This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
designer_workshop:proposed:unitrangelimits [2014/07/11 07:07] M57 [Visibility] |
designer_workshop:proposed:unitrangelimits [2014/07/11 07:09] (current) M57 [A Post Comparing M57s Version of the Feature to one proposed by Korrun:] |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
M57 wrote: | M57 wrote: | ||
+ | |||
I think yours is an excellent solution, and though I'm not convinced, I wouldn' | I think yours is an excellent solution, and though I'm not convinced, I wouldn' | ||
I'm not sure about one being better than the other visually. | I'm not sure about one being better than the other visually. | ||
+ | |||
Mine involves the target territory while yours involves each individual border. | Mine involves the target territory while yours involves each individual border. | ||
+ | |||
Yours keeps a global count of how many ' | Yours keeps a global count of how many ' | ||
- | With yours a player could use all of his movement count to run a single stack quite far, whereas with mine a player can move every stack on the board with no restrictions on the number of stacks that can be moved, but each stack' | + | |
- | Yours uses a per/attack count (right?), while mine uses a per/ | + | With yours a player could use all of his movement count to run a single stack quite far, whereas with mine a player can move every stack on the board with no restrictions on the number of stacks that can be moved, but each stack' |
+ | |||
+ | Mine simulates time. If you have "Back to Attack ON and enable MovementCount in the Fortify phase, you have a sophisticated mechanism that requires players to consider both ' | ||
+ | Yours uses a per/attack count (right?), while mine uses a per/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Yours better represents time and unit autonomy related elements in the sense that it counts each roll as an ' | ||
Summarizing: | Summarizing: | ||