Why move + quick action but not quick action + move

[Moonglow]

Just curious if anyone can shed any light on the decision to make the quick action only allowable after movement (if moving at all) during an action phase?

Its one of the only parts of the battle sequence that feels artificial,;that a mage, or creature can move and act (quick), but not act (quick) and then move seems rather arbitrary.

I'm guessing it was set that way to maintain a certain balance.  It would seem at least that ranged weapons are made more viable (or at least quick attack melee are less viable) if you can't hit and run with a melee attack.

I guess it also would slow down the play a little also; this way you have to run in an attack etc, but can't run attack and run away.  But I guess some players would seem to warrant a hit and run approach..

Just curious really. 
 
Sorry if this has been answered/discussed elsewhere - I did a bit of a search and read through all the clarifications on quick action, but didn't find a rationale for why it was like that.

[reddawn]

Just curious if anyone can shed any light on the decision to make the quick action only allowable after movement (if moving at all) during an action phase?

Its one of the only parts of the battle sequence that feels artificial,;that a mage, or creature can move and act (quick), but not act (quick) and then move seems rather arbitrary.

I'm guessing it was set that way to maintain a certain balance.  It would seem at least that ranged weapons are made more viable (or at least quick attack melee are less viable) if you can't hit and run with a melee attack.

I guess it also would slow down the play a little also; this way you have to run in an attack etc, but can't run attack and run away.  But I guess some players would seem to warrant a hit and run approach..

Just curious really. 
 
Sorry if this has been answered/discussed elsewhere - I did a bit of a search and read through all the clarifications on quick action, but didn't find a rationale for why it was like that.

Well, most ranged weapons/attacks have a minimum range, so you want to be as close as possible, not hitting and running back into range...

Anyway, my guess is that it was to make melee combat more interesting and to balance the Fast/Elusive trait combination. 

A Fast and Elusive creature, if it weren't for the current rules, would have a ridiculous amount of control over combat.  I mean, they already do, but if you could move whenever during an Action phase, I could see that being an overwhelming trait combination. 

[Moonglow]

I guess what I would prefer - minding you comment about maintaining the correct range for ranged weapons - is the option to shoot if I'm in range, and move further away.  Perhaps they're chasing me, whatever, but it just seems non-thematic and counter intuitive to say you can move and shoot but not shoot and move....

I differ on you call about making melee combat more interesting, to me it seems the opposite.  It limits it to charging, staying and taking it or running away..

Balancing fast and elusive, probably, I guess it essentially makes them swattable, they've moved, taken a nip out of you, you've got the chance to splat them before they run off again.... but then if they're all that fast and elusive, it still seems like they could take a nip and then run off...

[reddawn]

I guess what I would prefer - minding you comment about maintaining the correct range for ranged weapons - is the option to shoot if I'm in range, and move further away.  Perhaps they're chasing me, whatever, but it just seems non-thematic and counter intuitive to say you can move and shoot but not shoot and move....

I differ on you call about making melee combat more interesting, to me it seems the opposite.  It limits it to charging, staying and taking it or running away..

Balancing fast and elusive, probably, I guess it essentially makes them swattable, they've moved, taken a nip out of you, you've got the chance to splat them before they run off again.... but then if they're all that fast and elusive, it still seems like they could take a nip and then run off...

Well, to my knowledge, all non-spell ranged attacks require a full action so you can't move and shoot without extra spells to move your creature.  You can move and cast a non-zone attack spell, but you also have to pay a premium of mana each time you do.  It's just two different ways of approaching ranged attacks, each being better a different situation.

Overall, i think it just comes down to the fact that the way the rules are set up now in terms of moving are more intuintive than you think.  It provides structure to a game that has a lot of ways of manipulating movements and action order to begin with (with QuickCast).

And really, you can accomplish the same goal of avoiding melee and forcing opponents into range using the QuickCast action anyway, what with the multitude of spells like Force Push, Repulse, restraining spells, and so on. Just activate your mage or whatever creature that has a ranged attack, QC one of those, and attack.

Your view on combat is clearly an exaggeration.  In a match between opponents who are well-versed in manipulating Action Phase order, there is a lot of moving around.  Sometimes you charge in and attack, other times you need to retreat; if you're consistently running away and not pressuring your opponent, there's probably something wrong with your build.

Finally, it's pretty easy to rationalize how ranged attacks work in a thematic sense; you need concentration to aim and fire, unless you spend some more mana to help you do that.  I don't see how it's anti-thematic to need to actually take the time aim and fire a bow, really.  If anything, it makes less sense if you imagine someone trying to shoot a bow while running.  I mean, I've done archery before and it wouldn't be practical to run backwards (or any direction) if you have even a remote interest in accuracy.

[Moonglow]

The ranged attack was probably a poor example, it was just me trying to think of options that might explain why the direction of move-> quick action might have been set the way it was.

Focusing on that one point doesn't really answer my question.  My question isnt really about ranged attacks, its the whole uni directional split between movement and actions.

I think your call that the design is more intuitive than I can appreciate is a bit of an oxymoron.  If it was intuitive then I'd be able to appreciate it. 

The main call on the rules has been that things work the way you think they should.  That you can move and act but not act then move seems like an arbitrary rule imposition that doesn't seem to fit this guideline.  I can't really see that it makes a huge difference to game play to let a player act then move.  Which is why I was interested in some of the design decisions that went into this rule.  Especially as it seems to be one of the few rules that stick out in the game in this manner. 

