I used to play Warmachine, which between the 1st and 2nd version changed the rules regarding pre-measuring distances on the table. In the original version of the rules, the only thing you could measure at any time was the command radius from your leader - all other measurements were made after declaring something like a charge or ranged attack, and then you would see if you were close enough, a failure meaning a disastrous wasted turn. A lot of experienced wargames are very good at eyeballing distance on a tabletop, and first strike capability was always relevant. So if someone was trying to move units up as far as possible while staying just outside their opponents striking range, that difference might be a matter of millimeters. It could often be so slim, in fact, that the conventional tabletop tape measure was simply not up to the task of cleanly deciding if a unit was in or out of range. Once, I watched two players with a laser line tool argue over the thickness of the light it projected onto the table! (The player arguing there was no line of sight was correct- the models only grazed the opposite edges of the line). Not to mention the slightest touch or bump to the table itself changing the results. This could be fun at my local game store, playing with friends who I could trust to make fair judgements, and who were part of the same social fabric so they knew any angle shooting would be repaid in kind. I experienced it as a kind of game of chicken or battle of wills with my opponent - placing my troops as close to that boundary as possible, daring them to take the chance and fire or charge, courting disaster for them if I was right, or myself if I had overreached. When it came to friendly games this was fun for a while. But when it came to competitive gameplay, with chess clocks and strangers at tournaments, the feeling became less 'ballsy' and more like petty haggling and the social versions of flopping in football, acting outraged or hurt to try and get the other party to give in when conflicts inevitably arose. Less grand strategy and thunderous guns, and more children in the backseat of a car arguing 'I'm not touching you!'. Which is probably why they changed it in the second edition of the rules, allowing for pre-measuring. This meant that when moving your troops up, you could use the measuring tape to show your units were out of range, your opponent could agree, and there was no need for arguing over millimeter precision placement. When you decided where to move your shooting troops, you could move them up to the maximum range of their guns from your eventual intended target, measure and everyone could see and agree they were in range before you ended your movement. It almost entirely eliminated the failed charges and ranged attacks of the previous version. Ultimately I think I preferred the second version of the rules. I had fun with the imprecision of eyeballing measurement, the risk taking and physical skill involved, but it fell apart at a highly competitive skill level and playing against strangers. If a wargame wants to use these kinds of rules, I think when measurements are taken the game benefits from extreme clarity, because I find the kind of social dance arguing over who deserves the benefit of the doubt exhausting and terrible for immersion in the game and moment.

@StudioWatchwolf

5 ай бұрын

This is perhaps the best comment the channel has ever received, thank you; and so good I might do an episode just discussing this! Could you reduce what you’ve written here to a number of key points for us to work from?

@IronWilliam

5 ай бұрын

@@StudioWatchwolfThanks so much! I'll try and bullet point it. - Eyeballing geometry like distance and angles is physical skill that can be used to create interesting gameplay challenges and decisions between players - Resolving questions of measurement like range or line of sight can result in ambiguous situations that are very difficult to judge, even with good measuring tools available - In a casual environment with a strong social fabric, these situations could usually be amicably resolved since players knew being honest and goodwilled would be repaid in kind by future opponents. - In more competitive environments such as playing in tournaments, particularly with stakes or against strangers, this goodwill based resolution broke down as players gained advantage by using negative social pressure to garner concessions from their opponent over ambiguous situations. - Overall, I think the gameplay mechanic/challenge of eyeballing geometry is fun, but has downsides. The catch is that the downsides are mitigated well by social factors in more casual environments, but in a competitive setting these downsides impact the game more strongly.

@StudioWatchwolf

5 ай бұрын

A great summary, and I think most players would have to agree with your points. I generally think players are mistaken to talk about a 'social contract' when in reality it doesn't exist. My own solution has been to eliminate supposedly casual play and run, regular formal events where the rules and the constraints on style are clear. Then people can be as friendly or as hostile as they like, but it doesn't change what's possible on the tabletop. In theory anyway! :-}

@Lord_Evidar

3 ай бұрын

So, this was actually the change between 2nd and 3rd edition. The reasoning for the changes was because experienced players who could eyeball the distances could often get to generals (warcasters) who newer players thought were safe and kill them which would end the game instantly. The change was overall good but had a strange effect on competitive play. Because you could now measure everything competitive players would. They would place endless proxy bases and measuring tools on a table, effectively measuring out an entire turn to see if getting a caster kill was possible. When you couldn't, they would pick up all the bases and start actually taking their turn. It slowed down the game massively, and it largely the reason why a lot of tournaments for many different systems now limit the number of proxy bases you can have in play at once.

@snarkymcsnarkface1863

2 ай бұрын

I miss these days... mk2 was such a great experince.

Interesting discussion. I've never played infinity, but have been playing kings of war for a number of years now. It's generally agreed that part of what contributes to kings being one of the nicer "communities" in wargaming is that it is played as a game of intention (as in "it's my intention to place this unit so its front arc is facing your knights, do you agree I've placed it so that is the case?") even though the rules don't address that as far as I'm aware. This prevents discord/bad feeling about pieces that may or may not have been nudged out of position or whatever and keeps the game focused on the metagame between the players - who's going to blink first, will they recognise the gambit or take the bait etc.

