Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Sergeants Miniatures Game: Day of Days» Forums » Rules

Subject: Ignoring the map border and a range question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Charlie Theel
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is the only reason for the map border to create a clean line around the map? It doesn't seem necessary to hold the tiles together and the new thin border doens't have any info - so it seems like we could ignore using the border tiles and save some time.

Second question - are there any unforseen issues with measuring range by eye-balling it? What I mean is if a I'm measuring range for a Shoot action and the line clips a landmark tile. Any harm if I just count that as 1 square instead of 2 (since it is clearly not the equivalent of passing through 2 squares)? Same thing with clipping 2 corner's ever so slightly but it's clearly about the same length as a single tile.

I understand why the rules are worded the way that they are (You can't direct people to use common sense and eye-ball distance) but if I'm playing with friends and we agree on friendly range measuring, is this going to cause any issues that I'm not seeing?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Lowell
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's certainly up to the people at any particular game to decide how they want to rule some things like this. As a rule of thumb, if it's pretty close to cutting through one or another tile, I give the benefit to the defender by going with the square that offers a lower modifier. As far as cutting through a Landmark and counting it as a square, again this is something that people can decide upon beforehand. Again, if it's pretty close I give the benefit to the defender, but if the line is cutting through the landmark pretty noticeably, I call it a landmark and as 2 squares.

These things make positioning more important. Like it's better to shoot out of a landmark than shoot into one. Putting as many tiles between yourself and an attacker is generally a good thing, as getting all the modifiers will keep a soldier alive. So cutting through pieces of many squares is better than being the same distance away and only having 2 squares between you.

But again, this game allows for people to play to a style that they prefer. More lax or more serious. It's your game, you make it what you and your group want it to be.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is something to be said for actually trying a game, per the rules as written..you know...one or two times...before revising them.

I know that may be counter-intuitive, because, after all, when you have a better idea on Day 1, it's a better idea.

Pardon if i sound short. I guess I've watched a dozen or more people who fixed Commands and Colors Ancients by adding in the "missing flank bonus modifiers" before they finished reading the rules-seems like there are two per year who discover the game for the first time and can't understand how the rest of us have overlooked that for seven years now.

It's a free country and you own what you buy.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charlie Theel
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kduke wrote:
There is something to be said for actually trying a game, per the rules as written..you know...one or two times...before revising them.

I know that may be counter-intuitive, because, after all, when you have a better idea on Day 1, it's a better idea.

Pardon if i sound short. I guess I've watched a dozen or more people who fixed Commands and Colors Ancients by adding in the "missing flank bonus modifiers" before they finished reading the rules-seems like there are two per year who discover the game for the first time and can't understand how the rest of us have overlooked that for seven years now.

It's a free country and you own what you buy.


I'm not trying to fix anything because nothing is broken.

My opponent was a bit miffed because if he wouldn't have moved his guy a half inch to the right the previous turn he wouldn't have suffered as steep a penalty (for clipping the corner of a landmark). He asked if we could just count it as 1 tile since it was just the corner of a tile. I didn't mind as we were just playing to have a good time.

I was wondering if doing so would have any unforseen consequences. The incentive to shoot out of a landmark as oposed to into one sounds like a good reason not to fudge anything as you could lose that incentive.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mayor Jim
United States
Fort Wright
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
Vote Often!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
...ummm...why not just follow the rules as written and as per the examples? Close calls can be judged as you want I guess?...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allan Doyle

Virginia
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
charlest wrote:
kduke wrote:
There is something to be said for actually trying a game, per the rules as written..you know...one or two times...before revising them.

I know that may be counter-intuitive, because, after all, when you have a better idea on Day 1, it's a better idea.

Pardon if i sound short. I guess I've watched a dozen or more people who fixed Commands and Colors Ancients by adding in the "missing flank bonus modifiers" before they finished reading the rules-seems like there are two per year who discover the game for the first time and can't understand how the rest of us have overlooked that for seven years now.

It's a free country and you own what you buy.


I'm not trying to fix anything because nothing is broken.

My opponent was a bit miffed because if he wouldn't have moved his guy a half inch to the right the previous turn he wouldn't have suffered as steep a penalty (for clipping the corner of a landmark). He asked if we could just count it as 1 tile since it was just the corner of a tile. I didn't mind as we were just playing to have a good time.

I was wondering if doing so would have any unforseen consequences. The incentive to shoot out of a landmark as oposed to into one sounds like a good reason not to fudge anything as you could lose that incentive.


Sounds to me you did he right thing. While learning a new game, we often do things that we would not have done once becoming familiar with the rules. I find it much better to continue with the game and overlook such things while using it as a learning experience for proper game play.

In future games I would follow the rules.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Lowell
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree Allan. I'm usually very casual when teaching any game, but I will also mention that in the future, this or that will "count" or not "count", and that sticking to the rules would be the way future games would be played. I never like to turn people off to any game because of being too rigid when players are first learning the game and hearing all the rules for the first time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
AMOS BURKE
United Kingdom
WALSALL
WEST MIDLANDS
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
charlest wrote:
are there any unforseen issues with measuring range by eye-balling


When you get the hang of the game, No

You get an eye for it after a while ,but some times things are close are you need a line.

