Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 00:49:12


Post by: Toofast


Seriously I want to meet the person that said "You know what 40k REALLY needs? MORE dice rolling to see what happens and MORE random!" If I paid 150 points for a model and 25 points for a weapon upgrade, why can my opponent pay the same amount of points for something potentially 6x more effective? What does this add to the game besides slowing it down for unnecessary dice rolls that lead to feel-bad moments? They said they were going to listen to tournament players and create a more competitive version of 40k. I used to play tournaments religiously and tournament players HATED the amount of randomness that was present in the game. I remember people taking a specific librarian because he had invis and everyone else had to roll for it so they only had 1/6 chance of getting the power they actually wanted. People HATED it. Now they make it even worse by making rare and expensive weapons that potentially have less damage output than the bolter held by your 19 point tac marine. So who was asking for this? Fluff players?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 00:52:13


Post by: JohnHwangDD


7E onward is specifically designed for bad players who want bad armies to be "good".

This is especially true in 9E with a host of random things that allow a poor player snatch victory from the jaws of a well-deserved defeat.

GW is deliberately engineering a rule system where a player can expect the smallest possible likelihood of victory. That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen. This means that the world's best players might win, at most, 70% of their games against absolute novices, simply because the game introduces RNG elements that can potentially turn the game on its head. These "surprises" create stories and "excitement".


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 01:01:29


Post by: auticus


They can if one is geared more toward a narrative experience as opposed to a sports league style competitive one.

Granted I am not involved too closely in the game as I am more into simulation wargames that are driven by scenario and not lists, but the guys I know that are tourney players are regularly seal clubbing the narrative players pretty reliably despite it all.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 01:50:12


Post by: carldooley


random shots is a result of blast\large blast & templates going away. Everything is randumb now.

Don't like deepstrike mishaps? fixed with a 9" deepstrike restriction

Remember 'Wall of Fire'? Fixed by making all the template weapons into 12" weapons - which is BTW, the max range for a charge.

Everything has a random number of damage because they changed Vehicles to function as Monstrous Creatures did in previous editions.

Just wait until you discover the degrading statlines which took the place of vehicle damage...


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 02:21:47


Post by: AnomanderRake


40k is much the same as it's always been: fairly brainless, probably too killy, overloaded with spammable anti-everything guns and straight-up pointless units, balanced by throwing darts at the wall blindfolded, and the release schedule is still often drowned in more Space Marines. The biggest difference now from 7th is that there's an extremely vocal sector of the game that insists that 8th fixed everything so much that they have to make up facts about how bad 7th was to prove it.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 03:20:51


Post by: the_scotsman


Toofast wrote:
Seriously I want to meet the person that said "You know what 40k REALLY needs? MORE dice rolling to see what happens and MORE random!" If I paid 150 points for a model and 25 points for a weapon upgrade, why can my opponent pay the same amount of points for something potentially 6x more effective? What does this add to the game besides slowing it down for unnecessary dice rolls that lead to feel-bad moments? They said they were going to listen to tournament players and create a more competitive version of 40k. I used to play tournaments religiously and tournament players HATED the amount of randomness that was present in the game. I remember people taking a specific librarian because he had invis and everyone else had to roll for it so they only had 1/6 chance of getting the power they actually wanted. People HATED it. Now they make it even worse by making rare and expensive weapons that potentially have less damage output than the bolter held by your 19 point tac marine. So who was asking for this? Fluff players?


Do you remember when you used to place a template down on the board and roll scatter dice, and sometimes it would get like 4 hits, and sometimes it would scatter and miss entirely?

.....yep.



Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 03:27:13


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen.
That is the literal opposite of what 9th is.

9th is "Tournament Edition 40k".


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 05:45:12


Post by: Sledgehammer


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen.
That is the literal opposite of what 9th is.

9th is "Tournament Edition 40k".


Locally there have been no big 40k narrative campaigns since early 8th edition. All of the narrative players jumped ship to battletech, conquest, and other systems.

Meanwhile the tournament scene has never been bigger.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 06:23:40


Post by: Tawnis


Toofast wrote:
Seriously I want to meet the person that said "You know what 40k REALLY needs? MORE dice rolling to see what happens and MORE random!" If I paid 150 points for a model and 25 points for a weapon upgrade, why can my opponent pay the same amount of points for something potentially 6x more effective? What does this add to the game besides slowing it down for unnecessary dice rolls that lead to feel-bad moments? They said they were going to listen to tournament players and create a more competitive version of 40k. I used to play tournaments religiously and tournament players HATED the amount of randomness that was present in the game. I remember people taking a specific librarian because he had invis and everyone else had to roll for it so they only had 1/6 chance of getting the power they actually wanted. People HATED it. Now they make it even worse by making rare and expensive weapons that potentially have less damage output than the bolter held by your 19 point tac marine. So who was asking for this? Fluff players?


So the D3 or D6 to hit replaced Blast Templates. This reduced all the measuring and scatter, and spacing out models exactly 2", and arguing over if a model was under the template with a single dice roll. For damage, originally, it replaced the vehicle damage table. Instead of a penetrating hit blowing you up or just rocking the boat, you take light to serious damage. Both of these things had always had a random element to determining what they did.

I'm still a big fan of the former as it speeds the game up a whole bunch, even though I do thematically miss the blast templates. As for the latter, I liked it at first, but with all the multi-wound models and D6+3 + X amount of mortals, it's gotten more than a little out of hand.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 06:49:48


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


It would be interesting to hear what the OP has in mind specifically, as overall the game isless random than it ever was.
Remember rolling for a random Warlord trait or psychic power? Remember rolling for random equipment with Daemons? Remember scattering? Remember rolling on vehicle damage tables? Remember rolling for psychic powers like this: roll how many dice you have in the phase, then roll your psychic Test, roll to deny, then roll to hit, to wound, then saves. Now it's psychic Test, deny + amount of mortal wounds, done.
Flamers might be the only thing that have gotten more random than before.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 08:31:06


Post by: Sim-Life


GW are taking a novel approach of trying to use dice rolls as a balancing mechanic. More random results = more balance.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 09:03:44


Post by: Geifer


 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
Toofast wrote:
Seriously I want to meet the person that said "You know what 40k REALLY needs? MORE dice rolling to see what happens and MORE random!" If I paid 150 points for a model and 25 points for a weapon upgrade, why can my opponent pay the same amount of points for something potentially 6x more effective? What does this add to the game besides slowing it down for unnecessary dice rolls that lead to feel-bad moments? They said they were going to listen to tournament players and create a more competitive version of 40k. I used to play tournaments religiously and tournament players HATED the amount of randomness that was present in the game. I remember people taking a specific librarian because he had invis and everyone else had to roll for it so they only had 1/6 chance of getting the power they actually wanted. People HATED it. Now they make it even worse by making rare and expensive weapons that potentially have less damage output than the bolter held by your 19 point tac marine. So who was asking for this? Fluff players?


Do you remember when you used to place a template down on the board and roll scatter dice, and sometimes it would get like 4 hits, and sometimes it would scatter and miss entirely?

.....yep.



Random dice rolls may bear the barest resemblance to that in result, but you're leaving out the part where a single shell can explode a lone character six times, while on the other end you can't ever splatter more than six Boyz no matter how large or packed the mob is. Random number of shots is a replacement for templates, but a poor one.

Incidentally around the same time GW introduced this nonsense the designers of Bolt Action decided to dump random hits for explodey weapons in favor of templates for a more immersive and all around better game experience.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 09:47:11


Post by: Blackie


7th was much more random overall even in terms of damage.

We might have random damage now, but also lots of ways to fix the dice rolls and to increase damage, combined with units firing way more shots that before.

A razorback with twin linked lascannon in 7th fired a single re-rollable shot, instant killed T4 but only caused 1W on T5 multiwounds models. Now the same platform fires two shots with high BS, which can be re-rolled somehow, can get better AP for free (stupid doctrines), and also damage can be re-rolled. That razorback is now way more effective in killing stuff even if its weapon has a damage characteristic of D6.

That's a massive improvement to remove randomness, not the opposite. And that's true for any other unit in the game, and any other mechanic that involved the dice rolling.

GW is definitely trying to turn 40k into the game of expected results rather than a proper dice based game. Which IMHO is terrible thing and actually the only thing, other than rules bloat and some massive models, that I dislike about this edition.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 09:50:40


Post by: Jidmah


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Locally there have been no big 40k narrative campaigns since early 8th edition. All of the narrative players jumped ship to battletech, conquest, and other systems.

Meanwhile the tournament scene has never been bigger.


According to a poll I did, about 30% of the participants play crusade regularly, about 60% play GT missions.

Narrative is definitely strong in 9th, thanks to all the support it is getting from GW.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 09:53:08


Post by: Niiai


Haters gonne hate. 9th edition is a much more pleasent gaming experience then I have had before. I have played 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th edition.

The reason I like it over the others is that the objectives are fun and lends good dynamic to the game. And GW try to balance their game. This makes the game more enjoyable to be at least.

Complaining about randomness in a game based upon dice baffles me a bit. You get an average bell curve of predictability and work from there. But each to their own.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 13:59:23


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The biggest things in the templates vs non-templates to me is:

1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.

2) the administrative division of the enemy force affects how effective my explosive shells are:
"Sir, 30 men standing shoulder to shoulder in the open on the objective!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"BUT SIR! Intel suggests they are in 6 units of five; the mortars won't be effective!"
"...."


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 14:06:13


Post by: carldooley


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"Sir, 30 men standing shoulder to shoulder in the open on the objective!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"BUT SIR! Intel suggests they are in 6 units of five; the mortars won't be effective!"
"...."


Exalted!

As someone who ran Karadread and flyers in 7th, I feel your pain.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 19:44:12


Post by: Daedalus81


A nice vague post that avoids the ability to discuss and critique the differences - excellent bait.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 20:30:12


Post by: ERJAK


 carldooley wrote:
random shots is a result of blast\large blast & templates going away. Everything is randumb now.

Don't like deepstrike mishaps? fixed with a 9" deepstrike restriction

Remember 'Wall of Fire'? Fixed by making all the template weapons into 12" weapons - which is BTW, the max range for a charge.

Everything has a random number of damage because they changed Vehicles to function as Monstrous Creatures did in previous editions.

Just wait until you discover the degrading statlines which took the place of vehicle damage...


It's weird how you listed off several VAST improvements (AND RNG removal) as if they were negatives.

Old deepstrike was THE definition of RANDUMB. It was a broken mechanic and it needed to die.

Wall of fire was just a gakky rules patch to fix the fact that OOPS! melee units can charge into flamethrower no problem without it because the range of the flamer was shorter than charge range. Yeah, it took a while to fix that in 8th and 9th but they eventually did.

Needed to happen because MCs made vehicles obsolete.

Degrading statline are 1000% superior to the damage chart. YOU may have enjoyed your rhino detonating like it was made of nitroglycerine every time a S7 weapon looked at it funny, but it was a terrible mechanic.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 20:34:30


Post by: Siegfriedfr


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
7E onward is specifically designed for bad players who want bad armies to be "good".

This is especially true in 9E with a host of random things that allow a poor player snatch victory from the jaws of a well-deserved defeat.

GW is deliberately engineering a rule system where a player can expect the smallest possible likelihood of victory. That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen. This means that the world's best players might win, at most, 70% of their games against absolute novices, simply because the game introduces RNG elements that can potentially turn the game on its head. These "surprises" create stories and "excitement".


Do you genuilely think that GW are that smart, or even care about "narrative" ?

Seems to me they are heavily involved with the high-level tournament crowd, which basically asked them to create more systems, more customization, and more gameplay variety within the same codex.

Everything else (balance/unbalance) is just random.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 20:51:47


Post by: JohnnyHell


How is the OP bemoaning a 3-4yr old mechanic in this thread yet telling me a certain WD army list is the only competitive option for a faction in another?

Like, do you understand the current rules or are you new to them? I’m super unclear.

Anyway, to answer the Q the random number of shots is their chosen mechanic to respresent blast/Flamer weapons. It replaces the Tempkate Argument Phase that cropped up every. single. time. you used a template in prior editions. “No he’s not 50%, nonthe arrow is pointing more this way, etc etc”

You don’t have to like it, but that is their logic. In practice I prefer it.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 20:54:12


Post by: carldooley


ERJAK wrote:
Needed to happen because MCs made vehicles obsolete.

Not to argue the point, but was I the only person that enjoyed the fact that I could line up my vehicles and have a wall of armor that was invulnerable to small arms?
ERJAK wrote:

Degrading statline are 1000% superior to the damage chart. YOU may have enjoyed your rhino detonating like it was made of nitroglycerine every time a S7 weapon looked at it funny, but it was a terrible mechanic.


Hey, I ran mech guard in 7th. I appreciate that most vehicles don't get one shotted anymore... oh wait. with the damage proliferation nowadays, one shotted may not happen much, but two shotted?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 20:56:37


Post by: Sim-Life


ERJAK wrote:
 carldooley wrote:


Degrading statline are 1000% superior to the damage chart. YOU may have enjoyed your rhino detonating like it was made of nitroglycerine every time a S7 weapon looked at it funny, but it was a terrible mechanic.


It's okay. Definitely not "1000%" better. I liked facings and having weapons be destroyed rather than tanks basically just being monsters and then giving everyone a strat that makes the degredation chart pointless anyway so you have to focus down on a tank anyway.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 20:56:37


Post by: Voss


Siegfriedfr wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
7E onward is specifically designed for bad players who want bad armies to be "good".

This is especially true in 9E with a host of random things that allow a poor player snatch victory from the jaws of a well-deserved defeat.

GW is deliberately engineering a rule system where a player can expect the smallest possible likelihood of victory. That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen. This means that the world's best players might win, at most, 70% of their games against absolute novices, simply because the game introduces RNG elements that can potentially turn the game on its head. These "surprises" create stories and "excitement".


Do you genuilely think that GW are that smart, or even care about "narrative" ?

Seems to me they are heavily involved with the high-level tournament crowd, which basically asked them to create more systems, more customization, and more gameplay variety within the same codex.

Everything else (balance/unbalance) is just random.


So... how does that 'Crusade' stuff that eats up a good page-count of every book (and gets its own books), fit into the 'high level tournament crowd' story?
And when the 'high level tournament crowd' complains about all those systems... how does that fit?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 21:00:38


Post by: Siegfriedfr


Voss wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
7E onward is specifically designed for bad players who want bad armies to be "good".

This is especially true in 9E with a host of random things that allow a poor player snatch victory from the jaws of a well-deserved defeat.

GW is deliberately engineering a rule system where a player can expect the smallest possible likelihood of victory. That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen. This means that the world's best players might win, at most, 70% of their games against absolute novices, simply because the game introduces RNG elements that can potentially turn the game on its head. These "surprises" create stories and "excitement".


Do you genuilely think that GW are that smart, or even care about "narrative" ?

Seems to me they are heavily involved with the high-level tournament crowd, which basically asked them to create more systems, more customization, and more gameplay variety within the same codex.

Everything else (balance/unbalance) is just random.


So... how does that 'Crusade' stuff that eats up a good page-count of every book (and gets its own books), fit into the 'high level tournament crowd' story?


Yes Crusades exists. My point was that "gotcha" rules/stratagems/whatever aren't calibrated to create "narrative moments" in tournament play, and that it only happens by accident.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 21:03:02


Post by: Sim-Life


Voss wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
7E onward is specifically designed for bad players who want bad armies to be "good".

This is especially true in 9E with a host of random things that allow a poor player snatch victory from the jaws of a well-deserved defeat.

GW is deliberately engineering a rule system where a player can expect the smallest possible likelihood of victory. That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen. This means that the world's best players might win, at most, 70% of their games against absolute novices, simply because the game introduces RNG elements that can potentially turn the game on its head. These "surprises" create stories and "excitement".


Do you genuilely think that GW are that smart, or even care about "narrative" ?

Seems to me they are heavily involved with the high-level tournament crowd, which basically asked them to create more systems, more customization, and more gameplay variety within the same codex.

Everything else (balance/unbalance) is just random.


So... how does that 'Crusade' stuff that eats up a good page-count of every book (and gets its own books), fit into the 'high level tournament crowd' story?
And when the 'high level tournament crowd' complains about all those systems... how does that fit?


You know GW use tournament groups as playtesters now right? Theres a reason the ITC ruleset went away when 9th came out. Claiming GW isn't chasing the tournament crowd is just foolish.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 21:18:32


Post by: Voss


 Sim-Life wrote:
Voss wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
7E onward is specifically designed for bad players who want bad armies to be "good".

This is especially true in 9E with a host of random things that allow a poor player snatch victory from the jaws of a well-deserved defeat.

GW is deliberately engineering a rule system where a player can expect the smallest possible likelihood of victory. That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen. This means that the world's best players might win, at most, 70% of their games against absolute novices, simply because the game introduces RNG elements that can potentially turn the game on its head. These "surprises" create stories and "excitement".


Do you genuilely think that GW are that smart, or even care about "narrative" ?

Seems to me they are heavily involved with the high-level tournament crowd, which basically asked them to create more systems, more customization, and more gameplay variety within the same codex.

Everything else (balance/unbalance) is just random.


So... how does that 'Crusade' stuff that eats up a good page-count of every book (and gets its own books), fit into the 'high level tournament crowd' story?
And when the 'high level tournament crowd' complains about all those systems... how does that fit?


You know GW use tournament groups as playtesters now right? Theres a reason the ITC ruleset went away when 9th came out. Claiming GW isn't chasing the tournament crowd is just foolish.


They use a lot of groups as playtesters right now, tournament groups and youtube influencers that don't bother. And surprise, surprise, using tournament groups isn't anything new. They're keen, eager and will do it for free (and a bad job, because they're focused on getting a leg up rather than fixing problems)

ITC went away because ITC cashed in with GW (and in several cases signed up)

Do they want money from tournament players? Sure. But also from other players. This narrative that they're only (or even primarily) chasing just tournament players is rather ridiculous. Even more ridiculous than the usual stuff about how there's a huge divide between competitive and casual.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 21:29:05


Post by: jeff white


GW used to make games that I wanted to learn how to play.
With my limited experience with 9th ed, we used no stratagems, no command points, and played with small armies on larger than minimally recommended tables. It was ok.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 21:41:41


Post by: auticus


How in the world is there not a huge divide between the competitive game and people wanting to play casual or narratively?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 22:30:06


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Tawnis wrote:
So the D3 or D6 to hit replaced Blast Templates. This reduced all the measuring and scatter, and spacing out models exactly 2", and arguing over if a model was under the template with a single dice roll.