@StudioWatchwolf

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for this comment; I very much agree that our games are improved by the sort of good-faith negotiations you describe. By contrast, Play By Intent *obliged* players to accept their opponent's unit positions and their desired outcome - regardless of demonstrable reality or what was even possible.

I met Dean like more than three years ago and made me hoke up to War games especially 40k. I'm really enjoying your discussion, it's very entertaining and informative.

@StudioWatchwolf

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for the encouragement. Yes, he's a top geezer and always makes it fun for his opponent. Lachlan

I enjoyed the chat. I've never considered how playing with intent, castrates wargames. It suddenly makes sense that my opponent isn't responsible for my dolly's safety. I would also say that shots must also be declared before moving around the table to see if it's possible. So both sides have to contend with this parallaxsis. Subscriber earned.

@StudioWatchwolf

4 ай бұрын

Thanks! I think we have to distinguish ‘intent’ in good-faith games from 'Play By Intent' as a rule invented by a particular faction of Infinity players. In good-faith wargaming, players generally position their troops by negotiation with their opponent, whereas Infinity's Play By Intent faction *obliges* the opponents to accept an intended outcome whether they like it or not; and indeed whether it could be achieved in practice or even in theory! Dean's point was that people who need that sort of assurance are probably too anxious to be playing wargames in the first place. @Lachlan

@garyjenson1326

4 ай бұрын

@@StudioWatchwolf yes but I'm not sure it's a good idea in any context. Here's what I mean: 1 my opponent isn't responsible for keeping my models safe, I am. 2 if we play that way it takes parallaxsis out of the game, which acts as a 3rd opponent. I also think parallaxsis is a great stand in for the fog of war or future predicting. After all you could argue that the uncertainty of future events is a kind of temporal parallaxsis. I would love to see gamers adopt "playing with integrity" instead. Ya make a move, bad things happen, and you live with it, rather than crying whining and making excuses. Like using gaming to be a better person kinda thing. I'm actually going to adopt these ideas with my group. Things like no moving beyond your side of the table until you've declared your action, whether it's offense or defense. I play necromunda so we are half way there with no premeasuring.

Thanks guys! Bit strange discussion about the clock there, chess clocks are staple in competitive events for all longer wargames I've played (nowadays atleast, can't speak for decades gone). If KoW has chess clocks in the rulesbook that's cool i guess, but I think it's natural for big fish like 40k to leave that out of the core rules for the sake of beginners. Regarding "you're the only one making rolls in your turn so you can use your time exactly as you want" it's a doubleedged sword, werein your opponent has nothing to do for long stretches of time. I personally have nothing against that tempo, but I can see why wargames en large are pivoting towards more reactive gameplay.

@StudioWatchwolf

5 ай бұрын

Yes, Kings of War has rules for game timers companion.manticgames.com/kings-of-war-rules/?chapter=17#rules_section_184 and my point was that this is only practicable if a player is entirely responsible for their own turn, as with chess or other traditional strategy games. Here, Dean had remarked that it's unusual for the active player to make all the dice rolls as I think you're saying. He was uncomfortable with it initially but our shared experience is good so far - despite our misgivings.

Great conversation and thanks for sharing your thoughts about wargames. Where is the venue for the video? (looking at all those English games on the shelves!)

@StudioWatchwolf

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching, and we’re glad you enjoyed it! The shop is Fistful of Dice, in Southsea, UK. There should be a link on the video itself, but I’ll put another in the video Description.

@TheGreypuffin

5 ай бұрын

@@StudioWatchwolf Thanks. That explains things.

Hello Gents. Excellent thoughts. I'm a wargaming veteran (starting pre-gw) and played through a LOT of game systems. Kings of War found the perfect balance between classical wargaming and Fantasy for me. Hope to see more content from you in future! We did this video discussing KoW in depth. kzread.info/dash/bejne/jJ5spLqulMKdnZM.html

@StudioWatchwolf

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for the post and your link; it's a good video! :-) What do you think about a Reddit forum where we can post our KoW/Mantic videos, blog articles and podcasts? Lachlan

@VictoriaWargaming

5 ай бұрын

@@StudioWatchwolf I think there is a KoW Reddit channel, but something specific? sounds interesting.

@StudioWatchwolf

5 ай бұрын

@@VictoriaWargaming There are Reddit channels for Mantic and each of their games. I envisaged a place where we could list whatever media we'd created, video, podcast, blog post, or whatever... Interpretive dance based on the lore of Pannithor, maybe? ;-)

Lol... ugh poor infinity being the whipping boy of bad interpretation. If you play infinity as it is written it is a vastly different and more enjoyable experince than the bad habbits of certain overly zealous half baked competitive "that guy" players would lead you to believe.

@StudioWatchwolf

2 ай бұрын

Nicely said! I had a whole bit about how a tiny minority of anxious, controlling little trolls had emasculated a game that was truly Spanish, overflowing with flair and machismo, and replaced it with a neutered co-op based on lying to one another.