Also the rules say when the line clips the corners on squares "Use the one with the lowest modifier".

If you ignore counting squares it will make the game more deadly.

So when in dout count the lowest modifier
Amos
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks again, Amos. Most especially if a person is playing with just Day or a scenario that uses Day type proportions (2 Landmarks, 16 squares), they sure don't need to do anything that REDUCES the range, do they?



If I seem a tad sensitive about folks changing rules before they have actually experienced them, it's because I'm old. And I've been around a lot of games and game development and rules writing. And I have lost about 1/2 my hair from folks who make a lot of house rules 'early,' like on the first read-through of the rules... and in a week or so, they or their friends are posting how lousy the game works. They never follow the bread crumbs back to the point where they started turning it into a different game.

The consistently maddening thing about it is that most folks who do this will say, "I'm not REALLY changing ANYTHING." Regardless of how much they have turned the game on its head, they will maintain it is nothing more than a "tweak" to make it better. It never seems to occur to them that they might have included elements the designer chose to leave out, after having some similar sort of inspiration, testing it, and finding out it mucked something up.

The Commands and Colors references are very real...worst case being, "Just got X. It looks great! I'm about half-way through reading the rules. Here are my corrections for..." That happened with a WW1 game too. "Looks great! Almost finished reading the rules. I've designed an addition to include the middle east and here it is..."
Neither of those is any exaggeration.

I don't fathom how folks get time and nerve to work like that. Do I think about tinkering with something that seems to be 'missing' in a game? Sure. Do I go ahead and "fix it" before I've tried it... and post my corrections before I've played them myself?

I think you know the answer to that.

Sorry for that venting, but I'll try to be a lot easier the next time anyone posts untested improvements. Easier, like, saying nothing in print!

But getting back to the original post:


Quote:
My opponent was a bit miffed because if he wouldn't have moved his guy a half inch to the right the previous turn he wouldn't have suffered as steep a penalty (for clipping the corner of a landmark). He asked if we could just count it as 1 tile since it was just the corner of a tile. I didn't mind as we were just playing to have a good time.


I know we all want to go easy when we're teaching a game (especially if we are learning it ourselves at the same time), but in this case, would it have not been easier to let him move his guy "a half inch back to the left" if he is grousing about some unforseen penalty to a move, which-- it appears-- was not a particularly significant choice? That way his errant 1/2 inch (if it really was an aimless move) is corrected without changing the game's actual mechanics. That would seem to be an easier practice and involve a lot less discussion.

The veterans can tell you that a half-inch can be very important, at some portions of the game. Don't ask to move that guy a 1/2 inch after the grenade gets tossed!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
AMOS BURKE
United Kingdom
WALSALL
WEST MIDLANDS
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kduke wrote:
a half-inch can be very important


My wife agreed that 1/2" can be very important.whistlesorry Kevin ,to good to pass.

Play, play and play the game again then see if the situation keeps happening then there is call for a house rule,but for a one off mistake why change the rules.

Amos
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Lowell
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mistakes are going to be made and people are going to move a soldier into a wrong spot here and there, that's the human element that can bite them in the butt. I've done it plenty of times in various games and then say, "crap, why'd I do that?" But then I laugh about it instead of getting upset.

Heck, the last game I played, I was teaching the game on a DoD scenario. I got my U.S. soldiers on the map in quick fashion and scouted a landmark and was on my way to another before my opponent even got some of his Germans on the map. I was feeling bad for him as it took him halfway through turn two to get on the map, so I wasn't being overly cautious with my positioning. Well it bit me in the butt when he did get on the map and his MP40's were lighting my guys up. He was pulling Hit+'s like crazy and going from one soldier to another within 3" and then back and forth etc. My guys were wounded or pinned before they knew what hit them. Needless to say, it was ugly the rest of the way for the Americans. But that's what they get for being so loud and careless during their recon and that's what I get for feeling too sorry for my opponent that was playing his first game. He's played a lot of war games and other games over the years, so he's going to take advantage of my mistakes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curtis Thornock
United States
Idaho Falls
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with most of what's gone before, and definitely (as Kevin suggested) would have allowed my opponent to, "fudge move" his soldier once he realized his error, possibly pointing out I put his target, my guy, where I did anticipating his dilemma of placing his guy in cover vs open for a cleaner shot at me, if that were the case. (Just guessing, as I obviously wasn't there and don't know what your opponent's reason for placing his soldier where he did).

In direct answer to OP, the other immediate issue I see with house-rules is...

Tournaments and/or organized play.

House rules, (even brilliant ones), become a source of contention the moment one travels outside ones "home" area.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mayor Jim
United States
Fort Wright
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
Vote Often!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
House rules, (even brilliant ones), become a source of contention the moment one travels outside ones "home" area.

Amen Curtis...when teaching the game, a little fudging, IMO, is okay as long as its followed with the caveat that "next time..." If you play it as designed, you can't really go wrong...unless the design is flawed
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.