Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5741301" data-attributes="member: 82106">Here's the problem as I see it though, and this is really not going to be affected by details of implementation:1) ANY action economy that forces you to choose between attacking and other actions is going to heavily discourage other actions. Even 'move half speed and attack' puts a pretty hefty crimp on players ability and desire to move around and achieve meaningful tactics. Nor would anything short of 'attack OR do something else' have any meaningful impact on game speed at the table. In fact it simply forces the player to balance even more factors. In many cases even a straight up choice between move and attack will require a GREATER amount of deliberation than simply being able to do both.2) It puts a giant crimp in a lot of reasonable action sequences. By separating a character's ability to move and attack you automatically create an opportunity for the enemy to react to any tactics which involve moving and attacking. No more moving out of a concealed position, flying by, attacking and withdrawing, or moving into a flanking position and gaining advantage, etc. It has a huge impact on tactics and forces the game designers to create numerous workarounds for reasonable courses of action that SHOULD work. This is simply adding complexity and making the game more awkward and clunky. Again, this means players will have to spend time and energy working around limitations instead of just doing what they want to do.I just don't see where it speeds the game up in any likely situation and it creates any number of awkwardnesses, degrades the tactical element of the game etc. Frankly I think the entire concept can be dismissed out of hand as any alternative I can come up with is simply worse.As others have said (and I've said it many times in other places too) there are a number of action types that are fiddly and could be consolidated or just removed. That would have a bigger impact on table speed with lower cost to the game than any more limiting approach. Clearly if Monte has some revolution in game design in mind then he needs to put the suggestion forth because whatever it is it is currently not known to the wargaming community AFAIK and I've been playing wargames for a LONG time, so I think I'd know.</blockquote>

Verification