New mechanic, new controversy

[Kreistor]

Intermission 12: "they needed to take full-move turns to make it home in three days rather than four."

"Full-move turns" -- ho, boy, that just complicated things. There's a strong implication there that you can't full-move and attack.

Hero Games (aka. Champions) allows for up to a 1/2 move and then an attack. No movement after attacking. If you don't attack, you can full move.

So, this is inherently speculative. There's something new there. What exactly a unit that attacks is limited to is unknown. We know the dwagons moved after attacking the column, so you can move-attack-move. We don't know exactly how far you can move before, after, or total on a turn in which you attack. But things just got a bunch more complicated on the movement front.

[raphfrk]

Intermission 12: "they needed to take full-move turns to make it home in three days rather than four."

"Full-move turns" -- ho, boy, that just complicated things. There's a strong implication there that you can't full-move and attack.

Could be. However, the other explanation is that it just means using up nearly their full move each turn.

Ofc, it is not likely to be exact. If they move 40 per turn and the capital is 110 hexes away, they might still say it is requires 3 full moves to get to their destination.

A compromise between the 2 option is that combat depletes move, perhaps depending on how long (how many "rounds" ? ), the real time combat lasts.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Intermission 12: "they needed to take full-move turns to make it home in three days rather than four."
"Full-move turns" -- ho, boy, that just complicated things. There's a strong implication there that you can't full-move and attack.

No, there isn't. There's zero implication here. Less than zero when you count all the times people nearly expended full move on turns when they entered combat. Or when you consider that they enter hexes blind near the end of their movement and there is the threat of combat.

All this sentence means is that they have to go full speed to get there in three turns. If they stop early once (to avoid rain) by even just a few hexes, they will fall short, and have to spend a fourth turn arriving at their destination (with lots of move left over).

[Kreistor]

No, there isn't. There's zero implication here. Less than zero when you count all the times people nearly expended full move on turns when they entered combat. Or when you consider that they enter hexes blind near the end of their movement and there is the threat of combat.

Talking Ansom at the trap? He already attacked before moving into the middle hex. If that limited him to a partial Move, it wouldn't change anything if he punched through or ran: he had the same remaining Move either way. Jillian hunting the dwagons? We don't know how much Move she had or expended, but her plan was to either attack dwagons (requiring move) or punching Ansom through (requiring the same move).

Really, I don't think you'll find any places where anyone talks about how much move they used, and didn't have plans to attack. If you can find something specific, please show me what I'm overlooking. I really don't lend beliefs in what was said any credit whatsoever.

All this sentence means is that they have to go full speed to get there in three turns. If they stop early once (to avoid rain) by even just a few hexes, they will fall short, and have to spend a fourth turn arriving at their destination (with lots of move left over).

Then why the hyphen? "Full-move".

Do understand, Rob stated quite clearly long before the intermission started on the old forums that we would be getting more game rules this summer. He is intentionally revealing lots that we didn't know. Got different penalties to movement for different creatures in mountains and hills out of this one. He's not being terribly obvious with these. Don't be surprised if this one works out. There's been lots of Spec that attacking burns Move since the beginning.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Lots of spec that attacking burns move? Based on what?

Yes, Rob is revealing a lot (in all updates but one by my count); some crystal clear and some just hints.

If your position is that attacking can't happen on a "full-move" turn (and I guess you mean only a move that takes every hex of movement available), then what happens if the last hex has enemies in it? No combat? What about people with different moves? Does one guy sit out the fight? Are his bonuses useful? What if the guys in the hex want to fight? Do they get to choose? On your last 3 hexes of movement, you can enter a hex, fight, and leave it, then move 2 more hexes, but if you have 1 you can't enter it and fight? What sense does that make?

Why can't "full-move" be the same as "master-class?" Why does the hyphen matter so much that it alters the meaning? What is the practical difference between ending a turn with 55 of 56 hexes spent and all 56? Why does combat come into it at all? Even if you're right or near-right, it has nothing to do with this update.

The conversation is strictly full-speed vs. stopping early (early-stopping? half-move? lolly-gag?) and the resulting delay. If you're looking at three turns' travel to within one or two hexes, hanging back 3 hexes for weather is going to add a turn. Thus, you need to use your full move. What is so complicated about that? How else do you describe it? If the term were "full-speed turn" you'd have the same story. What else could Rob have had them say?

[Kreistor]

Noah, I'm not going to defend other people's ideas. The idea has existed for a long time. That's all I said. If you want to find the old threads, go back to GitP and look them up.

Now, will you please go back and re-read my first post. I said, "implication", not "has to be". You're arguing like I'm demanding that it has to be one way or another. I'm not. Implications are in the eye of the beholder. It's as strong or weak as you want it to be.

Look, in Science you look at something that's happened. You create a theory as to why. You then invent tests and try to prove and disprove your theory. It's no different here. I presented a theory. It happens to align nicely with some other people's ideas from long ago. That's cool. What I care about is whether there is any evidence you can actually cite that disproves the theory. I know this comic pretty well, and I can't come up with anything. Maybe you can. But if all you've got is opinion, well, thanks, but have a nice day. Opinion is not what I'm looking for. Facts. Evidence. Quotes. Pages and frame numbers. So, thanks for your opinion. If you have any actual proof of anything, well, love to hear it.

