Why move + quick action but not quick action + move

[Moonglow]

PS stop trying to defend MW as perfect. Its unnecessary.  I love the game, it's totally captured my imagination and enthusiasm. I'm just interested in understanding some of the design decisions that underpin the game. I guess I've always enjoyed things like Donald Vaccarino's secret histories of dominion, which were just his thoughts and challenges bringing together a coherent rule system over years of play testing and card development.

[The Dude]

It forces players to think deeper than just trying hit and run tactics. A rule doesn't seem arbitrary if it effectively fixes a balance issue. As long as the rule is understood and widely accepted, what is arbitrary about it? It may not be a perfect rule, but it works, and constrains the game in an interesting and thought provoking way.

[Moonglow]

I gues thats getting  into a more interesting discussion - was it a design decision that hit and run was a play style that was bad for the game?  I think it would have supported a wider range of typical fantasy arch types, assassin style etc.

I guess my argument that its arbitary is that it seems a patch rather than woven into the fabric of the design.  I mean I appreciate that MW isnt a simulation, which is an argument that comes up on BGG often, is a rule thematic etc.  But the impression Ive gotten from the demo videos etc has been that the designers intent was to try and create a realisic ebb and flow of a batle between mages...

So why cant I act and then move?  At the moment it seems its cause it was the only way the designers could balance the cards and cause they consider that made for a more thoughtful game.

As a play tester are you able to comment on whether the game was ever tested with both options? What stage of the desgn process, what was some of the thinking?

It does constrain the game, but I find it more of a frustrating and annoying way... The trouble is the more I ask about it and try and understand it, the more it annoys me; god dammit, why'd I ask

It forces players to think deeper than just trying hit and run tactics. A rule doesn't seem arbitrary if it effectively fixes a balance issue. As long as the rule is understood and widely accepted, what is arbitrary about it? It may not be a perfect rule, but it works, and constrains the game in an interesting and thought provoking way.

[reddawn]

That would be an interesting piece of information to know.  Maybe we'll get an answer when the "story bible" comes out sometime in the future.

The problem with how I think you're interpreting the realism in Mage Was is that such a notion is idiosyncratic to the designers; that is, subjective.  We aren't so much seeing what magic would be like if it were real as much as what magic would be like if it were real from the perspective of the game designers.  Mage Wars is Bryan Pope & friends interpretation and expression of "real" magic, not necessarily yours.

You can really only take the rationalization of the marriage of reality and fantasy so far.  Eventually, just like in real life, you need arbitrary rules to create order from chaos.

[Moonglow]

Reddawn, totally appreciate that this is the world of the designers imagination.  Although I think that they've done a masterful job f building on or echoing many of the archtypes and memes common in fantasy fiction.  Which is why this rule bugs me.  I mean they can create a plausible rule system for lightning attacks, summoning angels, throwing curses etc. all of which has an excellent internal consistency and balance.  Much of which I think captures how most fans might have imagined it working...and then thow in a rule that says I can walk and then talk, but not talk and then walk (just as an analogy).

[jjfalzone]

I guess a possible solution is to allow a quick action then move in your games and see how it impacts gameplay. If it works fine then house rule that it's allowed in your own games. In all honesty I was wondering the same thing when I read the rules.

[haslo]

Much of which I think captures how most fans might have imagined it working...and then thow in a rule that says I can walk and then talk, but not talk and then walk (just as an analogy).

As I've said before, I think this interpretation is backwards. Changing the game to allow having not just move+move and move+QA, but also QA+move (and also QA+QA, there's as little thematic justification for not allowing this as there is for not allowing QA+move) would break so many things that this can't have possibly been something that was added late in the game development. It must have been added early. It's part of the very foundation of the game that everything is built upon, just like physics are built around arbitrary numbers such as pi, e and g.

So asking "why can't I QA+move" is, to me, akin to asking "why didn't you make a completely different game instead?"