Indeed. What should have happened is that Flamer should automatically hit ALL models in the target unit within 12". Blast should hit scatter a point and hit ALL models in EVERY unit with at least ONE model within X" of the point. No arguing, no rolling. Just auto-hit every model regardless of how the unit is spaced out. If it's a giant Conga line, too bad. LOL


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 22:43:34


Post by: Irbis


How to spot salty people mad far better mechanics replaced ancient gak that made no sense - the thread

 Geifer wrote:
Random dice rolls may bear the barest resemblance to that in result, but you're leaving out the part where a single shell can explode a lone character six times, while on the other end you can't ever splatter more than six Boyz no matter how large or packed the mob is. Random number of shots is a replacement for templates, but a poor one.

Did you miss the elementary first grade bit of characters (and monsters) having more wounds than a boy?

The fact that artillery piece FINALLY can threaten characters and monsters instead of being single damage whiff is a colossal improvement. It makes sense from realism standpoint, too, a shell that lands directly on a carnifex SHOULD tear it to shreds, the one that lands somewhat farther will just wound it with shrapnel. Which is what we have now, instead of that tickling, 1 wound max on a headshot from an Earthshaker gak of old editions...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.

Yes, gak mechanic that forced players of horde armies to move each unit 30 minutes spreading it to take 0.01 wounds less, wasting colossal amounts of time for very little reason (to say nothing of arguments if the template hit 2 or 3 models depending on how you squinted) and contributing absolutely nothing to the game is gone. And only in a Flat Earthdition imaginary world this is somehow a bad thing



Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/22 22:45:03


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Only the foolish think that a unit is free to take up as much space on table as it wishes with no drawbacks.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/23 01:36:37


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Blast should hit scatter a point and hit ALL models in EVERY unit with at least ONE model within X" of the point.
Holy non-scaling rules, Batman! What a fething terrible idea!

Yeah, you definitely want blast weapons to be theoretically capable of hitting every model on the table because blast = auto-hit every model in the unit. That sounds like a great idea.

Holy gak DD. Between this and the "GW should force people to play as they've painted!" comment from the other thread, I'd forgotten what it was like to have you around.



Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/23 07:24:04


Post by: sandor1988


i'd extend your break until 10th edition and in the meantime play something good like grimdark future, rules are free can at least give it a try. the more advanced rules for 9th are dense enough and complicated that i dont want to even bother, for basic stripped modern 40k there is the superior grimdark future.

there is beloved 2nd edition and other incarnations of old hammer for you to play. 4th with 3.5 codexes is a very nice experience. there are also community projects like prohammer, which is based/inspired from 3rd-5th.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/23 15:31:21


Post by: Geifer


 Irbis wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
Random dice rolls may bear the barest resemblance to that in result, but you're leaving out the part where a single shell can explode a lone character six times, while on the other end you can't ever splatter more than six Boyz no matter how large or packed the mob is. Random number of shots is a replacement for templates, but a poor one.

Did you miss the elementary first grade bit of characters (and monsters) having more wounds than a boy?

The fact that artillery piece FINALLY can threaten characters and monsters instead of being single damage whiff is a colossal improvement. It makes sense from realism standpoint, too, a shell that lands directly on a carnifex SHOULD tear it to shreds, the one that lands somewhat farther will just wound it with shrapnel. Which is what we have now, instead of that tickling, 1 wound max on a headshot from an Earthshaker gak of old editions...


Or you could just use a weapon's damage stat to see how much damage it does to multi-wound models.

sandor1988 wrote:
i'd extend your break until 10th edition...


Realistically 10th ed is too early to come back if you're not happy with the current rules. Give GW another edition or two before they have fully driven the 8th ed framework into the ground and need a reset.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/23 15:56:58


Post by: Platuan4th


 Geifer wrote:
Realistically 10th ed is too early to come back if you're not happy with the current rules. Give GW another edition or two before they have fully driven the 8th ed framework into the ground and need a reset.


So what, another 12-15 years? It took GW ~20 years to break out of the basic 3rd Ed framework.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/23 18:25:30


Post by: HMint


This is the least random 40k we have ever had.
It boggles my mind how this thread somehow comes to the opposite conclusion.

1) More dice means less random(!), not more...
The more dice you throw, the more often your result will be close to the expected average. We are now throwing literally hundreds of dice for a lot of things, spending several minutes on this manual task, only to get a 1% off average result. yay

2) Rerolls, Buffs, Stratagems
Back in the day your expensive SM lasercannon had a 33% chance to just miss entirely.
Now you can stack buffs, rerolls and stratagems to ensure that your outcome will almost always be somewhat consistent when it matters.
If something outrages happens, like your important character failed that 2+ save? No problem, just fix it with an arbitrary reroll for 1CP.
Your unit missed and failed to kill the target they absolutely had to? No problem, pay a couple CP and have them shoot again.
And so on and so on.

3) Most of the worst randomizers have been completely removed from the game (or lessened by distributing them over more dice, see above).
Things like scatter, random movements, random weapon effects, real impact of moral, and really anything important that you did not have a CP reroll for in the past, is no more.
There are only few high impact single rolls that even remain. I think the worst still is the roll-off who goes first...


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/23 18:37:32


Post by: carldooley


HMint wrote:
This is the least random 40k we have ever had.
It boggles my mind how this thread somehow comes to the opposite conclusion.

1) More dice means less random(!), not more...
The more dice you throw, the more often your result will be close to the expected average. We are now throwing literally hundreds of dice for a lot of things, spending several minutes on this manual task, only to get a 1% off average result. yay

2) Rerolls, Buffs, Stratagems
Back in the day your expensive SM lasercannon had a 33% chance to just miss entirely.
Now you can stack buffs, rerolls and stratagems to ensure that your outcome will almost always be somewhat consistent when it matters.
If something outrages happens, like your important character failed that 2+ save? No problem, just fix it with an arbitrary reroll for 1CP.
Your unit missed and failed to kill the target they absolutely had to? No problem, pay a couple CP and have them shoot again.
And so on and so on.

3) Most of the worst randomizers have been completely removed from the game (or lessened by distributing them over more dice, see above).
Things like scatter, random movements, random weapon effects, real impact of moral, and really anything important that you did not have a CP reroll for in the past, is no more.
There are only few high impact single rolls that even remain. I think the worst still is the roll-off who goes first...

If you want less random, why have people roll dice at all?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/23 18:57:56


Post by: HMint


I don't know that.
I do not like the direction this game is going. Ask GW.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/23 20:06:21


Post by: Geifer


 Platuan4th wrote:
 Geifer wrote:
Realistically 10th ed is too early to come back if you're not happy with the current rules. Give GW another edition or two before they have fully driven the 8th ed framework into the ground and need a reset.


So what, another 12-15 years? It took GW ~20 years to break out of the basic 3rd Ed framework.


Right now we can reliably expect editions to last for three years. 10th ed in 2023, 11th ed in 2026, and so forth. Some people like to speculate that Covid will push 10th ed back, but that's against GW's SOP and I'll believe it when I see it. They push out a new edition when scheduled, not when it's ready.

Worth keeping in mind that the general state of the game is not going to drive a reset directly, but how dissatisfaction with the rules impacts sales. If people keep buying regardless, it doesn't really matter how big a mess the game is or if the designers have some clever ideas for when the rule framework is reset. If it's successful, the economic need for a reset isn't there and GW won't take the chance that a reset decreases popularity. So it's going to be more of a question of how long enough customers stay on board rather than what the rules designers do, even if those things are connected.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/23 20:29:06


Post by: Backspacehacker


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
7E onward is specifically designed for bad players who want bad armies to be "good".

This is especially true in 9E with a host of random things that allow a poor player snatch victory from the jaws of a well-deserved defeat.

GW is deliberately engineering a rule system where a player can expect the smallest possible likelihood of victory. That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen. This means that the world's best players might win, at most, 70% of their games against absolute novices, simply because the game introduces RNG elements that can potentially turn the game on its head. These "surprises" create stories and "excitement".


They hated this man because he spoke the truth.

Also blast weapons and templates should have just been brought back as they were in the past. there was no need to remove them. If anything the small blast should have been made slightly bigger.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 08:21:36


Post by: Blackie


 carldooley wrote:
HMint wrote:
This is the least random 40k we have ever had.
It boggles my mind how this thread somehow comes to the opposite conclusion.

1) More dice means less random(!), not more...
The more dice you throw, the more often your result will be close to the expected average. We are now throwing literally hundreds of dice for a lot of things, spending several minutes on this manual task, only to get a 1% off average result. yay

2) Rerolls, Buffs, Stratagems
Back in the day your expensive SM lasercannon had a 33% chance to just miss entirely.
Now you can stack buffs, rerolls and stratagems to ensure that your outcome will almost always be somewhat consistent when it matters.
If something outrages happens, like your important character failed that 2+ save? No problem, just fix it with an arbitrary reroll for 1CP.
Your unit missed and failed to kill the target they absolutely had to? No problem, pay a couple CP and have them shoot again.
And so on and so on.

3) Most of the worst randomizers have been completely removed from the game (or lessened by distributing them over more dice, see above).
Things like scatter, random movements, random weapon effects, real impact of moral, and really anything important that you did not have a CP reroll for in the past, is no more.
There are only few high impact single rolls that even remain. I think the worst still is the roll-off who goes first...

If you want less random, why have people roll dice at all?


I don't know, many players are already using dice apps and I woulnd't be surprised if a large portion of players would just use the averages, rolling a single dice just to round the average up or down in the near future. Or maybe at some point GW will abandon the dice system entirely, replacing it with a system based on expected results instead.

No need to waste lots of time rolling buckets of dice for everything, getting expected results. At this point there are so many rolls in a game that can bypass randomness that this isn't really a real dice based game anymore.

HMint got it right, I share the same feeling. And that's basically the only thing I don't like about modern 40k.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 09:30:36


Post by: psipso


Are you aware that in the real world the vast majority of 40k players don't go to tournaments and they can be considered as fluff players?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 09:38:32


Post by: Blackie


psipso wrote:
Are you aware that in the real world the vast majority of 40k players don't go to tournaments and they can be considered as fluff players?


Including me. Never attended a single tournament in my life. We still play with the exact same datasheets and sets of rules though, codexes and rulebooks are the same for both fluff and competitive players.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 09:43:39


Post by: Jidmah


psipso wrote:
Are you aware that in the real world the vast majority of 40k players don't go to tournaments and they can be considered as fluff players?


I wouldn't agree on the "fluff player" part - the most common type of player I've encountered over the years are those which own 1-2 units of stuff they like for various reasons and then try to build a somewhat decent army out of that collection. While fluff is often one driving force, it isn't always a primary concern - they usually still are trying their best to win a game.

To me fluff players are those who put fluff first and everything else second, including army composition and gameplay. And those are quite rare, even more so than tournament players.

On a hilarious anecdote, on of our club's fluff players recently frustrated a competitive player to no end, because their mission required the fluff player's custodes force to successfully flee the battle for VP. He declared that custodes would never flee from the likes of daemons and charged head first into them instead. Despite wiping out all the daemons, he lost the game, but he didn't care one bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the dice app - I use an app whenever I need to roll more than 30 dice, primarily playing crusade these days. Anything else is just a waste of valuable hobby time.

The app I use even has physical dice flying around and makes rolling noises, that's good enough for me


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 16:02:48


Post by: Andilus Greatsword


 Irbis wrote:
How to spot salty people mad far better mechanics replaced ancient gak that made no sense - the thread

 Geifer wrote:
Random dice rolls may bear the barest resemblance to that in result, but you're leaving out the part where a single shell can explode a lone character six times, while on the other end you can't ever splatter more than six Boyz no matter how large or packed the mob is. Random number of shots is a replacement for templates, but a poor one.

Did you miss the elementary first grade bit of characters (and monsters) having more wounds than a boy?

The fact that artillery piece FINALLY can threaten characters and monsters instead of being single damage whiff is a colossal improvement. It makes sense from realism standpoint, too, a shell that lands directly on a carnifex SHOULD tear it to shreds, the one that lands somewhat farther will just wound it with shrapnel. Which is what we have now, instead of that tickling, 1 wound max on a headshot from an Earthshaker gak of old editions...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.

Yes, gak mechanic that forced players of horde armies to move each unit 30 minutes spreading it to take 0.01 wounds less, wasting colossal amounts of time for very little reason (to say nothing of arguments if the template hit 2 or 3 models depending on how you squinted) and contributing absolutely nothing to the game is gone. And only in a Flat Earthdition imaginary world this is somehow a bad thing


I have to agree with this. I bristled at the idea of losing templates when I went from 7th to 9th ed, but I prefer the situation so much more.

Positioning matters less? Good, I always felt that the game lacked enough abstraction in 6th and 7th ed with TLOS, position-based wound allocation, etc - your troops aren't actually, exactly where they are on the table, so I don't mind that we can be looser with that now. Similarly, not having to be so worried about exact positioning makes the movement phase go a lot faster, I basically just have to be worried about LOS and being in range of objectives and auras. As has been said, it makes blast weapons better against monsters and vehicles than they were too and, when you actually think about it, scatter was also random and caused lots of arguments so the results of the system are the same just much faster.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 16:17:01


Post by: Unit1126PLL


It isn't good that positioning matters less. This is a wargame, not a card game. Abstract positioning is undesirable and obviates the need to use miniatures.

If an abstraction at some level is required of position, there are ways to do that in a miniatures game - plenty of games abstract the "precise position of the soldiers" away from where they are on the table. This culminates in games like Flames of War, where multiple soldiers are on a single base. This is because what matters in that rule-set is the team of guys, not the individual guys. Such a game requires designing thusly from the ground up.

But 40k isn't designed that way. If you don't want model position to matter, don't write rules like "every model within 1/2" of a friendly model within 1/2" of an enemy model or just within 1" of the enemy model or 5" vertically can fight".

Either model position matters, or unit position matters. Don't make models matter sometimes, and units matter other times, or you end up with absurd situations like the efficacy of a fragmentation shell being dependent on what the precise squad-level organization of the troopers in its blast radius are.

"The doomsday particle cannon hit Billy square in the face while he was hugging me! It was horrible!"
"That's impossible, you're completely unharmed. Not even muddy!"
"What? No, of course I'm fine. Billy's in Squad 2 of Platoon 1 and I'm in the Command Squad. Idiot."

The interaction between wanting to be concentrated for force concentration and especially close-combat and wanting to be spread out for templates and blasts was a fascinating dynamic. Knowing when to contract and when to expand was a skill - if you got it wrong, you'd lose the game. Getting 3 models of a 50 man unit in combat because they're all spread out 2" apart is a recipe for loss in 4th - but so is packing everyone into a base-to-base phalanx. It's a tactical decision on the board how big or little (in terms of space, not numbers) your units need to be.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 16:53:32


Post by: Mezmorki


I like to imagine the rules for 40K depicted as a gauntlet of pendulums all lined up. Each pendulum reflects some aspect of the ruleset. Any given edition of 40K has pendulums swinging wildly all over the place.

When it comes to these questions about randomness, I don't think the newer game is really any more or less random than older versions. Its just that were the randomness is each time is different.

Prior to 6th edition you didn't roll 2D6 for charge distances, they were all fixed. After 6th (and still in 9th) is a random 2D6 roll.

Prior to 8th, deep strike could scatter 2D6". Now its a fixed 9" from enemies.

Prior to 8th, there were vehicle damage tables and hull points, which created one random gradient for destroying vehicles. Now we have weapons doing variable damage with vehicles with dozens of wounds.

Prior to 8th blast weapons scattered, now they do a random number of hits based on the size of the target.

It's pointless to argue about whether edition X or Y is inherently more random. But one can assert a preference for "where" they do or don't want their randomness. And the randomness does have a bearing on the simulation fidelity of the rules (e.g. Blasts make more intuitive sense in how they function, even if still random, compared to how they work in 9th, which is more abstracted).






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Positioning matters less? Good, I always felt that the game lacked enough abstraction in 6th and 7th ed with TLOS, position-based wound allocation, etc - your troops aren't actually, exactly where they are on the table, so I don't mind that we can be looser with that now.
It isn't good that positioning matters less. This is a wargame, not a card game. Abstract positioning is undesirable and obviates the need to use miniatures are.


I think this (implied) exchange is the crux of people's engagement with the 8th/9th edition paradigm or not. I'm with Unit on this - that positioning is the THING I WANT TO MATTER THE MOST. It's why I play a tactical miniature game and not a hex-based wargame (which I also play, but for different reasons).

You can trace sooo much back this single difference in preference. Everything people complain about related to positioning (vehicle facings and armor values, True LoS, model positions, wound allocations, blast weapons scattering, model spacing, etc) are exactly the kinds of things I WANT out of the game.

In the process of stripping out many of the things that led to depth of play related to positioning, they've added meat to the game in many non-positional related areas - mainly stratagems, auras, etc.. It's less about positioning and more about resource management and combo building. This is NOT what I want out of a tactical miniatures game. If I wanted that, I'd play a strategy boardgame or CCG or something else.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 17:09:11


Post by: Tyel


I'd hope they'd ditch it in 10th edition.

I find it interesting how when GW was doing their hearts and minds Sister's beta codex one of the recognitions was "yeah, turns out everyone hates the Exorcist being D6 shots because on top of D6 damage that means its output is all over the place. We've done something to change that..." (ignore current state of Exorcist viability etc).

But then... this information doesn't seem to have fed through to every other comparable gun in the game.

If you want blast to still be a thing (and there are questions about that tbh), just say "this gun gets 3 or 4 shots normally, and 6 shots if there are more than 10 models in a targeted unit." Then balance accordingly, done.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 17:24:40


Post by: Toofast


I agree about positioning. I WANT positioning to matter, it's one of the most important things in warfare. I liked vehicle facings. I liked blast templates. I liked non-random charges, they should be a fixed stat like movement. Honestly I really miss 7th other than random warlord/psychic powers.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 17:31:56


Post by: auticus


I want positioning and facing to matter. Thats why I play wargames and not card games.

But that writing has been on the wall for years now and is why I dropped 40k and just watch it from a distance to see if it ever turns back around or continues down the path of more abstraction .


