier editions of Warhammer. In Warhammer, if you missed the guess, you would not get that charge in and had to move the unit with the failed charge into an stupid position. A single event like that could easily lose you the game. In Infinity, misguessing the range usually only means a different modifier. You can still get that shot in etc. The worst or best thing that can happen is that some model is out of range. Since all shots can fail anyway, it is not that much of a deal. And it is not that difficult to guess whether an HMG or a boarding shotgun are outside their sweet ranges.

Regarding the points, I have to admit that I fail to do those calculations when it comes to estimating my opponents forces. I sometimes understand that something big is held in reserve or is hidden. But I think I should be able to get that even without knowing the exact point values of each trooper. I just think that a TO guy may be hidden somewhere, but since I don t know how to deal with that, I just carry on with the game, stupid me.

If points values would be open that would probably lead to half an hour of explanation and calculation during the deployment phase. Maybe it is good that it is private information.

[Loki]

My group isn't particularly competitive. Like, we play to win our games, but we don't have the tournament mindset. We still mostly play book missions with classified objectives and have fun with it. Unit choices tend to err on the side of 'that model looks fucking boss' than 'that models stats are great.

Case in point - I run the Azra'il Fauerbach because it just looks totally badass. I now have the HMG but I doubt I'll stop using the Fauerbach. My friend plays nomads and uses Valeyra Gromoz despite owning Reverend Custodiers and Interventors because her model is cool. My brother uses Domaru links because they're space samurai. I run 7 Kum biker lists which end up with almost 0 SWC utilised because there's 7 Kum bikers on the table deal with it.

This does us a disservice at tournaments because it's hard to shake that mindset, but even at a tournament I know I'm not in the top tier of players there so I tend to still bring lists of cool models and just try to put up the best fight I can to give my opponents fun games.

However, I might have to get the 20x20 system. I hear nothing but good things about it. Variety is always good, and despite my lax attitude to competitiveness I always love playing to scenarios, so new stuff is great.

[Errhile]

Coming back to the chess clock idea - now how do you treat a situation when one player's "flag goes down" (i.e. his assigned time ran out)?

Does that mean player's current turn stops (even if he has Orders waiting to be spent)?
Does his opponent start his turn (provided there are game turns left, and the opponent has time left to play it)?
Is it a single turn, or the opponent can play as many turns as scenario and remaining time permit?
Do we simply consider it a loss for the player who ran out of time, or do we start counting objective points according to the situation on table?

[Prophet_of_Doom]

Coming back to the chess clock idea - now how do you treat a situation when one player's "flag goes down" (i.e. his assigned time ran out)?

Does that mean player's current turn stops (even if he has Orders waiting to be spent)?
Does his opponent start his turn (provided there are game turns left, and the opponent has time left to play it)?
Is it a single turn, or the opponent can play as many turns as scenario and remaining time permit?
Do we simply consider it a loss for the player who ran out of time, or do we start counting objective points according to the situation on table?

I would think that because the flag is likely to fall in the last turn, the player simply can t spend orders any more.

Digital chess clocks have two modes: Move timer and Game timer. Move timer is time per move, which would be the turn in Infinity or game timer, which applies to the whole game, like in chess. So you can spend a lot of time on deployment and the first turn, and then hurry up on turn 3. At least thats what my chess clock does. Really good chess clock even allow increments.

if you d use a move timer, the player couldnt spend orders on his/her turn any more after the time ran out. The player will get more time for the next turn.

I would suggest using the game timer. In both cases, it is not like chess where you lose if you run out of time. In infinity, you just cant use more orders.

[Errhile]

Can't say I'm sold on the Move Timer: there is a good chance that one will be having way more orders (and models who could use them) on their first turn than on their last turn. In chess, you move one piece at a time after all, regardless of how many pieces you got left on the board.

So, you'd either have to really hurry on first turn and then have more and more time on the following ones, or find a way to adjust "move time" between turns.

That being said, the chess clock I used (back in the day when I had anything to do with chess) was a basic mechanical design that had only the "Game Time" mode.

[MARC C]

We use Game time. 1 hour per player including deployment.

If a player clocks himself they other player shouldn't be penalized in any way. Otherwise it could be used as a way to score a win by the player who clocked himself if he has more points.

The player with time left on his clock starts a new turn. He gets as many turns as he has left (1-2) to try to score as many objectives and classifieds. He must spend orders to move, shoot and make rolls for objectives. No AROs allowed. I'm against awarding to maximum 10 points automatically and stop the game.

[Mob of Blondes]

I can translate the rules I saw time ago, but about running out of time, I think AROs were the only thing allowed in one (Infiny-Real 2015). Bah, looked it up:

Timers are not stopped to resolve doubts, unless a referee says so. 50 minutes per player, once run out, only AROs using active player time (I guess you can ask a referee to declare idle if taking a lot of time).
First player starts own timer, sets up, hits clock.
Second player sets up, hits clock.
First player places last miniature, hits clock.
Second player places last miniature, hits clock.
First player declares skill, hits clock.
Second player declares AROs or nothing, hits clock.
First player declares second skill, hits clock.
Second player declares AROs or nothing, hits clock.
Take measures and roll dice.
...
Next turn, second player (making sure timer is his) declares skill, hits clock.
First player, AROs... etc etc

Yes, it's a party of clock smashing. And yes, it seems every place does it different about AROs or running out of time. Just make sure the rules are clear days before the tourney.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

Hitting the clock every time an ARO has to be declared, sounds very fair, but may be a bit too much in a game which is already challenging. I have even witnessed quite a few people forgetting about hitting the clock in chess where there is very little material! (Including myself).

Not allowing ARO when pressing the clock is once a turn to someone who has timed out seems unfair to me.

The greatest problem I see with the chess clock approach is that it makes the game too hasty. I don t think I would attend such an event. ITS tournaments are already a bit too stressful for my taste.