[Doma0997]

I do understand attacking and then moving, I really do. However I feel it would have caused extensive changes to the rules of the game. Full attacks would be absolutely negated, seeing as whoever got into range first would never stick around long enough to use them. Then suddenly every build needs twice as many positioning spells just to keep some advantage, really limiting on the flavor the game does retain by setting the rules as they are. At that point as well, elusive plus fast does break the game because you can hit and never really be attacked back without range or the opponent packing the same traits, or once again half a book of movement manipulation. This is all speculation of course, however i would not be opposed to a keyword that allows specific creatures to do that.

My rationality is that once something commits to an attack, they decide to use all their focus and energy on that attack.

[Ahlano]

I really love this rule... gives u the chance to actually do some strategic planning and learningon when to battle and when not to... (wich i havent learned xD)...
But i have played other games where u could just hit and run.. rinse and repeat giving you "effortless" advantage, especially if you have intiative...

HIT & RUN can me something really frustrating to play against,  and this game makes it possible, but not for free...

And i dont think it takes away flavor... being in a small arena in a mage deathmatch... i dont think theres room for cowards!

[sIKE]

Finally, it's pretty easy to rationalize how ranged attacks work in a thematic sense; you need concentration to aim and fire

Hmm I wonder if the American Indians bareback on horses, Sumerians rolling in chariots, or the Huns coming full gallop across the steeps of Asia, Robin Hood firing arrows would "thematically" be a full action.

I have wondered why Ranged attacks are only full actions and not a mix. Like a quick action(sharp eye) at a shorter range with a small amount of damage and a full action(volley) at a longer range doing more damage.

Just my two cents.

[Moonglow]

I was thinking about that last night.  It could make a cool new creature that you (the mage) can ride, reduce all ranged attacks to quick actions. Or perhaps newer equipment that isn't as strong dice wise but allows faster shooting times.  It's card to know when the game space is still very much developing...

Finally, it's pretty easy to rationalize how ranged attacks work in a thematic sense; you need concentration to aim and fire

Hmm I wonder if the American Indians bareback on horses, Sumerians rolling in chariots, or the Huns coming full gallop across the steeps of Asia, Robin Hood firing arrows would be "thematically" be a full action.

I have wondered why Ranged attacks are only full actions and not a mix. Like a quick action(sharp eye) at a shorter range with a small amount of damage and a full action(volley) at a longer range doing more damage.

Just my two cents.

[haslo]

My interpretation is: They decided to handle things like this (quick action only after movement, not before) in order to constrain the possibility space and make for more interesting decisions by the players. Just like the restriction that you can take two move actions or one move and one quick action, but not two quick actions. I don't think there is, nor should be, a thematic explanation for these things, they're the timing framework the game is built (and balanced) around.

Kind of like physics are based on a couple of inexplicable (to us, right now) constants.

I have wondered why Ranged attacks are only full actions and not a mix. Like a quick action(sharp eye) at a shorter range with a small amount of damage and a full action(volley) at a longer range doing more damage.

Heh, an interpretation would be that you can indeed shoot as a quick action - it's implemented in game terms as "not taking a quick action when you could", and you don't hit your target.

[reddawn]

Technically there are Full and Quick action ranged attacks, it's just that up until this point, Ranged Attack Spells are the only ones that can be quick, and non-spell ranged attacks are exclusively full actions. 

The point about mounted archers though does give me an idea for a Trait...maybe the "Mounted" or "Rider" trait I thought up could somehow allow for a creature to use another creature (horse, etc) as an equipment that would allow for moving and shooting...

Or maybe there could be a conjuration, like a Stables, that allows for units to temporarily gain that kind of ability. 

[sIKE]

I understand that ranged attacks that are "spell cast" are mostly Quick Attacks however all bow based attacks require a Full Action, I am wondering what part of game balance was affected by bow based attacks being Quick Actions.

[reddawn]

Probably the fact that, for non-spell ranged attacks, you typically only have to pay the mana cost once (be it a creature or equipment) whereas with an Attack Spell, you get to use it as a quick action but have to pay mana each time.  Perhaps in testing, AW discovered that having access to a quick ranged attack that is free after the first payment proved overwhelming or homogenizing for builds. 

[piousflea]

If you could quick action + move, it would be far too easy to melee someone and then move to another square. Right now, if you do a melee attack you commit yourself to being in the same square as your opponent. Combined with the Hindrance mechanics, this makes melee feel like a true engagement, you're not just swinging at someone as you pass by, they are tying you down in close quarters combat.

From a spellcast perspective - curse+kiting strats are already strong enough as it is, can you imagine how ludicrous it would be if I could throw a curse from 2 range, step away to 3 range, and still have a quickcast marker that I can use for nasty things?

[Moonglow]

Most people's comments are just rationalising that allowing QA then movement would break the game. But that's  because of the existing game space and rule structure, which is as it is because it was designed that way. Almost every objection could have been addressed through the game development if QA+move was part of the original design space. It either wasn't, or got knobbled as a short cut to try and balance address other problems. The later seems the most likely. I'm not saying it was a bad decision, but it does stick out a bit.

Again, as iI said in my original post, if the arbitrator for rules in MW is that things should happen the way you think they should, then there isn't any rationale for preventing QA+move.  I can move then do x, so I should be able to do x and then move. You can't. Why not, you just can't the rules say so. To me that's an arbitrary rule that just looks like it was stuck in place to fix something that couldn't be fixed more elegantly.

My question isn't what are all the reasons that make it bad to change this rule now. I am asking about the design story and challenges that resulted in this approach to the rules.