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 17:51:44


Post by: Mezmorki


Just remember - if you're able to convince some-like minded people to play an older version - there's nothing stopping you. 40K is at it's best when a group of players make it what they want it to be, rather than settling for the status quo of whatever GW shovels out the door.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 18:22:09


Post by: auticus


I came from a very competitive region. There was no playing something that wasn't tournament standard there without having to go through a very very painful politic session that wasn't worth it in the end.

Its just vastly easier and less damaging (at least in that community - your mileage may vary) to play by official live rules in whatever ruleset you are using so find a ruleset that is current that matches what you are after.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 19:22:11


Post by: Toofast


 Mezmorki wrote:
Just remember - if you're able to convince some-like minded people to play an older version - there's nothing stopping you. 40K is at it's best when a group of players make it what they want it to be, rather than settling for the status quo of whatever GW shovels out the door.


Most of my games are tournaments or one/both players preparing for a tournament. We play whatever the current rules, missions, and table sizes are. I had a decent group for 30k at home when I lived in Alabama but haven't been able to find the same in Florida.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 22:15:35


Post by: chaos0xomega


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
7E onward is specifically designed for bad players who want bad armies to be "good".
This is especially true in 9E with a host of random things that allow a poor player snatch victory from the jaws of a well-deserved defeat.
GW is deliberately engineering a rule system where a player can expect the smallest possible likelihood of victory. That is, GW has been shifting 40k toward "narrative" games were surprising things happen. This means that the world's best players might win, at most, 70% of their games against absolute novices, simply because the game introduces RNG elements that can potentially turn the game on its head. These "surprises" create stories and "excitement".


Honestly if this were true it would be awesome - but my own experience suggests otherwise (either that or I am just an exceptionally awful player - I have yet to win a game of 9th edition, though that is arguably because I play mostly fluffy/non-competitive lists from 8th edition armies into 9th edition competitive WAAC lists). If anything, 9th feels like the most skill-intensive edition of the game I've played (been in since 4th), with the caveat that the primary skills in 9th are knowing how to optimize your listbuilding to maximize the benefits of the multi-layered special rules and abilities that armies have access to, as well as knowing how to abuse the hell out of strategems.

 Tawnis wrote:
Toofast wrote:
Seriously I want to meet the person that said "You know what 40k REALLY needs? MORE dice rolling to see what happens and MORE random!" If I paid 150 points for a model and 25 points for a weapon upgrade, why can my opponent pay the same amount of points for something potentially 6x more effective? What does this add to the game besides slowing it down for unnecessary dice rolls that lead to feel-bad moments? They said they were going to listen to tournament players and create a more competitive version of 40k. I used to play tournaments religiously and tournament players HATED the amount of randomness that was present in the game. I remember people taking a specific librarian because he had invis and everyone else had to roll for it so they only had 1/6 chance of getting the power they actually wanted. People HATED it. Now they make it even worse by making rare and expensive weapons that potentially have less damage output than the bolter held by your 19 point tac marine. So who was asking for this? Fluff players?

So the D3 or D6 to hit replaced Blast Templates. This reduced all the measuring and scatter, and spacing out models exactly 2", and arguing over if a model was under the template with a single dice roll. For damage, originally, it replaced the vehicle damage table. Instead of a penetrating hit blowing you up or just rocking the boat, you take light to serious damage. Both of these things had always had a random element to determining what they did.
I'm still a big fan of the former as it speeds the game up a whole bunch, even though I do thematically miss the blast templates. As for the latter, I liked it at first, but with all the multi-wound models and D6+3 + X amount of mortals, it's gotten more than a little out of hand.


Biggest problem with the change though was that weapon effectiveness became multiplicative. I.E. whereas before the blast template could only hit the tank once, now the d6 hit system allows that blast weapon to potentiall hit that vehicle 6 times, each of which will do x damage (which is itself potentiall randomized, giving a huge possible spread of damage output). This kind of renders the old "blast" weapons to being disproportionately more effective at attacking vehicles/monsters than infantry and the softer targets they were intended for.

 Geifer wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
Toofast wrote:
Seriously I want to meet the person that said "You know what 40k REALLY needs? MORE dice rolling to see what happens and MORE random!" If I paid 150 points for a model and 25 points for a weapon upgrade, why can my opponent pay the same amount of points for something potentially 6x more effective? What does this add to the game besides slowing it down for unnecessary dice rolls that lead to feel-bad moments? They said they were going to listen to tournament players and create a more competitive version of 40k. I used to play tournaments religiously and tournament players HATED the amount of randomness that was present in the game. I remember people taking a specific librarian because he had invis and everyone else had to roll for it so they only had 1/6 chance of getting the power they actually wanted. People HATED it. Now they make it even worse by making rare and expensive weapons that potentially have less damage output than the bolter held by your 19 point tac marine. So who was asking for this? Fluff players?

Do you remember when you used to place a template down on the board and roll scatter dice, and sometimes it would get like 4 hits, and sometimes it would scatter and miss entirely?
.....yep.

Random dice rolls may bear the barest resemblance to that in result, but you're leaving out the part where a single shell can explode a lone character six times, while on the other end you can't ever splatter more than six Boyz no matter how large or packed the mob is. Random number of shots is a replacement for templates, but a poor one.
Incidentally around the same time GW introduced this nonsense the designers of Bolt Action decided to dump random hits for explodey weapons in favor of templates for a more immersive and all around better game experience.


Yep, it was humorous when it occurred, though while the templates are more immersive I wouldn't say they provide a better overall experience - I personally hate the templates and the arguments they create as well as how they encourage certain ways of playing such as spreading your dudes out to the maximum extent possible in order to minimize the potential harm your opponent can inflict upon you - it renders the game down into an exercise in tedium.

 Blackie wrote:
7th was much more random overall even in terms of damage.
We might have random damage now, but also lots of ways to fix the dice rolls and to increase damage, combined with units firing way more shots that before.
A razorback with twin linked lascannon in 7th fired a single re-rollable shot, instant killed T4 but only caused 1W on T5 multiwounds models. Now the same platform fires two shots with high BS, which can be re-rolled somehow, can get better AP for free (stupid doctrines), and also damage can be re-rolled. That razorback is now way more effective in killing stuff even if its weapon has a damage characteristic of D6.
That's a massive improvement to remove randomness, not the opposite. And that's true for any other unit in the game, and any other mechanic that involved the dice rolling.
GW is definitely trying to turn 40k into the game of expected results rather than a proper dice based game. Which IMHO is terrible thing and actually the only thing, other than rules bloat and some massive models, that I dislike about this edition.


This kinda begs the question, why didn't GW reinvent "Instant Death" to mean that if the weapons strength is more than double your toughness the attack does the maximum damage (if variable) or double damage (if fixed - or maybe just double damage for all)?

The damage change fixed the problem of "this superpowerful cannon mounted to this massive tank will paste your multiwound infantry model in a single shot, but if hes riding a bike the cannon is just as effective as a flashlight carried by an infantryman", but created a new problem where the same weapons damage output is equally effective against a lumberings steel behemoth as it is an infantryman. The ability of weapons to cause more than a single point of damage is a big boon to gameplay in terms of making some weapons feel more powerful/effective than others, but once a weapon strength reaches double a targets toughness you only get a bonus to your roll to wound and nothing else, a S8 weapon against a T4 marine is just as effective as a S14 weapon with the same AP/Damage stat, which just incentivizes GW to go overboard with the AP/Damage stats if they want to represent the increase in killing power of these weapons. It would be cool if the damage scaled a bit with the weapons strength relative to the targets toughness - this might encourage GW to scale down the innate lethality of some weapons as well (which might be contrary to their actual goals), as something like a S8 Battlecannon could be left at D1 or D2 (instead of D6), and when you fire it at a unit of S3 or S4 infantry the damage is doubled or whatever, making it more effective at pasting infantry, but against a higher toughness target or a vehicle the damage is played straight, meaning those anti-personnel blast weapons are no longer necessarily effective tank-hunting weapons, etc. unless you fire the anti-armor krak round instead of the anti-infantry frag round.

You could potentially even go the other way with this as well and say that damage from weapons with a strength less than half of the targets toughness do half damage (to a minimum of zero).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest things in the templates vs non-templates to me is:
1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.
2) the administrative division of the enemy force affects how effective my explosive shells are:
"Sir, 30 men standing shoulder to shoulder in the open on the objective!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"BUT SIR! Intel suggests they are in 6 units of five; the mortars won't be effective!"
"...."


This has an easy fix:

"Each unit within X" of the target unit suffers Y hits from this weapon." Where X and Y can be basically anything, you can go fixed distances or variable distances for X, Y can be fixed value, variable, identical to the base profile of the weapon, or variably higher/lower than the base profile, creating design space for blast weapons that are able to impact a wider area of the board than others, etc.

For me, as someone who appreciates a healthy amount of abstraction but still wants there to be some logical verisimilitude towards what I perceive as realism, I don't much care if a mortar or a howitzer should theoretically be more effective against a squad that has clumped up than one which has spread out. The tedium that comes with properly spacing out the minis simply isn't worth it. But what I do care about is basically the scenario you presented, where a whole bunch of units are clumped up on top of one another and my weapons are no more effective against that concentration of mass. I can abstract the idea that the model placement represents a snapshot in time and the moment my howitzer shell lands on a unit they may be more or less spaced out than what I see presented by the miniatures - but the positional relationship between units on the board is a somewhat different story as it generally presents a much higher relevance to overall gameplay (relative positioning between separate units matters for auras, psychic abilities which provide buffs, and a number of different rules interactions for things like strategems, etc. whereas relative positioning of models within one unit rarely if ever matter for any purpose other than in the charge/fight phase and the arbitrary coherency rules that exist to prevent you from conga-lining a unit across the table).

It would make a lot of sense to counterbalance the benefits of auras and such with the risks that come from clustering too tightly together. Having weapons iwth different "X" ranges to effect other units also disincentives players from trying to optimally space their units, some weapons might be able to hit adjacent units from 3" away, while others might be 6" and yet other less common weapons might be able to make a big bada-boom happen out to 12" or something, with all that variability your opponent will basically just have to decide on acceptable levels of risk and go by their gut rather than trying to space everything "just so".

And if you really did care about the impact of spacing within the unit, you can abstract that out easily enough so that each unit has a "formation state" which you would select during the movement phase:

-Tight: Double hits
-Standard: Straight number of hits
-Loose: Half hits (rounding up)

Then link Tight and Loose to a number of passive pros/cons, example Tight formation gives you +1 to LD and +1 to hit in the fight phase, whereas loose formation gives you -1 to LD and -1 to hit in the shooting phase or something. All what the formation state would be is essentially a status marker that you place next to the unit, no need to measure the spacing between minis in the squad, etc.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
So the D3 or D6 to hit replaced Blast Templates. This reduced all the measuring and scatter, and spacing out models exactly 2", and arguing over if a model was under the template with a single dice roll.

Indeed. What should have happened is that Flamer should automatically hit ALL models in the target unit within 12". Blast should hit scatter a point and hit ALL models in EVERY unit with at least ONE model within X" of the point. No arguing, no rolling. Just auto-hit every model regardless of how the unit is spaced out. If it's a giant Conga line, too bad. LOL


Certainly another way of doing it (though I would simply do it as roll X many hits against each unit within Y range of the marker for the scalability reasons HBMC indicated), I prefer the use of a marker to the use of a template myself, though I prefer the way I suggested previously to both.

HMint wrote:

1) More dice means less random(!), not more...
The more dice you throw, the more often your result will be close to the expected average. We are now throwing literally hundreds of dice for a lot of things, spending several minutes on this manual task, only to get a 1% off average result. yay


Yes and no. More dice rolls in a system of dependent probability means a regression towards the mean, which is - as you said - a decrease in randomness and an outcome that adheres more closely to the probability distribution. More dice rolls in a system of independent probability however just means the opposite.

I.E. Rolling 10d6 and adding the results together 100 times will give you a very nice bell curve and a less random result than if you only rolled it once. Likewise rolling 1d6 100 times will give you a nice uniform distribution and a less random result than if you only rolled it once. But if you're only making a single roll, rolling 1d6 once will give you a more predictable result than if you rolled 10d6 and added them together.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

If an abstraction at some level is required of position, there are ways to do that in a miniatures game - plenty of games abstract the "precise position of the soldiers" away from where they are on the table. This culminates in games like Flames of War, where multiple soldiers are on a single base. This is because what matters in that rule-set is the team of guys, not the individual guys. Such a game requires designing thusly from the ground up.
But 40k isn't designed that way. If you don't want model position to matter, don't write rules like "every model within 1/2" of a friendly model within 1/2" of an enemy model or just within 1" of the enemy model or 5" vertically can fight".


Nail on the head. The fundamental problem with 40k is that its a skirmish game in a tactical/battle games clothing (or something, you get where I'm trying to go with the analogy). The focus on indvidual model placement with regards to certain rules is a holdover to the games past in the Rogue Trader era where each player fielded a dozen or so models that each had their own name, unique wargear, abilities, and skills, and acted independently of the rest of the force. If 40k was being designed from scratch today instead of evolving out of another game, it probably would not have these types of considerations.

 Mezmorki wrote:

You can trace sooo much back this single difference in preference. Everything people complain about related to positioning (vehicle facings and armor values, True LoS, model positions, wound allocations, blast weapons scattering, model spacing, etc) are exactly the kinds of things I WANT out of the game.


I think you'll find that the majority complaining about these issues aren't doing so because these concepts are bad, they are doing so because GW implemented them poorly or because they have no place in a game of this scale.

-Vehicle facings and armor values failed not because its a bad idea, but because there was no effective standardization/guidance on how to resolve facings in a fair and balanced way for anything other than box shaped vehicles (I've been in my fair share of arguments with people disagreed on what constituted front/side rear on something that lacked 4 distinct and discernable equidistant corners, etc.). Armor values in particular were a problem from a design standpoint because it requires its own unique resolution mechanic in order to work which carries with it additional mental overhead and unnecessary complexity (and most experienced game designers would point to it as an example of poor design). Putting that aside, the system also suffered from the strict limit of weapon strength topping out at 10 (the later introduction of Strength D notwithstanding), which necesstiated AV to vary between 10 and 14, combined with the fact that weapon strength wasn't split between anti-personnel and anti-materiel stats (which made certain lower strength weapons more effective at killing vehicles than higher strength weapons because they tended to fire more shots than higher strength weapons and you could take disprorportionately more of them for the same points value).

The system could have been somewhat saved had they introduced standard arc templates of some sort that would clearly define the boundaries of front/side/rear to prevent arguments. I would have gone a step further though, split weapon Strength into "Anti-Personnel" and "Anti-Materiel" ratings (i.e. Use the anti-materiel stat against vehicles and maybe monsters, anti-personnel against everything else), replaced AV with the Toughness stat and armor save stat (so each vehicle would have a different T and Sv rating on Front/Side/Rear) and otherwise use the same wounds system as everything else instead of the various damage charts. If you wanted to retain the damage charts I would have tied them to a "critical" mechanic somehow (perhaps on a 6+ to hit or to wound roll, depending on the weapon(?) you roll an additional effect on the damage table, perhaps with a few simple modifiers (i.e. +/-1 for each point of difference between weapon strength and toughness or something like that).

-True LOS major failure is due to the removal of concepts like area terrain (which provided degrees of necessary abstraction where you can't adequately represent terrain density on the table without impacting playability by allowing things to get cover or be obscured from line of sight for being too far into/behind particularly dense terrain) and the insistence that all line of sight was based on the posing of the model (which leads to "modeling for advantage" and the silliness that a model dynamically posed to be standing heroically on a pile of skulls is suddenyl more exposed than the same model sat squarely on themodels base) rather than on some system of standardization such as the use of silhouettes or size ratings, etc. The system also gets bogged down with the whole "individual miniatures matter" concept necessitating complex rules clauses about what to do if more/less than some arbitrary fraction of the target unit is visible by some arbitrary fraction of the active unit attempting to target it. The system also somewhat falls apart with those models that don't have bases, which is at this point thankfully limited mostly to older vehicles.

Solution is simple - use a silhouette system or give models a size rating that standardizes and abstracts the models height in terms of a number of inches. I.E. a model on a 40mm base with size rating 3 occupies the volume of a cylinder 40mm in diameter and 3" in height. Simple. If you can draw a line between the firing unit and the target models base that isn't obstructed by anything that falls between the table surface and 3" in height, then you can see it. If there is an obstruction in there, but you can still draw the line at some height between 0" and 3" above the table surface, you can shoot it but it gets a save. If its completely obstructed from 0"-3" above table surface, i.e. you cannot draw any line from firing unit to the models base whatsoever within that height range, then you simply can't shoot it. I would go a step further (although admittedly it isn't really true LOS anymore at this point) and say that rather than having to check model to model for the whole unit, the entire process can be simplified as true line of sight to/from the squad leader for the unit, as we accept the abstraction that the positions of the models on the table are a snapshot in time and not necessarily the same snapshot as the moment when they actually open fire, etc. In this sense the squad leader provides a reasonable "anchor" that we can assume to not simply be a temporal abstraction but a more definitive hard reference point for the unit as a whole, allowing you to quickly and definitively determine cover/line of sight for both units in a single check rather than needing to perform a more comprehensive verification on a model-to-model basis for each and every model in both units and then determine what fraction of the target unit is partially/fully obstructed from view of the firing unit and what that means for how the attack is resolved.

-Model positions largely wont matter within the construct of the game as it currently exists unless you do a fairly significant rewrite to the rules so that all models (not just vehicles) have facings/vision arcs, etc. and such things matter for the purposes of mechanical resolution - which mainly means that all attacks need to be resolved on a model by model basis rather than a unit by unit basis, which would be a major slog and likely necessitate a complete rewrite of the existing hit/wound/save resolution system, as you would need to make far too many dice rolls to resolve combat between units otherwise (and probablistically speaking the system is designed to work principally by rolling large numbers of dice a small number of times to resolve interactions between units, rathe than small numbers of dice a large number of times). You are better served playing warmachine or another game that is designed to model smaller scale encounters and clashes in which you can dedicate the time to resolve interactions on a model by model basis where position can really matter, otherwise at the scale 40k operates you're adding between 1-2 hours of additional playtime to a ~3 turn game at 2000 points in order to accommodate this level of detail. IN essence, square peg meet round hole. Yes, past editions of 40k (and even the current edition) have tried various attempts at compromise towards the two ends of the spectrum on this, none of which have really been satisfactory to anyone and basically amounted to unnecessary complexity and additional pages of rules that created a lot of feelsbadman and not a lot of "oh that was epic".