As for what the reasons were for this early decision, only the designers can possibly answer that. This sounds plausible:

A: "Hey, let's make a game, where two mages battle each other"
B: "That sounds neat! They can move, and summon, and cast spells"
A: "Yeah, but summoning should take longer than casting, right?"
B: "Descent has these neat half-actions, where you can move+attack, or attack+attack, or attack+move, we can take that and have complex spells take both half-actions"
A: "Hm, that sounds cool. Let's see how this goes, I've made this prototype"

...some playtesting...

A: "Yeah, that looks good, but we should make it impossible to cast two spells for non-mages, and movement didn't feel like it was actually important because you could just attack and then move away"
B: "I have this neat idea: We allow just one cast, but mages get this QuickCast marker thingy, and everybody has to move before casting to make movement actually have an impact on the game"
A: "That sounds neat, the game will actually work if we do that, movement will be important, quite unlike in our playtests! Let's start building this thing and make thousands of people happy!"

[Wiz-Pig]

A: "Hey, let's make a game, where two mages battle each other"
B: "That sounds neat! They can move, and summon, and cast spells"
A: "Yeah, but summoning should take longer than casting, right?"
B: "Descent has these neat half-actions, where you can move+attack, or attack+attack, or attack+move, we can take that and have complex spells take both half-actions"
A: "Hm, that sounds cool. Let's see how this goes, I've made this prototype"

...some playtesting...

A: "Yeah, that looks good, but we should make it impossible to cast two spells for non-mages, and movement didn't feel like it was actually important because you could just attack and then move away"
B: "I have this neat idea: We allow just one cast, but mages get this QuickCast marker thingy, and everybody has to move before casting to make movement actually have an impact on the game"
A: "That sounds neat, the game will actually work if we do that, movement will be important, quite unlike in our playtests! Let's start building this thing and make thousands of people happy!"

Best answer. End of discussion.

[ringkichard]

There're a ton of games that require move then action, including Warhammer and Warmachine, right? This is pretty standard game design for games that have to balance melee and ranged combat, especially if melee is supposed to be primary (because melee maneuver is more fun). I suspect it's a deliberate anti-hit-and-run decision. Simulation probably never comes into it.

[The Dude]

From the Pope himself!


We seriously considered allowing skirmishes (attack, and then move), but because of the changing initiative order, it created some weird anomalies.  If you act last, and then gain the initiative for the next round, you can act again with the same creature.  A creature could move up and attack, then attack again on the next turn and run away, all before the other player could react.  In some cases they could do this right under the cover of your archers or your Mage standing watch!  Players would ask “How does that fast cat run past all the archers, then attack TWICE, and then run away, and no one can get a single strike in?”.  It was not very realistic, and it left a bad taste in some players mouths.

We decided it was better to have creatures move up and finish their attack or action at the end of their action phase.  This leaves them in place and vulnerable for a counterattack by the opponent.  You can still manipulate the initiative order to gain 2 attacks in a row, but you can't do this and also run away unscathed from all of the enemies forces.
 
At the same, time, we thought it was very cool to be able to do that on occasion.  The Mage is currently the only creature who can do this, if he uses his quick cast action to cast an attack spell and then run away.  And we have no problem with that.  The Mage is supposed to be a cinematic superhero on the battlefield!
 
We also plan to create some skirmish creatures who can move after they attack with a trait called “skirmish”.  This is a very cool and useful ability.  By keeping it rare, these characters will be very special and stand out on the battlefield.  A Swashbuckling or Barbarian Mage might have this trait built in.  We had a Centaur who could move and then make a range attack.  That is extremely powerful, but he was priced very high to compensate for it.
 
Hope this proved useful!
 
Thanks!
 
Bryan

[Moonglow]

Thanks heaps Bryan, that's exactly the kind of thoughts I was interested in.  I hadn't even stopped to consider the iniative implications! I love the sound of the skirmish ability.  Which as you say, with its rarity will become a point of strategic and tactical innovation.

Thanks!

[reddawn]

Wow, i was wondering if you guys were working on something like "skirmish."  Sounds very cool, lots of good info, thanks very much BP.

[Arcanus]

Ha!  You are welcome.  Thanks for the support and enthusiasm!