[Maldeus]

Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is usually correct. Of course, it's easy to get into an argument over which is simplest, but in this case "full-move" meaning "using all your move" requires the invention of no new game rules, whereas "full-move" meaning a new rule in which combat is impossible because of a full-move requires the invention of one new game rule. Therefore the first option is simpler. Given that you, Kreistor, have personally used the argument that not inventing new rules (and/or exceptions to current rules, but that appears to be a moot point here) makes a theory more plausible, you'll likely understand the logic behind this.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

Noah, I'm not going to defend other people's ideas. The idea has existed for a long time. That's all I said. If you want to find the old threads, go back to GitP and look them up.

Well, sorry, I'm not trolling through an entire other forum. If you want to support your argument with old ideas, link me. Otherwise show evidence. That people once surmised things when they had less info is no evidence.

Heck when I first came on the wiki I made some Spec about Hobbittm that was HILARIOUSLY off. Those theories once existing is not going to shore up any current ideas.

Now, will you please go back and re-read my first post. I said, "implication", not "has to be". You're arguing like I'm demanding that it has to be one way or another. I'm not. Implications are in the eye of the beholder. It's as strong or weak as you want it to be.

You said "strong implication." And I'm to take that as "weak" "possibility?" Why? You act like there's a correlation, or a hint, when there isn't one, strong or otherwise. Your only evidence is one game that works that way. That's nice for using an example of how it might work, but it's no evidence that it can actually happen.

All you're really going on is the term "full-move turn," which you claim means something special, but you haven't argued it to me. You may be right, but you've provided nothing to go on.

Look, in Science you look at something that's happened. You create a theory as to why. You then invent tests and try to prove and disprove your theory. It's no different here. I presented a theory. It happens to align nicely with some other people's ideas from long ago. That's cool. What I care about is whether there is any evidence you can actually cite that disproves the theory. I know this comic pretty well, and I can't come up with anything. Maybe you can. But if all you've got is opinion, well, thanks, but have a nice day. Opinion is not what I'm looking for. Facts. Evidence. Quotes. Pages and frame numbers. So, thanks for your opinion. If you have any actual proof of anything, well, love to hear it.

You have a hypothesis - but what is the question or problem it supposedly addresses? Even with my wild speculation on Elf abilities, at least it was filling a void - since there was no real info on them. There's no void here - you can spend your whole movement, or not. All possibilities are covered. Now, maybe some special event happens when you use that last hex - but there's no indication, and we don't need something to happen to complete our understanding of how movement works. It's completely random.

You want me to disprove it? Why? There's a boatload of stuff that can't be disproved that doesn't even stay in Spec because somebody thinks it's ridiculous. Not only can't you prove it, you can't support it at all, even tenuously, and more than that, it doesn't even fill in any gaps of knowledge as a theory. When Sherlock Holmes starts a case with few facts, he comes up with a simple - often wrong - explanation, but it answers the question in a logical way. But you're answering the question nobody asked. And you say "strong implication?"

And it lines up nicely with old theories? Like Alchemy, Astrology, and Eugenics? The four humours?

Wait - you're not looking for Opinion? It's all you've got! Facts, evidence, quotes? Where are those in support of your theory? If you have actual proof of anything, I'd love to hear it.

[cloudbreaker]

While I don't think full-move turns means anything more than traveling across as many hexs as possible in a single turn, I do think there is a correlation between movement and combat. I don't belive you need move to attack creatures in the same hex as you, but I do belive you may need move to change zones, i.e. airspace to courtyard (unless you are in your own capital city). This is evidenced by the swarm of archons that were pressent at the end of the battle for Gobwin Knob. They had zero move after Charlie ended his turn, and so they couldn't attack the forces on the ground even though they were in the same hex. But they could attack anything that entered the airspace, and they did once they rejoined the coalition. And we know they could have attacked Gobwin Knob's forces if the coalition had waited until the next day (because the coalition warlords were arguing about it) so this probably means that the coalition had to wait until the archons had more move before they could help attack Gobwin Knob's ground units. Unfortunately for the coalition, they didn't wait.

[Maldeus]

Honestly, guys, we had a system here. Two pages of perfectly rational debate, one page of rationality mixed with slowly devolving and ever-more thinly veiled insults, and then from page 4 on we start openly hurling insults at one another. No, it wasn't perfect, but it worked. And now you're ruining it. The fights on page 2 were bad enough, but honestly, we haven't even gotten that far this time!

[balder]

"Full-move turn" means nothing more than "they moved as far as they can on that turn." More specifically, it means "the unit in the stack with the lowest move has used up all move or has too little left to move anywhere from where they are." Combat costs no move.

[Kreistor]

Thanks, Rob.

As for Noah... wow, miss the point much?

[Erk]

Thanks, Rob.

As for Noah... wow, miss the point much?

The debate's over. Don't attempt to dig at your opponents as a final kneejerk.

Also, you did start a thread on the idea, implying you felt it was a strong enough "implication" to be worthy of discussion, even saying so outright yourself in the opening post, so don't get testy when people think you are defending this as a possible rule. If you felt it was a long shot, you shouldn't have started the thread. Doing so and then snarking at people who surmise you're making theories based on very little is not just poor debating, it's borderline trolling as well.

Anyway. Word of Rob has answered this thread and I don't see it going anywhere happy, so I'mma close it.