If you really want to push this, you can build off my suggestion of the unit leaders as "anchors" concept in my previous bullet point - use the squad leads position and facing to set the position and facing of the entire unit, the other models in the squad essentially become markers for the number of wounds remaining in the unit and the number of attacks the unit can generate, etc. Its the only real way to preserve the scale of conflict 40k simulates while being able to resovle more detailed positional gameplay in a reasonable amount of time sans a significant rewrite to streamline the resolution mechanics to shorten the amount of time spent rolling dice. Otherwise, theres not really a lot of value add to spending the time figuring out that model x in my unit can hit 2 out of 5 models in your unit, model y in my unit can hit 4 out of 5 models in your unit, and model z can hit 1 out of 5 models in your unit, etc. and then rolling each of those models attacks individually to ensure that only the models in your unit that area actually physically placed within sword-striking range of the models in my unit get removed.

-Wound allocation is another square peg/round hole issue. You can't adequately model this in a game where half the factions in the game show up to the table with 80-200 minis (and as of this edition an increasingly large number of them have multiple wounds) and expect to be able to play a full game within a reasonable 2-3 hour timeframe. For the most part it doesn't matter as most models in most units will be armed identically, and you lose a lot (as we learned form 6th and 7th edition) by trying to create rules that aren't horrendously exploitable in order to account for the typically ~20-25% of distinct models in any given unit or the 20-25% of units that have a higher degree of distinction between models.

To me the adequate implementation within the context of the existing game is to have a "torrent of fire" type rule (IIRC thats what it was called circa 5th edition) that allows you to to allocate specific attacks to specific models if you cause more wounds than their are models in the unit, as well as a "sniper" type rule that allows certain models/units to allocate their attack against a specific model within the target unit. Otherwise for everything else, in order to keep the game moving, allocating wounds to models already wounded until they die, etc. is sufficient. I am in no mood to return to the days where every model in a unit with 2 wounds each needed to take a wound before the first model would die, at that point each additional wound that a unit of multiwound models has becomes an effective survivability multiplier rather than the linear increase in survivability one would expect or desire it to be. If you really want wound allocation to matter you really need to play a game designed to simulate smaller scale engagements like Warmachine or nu-Kill Team, both of which handle this much better than what can be achieved in a game of 40ks scale.

-Blast weapons scattering and spacing are two topics I described solutions to earlier in my post so I won't spend a lot of time detailing it here. Ultimately the issues with templates and model spacing themselves comes down to one of parallax error, unless you're very tall or playing on a very short table arguments over what models are/are not within the blast area become common. Another source of argument is what I call "unsteady hand syndrome" (especially common when you're trying to reach the center of the table), where its impossible to hold the template truly perpendicular to the table surface, resulting in arguments because your unsteady hand causes you to shift the angle of the template relative to the table, thereby shortening the two-dimensional area of effect of the table relative to the environment and resulting in models right on the edge of the template being perceived as falling outside by one or both parties. Usually the player placing the template is acutely aware of this and a better judge of whats in/out, but troublesome opponents will often try to take advantage of this to say that some minis are just outside etc. These issues are exacerbated by the presence of tall terrain features which require the tempalte to be held a higher distance off thet able surface, thus skewing perception of what falls under the template and what doesn't (related to parallax error).

Using a positional marker of some sort and then measuring a distance off of that to *units* rather than individual models allows for much finer definition of what falls within the blast area, as does the "units within x" of the target unit suffer y hits" solution I detailed previously, while also accounting for the fact that in the "real world" there is not a fixed lethality range for these things, nor is there a hard boundary at which a weapon producing a blast effect ceases to be lethal. Its entirely possible, dependent on a variety of circumstances, for an individual standing in the open 5 feet from a grenade to be unharmed while another individual 25 feet away is torn to shreds - you have to remember that the ground isn't actually flat and the grenade could have landed in a shallow ditch or behind a small rock that happens to deflect the concussive force/fragmentation away from certain areas. IRL, conventional explosive/"blast" weapons usually break down to a lethal radius, and a casualty radius, both of which are based on the % probability of an individual suffering the effect (iirc the standard is 90% probability) within that distance of the explosive epicenter. Beyond that there is a broader "area of harm" or suppression radius (various terms for it exist) in which the probability of death or severe injury is substantially lower but still present. A grenade with a 5 meter lethal radius and a 15 meter casualty radius could still potentially kill someone 150-250 meters away, as that is the distance at which the blast produced can theoreticaly eject shrapnel with lethal force. For various reasons, we like to imagine these three areas as being concentric circles, but in reality its more like a venn diagram where the lethal radius and the casualty radius are centered around two different points, sometimes with a lot of overlap between them and sometimes with no overlap whatsoever. Getting back to my point, the reason I bring this up, is because a blast template essentially creates a lot of complexity for not a lot of reality, whereas rolling randomized hits against a number of units within a distance of an abstracted epicenter (be it a marker or a target unit) actually produces results that are closer to reality while being very simple. And by adding that additional layer of "formation status", you create a much more tactically deep experience for the player with meaningful decisions for them to make in terms of how they approach combat and gameplay.

In the process of stripping out many of the things that led to depth of play related to positioning, they've added meat to the game in many non-positional related areas - mainly stratagems, auras, etc.. It's less about positioning and more about resource management and combo building. This is NOT what I want out of a tactical miniatures game. If I wanted that, I'd play a strategy boardgame or CCG or something else.


You do make a solid point here, not so much that a tactical game can't feature combo building or resource management, just that the focus of 40k is somewhere other than on positional mechanics (arguably because their past attempts at figuring out positional gameplay has been exceptionally poor).

If you want blast to still be a thing (and there are questions about that tbh), just say "this gun gets 3 or 4 shots normally, and 6 shots if there are more than 10 models in a targeted unit." Then balance accordingly, done.


They tried that with the "blast" rule, instead that just incentivized people not to take units larger than 5 minis. Thats the problem with setting a fixed non-scalable standard for mechanical interactions in games, everyone will play to the standard. They really should have done Blast (X) where X was the number of models in the unit above which the weapon would do max hits. You could have weapons that are blast(5), weapons that are blast(10), etc. and players would have to figure out what acceptable levels of risk and exposure to such things are during their listbuilding.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/24 22:37:53


Post by: auticus


I've said it many times over many years and I'll say it again.

I've sat in untold dozens of design meetings on a variety of games, tabletop and PC, where one of the main design considerations was outlined on a whiteboard that said:

"how can we emulate a game like magic the gathering along with its massive success and put it in tabletop form"

What you are seeing and have been seeing out of 40k since roughly the end days of 5th edition has been a march right into that direction.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 00:11:24


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It isn't good that positioning matters less. This is a wargame, not a card game.


Exactly. If physical positioning didn't matter, then why are we bothering to collect and paint miniatures to play upon the tabletop?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 auticus wrote:
"how can we emulate a game like magic the gathering along with its massive success and put it in tabletop form"


It's simply not possible due to the inherent contradiction of disposable cards taking virtually zero time or space per dollar spent vs. ever-embiggened models taking increasingly more time and space per dollar spent.

That is, Magic regularly sees spend $1,000s on cards and instantly 100% playable the next day, whereas $1,000s of GW miniatures and rules take a lot longer to paint and digest. Non-modular / non-swappable model parts create further WYSIWYG challenges. And then there's the space issue, where GW minis simply take up more physical space than stacks of cards, both for storage and for gameplay. A card game only needs 3x3 per match, whereas 40k assumes a 4x6 battlefield. Worse, it actively encourages against the increasingly baroque centerpiece models that GW has been pushing out.

Trying to make 40k (or any other tabletop miniatures wargame) like Magic is a doomed proposition from the beginning.

What GW should be doing is to lean into their centerpieces, and push a strategy where each player is compelled to collect and play 1 of each shiny new thing that GW makes, rather than the Rule of 3 that dominated mass purchases of fodder.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 08:17:06


Post by: Blackie


 JohnHwangDD wrote:


What GW should be doing is to lean into their centerpieces, and push a strategy where each player is compelled to collect and play 1 of each shiny new thing that GW makes, rather than the Rule of 3 that dominated mass purchases of fodder.


I like highlander style armies but basically herohammer? Bleah.... to me the appropriate centerpieces would be units like a dread or a battlwagon . Not the massive new (ugly) stuff.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 09:59:41


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


People must be playing a different 9th edition than I do. Movement still matters:
Do I spread out to prevent deepstriking?
Do I move close for melta(or rapid fire) and risk being charged?
Do I move through terrain and get slowed down, but get cover?
Do I place the unit right on the first or second level, risking not having a good shot when my opponent moves out of los? Do I place my vehicle behind terrain and then have to move around for two turns?
Do I place my army at the deployment line (and have more shots in the first turn) or in the back (and prevent charges)?
How do I maximize attacks in CC, measuring half-inches?
How do I place units to not lose them to morale after casualties?
Do I use transports at all?
Where the hell do I place my characters properly to allow:
a) use of auras
b) charging with the characters
c) protecting the chars in case of a bad charge roll
d) use psychic powers how I want
e) charging enemy characters
f) hit the most units with exploding strats like bombardment or Nurgle's rot

I admit there are two problems in 9th which solve too many of these questions: FLY and movement values being too high. Both have nothing to do with blast, since blasts in the past where too unreliable to really be a consideration. But I think most movement values could be reduced by 2-4 inches. I haven't really used rhinos since 8th, since my Plague Marines can easily just walk across the board now and reach CC in 2nd or 3rd turn.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 10:12:16


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Blackie wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:


What GW should be doing is to lean into their centerpieces, and push a strategy where each player is compelled to collect and play 1 of each shiny new thing that GW makes, rather than the Rule of 3 that dominated mass purchases of fodder.


I like highlander style armies but basically herohammer? Bleah.... to me the appropriate centerpieces would be units like a dread or a battlwagon . Not the massive new (ugly) stuff.


Massive centerpieces are what GW has been making, because nobody else has the technical ability or sales volumes to do so.

20+ years ago, Dreads and Land Raiders were the massive centerpiece models of the day.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 15:18:27


Post by: Andilus Greatsword


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
People must be playing a different 9th edition than I do. Movement still matters:
Do I spread out to prevent deepstriking?
Do I move close for melta(or rapid fire) and risk being charged?
Do I move through terrain and get slowed down, but get cover?
Do I place the unit right on the first or second level, risking not having a good shot when my opponent moves out of los? Do I place my vehicle behind terrain and then have to move around for two turns?
Do I place my army at the deployment line (and have more shots in the first turn) or in the back (and prevent charges)?
How do I maximize attacks in CC, measuring half-inches?
How do I place units to not lose them to morale after casualties?
Do I use transports at all?
Where the hell do I place my characters properly to allow:
a) use of auras
b) charging with the characters
c) protecting the chars in case of a bad charge roll
d) use psychic powers how I want
e) charging enemy characters
f) hit the most units with exploding strats like bombardment or Nurgle's rot

I admit there are two problems in 9th which solve too many of these questions: FLY and movement values being too high. Both have nothing to do with blast, since blasts in the past where too unreliable to really be a consideration. But I think most movement values could be reduced by 2-4 inches. I haven't really used rhinos since 8th, since my Plague Marines can easily just walk across the board now and reach CC in 2nd or 3rd turn.
.
This. I didn't say positioning didn't matter earlier, but the fiddly elements of it aren't as bad as they were. In my last couple games the movement phase was more about making sure I was out of LOS, in aura bubbles, in range of terrain, etc, rather than all of the above plus spacing out 2" to avoid getting screwed by my friend's Basilisks and Leman Russ tanks. I also like the 1" engagement range for similar reasons, less fiddly.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 15:23:22


Post by: Toofast


I think blast weapons being more effective at tank hunting than killing hordes of infantry is a perfect example of why I don't like this edition


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 15:26:50


Post by: Rihgu


 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 auticus wrote:
"how can we emulate a game like magic the gathering along with its massive success and put it in tabletop form"


It's simply not possible due to the inherent contradiction of disposable cards taking virtually zero time or space per dollar spent vs. ever-embiggened models taking increasingly more time and space per dollar spent.


Unless you make the models evergreen but the datasheets disposable. I can see it now, buy a pack of Codex Cards. Did you find Alaric's Reave-wardens, the best Intercessor squad for Blood Angels? No, you just got Assault Intercessors. Aw well! Better save up to buy Alaric's Reave-wardens from the card shop, or just keep buying packs 'til you get it. It's only Mythic rarity, afterall.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 15:34:21


Post by: Jidmah


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
People must be playing a different 9th edition than I do. Movement still matters:
Do I spread out to prevent deepstriking?
Do I move close for melta(or rapid fire) and risk being charged?
Do I move through terrain and get slowed down, but get cover?
Do I place the unit right on the first or second level, risking not having a good shot when my opponent moves out of los? Do I place my vehicle behind terrain and then have to move around for two turns?
Do I place my army at the deployment line (and have more shots in the first turn) or in the back (and prevent charges)?
How do I maximize attacks in CC, measuring half-inches?
How do I place units to not lose them to morale after casualties?
Do I use transports at all?
Where the hell do I place my characters properly to allow:
a) use of auras
b) charging with the characters
c) protecting the chars in case of a bad charge roll
d) use psychic powers how I want
e) charging enemy characters
f) hit the most units with exploding strats like bombardment or Nurgle's rot

I admit there are two problems in 9th which solve too many of these questions: FLY and movement values being too high. Both have nothing to do with blast, since blasts in the past where too unreliable to really be a consideration. But I think most movement values could be reduced by 2-4 inches. I haven't really used rhinos since 8th, since my Plague Marines can easily just walk across the board now and reach CC in 2nd or 3rd turn.


You are absolutely right. The only thing that changed is that model positioning doesn't matter anymore for getting shot, unit positioning matters as much as it ever did.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 16:00:59


Post by: vipoid


chaos0xomega wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest things in the templates vs non-templates to me is:
1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.
2) the administrative division of the enemy force affects how effective my explosive shells are:
"Sir, 30 men standing shoulder to shoulder in the open on the objective!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"BUT SIR! Intel suggests they are in 6 units of five; the mortars won't be effective!"
"...."


This has an easy fix:

"Each unit within X" of the target unit suffers Y hits from this weapon." Where X and Y can be basically anything, you can go fixed distances or variable distances for X, Y can be fixed value, variable, identical to the base profile of the weapon, or variably higher/lower than the base profile, creating design space for blast weapons that are able to impact a wider area of the board than others, etc.


That just sounds like a Blast Template but with extra steps.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 16:13:22


Post by: Rihgu


 vipoid wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest things in the templates vs non-templates to me is:
1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.
2) the administrative division of the enemy force affects how effective my explosive shells are:
"Sir, 30 men standing shoulder to shoulder in the open on the objective!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"BUT SIR! Intel suggests they are in 6 units of five; the mortars won't be effective!"
"...."


This has an easy fix:

"Each unit within X" of the target unit suffers Y hits from this weapon." Where X and Y can be basically anything, you can go fixed distances or variable distances for X, Y can be fixed value, variable, identical to the base profile of the weapon, or variably higher/lower than the base profile, creating design space for blast weapons that are able to impact a wider area of the board than others, etc.


That just sounds like a Blast Template but with extra steps.


Not only that but if you have say, a maximum spread 30-model squad your blast can hit an absolutely enormous amount of table space, but if they hit a 5 man, clumped up squad it its a tiny little area. Same gun is either a nuclear blast or a tiny pop.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 16:23:39


Post by: Toofast


Rihgu wrote:


Same gun is either a nuclear blast or a tiny pop.



That's basically what we have right now. When I shoot my plasma at a tank, sometimes it's a tiny pop (1 shot) and sometimes it's a small thermo-nuclear device (6 shots).


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 16:26:16


Post by: Rihgu


Toofast wrote:
Rihgu wrote:


Same gun is either a nuclear blast or a tiny pop.



That's basically what we have right now. When I shoot my plasma at a tank, sometimes it's a tiny pop (1 shot) and sometimes it's a small thermo-nuclear device (6 shots).


You mean sometimes the blast glances the tank and sometimes it hits it directly? Interesting!


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 16:48:20


Post by: chaos0xomega


Rihgu wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest things in the templates vs non-templates to me is:
1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.
2) the administrative division of the enemy force affects how effective my explosive shells are:
"Sir, 30 men standing shoulder to shoulder in the open on the objective!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"BUT SIR! Intel suggests they are in 6 units of five; the mortars won't be effective!"
"...."


This has an easy fix:

"Each unit within X" of the target unit suffers Y hits from this weapon." Where X and Y can be basically anything, you can go fixed distances or variable distances for X, Y can be fixed value, variable, identical to the base profile of the weapon, or variably higher/lower than the base profile, creating design space for blast weapons that are able to impact a wider area of the board than others, etc.


That just sounds like a Blast Template but with extra steps.


Not only that but if you have say, a maximum spread 30-model squad your blast can hit an absolutely enormous amount of table space, but if they hit a 5 man, clumped up squad it its a tiny little area. Same gun is either a nuclear blast or a tiny pop.


1. I very rarely (almost never) see someone fielding a squad larger than 10 models, let alone 30, even most Orks and Nids players these days are taking smaller squads.

2. If you spread them out that much, thats pretty much your own problem. As it stands the rules don't really encourage you spreading out like that, so its kind of like worrying about whether or not you'll be able to play basketball after a lung transplant when you've never played basketball before in your life.

3. If you were using a blast template instead, a direct hit on a clumped up/non-spread 30 model squad of infantry could potentially hit between 25-30 models (under ideal circumstances, this isn't an exaggeration either, its geometry), but if it scatters off a maximum spread 5 man squad you might only hit 1 model, or none at all. Same gun is either a nuclear blast or a tiny pop.

4. In real life terms, a typical run-of-the-mill 155mm howitzer has a lethal radius of 50-150m and a casualty radius of 150+ meters, with a suppression/likely injury radius of 350m. Even smaller mortars and grenades can potentiall kill you from 200-300m away. In short, if the games ground scale were consistent with the miniatures scale, a realistic blast weapon could potentially hit every model on the table.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 17:01:51


Post by: Rihgu


chaos0xomega wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest things in the templates vs non-templates to me is:
1) on table positioning no longer matters. Spreading out to 2" for horde units in my 4th edition and HH games has serious positioning consequences (pretty much all drawbacks/disadvantages) on the table. It's hardly "automatic." I will ruthlessly exploit the numerous tactical drawbacks of spreading out if someone does so against me thoughtlessly. In 9th? Whatever, everyone in single file or in a massive clump, doesn't matter.
2) the administrative division of the enemy force affects how effective my explosive shells are:
"Sir, 30 men standing shoulder to shoulder in the open on the objective!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"BUT SIR! Intel suggests they are in 6 units of five; the mortars won't be effective!"
"...."


This has an easy fix:

"Each unit within X" of the target unit suffers Y hits from this weapon." Where X and Y can be basically anything, you can go fixed distances or variable distances for X, Y can be fixed value, variable, identical to the base profile of the weapon, or variably higher/lower than the base profile, creating design space for blast weapons that are able to impact a wider area of the board than others, etc.


That just sounds like a Blast Template but with extra steps.


Not only that but if you have say, a maximum spread 30-model squad your blast can hit an absolutely enormous amount of table space, but if they hit a 5 man, clumped up squad it its a tiny little area. Same gun is either a nuclear blast or a tiny pop.


1. I very rarely (almost never) see someone fielding a squad larger than 10 models, let alone 30, even most Orks and Nids players these days are taking smaller squads.

2. If you spread them out that much, thats pretty much your own problem. As it stands the rules don't really encourage you spreading out like that, so its kind of like worrying about whether or not you'll be able to play basketball after a lung transplant when you've never played basketball before in your life.

3. If you were using a blast template instead, a direct hit on a clumped up/non-spread 30 model squad of infantry could potentially hit between 25-30 models (under ideal circumstances, this isn't an exaggeration either, its geometry), but if it scatters off a maximum spread 5 man squad you might only hit 1 model, or none at all. Same gun is either a nuclear blast or a tiny pop.

4. In real life terms, a typical run-of-the-mill 155mm howitzer has a lethal radius of 50-150m and a casualty radius of 150+ meters, with a suppression/likely injury radius of 350m. Even smaller mortars and grenades can potentiall kill you from 200-300m away. In short, if the games ground scale were consistent with the miniatures scale, a realistic blast weapon could potentially hit every model on the table.


1. Okay.

2. Okay.

3. You mean the blast weapon would either glance the squad or score a direct hit? That's very different from either hitting the entire table or practically nothing because it measures range from the unit hit. What I'm saying is the effectiveness of such a weapon can range from equivalent of old small blast to suddenly being multiple apocalypse sized blast templates because 1 unit decided to spread out a little, which is FAR more immersion breaking than anything the current system does.

4. Okay.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 17:46:47


Post by: Daedalus81


Toofast wrote:
I think blast weapons being more effective at tank hunting than killing hordes of infantry is a perfect example of why I don't like this edition


By what metric? An LRBT battle cannon kills 5 models from an 11+ horde, 3 to 4 IS, 3 to 4 wounds to marines, does 1 to 2 wounds to a LRBT, and 3 wounds to T7.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 18:32:44


Post by: chaos0xomega


Rihgu wrote:


3. You mean the blast weapon would either glance the squad or score a direct hit? That's very different from either hitting the entire table or practically nothing because it measures range from the unit hit. What I'm saying is the effectiveness of such a weapon can range from equivalent of old small blast to suddenly being multiple apocalypse sized blast templates because 1 unit decided to spread out a little, which is FAR more immersion breaking than anything the current system does.




Its really not immersion breaking. If the unit spreads out a little and as a result a lot of crap gets hit , then your "immersion" is that it was a really effective shot that happened to have a wider than average probabilistic lethality/casualty radius. I consider this to be less immersion breaking than the alternative, which is that a model standing wholly in the open 1mm removed from the edge of a blast template is magically wholly and completely unaffected by a large explosion in close proximity - especially if the model in question is of a different unit than those actually hit by a blast template. My proposed methodology, at least, provides an abstract realism representative of the fact that these weapons can have much broader and less predictable effects than what templates allow for. And as I stated previously, its not like each unit with x" of the target would be suffering the full effects of the weapon themselves, rather the expectation would be that if the target unit takes d6 hits, then other units with 3" would suffer d3, or potentially even less than that. And if it just so happens that the target unit only takes 1 hit, but an adjacent unit takes 3 - guess what, you've just adequately abstracted the idea of "scatter" whereby the round landed off center and had a greater impact on the adjacent unit than the target unit.

If you were really so concerned about this scenario - which I don't believe you are, because it seems like you're more trying to find a justification for a return to templates rather than a good faith debate on the positives and negatives of non-template based systems - there are easy ways to resolve it. You can include a clause that at least half the models in the adjacent unit need to be within whatever distance of the target unit in order for that unit to be hit, or a clause that says they cannot take more than half as many hits (rounding down) as the target unit in order to limit the impact, or borrow a page from warmachine and say that the blast is reduced to half strength for units other than the target unit, or that only the closest unit within x" of the target unit is impacted (thereby completely neutering your argument entirely, because your hypothetical nigh-nonexistant 30 man unit of infantry maximally spread out across the table can only transfer the hit to one other unit max, thus representing the shot drifting off target and landing in a position to hit the target unit and the other unit in its area of effect, which was not an uncommon occurrence with the old blast templates), etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Toofast wrote:
I think blast weapons being more effective at tank hunting than killing hordes of infantry is a perfect example of why I don't like this edition


By what metric? An LRBT battle cannon kills 5 models from an 11+ horde, 3 to 4 IS, 3 to 4 wounds to marines, does 1 to 2 wounds to a LRBT, and 3 wounds to T7.


I think Toofast might have got the idea from me by misinterpreting part of my post:

Biggest problem with the change though was that weapon effectiveness became multiplicative. I.E. whereas before the blast template could only hit the tank once, now the d6 hit system allows that blast weapon to potentiall hit that vehicle 6 times, each of which will do x damage (which is itself potentiall randomized, giving a huge possible spread of damage output). This kind of renders the old "blast" weapons to being disproportionately more effective at attacking vehicles/monsters than infantry and the softer targets they were intended for.


I.E. its not that blast weapons became more effective anti-tank weapons than anti-infantry weapons, rather the change turned weapons mainly meant to deal with horde/large units of soft targets into also being a potentially effective means of dealing with vehicles, monsters, and solitary targets. This is especially true with smaller squads and characters, whereas before if you targeted something like a unit of two obliterators with a blast template, at most you could only hit them twice - now you can potentially hit them 6 times which kind of makes them disproportionately more effective against smaller squads and characters than larger ones.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 18:38:53


Post by: Rihgu


chaos0xomega wrote:
Rihgu wrote:


3. You mean the blast weapon would either glance the squad or score a direct hit? That's very different from either hitting the entire table or practically nothing because it measures range from the unit hit. What I'm saying is the effectiveness of such a weapon can range from equivalent of old small blast to suddenly being multiple apocalypse sized blast templates because 1 unit decided to spread out a little, which is FAR more immersion breaking than anything the current system does.




Its really not immersion breaking. If the unit spreads out a little and as a result a lot of crap gets hit , then your "immersion" is that it was a really effective shot that happened to have a wider than average probabilistic lethality/casualty radius. I consider this to be less immersion breaking than the alternative, which is that a model standing wholly in the open 1mm removed from the edge of a blast template is magically wholly and completely unaffected by a large explosion in close proximity - especially if the model in question is of a different unit than those actually hit by a blast template. My proposed methodology, at least, provides an abstract realism representative of the fact that these weapons can have much broader and less predictable effects than what templates allow for. And as I stated previously, its not like each unit with x" of the target would be suffering the full effects of the weapon themselves, rather the expectation would be that if the target unit takes d6 hits, then other units with 3" would suffer d3, or potentially even less than that. And if it just so happens that the target unit only takes 1 hit, but an adjacent unit takes 3 - guess what, you've just adequately abstracted the idea of "scatter" whereby the round landed off center and had a greater impact on the adjacent unit than the target unit.

If you were really so concerned about this scenario - which I don't believe you are, because it seems like you're more trying to find a justification for a return to templates rather than a good faith debate on the positives and negatives of non-template based systems - there are easy ways to resolve it. You can include a clause that at least half the models in the adjacent unit need to be within whatever distance of the target unit in order for that unit to be hit, or a clause that says they cannot take more than half as many hits (rounding down) as the target unit in order to limit the impact, or borrow a page from warmachine and say that the blast is reduced to half strength for units other than the target unit, or that only the closest unit within x" of the target unit is impacted (thereby completely neutering your argument entirely, because your hypothetical nigh-nonexistant 30 man unit of infantry maximally spread out across the table can only transfer the hit to one other unit max, thus representing the shot drifting off target and landing in a position to hit the target unit and the other unit in its area of effect, which was not an uncommon occurrence with the old blast templates), etc.


A few notes - I do not like templates and I would not like a return to templates. I am certainly not trying to justify a return to them.

Second, to make a mechanic like you proposed work, it would require a bunch of clunky additional rules. You could say, base the "blast" distance off of the initial model removed by the player, but then you'd probably also need to add rules that consecutive models removed from the same unit would have to be from within the blast radius (at least until you run out of models to remove from there).

Third, as a person who plays Black Legion against opponents who like deep strike, my lists often have 30 man units of cultists spread out to stop DW vets/Tempestus Scions from mowing down my backlines. The fact that you don't come across these types of units often is POOR justification to write rules that do not account for them and cause problems when they DO exist.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 18:52:48


Post by: chaos0xomega


Ah, so you're trying to preserve your existing playstyle rather than adjusting to the new gameplay paradigm/meta that would be brought about as a result of a mechanical change. Got it.

And no, you really don't need a bunch of clunky additional rules. This is the entirety of what the rule would need to be in order to assuage your concerns, placed within the context of the "Abilities" section of the weapon profile:

"This weapon does d3 hits to the nearest unit within d6" of the target unit."

WOW. MUCH CLUNK. VERY ADDITIONAL.

Thats less "additional rules" than a very large number of weapons already in the game, and dramatically less text than the current "Blast" special rule which needs to be entirely rewritten because of how it broke the game.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 19:00:05


Post by: Rihgu


Well, if only that was the proposed rule I had any dispute with.

"Each unit within X" of the target unit suffers Y hits from this weapon."

This is the one I'm talking about.

If we do the one you JUST proposed... well it doesn't solve the initial problem of
2) the administrative division of the enemy force affects how effective my explosive shells are:
"Sir, 30 men standing shoulder to shoulder in the open on the objective!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"BUT SIR! Intel suggests they are in 6 units of five; the mortars won't be effective!"
"...."

The mortars will be slightly more effective, but still be heavily impacted by the administrative division of the enemy forces...


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 19:56:53


Post by: chaos0xomega


Rihgu wrote:
Well, if only that was the proposed rule I had any dispute with.
"Each unit within X" of the target unit suffers Y hits from this weapon."

This is the one I'm talking about.
If we do the one you JUST proposed... well it doesn't solve the initial problem of
2) the administrative division of the enemy force affects how effective my explosive shells are:
"Sir, 30 men standing shoulder to shoulder in the open on the objective!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"BUT SIR! Intel suggests they are in 6 units of five; the mortars won't be effective!"
"...."

The mortars will be slightly more effective, but still be heavily impacted by the administrative division of the enemy forces...

I know you probably didn't read it, but the one I just proposed was detailed in the post prior:

If you were really so concerned about this scenario - which I don't believe you are, because it seems like you're more trying to find a justification for a return to templates rather than a good faith debate on the positives and negatives of non-template based systems - there are easy ways to resolve it. You can include a clause that at least half the models in the adjacent unit need to be within whatever distance of the target unit in order for that unit to be hit, or a clause that says they cannot take more than half as many hits (rounding down) as the target unit in order to limit the impact, or borrow a page from warmachine and say that the blast is reduced to half strength for units other than the target unit, or that only the closest unit within x" of the target unit is impacted (thereby completely neutering your argument entirely, because your hypothetical nigh-nonexistant 30 man unit of infantry maximally spread out across the table can only transfer the hit to one other unit max, thus representing the shot drifting off target and landing in a position to hit the target unit and the other unit in its area of effect, which was not an uncommon occurrence with the old blast templates), etc.


And I fail to see how it *doesn't* address the problem in the scenario in question. Whereas before your mortar might only hit 1 guy in 1 unit up to a max of 6 hits on 1 unit, my solution ensures you can at least hit 1 guy in each of 2 units, up to a max of 6 guys in the target unit and 3 guys in the other. Which is more than adequate, because realistically a mortar dropping onto a row of men standing in a line isn't going to be as effective as if it dropped into crowd in a more dispersed formation - mortars and other explosive weapons kill in a roughly circular/elliptical area of effect, if your target is arrayed out in a line, then the vast majority of the blast, concussive force, shrapnel, etc. is essentially being directed away from the line of men towards what is essentially empty air where there is nothing to hit. Depending on how far off target the round scatters relative to the placement of the units within the target area, your mortar only inflicting casualties upon one of the 6 squads is actually entirely plausible and possible in terms of reality- thankfully the rules already allow you to split fire with a squad of mortars in order to circumvent this and ensure a damage spread across the group if this is really so concerning to you.


Also, theres no reason to restrict all weapons to having the same "blast pattern", you can have it so that the other unit(s) can take d3+1 hits, or d3+3 hits, or d6 hits, or automatic 6 hits or whatever it is you make the proportional capabilities of each weapon. You can even make it d3-1 hits or d6-2 hits or whatever to ensure the possibility that an adjacent unit isn't always going to automatically take harm form the weapon. Hell, theres really no reason (other than potential balance) why larger and heavier weapons like an Eartshaker/Basilisk can't have something to the effect of:

"This weapon does d6-1 hits to the d3 closest units within 6" of the target unit."

There. Assuming the target unit takes d6 hits, now your 30 dudes standing should-to-shoulder in 6 units of 5 men each might potentially suffer anywhere from 1 to 21 hits across 1-4 of the 6 units. Sounds like it more than adequately solves the problem with the scenario you presented to me.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 20:15:15


Post by: catbarf


chaos0xomega wrote:
There. Assuming the target unit takes d6 hits, now your 30 dudes standing should-to-shoulder in 6 units of 5 men each might potentially suffer anywhere from 1 to 21 hits across 1-4 of the 6 units.


How many hits does a single unit of 30 take under your proposed rules?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 21:01:02


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 catbarf wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
There. Assuming the target unit takes d6 hits, now your 30 dudes standing should-to-shoulder in 6 units of 5 men each might potentially suffer anywhere from 1 to 21 hits across 1-4 of the 6 units.


How many hits does a single unit of 30 take under your proposed rules?


Yeah in that case it would be the opposite:

"Sir, 30 men blobbed together on an Objective, shoulder to shoulder!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"But sir! Intel suggests they are in one unit of thirty rather than six units of five! Our mortars will be less effective!"

Losing 4d6-4 (or whatever) free hits simply because of the administrative division of the enemy force is hilarious though.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 22:17:17


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Rihgu wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 auticus wrote:
"how can we emulate a game like magic the gathering along with its massive success and put it in tabletop form"


It's simply not possible due to the inherent contradiction of disposable cards taking virtually zero time or space per dollar spent vs. ever-embiggened models taking increasingly more time and space per dollar spent.


Unless you make the models evergreen but the datasheets disposable. I can see it now, buy a pack of Codex Cards. Did you find Alaric's Reave-wardens, the best Intercessor squad for Blood Angels? No, you just got Assault Intercessors. Aw well! Better save up to buy Alaric's Reave-wardens from the card shop, or just keep buying packs 'til you get it. It's only Mythic rarity, afterall.


Ohh.... now there's an actual business opportunity that GW could explore! LOL


Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:
"This weapon does d3 hits to the nearest unit within d6" of the target unit."


Boring. Not enough die rolling.

"Roll a d6 for every unit with at least 1 model within 6" of the marker point. If the result is greater or equal to the distance to the marker, that unit suffers d6 hits plus an additional d6 hits for each additional inch the result exceeds the distance to the closest model."

FUN!!!


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/25 22:31:05


Post by: catbarf


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
There. Assuming the target unit takes d6 hits, now your 30 dudes standing should-to-shoulder in 6 units of 5 men each might potentially suffer anywhere from 1 to 21 hits across 1-4 of the 6 units.


How many hits does a single unit of 30 take under your proposed rules?


Yeah in that case it would be the opposite:

"Sir, 30 men blobbed together on an Objective, shoulder to shoulder!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"But sir! Intel suggests they are in one unit of thirty rather than six units of five! Our mortars will be less effective!"

Losing 4d6-4 (or whatever) free hits simply because of the administrative division of the enemy force is hilarious though.


I asked because I didn't know if he had a solution in mind, but yeah, it seems to me like it's re-expressing the original problem.

I don't think the core concept of Blast is bad, just that it only being tied to a single target unit causes these weird scenarios. Maybe you could address it by:
1. Having Blast count the number of models in the target unit as well as all units within 2" of that target, and
2. Have some of the hits be allocated to those other units by some means.

That gives you full effectiveness regardless of whether it's one unit of 30 or bunched-up units of 5, and the issue raised earlier of a 30-strong unit being in range of lots of other things is less of an issue since the enemy's going to be maxing out their shots either way. There might still be some weird cases as a result of whatever hit allocation you use, but short of going back to a mechanism that determines exactly what models are getting hit (ie templates) I'm not sure that's resolvable.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 03:43:16


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
There. Assuming the target unit takes d6 hits, now your 30 dudes standing should-to-shoulder in 6 units of 5 men each might potentially suffer anywhere from 1 to 21 hits across 1-4 of the 6 units.


How many hits does a single unit of 30 take under your proposed rules?


Yeah in that case it would be the opposite:

"Sir, 30 men blobbed together on an Objective, shoulder to shoulder!"
"Ready the mortars!"
"But sir! Intel suggests they are in one unit of thirty rather than six units of five! Our mortars will be less effective!"

Losing 4d6-4 (or whatever) free hits simply because of the administrative division of the enemy force is hilarious though.


To me its a non-issue. Currently the unit of 30 takes d6 (well 6 with blast). With blast templates you'd probably only take 4-6 max, possibly less if they were "maximally spread" as someone keeps saying. Stick the existing blast rule, or a modified derivative thereof, on top to make yourself feel better about it if you want.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 04:06:57


Post by: catbarf


chaos0xomega wrote:
To me its a non-issue. Currently the unit of 30 takes d6 (well 6 with blast). With blast templates you'd probably only take 4-6 max, possibly less if they were "maximally spread" as someone keeps saying. Stick the existing blast rule, or a modified derivative thereof, on top to make yourself feel better about it if you want.


So they take an average of 3.5 (or 6, with Blast) rather than 8.5 if they were spread out in multiple units under your example?

If you're not actually fixing the problem (target administrative organization significantly impacting damage output), what's the point of your rules proposal exactly?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 04:56:48


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Chain of Command spreads hits from all weapons (not just HE shells) across all teams within 4" of the target team - this represents the inability of the opponent to accurately differentiate specific teams on the battlefield. Of course, there are exceptions (e.g. snipers), but anyways...

That would never work in 40k. As people have rightly pointed out, a 30 man unit has a massive footprint, especially on Ork 32mm bases. Hitting everything within 2" may include a huge amount of models including friendly ones, while a tiny unit of one guy won't even result in a bodyguard unit within 3" taking blast damage.

Templates are just about the only way to do this, at least that I can think of.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 14:19:57


Post by: catbarf


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Chain of Command spreads hits from all weapons (not just HE shells) across all teams within 4" of the target team - this represents the inability of the opponent to accurately differentiate specific teams on the battlefield. Of course, there are exceptions (e.g. snipers), but anyways...

That would never work in 40k. As people have rightly pointed out, a 30 man unit has a massive footprint, especially on Ork 32mm bases. Hitting everything within 2" may include a huge amount of models including friendly ones, while a tiny unit of one guy won't even result in a bodyguard unit within 3" taking blast damage.

Templates are just about the only way to do this, at least that I can think of.


See my post above. I think the Blast mechanic is fine for 40K, but it would avoid these weird edge cases if it also counted models from units within 2" as part of the target unit. A unit of 30 Orks is going to be getting max shots regardless, but targeting the one guy might get Blast effects if his bodyguards are numerous enough. Then you just need a mechanic for dividing hits between the eligible units which, admittedly, I haven't put a lot of thought into.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 16:26:56


Post by: chaos0xomega


 catbarf wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
To me its a non-issue. Currently the unit of 30 takes d6 (well 6 with blast). With blast templates you'd probably only take 4-6 max, possibly less if they were "maximally spread" as someone keeps saying. Stick the existing blast rule, or a modified derivative thereof, on top to make yourself feel better about it if you want.


So they take an average of 3.5 (or 6, with Blast) rather than 8.5 if they were spread out in multiple units under your example?

If you're not actually fixing the problem (target administrative organization significantly impacting damage output), what's the point of your rules proposal exactly?


Why is that a problem? Where is the problem? I honestly don't see the complaint, other than it being a different emergent gameplay paradigm than what currently exists today (which is kind of the point of everyones desire to change it in the first place...). Its a gameplay abstraction, just like everything else in the game. As it stands, "administrative organization" already significantly impacts damage output:

-Put two individual models in base contact with eachother and hit them with an area of effect weapon like a mortar or a flamer - what happens? Only one of them gets hit, and that one model probably dies, while the other is wholly unaffected, thereby short-changing your damage output as a result of the excess hits/damage caused by the weapon not having any other models in the target unit to affect, despite the fact that logically the other model in base contact would also be impacted by it.

Why?

"Administrative organization".

This was something everyone was complaining about just a couple pages ago. I proposed a streamlined and basic solution where administrative organization no longer prevents AOE type weapons from actually, yknow, impacting an area.

As it stands, AOE weapons function under the abstraction that - regardless of how you have actually positioned your models on the table - your unit has taken the necessary action to attempt to mitigate the impact of AOE weapons and spread out over a wider area (just as they would in reality), presumably with varying degrees of success (hence why the number of attacks is randomized). This is why a mortar will do the same d6 attacks to a 3 man unit as it will to a 30 man unit. They also evidently extend this abstraction to assume that "administrative divison" matters in the sense that individual units have also spread out over a wider area such that a mortar or howitzer firing at one unit will never catch another unit within its area of effect, again regardless of how you have actually positioned your models on the table.

This is not necessarily an unrealistic abstraction, but it is one which is evidently unsatisfying to a large number of players who would prefer a bit less abstraction in gameplay such that players are punished for crowding their forces together too tightly (as evidenced by the previously cited "30 dudes in a line in separate administrative organizations but I can only hit 5 of them at most with my one mortar" example). As the game mechanics primarily treats units, rather than individual models, as the "basis of maneuver" (so to speak), it would be inappropriate to build this system around the proximity of models *within* a unit, as doing so introduces undesirable emergent gameplay paradigms (principally, the tendency of players to space all their models within each unit out to the maximum extent possible in order to mitigate the impact of area of effect weapons, which slows gameplay to a fiddly tedium-filled crawl that ultimately provides no real value-add to either players experience).

The solution then, is a system as what I have proposed previously, which breaks the "administrative organization" barrier and allows damage to spread between units based on proximity between them. While this does create an emergent gameplay paradigm of players spreading out their units to mitigate AOE effects from jumping from one model to another, this is actually manageable because units move separately from one another and its much easier and faster to mind the gap between two units than it is between 10 (or 30) models within one unit. The fact that currently a blast weapon would do an average of 3.5 attacks and under the new system one hypothetical blast weapon might do 8.5 attacks is, essentially, a complete non-issue which is only being brought up today because its different from the existing paradigm. Rather, its the entire fething point - when someone complains about 30 dudes in 6 squads of 5 standing shoulder-to-shoulder with one another not being adequately handled by the existing blast weapon rules, they are in fact complaining that under the existing rules administrative organization is causing the 30 guys to take an average of 3.5 attacks rather than an average of 8.5, or 12, or 15, or 30 attacks, etc. So yes, my proposal does, in fact, fix the problem.

Will weapon points need to be adjusted to compensate for potentially increased lethalityy? Sure, but thats also a non-issue. Will players have to play differenty? Sure, but thats also a non-issue - welcome to the world of rules updates. Does it potentially discourage players from fielding 30 man blobs, particularly those that they spread out to the maximum extent possible in order to metagame their opponents deep strike capabilities? Sure, but thats still a non-issue, it will create a new meta and players will adjust. Does it potentially discourage players from placing other units too close to a maximally spread 30 man blob? Again, rules updates, new meta, adjust. None of your arguments seem to really hold any water as valid concerns, other than that under my original proposal a 30 man blob being hit by a blast template could potentially hit every other unit on the table - but I already addressed that by suggesting a very small tweak that would limit the spread of the blast to the closest x many units within a given range, where x can be fixed to just 1 universally, or variable from weapon to weapon, etc. Which more than adequately addresses the idea of a round landing between two or three units and killing a few (or not) from each. If you want to avoid that, spread out your units. If you can't, take smaller units, if you won't, deal with it - Thems the apples.

As an aside:
[spoilers]
In the case of the previously mentioned scenario above, with a 3-man unit, the mortar operator is presumably firing at a more finite target point (because the unit covers a smaller area) than they would have the benefit of with a 30-man formation, if you rolled 1 attack the mortar drifted off target and only caught one guy, if you scored 6 then the mortar landed close enough that the 3 men in the target unit took multiple shrapnel hits. With a 30 man unit, the target point is less finite but the environment is more target rich - a poor shot will still potentiall catch one guy, but a good shot will potentially catch 6. Unfortunately, because the mechanics don't adequately take "administrative organization" into account this still only causes 6 attacks - doing away with the possibility of a really good shot that potentially catches each body within the AOE with multiple potentially lethal shrapnel hits as it would with a smaller unit.

The blast rule attempts to somewhat rectify this situation (albeit poorly) by arguing that because the 30 man unit is a more target rich environment, there is a hard minimum to the number of hits an aoe weapon will cause, i.e. the mortar (in this case) will automatically do 6 attackss to the 30 man unit, because no matter how poorly aimed the shot is, the unit is spread out over a wide enough area that it would be nigh-impossible for the mortar to not catch at least 6 dudes within the rounds blast effect. This however STILL does not allow for the possibility of a "really good hit" like it does with the 3 man unit wherein each body could potentially take multiple potentially lethal impacts from shrapnel, etc. What the rule *should* do is instead increase the number of attacks you roll for every 10 models in the unit either by adding additional dice or multiplying the result of the roll. I.E. 1-10 models you go by the weapon profile (1d6), 11-20 models you either add an additional die (so 2d6) or double the result (1d6 x2) or something to that effect, 21-30 models it goes up again (3d6 or 1d6 x3), etc. This more adequately addresses the idea of the environment being "target rich" by increasing the minimum number of attacks proportionally to the unit size, while also acknowleding the potential for a nice shot to causing excessively large amounts of harm as is consistent with the impact of blast weapons on small units. Alternatively (or perhaps in addition) they could cap the number of attacks done by these weapons to being equal to the number of models in the target unit, thus preventing a 1 man unit from suffering 6 hits from a mortar or a flamer, because again - logical consistency.

And yet I see the individuals complaining about 30 man units being disadvantaged isn't arguing for this to be changed...[/spoilers]


Chain of Command spreads hits from all weapons (not just HE shells) across all teams within 4" of the target team - this represents the inability of the opponent to accurately differentiate specific teams on the battlefield. Of course, there are exceptions (e.g. snipers), but anyways...

That would never work in 40k. As people have rightly pointed out, a 30 man unit has a massive footprint, especially on Ork 32mm bases. Hitting everything within 2" may include a huge amount of models including friendly ones, while a tiny unit of one guy won't even result in a bodyguard unit within 3" taking blast damage.

Templates are just about the only way to do this, at least that I can think of.


Again, failing to see the problem with regards to what I've proposed. As I've demonstrated previously:

-We can easily adjust the number of attacks done to adjacent units, such that they take anywhere from none (i.e. zero) to as many - or even more than - the target unit. This can be fixed, it can be variable, it can be anything you want.

-We can easily adjust the number of adjacent units impacted by the attack, such that anywhere from none (i.e. zero) to all units within given proximity are impacted. This can be fixed, it can be variable, it can be anything you want.

-We can easily adjust the proximity range at which these adjacent units are impacted, such that it will only effect units as close as 1" away to as far as... really any distance you want may or may not be impacted. This can be fixed, it can be variable, it can be anything you want.

If you know that units have a 1", 2", 3", d6" potential ring of death around them from certain weapons, would you not then play to the rules and try to spread your units out in such a manner that your 30-man blob is positioned at least 1", 2", 3", d6", etc. away from other friendly units so as to mitigate the impact of such weapons on your own forces? Tactical gameplay comes from tension, and there is certainly tension involved with deciding whether or not its worth the risk of your character getting blasted by being too close to an adjacent unit in order for that unit to benefit from the characters aura or not. With regards to bodyguard units, I wouldn't think that would be too hard to fix so that bodyguards don't become death magnets for the character they are guarding, an extra sentence in the rule that says something to the effect of "Characters within 3" may never be hit by an attack that targets this unit" should suffice.

And maybe the problem is actually 30 man units... why aren't we discussing them? As it stands only a handful of armies can take units larger than 20 models, maybe half can do units larger than 10, and in practical terms - in my experience - maybe 20% of army lists currently actually include units larger than 10 models. Seems like an awful lot of kvetching over what is essentially a minor corner case scenario that won't apply in 80% of situations.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 17:09:45


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The problem lies in the way blast effects actually work vs the way you suggest they work.

Doing hits to units NEAR the target unit is completely unrealistic when the target unit is half the board size - conversely, doing hits to ONLY the target is unrealistic when many small targets are packed together.

Administrative concerns like "how many units are in the area" and "how many men are in each unit" shouldn't have ANY impact on the efficacy of blast weapons.

The thing that SHOULD impact the efficacy of blast weapons is the number of MODELS near the target area - at least in a game like 40k where individual model position is very important and not abstracted. There is no interaction with UNITS whatsoever. Trying to force them to interact with units rather than models leads to incredibly clumsy situations that are illogical from both a design and realism perspective.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 19:17:11


Post by: Mezmorki


If I had to re-write the blast rules for 9th, I'd do something like this...

Blast weapons would be listed as Blast (X" / Y), where X" is the radius of the blast and Y is the blast value.

When shooting, do this:

(1) Nominate a target model and roll to hit ONCE.

(2) If the model is hit, the unit takes a number of total hits equal to the number of models within X" of the target model up to the Blast Value (e.g. Blast 6) of the weapon. These hits are then resolved like any other shooting attack and can be applied to whichever models a normal.

(3) If another nearby unit also has models within X" of the target model, that unit also takes a hit for each model within X", up to to the blast value of the weapon.

The blast value is there to put a cap on the lethality of blast weapons, and to give two levers for adjusting the balance.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 19:29:55


Post by: Backspacehacker


I feel like all these blast suggestions ultimately just lead back to.
Bring back the blast templates.
If you want the target that is the center of the blast to have something done to it, change the blast rule to read

Blast( <size> , <direct hit modifer> ) where direct hit modifier is only applied if you roll a hit on the scatter die, or the scatter value -BS is zero, and that modifier can be + or x a given strength value

Like a target taht takes a direct hit from a LRBT battle canon might be Blast(5",+3) so the blast is what ever the normal profile is for the blast, but a direct hit is profile str+3


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 19:58:05


Post by: Mezmorki


Yes, for sure

What we do in ProHammer is that you pick a model and use that as a basis for scattering and determining how many models are hit. But once the number of hits are determined, it feeds into the normal wound allocation / casualty removal process which mean that potentially any model in the unit is eligible to be allocated a wound, and it doesn't need to be tracked back to the actual blast template at that point.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 20:11:12


Post by: Unit1126PLL


That's the same way 4th handles it (and, iirc, every edition except barrage weapons in 7th)


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 20:42:33


Post by: catbarf


chaos0xomega wrote:
Why is that a problem? Where is the problem?


Because the complaint is that a blast weapon does less damage if thirty guys in a room are five squads on paper instead of one, and for all your paragraphs upon paragraphs of arguing for your purported solution, your proposal has the same issue, just reversed.

So if your solution isn't actually fixing the problem, there's no point.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 20:47:24


Post by: Backspacehacker


 catbarf wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Why is that a problem? Where is the problem?


Because the complaint is that a blast weapon does less damage if thirty guys in a room are five squads on paper instead of one, and for all your paragraphs upon paragraphs of arguing for your purported solution, your proposal has the same issue.

So if your solution isn't actually fixing the problem, there's no point.


#BringBackTemplates2022


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 21:41:07


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem lies in the way blast effects actually work vs the way you suggest they work.
Doing hits to units NEAR the target unit is completely unrealistic when the target unit is half the board size


Except it is realistic. I thought you served?? You should be well aware that both the blast from a 155mm howitzer and a 500lb JDAM can conceivably kill you in the open from more than 2 football fields away, and a typical 80-120mm mortar round from about half that distance. In game terms, both these areas are larger than a 6x4 table, ergo its perfectly realistic. And also wholly fething irrelevant. Because I doubt more than 10-20% of the players on dakka ever bother to field units larger than 10 models - if gakky corner case scenarios interfere with implementation of reasonable game mechanics, you change the gakky corner case scenario (I.E. get rid of the possibility of fielding 30 man units).

If you're concerned because the blast area of certain weapons shouldn't cover such a large potential area because 10% of the playerbase sometimes fields a very large unit of infantry, well guess what we can address that by simply limiting the weapons blast based on unit size:

"If the target unit has 6 models or less, this weapon does d3-1 attacks to the closest unit within 2" of the target unit."

Voila, no more 30 man unit chicken-littling. This may come as a shock to you, but weapons that would produce extremely small blast areas could even be limited further simply by not giving them this rule! Likewise weapons more powerful can have these parameters set differently to produce bigger badabooms.

- conversely, doing hits to ONLY the target is unrealistic when many small targets are packed together.


Exactly. Ergo we need to pick one or the other, if everyone is complaining about *this*, then my proposal allows for an alternative.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you are unhappy with the current status quo and you are unhappy with the proposed fix, then there isn't really a solution to the problem and theres no sense in even complaining about it - go play a different game.

Administrative concerns like "how many units are in the area" and "how many men are in each unit" shouldn't have ANY impact on the efficacy of blast weapons.


Its a game bruh, and the game already does exactly that, not just with blast and flame weapons but with regular weapons. If you put down a squad of 5 red infantry and a squad of 5 blue infantry and interlace them (i.e. like a checkerboard) on the table, and your opponent shoots at the red squad with rifles and machine guns - guess what? Your rifles and machine guns will end up only killing the red guys, even though there are blue guys next to, in front, and behind the red guys, as if it were magic. Why? Administrative concerns. You shot the red squad, not the blue squad. If you put 5 red guys down on the table, and put 5 blue guys down behind them, and you shot at the blue guys with rifles and machine guns, guess what? Red guys wouldn't get hit at all, even though the rounds physically passed through them on the way to the blue guys. Why? Administrative concerns.

Chain of Command, which I know you're a fan of, essentially solved this situation in the exact same way I proposed using administrative concerns by spreading hits from one TEAM (i.e. unit, aka administrative concern) to other teams within a close same area. Literally the exact situation that you are now attempting to argue against - the only real difference is that chain of command teams top out at something like 5-6 models so you don't have to worry about what happens with a 30 man unit, but as I just illustrated, theres a really simple fix for that.

And your argument also kinda falls flat, a blast weapon is an area saturation weapon, the more bodies saturating a given area the more effective they become. In that sense, yes "how many units in the area" and "how many men in the unit" DO AND SHOULD hae an impact on their efficacy. Theres a reason why when blast weapons used templates players would primarily prioritize placement of the template in such a way as to maximize the number of models under the template, in my own experience this usually meant putting down the template in a place where there was not just a high density of models but also a high density of units, because the more units present in an area, and the more models in each unit, the more effective the weapon would be - whether that meant removing a large amount of models in the best case scenario or simply scattering over a cluster of different models in the worst case. On the flip side, putting the template over a unit of 1 model that was 12" removed from the next closest unit meant that even a slight scattering of the template would render the shot a complete waste as nothing would be caught under the template, whereas the best case scenario only gave you a single hit because there was only a single model in the unit.

In short, even blast templates have this problem. These are the same exact considerations you are saying shouldn't matter, and yet they clearly do. The major difference here is that the current structure of the rules, as well as my proposal, take the automated luxury gay space communism approach of using RNG to streamline the process and crunch the numbers under the hood to determine what gets hit and how many hits are taken instead of putting you through the tedium of trying to figure out the optimal template placement to get the same/similar results. You're more accepting of the same issues you're complaining about with templates because its a less abstracted representation of them that you are able to overlook (either consciously or subconsciously), .


The thing that SHOULD impact the efficacy of blast weapons is the number of MODELS near the target area - at least in a game like 40k where individual model position is very important and not abstracted. There is no interaction with UNITS whatsoever. Trying to force them to interact with units rather than models leads to incredibly clumsy situations that are illogical from both a design and realism perspective.


Individual model position in 40k is arbitrarily important and almost entirely abstracted. The mechanics are designed to make it seem like it matters, but its a largely illusory importance that crumbles in the face of objective analysis. You can position your models in terrain all you like, but for the most part its the terrain keywords rather than the models position which determines whether or not the model gets a cover save. When dealing with a unit shooting at another unit, individual model positions don't matter because line of sight and determinations of cover, etc. are made in aggregate of every model in the attacking unit relative to every model in the target unit - ultimately if you can see every model in a unit you can kill every model in the unit, even if one particular model in the attacking unit can't see one particular model in the defending unit because both are obscured from eachother by terrain. When you're fighting in close combat, matters of engagement range are also handled in aggregate. Sure you have to check if each model in the unit is close enough to attack, but ultimately an attack generated by a model that is barely within engagement range of the target unit can kill a model more than 6-12" away, well outside of the range of its sword or bayonet or combat knife, if the unit it is fighting is sufficiently spread out - if you don't call that an abstraction of a models position then I don't think you actually understand what abstraction means, likewise, if you don't consider that to be clumsy, illogical, and unrealistic then you're full of gak. Everything in 40k primarily revolves around units, no matter how many arbitrary and unnecessary layers of "individual model" type rules they try to stack on top of it to obfuscate the fact.

If you want a game where individual model position matters, or hell individual models matter at all, play warmachine, thats what a game with non-abstract positional play *actually* looks like. Contrast that with 40k, the differences between the two should be immediately obvious:

-In 40k, when you move, you move UNITS (its literally the name of the 1st step of the movement phase). If one model in the unit moves they are all considered to have moved, even if some models remained in place.

In Warmachine, while you activate the unit together, the MODELS move individually, and a MODEL which did not move is considered to have remained stationary.

-In 40k, when you shoot, you select a UNIT from your army to shoot with, and you select a target UNIT for each model in the unit to shoot at. If at least one model in the target UNIT is in range and line of sight of any of the attacking models, then the attacks can kill any model in the target UNIT, even those which are out of range and line of sight from the attacker.

In Warmachine, while you activate the unit together, the MODELS attack individually, and each MODEL in the activating unit can target any MODEL that is within range and line of sight regardless of what the other MODELS in the activating unit do or what unit the target MODEL is in.

-In 40k, when you charge and fight in melee, you select a UNIT to charge/attack and a target UNIT for them to charge at and fight with. The entire Unit is considered to have charged and every model in the unit gets the corresponding benefits of doing so. When it comes to the fight phase, you select a UNIT to fight with, and base the attacks that unit generates off of engagement range, which means models within 1" of an enemy model, or a model within 1/2" of another model in the SAME UNIT which is within 1/2" of an enemy model. The attacks generated can then inflict damage against any model in the TARGET UNIT, regardless of whether or not it is in engagement range of the model which generated the attacks, or indeed within engagement range of any of the models in the attacking unit. While one model in the UNIT is engagement range of an enemy model, the entire UNIT is considered to be in engagement range and locked in combat with the enemy UNIT, and models in the UNIT may not make ranged attacks in the shooting phase (certain exceptions notwithstanding), even if that model is not itself in engagement range of an enemy model, with the exception of pistol weapons which may only target the UNIT with which the attacking models UNIT is locked in combat with.

In Warmachine, while you activate the unit together, and declare a charge for the unit as a whole, each MODEL in the unit may choose an individual target MODEL for their charge regardless of what unit it may belong to (or may instead opt to run). Only those individual MODELS which moved 3" or more as part of their charge move will gain the corresponding benefits of having charged, while those individual MODELS which opted to run may not attack whatsoever. When it comes to fighting, each individual MODEL in the activating unit may target any MODEL within their engagement range (which means within range of the melee weapon that specific MODEL is equipped with) - you don't get to attack because you're next to another model in the same unit thats in base contact with an enemy - and those attacks may only inflict damage on the MODEL which they are attacking (barring certain special rules and abilities which allow damage to transfer to another model). And if the activating unit did not receive a charge order during their activation, those MODELS not in engagement range of an enemy MODEL may make ranged attacks targeting any MODEL within range and line of sight, even if other MODELS in the activating unit are in engagement range and making melee attacks instead.

I could go on and on and on with examples of what makes 40k unit focused and Warmachine model focused and what the distinctions between such concepts are.

 catbarf wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Why is that a problem? Where is the problem?

Because the complaint is that a blast weapon does less damage if thirty guys in a room are five squads on paper instead of one, and for all your paragraphs upon paragraphs of arguing for your purported solution, your proposal has the same issue, just reversed.
So if your solution isn't actually fixing the problem, there's no point.


If 30 guys in a room are 5 squads instead of 1, then under the current rules you would have 1-6 attacks and -at most- kill 5 guys.

With my solution, if 30 guys in a room are 5 squads instead of 1, then depending on how you configure the ability sentence for the weapon in question you could cause anywhere from 1 to however many attacks and could theoretically kill all 30 guys.

Sounds like a solution which does fix the problem to me, and I'm not seeing how my proposal has the same issue but reversed - if you bothered to go through my "paragraphs upon paragraphs" you will see that I threw out a number of ways to address 30 models in a single unit, including changing "Blast" to mean that you add an extra d6 or whatever for every 10 models in the target unit above (i.e. +1D6 for 11-20 models in target unit, +2D6 for 21-30 models, etc.) - but you will ALSO find an explanation of the existing logic behind the blast rules as it stands and the underlying assumptions below it and why you may not want a blast weapon to inflict more hits on a unit of 30 models than it will on a smaller unit. Pick your poison, basically.

#BringBackTemplates2022


No.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 21:43:52


Post by: Backspacehacker


#BringBackTemplates2022
Yes.

There was no good reason to remove them in the first place.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 21:51:35


Post by: chaos0xomega


There absolutely was a good reason to remove them. They fething sucked, slowed down the game, resulted in increased subjectivity in terms of the generation of results (didn't notice that one of the models was just inside the template? oh well, you missed out on rolling an extra hit you were entitled to), resulted in increased arguments as a result of said subjectivity ("no, that guy is just outside of the template, steady your hand and stop moving it around and you'll see"), and increasingly became more and more troublesome to read as models and terrain became larger/more ornate and forced you to hold the template ever higher from the objects that you were trying to hit with it, thus making it ever more unreliable, subjective, and argument prone.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 22:01:20


Post by: Backspacehacker


No they did not, and thats such a bad faith argument to say that.

The fact of the matter is, the rule was never an issue, and saying they removed it to remove arguments is just an excuse for wanting to dumb the rules down.
It was never problem with the rule, its a problem with the players.
Argumentative players will always argue over a rule. Every group i have played with across multiple states and events all did the same thing, we never had issues over templates save for the repeat offenders who always argued over something, Always rolled the scatter die way away from the blast always argued over something being under or not under it.

Guess what happened when templates were removed? These same people argued over them, now just argued other things in the game.

the BRB even had a foot note on this, if the model was partial under and you could not agree if it was or was not "Partialy under" you rolled a die. Every blast encouter i had was "I got 5 under here do you are agree?" "Uhhhhh is that one under looks like like its just outside?" "Yeah your right ok 4 hits"

It was not a problem with the rule, it was, and always will be, a problem with the player themselves.



Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 22:07:06


Post by: Unit1126PLL


RE: your long-winded post about unit vs model and how model position doesn't matter

Tell me how many attacks are rolled when a unit of 17 Daemonettes is within 1" of a unit of 30 Orks without ever once considering the positions of any models.

Tell me when a unit is within but not wholly within an aura from a character without knowing the positions of any of its models.

Tell me how many Guardsmen from a unit of 10 can shoot at a Chaos Space Marine unit when the units are 24" apart without considering the positions of any models.

Tell me how many models from a 20 man unit are within 3" of an objective without consulting the positions of any models in the unit.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 22:11:57


Post by: chaos0xomega


Nah nah, it was absolutely a problem with the rule, or rather the entire process and system because it extended well beyond the confines of a single rule. Its nice of you to focus on the argumentation part as though its the only issue and completely ignore the parts about the process slowing down the game and the subjectivity behind the system in terms of reading the results of the template (this isn't an argumentation issue, this is an issue with how easy it was to shortchange yourself or your opponent by misjudging the templates placement relative to the minis).

But thank you for reminding me about the parallax error involved in the scatter angles (sorry, you can't always roll the scatter die near the template and I don't want you to go mini-bowling on my models with your dice, sometimes theres too many minis in the vicinity and the closest you're getting the die is 18" away)! That was awful too!

BTW, if you want to talk about bad faith arguments, its "saying they removed it to remove arguments is just an excuse for wanting to dumb the rules down". In general its good game design to remove things which result in arguments which slow down play and which are subject o high degrees of subjectivity in interpretation of results. The exception to this is in role playing games where subjectivity is subject to the arbitration of an impartial third party (i.e. the GM).

Also, "roll a dice to settle the argument" isn't really the panacea you think it is. If an argumentative player is going to argue over the subjectivity of the template placement, etc. then they are also going to argue over the validity of using a dice roll to settle the dispute - see it happen more than once "no, 4-upping this is bs, I know I'm right and you're wrong."


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 22:16:23


Post by: Unit1126PLL


It is possible to have templates without scatter. 4th accomplished it for 90% of the blast weapons in the game.

The argument about scatter has almost nothing to do with the argument about the reasonableness of blast. Scatter is just a goalpost move.

"Templates were bad"
"Not so much, they were the only sensible way to do things."
"Oh yeah? Well what about SCATTER, HUH? didn't that suck!"


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 22:38:36


Post by: vipoid


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is possible to have templates without scatter. 4th accomplished it for 90% of the blast weapons in the game.


What did 4th used to do?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 22:46:37


Post by: JohnnyHell


 Backspacehacker wrote:
#BringBackTemplates2022
Yes.

There was no good reason to remove them in the first place.


Avoiding the Argument Phase, even if you jettison the other reasons given so far. A dice roll is inarguable. "No it's pointing more that way" <moves it to a more/less advantageous spot> all that got thrown in the bin and I'm glad.

Regardless, there's no sign of templates being brought back into 40K so this is just another noise thread full of hot air.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 23:04:05


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
RE: your long-winded post about unit vs model and how model position doesn't matter

Tell me how many attacks are rolled when a unit of 17 Daemonettes is within 1" of a unit of 30 Orks without ever once considering the positions of any models.

Tell me when a unit is within but not wholly within an aura from a character without knowing the positions of any of its models.

Tell me how many Guardsmen from a unit of 10 can shoot at a Chaos Space Marine unit when the units are 24" apart without considering the positions of any models.

Tell me how many models from a 20 man unit are within 3" of an objective without consulting the positions of any models in the unit.



This does not prove that the basis of maneuver of the game is the model as opposed to the unit, only that the rules are unnecessarily illogical and clumsy by not consistently using a unit as the default reference point for mechanical interactions and complicating it by trying to keep models otherwise relevant to complete elements of the gameplay loop.

If I have 17 Daemonettes on the table and you have 30 Orks on the table and some of these models are within 1" of one another, tell me how many attacks are rolled in combat and which attacks are allocated against which models without knowing how many units there are or which models belong to which units.

If I have a character model with an aura and a number of other models seeking to benefit from it, tell me which ones are eligible to benefit from it without knowing how many units there are or which models belong to which units.

If I have 10 Guardsmen on the tabel and you have some Chaos Space Marines, tell me which Chaos Space Marines are eligible to suffer damage without knowing how many units there are are or which models belong to which units.

If I have 20 models on the table and some of them are within 3" of an objective, tell me how do you determine how the objective is being controlled or contested without knowing how many units there are or which models belong to which unit.

Tell me how the game functions at all once you've removed the concept of units from the game mechanics and rely only on models as the basis for gameplay. You can't, because the rules are written to primarily simulate the interactions of UNITS rather than models. You couldn't even deploy on the table without defining a model as being part of a unit, let alone maneuver them in such a way as daemonettes are within fighting distance of orks, or models within aura distance of a character, or chaos marines within shooting distance of guardsman, or models within objective secured distance of an objective, etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is possible to have templates without scatter. 4th accomplished it for 90% of the blast weapons in the game.


Err, no? Every weapon which used the small or large blast template (and even a rare few which used the flame template) had the potential to scatter in 4th. I think you may be misremembering your editions.

The argument about scatter has almost nothing to do with the argument about the reasonableness of blast. Scatter is just a goalpost move.
"Templates were bad"
"Not so much, they were the only sensible way to do things."
"Oh yeah? Well what about SCATTER, HUH? didn't that suck!"


Not sure what it is you're trying to say here, as far as I am concerned any discussion about the templates at all here is a goalpost move because its a dead and buried concept no longer relevant to the game mechanics as they exist today and would require a much more dramtic change to the rules than simply inserting a sentence and potentially slightly editing a few existing rules. Templates were certainly far from sensible, and the critique about issues with the scatter process, alongside every other aspect of the process and system underlying them, is certainly a valid point of critique in demonstrating how they were far from sensible. Hell, the arguments I've given in my past couple posts aren't even the full body of the problems with them, if you dig back you will find others, such as how unrealistic it is to assume that the effects of a blast have a hard stop at the edge of the template as opposed to a gradual degradtion of efects, or that all models caught under the template would suffer equal effects of the blast, or that they encouraged tedium and unnecesasry fiddiliness by incentivizing players to maximally spread their models over as wide of an area as possible (and any player who didn't do so was playing at a disadvantage), or that they assumed that each model under the template would only get hit by a single potential wound-causing effect (fun fact - about 42% of your body is lethally vulnerable to shrapnel) and thereby put blast weapons at a disadvantage when targeting smaller administrative organizations, or that a blast area is even circular to begin with, etc.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 23:18:13


Post by: Unit1126PLL


4th (which I am playing with friends literally in the current time) only scatters on Barrage and Ordnance weapons. All other blasts are only placed over the target unit after a hit roll succeeds, and if it doesn't succeed then the blast just misses. Sorry, but you are objectively wrong on this fact and can back it up with rulebook images from the 4e rulebook.

And yes the 40k rules are illogically written, that is the point of the debate.

Bringing templates back is the smallest way to fix this illogic - to make the unit the ONLY THING THAT MATTERED and make model position completely irrelevant would require a rewriting of the rules.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 23:31:43


Post by: chaos0xomega


 JohnnyHell wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
#BringBackTemplates2022
Yes.

There was no good reason to remove them in the first place.


Avoiding the Argument Phase, even if you jettison the other reasons given so far. A dice roll is inarguable. "No it's pointing more that way" <moves it to a more/less advantageous spot> all that got thrown in the bin and I'm glad.

Regardless, there's no sign of templates being brought back into 40K so this is just another noise thread full of hot air.


hardly noise. I've gotten better feedback in this thread than I have in over a dozen playtest games. Mainly playing with meta competitive players, overwhelmingly positive feedback as it adds a lot towards tactical maneuver largest units ive seen were 20- man units, no issues from blanketing too much of the table because theres no real need to spread minis out as much as some people say, 9" exclusion zones are bigger than people realize and unless maybe you're playing a mainly cc army the smaller table size means youre usually still going to have a good number of units in your backfield cutting off deep strike shenanigans (though maybe some of the GSC ambush stuff may change that). Im not convinced 30 man blobs are a serious issue but ill incorporate some tweaks and see how it fares, probably will skip mods to address the "30 men in 1 unit" issue as thats largely an imaginary problem born of pedantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
4th (which I am playing with friends literally in the current time) only scatters on Barrage and Ordnance weapons. All other blasts are only placed over the target unit after a hit roll succeeds, and if it doesn't succeed then the blast just misses. Sorry, but you are objectively wrong on this fact and can back it up with rulebook images from the 4e rulebook.



Forgive me for not having touched 4th in over a decade. zmy recollection was that most round tenplate weapons in the game had ordnance or barrage at the time. The only one I can think of that didnt was the Railheads Submunition round which was all or nothing as you described.

And yes the 40k rules are illogically written, that is the point of the debate.

Bringing templates back is the smallest way to fix this illogic - to make the unit the ONLY THING THAT MATTERED and make model position completely irrelevant would require a rewriting of the rules.


Templates would require a pretty substantial rewrite of the rules to work, and it doesn't "fix the illogic" it just shifts it somewhere else while inserting increased subjectivity into gameplay which is objectovely a bad thing as well as a heightened sour e of frustration for players. Nein danke, I hope your rose-tinted nostalgia-fueled regressivism stays out of the game design philosophy and more games move away from templates. Ill be happy to see Bolt Action undo the mistake they made and removing templates from Warmachine Mk4 is top of my wishlist.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 23:41:06


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Scattering every template was one of the reasons people hated blast markers. It slowed everything down so unnecessarily. Why they went away from place template/roll to hit/multiply hits by amount of blast markers/wound/saves/remove casualties I will never understand. It was so simple.

On the other hand, there are those people who would measure out max coherency for all their models every turn to minimise the potential damage from blast markers. I'd argue those types of people were worse than the scattering issue.

I've faced people like that. It's anti-fun.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 23:42:37


Post by: Backspacehacker


As i said, there was never an issue with template, was not even an issue with scatter, the rules worked, they worked fine, and they worked as fast as you could count models.

The problem always lied in the fact that argumenative players would find ways to argue about a rule every single time.

Templates were the best way to represent a blast in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Scattering every template was one of the reasons people hated blast markers. It slowed everything down so unnecessarily. Why they went away from place template/roll to hit/multiply hits by amount of blast markers/wound/saves/remove casualties I will never understand. It was so simple.

On the other hand, there are those people who would measure out max coherency for all their models every turn to minimise the potential damage from blast markers. I'd argue those types of people were worse than the scattering issue.

I've faced people like that. It's anti-fun.


And this is my point, you will always find people who will do things like this. This is not a problem with the rules, this is a problem with the players. The players that did this kinda thing were the same people who would argue over blast templates and what was and was not under it, and the same people who would argue about scatter.

Scatter dice were none issue if players rolled it right next to where they were trying to hit.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 23:53:07


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Here is a list of the weapons in my 4th edition armies (all 3 of them) that are blast without scattering:
Missile Launchers
Plasma Cannons
Grenade Launchers
Phlegm (as fired by the mawcannon)
Aeldari missile launcher
Fire Prism main cannon, both firing variants

Here is a list of the Ordnance and Barrage blast weapons (which only ever scattered 1d6 in 4th, so the distance was shorter):
Demolisher Cannon
Mortars

90% of blast weapons in 4th were not Ordnance or Barrage, with the great exception being Imperial Guard (something something army uniqueness)


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/26 23:58:03


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a list of the weapons in my 4th edition armies (all 3 of them) that are blast without scattering:
Missile Launchers
Plasma Cannons
Grenade Launchers
Phlegm (as fired by the mawcannon)
Aeldari missile launcher
Fire Prism main cannon, both firing variants

Here is a list of the Ordnance and Barrage blast weapons (which only ever scattered 1d6 in 4th, so the distance was shorter):
Demolisher Cannon
Mortars

90% of blast weapons in 4th were not Ordnance or Barrage, with the great exception being Imperial Guard (something something army uniqueness)


I cant speak for the edlar weapons, but i noticed taht a lot of the waepons that did not scatter are small blast tempaltes, which, was one of the worst things about later editiosn is the scattering of small blast.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 00:50:45


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Phlegm and the dispersed Fire Prism mode were large blast but not Ordnance or Barrage.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 01:15:47


Post by: catbarf


chaos0xomega wrote:
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you are unhappy with the current status quo and you are unhappy with the proposed fix, then there isn't really a solution to the problem and theres no sense in even complaining about it - go play a different game.


Do you hear that, Unit? If his suggestion isn't good enough for you, then obviously you are impossible to please.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If 30 guys in a room are 5 squads instead of 1, then under the current rules you would have 1-6 attacks and -at most- kill 5 guys.

With my solution, if 30 guys in a room are 5 squads instead of 1, then depending on how you configure the ability sentence for the weapon in question you could cause anywhere from 1 to however many attacks and could theoretically kill all 30 guys.

Sounds like a solution which does fix the problem to me, and I'm not seeing how my proposal has the same issue but reversed


Current state is if you shoot a unit of 30 you get flat 6 shots, and if you shoot one of 6 units of 5 you get D6 shots.

Your system is if you shoot a unit of 30 you get flat 6 shots, and if you shoot one of 6 units of 5 you get D6 shots plus D3 additional units hit for D6-1 hits apiece. Except that isn't fixing the problem at all. So you then suggest we patch in another rule that says if we shoot a squad of 21-30, we get 3D6 shots. Except now we're doing 3D6 shots to one big unit or D6 shots plus (1-3)(D6-1) bonus hits to nearby units, and the two cases still don't produce the same outcome.

You keep making it more complex without actually fixing the problem, and then writing at length about how we shouldn't see it as a problem to begin with.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 01:21:49


Post by: Backspacehacker


Eventually you just get to the point of
"Hey what if we just brought templates back"
Every single time, a discussion or idea about how to make, and how to represent blasts always comes full circle to. We really should just bring back templates.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 02:25:59


Post by: Mezmorki


There are tons of things in the game (auras, engagement range, etc) that are based on units being with X" of a particular model.

Easiest approach to blast weapons is just to say for blast weapons that you roll to hit once. If you hit, pick a model in the target unit and every model within X" inches of it causes a wound on that model's unit. Bam. Done. It accounts for multiple units automatically.

You don't need to use an actual template, you can just use the same measurement method used elsewhere in the rules. You don't need to have it scatter. You don't need to make it any more complicated. You don't need to account for the size of the unit.

You CAN have blast weapons listed as Blast (X) where the X is the radius of the blast to reflect bigger AoE weapons.

Templates/flamer weapons, being more directional and shorter range can just have D6 or D3+3 or whatever hits and just cap the hits so that you can't do more hits than there are models in the unit. Done.

People will complain about people meticulously spacing out their models. Fine. Let them do that. The downside is it means their models are less tightly packed and won't be as effect in melee or for contesting objectives. Or models spaced in the back row might be out of range for making attacks, etc. It's a GOOD trade off to have in the game.





Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 02:31:23


Post by: Backspacehacker


So i understand fully what you are trying to do, but thats exactly what the template is.

Saying that a weapons is blast x with x being 3" from the model is just the same as saying a large blast template, if anything, the template is faster then because i can just put it over the top of the models rather them measuring to each one individually.

As for flamer templates, depending on the weapon i could see the d3+3 being a thing or some method that guarantees hits. again though, the template is a far better representation of how it should act. As the template is meant to be the path of the flame.
If you wanted it to accurately represent an attack, you would need to have some sort of rule like the blast rule of 9th but for flamers, where if its just 1 model well the flamer can only hit it once, but if its a group there needs to be some limit to prevent you from rolling just a 1 to hit 5 dudes. This ultimatly comes back again to, the template is the best representative of how it should work, anything under it gets hit once.

Now do mind im speaking simple for number of hits in regards to the blast template mechanic, not scattering at this point.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 02:37:31


Post by: Mezmorki


Yes of course you can just use templates too, and it's probably faster.

My point is that one of the main arguments against the template weapons in the past, determining what models are under them, is exactly the same as determining when models are in X" of anything else - be it an aura or engagement range, or whatever else. It's the same process.

If the justification for not using templates or blast X" in 9th edition is because people will argue about the coverage, one has to wonder where the arguments are for all the other things that get measured the same way.

I think some people objected specifically to scattering, and that just doesn't need to be a part of it. It's a separate aspect to it. .


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 02:41:44


Post by: Backspacehacker


Excatlly and i agree with the argument point, i said it earlier, there was nothing wrong with the blast or the scatter rules. Because the same people that made a fuss over them, just argued about other things.

Having blasts no scatter would be the best way to rep them, but would also require a reconfigure of point cost to weapons.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 09:08:50


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Mezmorki wrote:
You CAN have blast weapons listed as Blast (X) where the X is the radius of the blast to reflect bigger AoE weapons.
With this you're adding another analogue component, something you can get wrong, something that can be flubbed, something that relies on the vagaries of hand movement and eyesight. With blast markers you never have to measure the distance. They're always the same radius. Given that people already argued about what was covered and what wasn't, and then argued about scatter, why would you want to add a further potential pain point with variable and manual blast radius measurement?

As to your comment "... then where are the arguments...": The other analogue components that cause the most consternation would be movement (any movement), weapon range, and Line of Sight. If you're not seeing those come up during most games, then you must play either an exceptionally exacting group of friends, or far-too-chill group.

This is why I like BTech's map sheets. They're entirely digital. You're either in LOS, or not. You're either in range, or not. You can move a set amount, and you can't ever get it wrong (unless you're bad at basic addition/subtraction, of course! ). 40k, by its very nature, doesn't have that luxury, so I would be loathe to add further components that add to any part of the rules one might describe as 'interpretive'.





Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 14:36:56


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Backspacehacker wrote:
As i said, there was never an issue with template, was not even an issue with scatter, the rules worked, they worked fine, and they worked as fast as you could count models.
The problem always lied in the fact that argumenative players would find ways to argue about a rule every single time.
Templates were the best way to represent a blast in the game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Scattering every template was one of the reasons people hated blast markers. It slowed everything down so unnecessarily. Why they went away from place template/roll to hit/multiply hits by amount of blast markers/wound/saves/remove casualties I will never understand. It was so simple.
On the other hand, there are those people who would measure out max coherency for all their models every turn to minimise the potential damage from blast markers. I'd argue those types of people were worse than the scattering issue.
I've faced people like that. It's anti-fun.

And this is my point, you will always find people who will do things like this. This is not a problem with the rules, this is a problem with the players. The players that did this kinda thing were the same people who would argue over blast templates and what was and was not under it, and the same people who would argue about scatter.
Scatter dice were none issue if players rolled it right next to where they were trying to hit.


Saying "its a problem with the players" is a cop-out. Players play to the rules. If the rules allow for it, then the players will do it, and its thus a problem with the rules. You can wring your hands and clutch your pearls and say "the rules are perfect, given to us by the gods themselves, I swear" but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't.

"Don't blame your players for your poorly designed rules" is basically Fundamentals of Game Design 101, as is "You can't change your players but you can change your rules."

catbarf wrote:Your system is if you shoot a unit of 30 you get flat 6 shots, and if you shoot one of 6 units of 5 you get D6 shots plus D3 additional units hit for D6-1 hits apiece. Except that isn't fixing the problem at all.


This is incorrect. I have not proscribed any solid or standard rule for these weapons, I have only provided a methodology. That methodology, assuming we are discussing a weapon that has a base d6 shots, allows for you to shoot a unit of 30 and get flat 6, or 3d6, or 18, or however many shots you want to define (no different than how some blast weapons currently do d3 hits, or d6 hits, or 2d6 hits, etc.), and if you shoot one of 6 units of 5 you get d6 shots plus however many additional units hit - which could be 0 or it could be 100 for all I care - for however many hits you want to define apiece - which could be 0, it could be a million, etc.

I have literally changed the parameters every time to illustrate the flexibility of the methodology, so you would be 100% incorrect in saying what my system does. It 100% fixes every problem that has been defined and every goalpost that has been shifted by change-fearing luddites and blast template apologists, and does so within the framework of the existing rules by simply adding a single sentence to the weapon profile, as is now common for many weapons in the game, and if needed a small change to the existing universal "Blast" rule to address the most recent round of shifted goalposts for what the "problem" is.

catbarf wrote:So you then suggest we patch in another rule


Its called "incorporating feedback", you dunce. Its standard process in game design. Oh wait, forgive me, clearly you seem to think that once a rule is written it can never be changed if playtesting and feedback determines that it doesn't work, otherwise you are "patching in another rule" and "making things more complex". If that was how this worked, every game would be literally unplayable.

catbarf wrote:that says if we shoot a squad of 21-30, we get 3D6 shots. Except now we're doing 3D6 shots to one big unit or D6 shots plus (1-3)(D6-1) bonus hits to nearby units, and the two cases still don't produce the same outcome.


Again, as I said, I've changed the variables up every single time to illustrate flexibility, without much concern for proportional damage output because thats a point of balancing rather than of mechanical design. If you're so concerned about "producing the same outcome" (which is yet another great shifting of the goalpost), then the solution to that is pretty simple, units of 21-30 take 3d6 shots and you set the variables so that if the squad is 10 models or less the 2 closest units within however many inches each take 1d6 shots - now 30 guys in 1 squad take 3d6 and 30 models in 3 squads also take 3d6. I'm sure you're going to complain that the damage output for 11-20 models is a problem, so lets fix that too. The rule looks something like this:

"If the target unit has 10 models or fewer, make d6 additional attacks against the 2 closest units within 6". If the target unit has between 11 and 20 models, make d6 additional attacks against the closest unit within 3".

There, now you're doing a consistent 3d6 regardless of how many models there are or how many units they are in, and somehow the rules text is still shorter than that of several other weapons in the game.

catbarf wrote:You keep making it more complex without actually fixing the problem, and then writing at length about how we shouldn't see it as a problem to begin with.


I haven't actually made it more complex at all, it is literally a single sentence weapon ability that you customize:

"Each time an attack made with this weapon targets a unit [with W models or less/that has between W1 and W2 models], make X additional attacks using this weapon profile against the Y closest unit(s) within Z" of the target unit."

(slight change in wording to make it more consistent with GWs phrasing)

Where W, X, Y, and Z are customizable variables that can be set on a weapon by weapon basis and the [bracketed] clause is entirely optional/variable depending on what you're trying to do. Don't confuse flexibility with complexity, because its not complex at all (certainly not moreso than some of the weapon abilities that already exist in the game) and fits squarely within the realm of the existing approach to writing weapon abilities. If you want to produce consistency like we did previously, than you duplicate the sentence to set your parameters so that you're always doing 3d6 attacks or whatever it is you want to reference as your "constant".

[quotes=Backspacehacker]Eventually you just get to the point of
"Hey what if we just brought templates back"
Every single time, a discussion or idea about how to make, and how to represent blasts always comes full circle to. We really should just bring back templates.[/quotes]

This is a logical fallacy in the extreme and not even remotely a valid argument. Just because some people can't let go of the past and will insist upon a return to the old status quo does not mean its the correct solution or even a good idea.

Mezmorki wrote:If you hit, pick a model in the target unit and every model within X" inches of it causes a wound on that model's unit. Bam. Done. It accounts for multiple units automatically.


But this brings us back to the days of "I'm going to spread each and every model in my unit out as far as possible". It also means that targeting a model on a 60mm base will produce a larger explosion (and thus cause more hits) than a model on a 25mm base, even though its the same weapon in both instances. My methodology can at least be used to keep the damage output constant.
=
[quoteMezmorki]People will complain about people meticulously spacing out their models. Fine. Let them do that. The downside is it means their models are less tightly packed and won't be as effect in melee or for contesting objectives. Or models spaced in the back row might be out of range for making attacks, etc. It's a GOOD trade off to have in the game.


Not really true, once you're in melee you're essentially immune to being targeted by blast so theres no reason to maintain spacing at that point, and as far as objective camping is concerned it will just make small units even better at it since you can maximally space them and still get the entire unit within range.

Backspacehacker wrote:So i understand fully what you are trying to do, but thats exactly what the template is.


Its not. Again the same weapon targeting a model on a 60mm base will produce a much larger impact area (i.e. catch more models) than targeting a model on a 25mm base.

Mezmorki wrote:My point is that one of the main arguments against the template weapons in the past, determining what models are under them, is exactly the same as determining when models are in X" of anything else - be it an aura or engagement range, or whatever else. It's the same process.

If the justification for not using templates or blast X" in 9th edition is because people will argue about the coverage, one has to wonder where the arguments are for all the other things that get measured the same way.


Its not. Point-to-point measurements will always be more accurate than area measurements. The principal source of inaccuracy with the template is that you can't position it closely enough to get a definitive read on whats under its area, thus you introduce uncertainty into it. Because you have to also hold it its subject to wobbly hands and variation in its placement as you try to hold it there, to some extent theres a tendency for the template to "drift" off the point at which its supposed to be which further skews results. There have been various novel attempts to rectify this (having a "leg" that extends down from the template center so you can effectively "pin" it in place to prevent drift and get more accurate measurements for scatter, etc.) but they are all subject to various issues (the "leg" didn't work if the template was being placed over a mini, it had to rest on the table, in some cases the leg wasn't long enough to land on the template due to height of models, etc.).

When measuring point-to-point, as you and I proposed using our respective systems, none of this is really a concern, and there are more than enough measuring tools out there to ensure the accuracy of measurement and that the various causes of drift and variation no longer apply. If the blast hits something that is within 3" of a model/unit, I simply grab my 3" widget and place it in base-to-base contact and its typically a very clear yes or no - its rare to not be able to place the widget due to terrain/model placement, more often than not if the widget can't be placed its because the point-to-point measurement is less than 3" which is an objective answer to the question you are trying to resolve.

H.B.M.C. wrote:With this you're adding another analogue component, something you can get wrong, something that can be flubbed, something that relies on the vagaries of hand movement and eyesight. With blast markers you never have to measure the distance. They're always the same radius. Given that people already argued about what was covered and what wasn't, and then argued about scatter, why would you want to add a further potential pain point with variable and manual blast radius measurement?
As to your comment "... then where are the arguments...": The other analogue components that cause the most consternation would be movement (any movement), weapon range, and Line of Sight. If you're not seeing those come up during most games, then you must play either an exceptionally exacting group of friends, or far-too-chill group.


You're not entirely wrong, but as I said previously, a point-to-point measurement is better than an area measurement. Measuring X" from base to base is more accurate than using a template (unless, of course, the template can be placed on the table directly, but until someone figures out how to phase objects through matter that isn't possible in this application). Blast markers trade accuracy of measurement for convenience, measuring distances trades convenience for accuracy of measurement. I would rather have the accuracy of measurement than convenience.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 14:56:14


Post by: Eldarsif


Ah, template discussions.

Damn those things sucked. Good riddance. Game has been better for it.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 16:11:12


Post by: Unit1126PLL


If you would rather have accuracy of measurement than convenience, that's fine.

A "Large Blast" weapon could hit every mini within 2.5" (or 2" or whatever) of the target model.

If that's all that's needed to mollify your concerns, that's FINE with me. It's just a template but harder to use.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 16:26:40


Post by: Grimtuff


 Eldarsif wrote:
Ah, template discussions.

Damn those things sucked. Good riddance. Game has been better for it.


No it hasn't. #Bringbacktemplates2022!


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 16:32:32


Post by: catbarf


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you would rather have accuracy of measurement than convenience, that's fine.

A "Large Blast" weapon could hit every mini within 2.5" (or 2" or whatever) of the target model.

If that's all that's needed to mollify your concerns, that's FINE with me. It's just a template but harder to use.


Given that we haven't seen much complaining about the effects that use that model in 9th, I'd guess the dislike for templates in prior editions really came down to their prevalence and scatter.

If 'small blast' weapons remained as they are, and those radius effects only came back for ordnance and artillery (with the number of models under the template determining number of shots, so a Battle Cannon shot that misses doesn't simply vanish), it'd probably be manageable.

I agree with the point you've made before about the small blast weapons forcing players to weigh the downsides of spreading out to avoid them, but I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze for every last grenade or missile launcher, especially if a smaller number of actual artillery weapons could force the same consideration.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 16:35:27


Post by: Rihgu


Given that we haven't seen much complaining about the effects that use that model in 9th, I'd guess the dislike for templates in prior editions really came down to their prevalence and scatter.

I'll say this is true for me. In Adeptus Titanicus and Necromunda I don't mind scatter as much since it only happens when you miss. It's still mighty annoying to resolve when you miss, but at least it doesn't happen every single time you shoot


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 17:24:14


Post by: AnomanderRake


 catbarf wrote:
...Given that we haven't seen much complaining about the effects that use that model in 9th, I'd guess the dislike for templates in prior editions really came down to their prevalence and scatter...


Basically, yes. Multiple blasts, particularly multiple barrages, particularly twin-linked multiple barrages, scattering repeatedly are horrible and long and awkward to resolve. Taking multiple Rapier batteries (four twin-linked small blasts per model) in 30k used to be almost grounds for calling someone on delay of play just for having them in their list, before they got turned into one twin-linked large blast per gun.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 17:28:39


Post by: ccs


Rihgu wrote:
Given that we haven't seen much complaining about the effects that use that model in 9th, I'd guess the dislike for templates in prior editions really came down to their prevalence and scatter.

I'll say this is true for me. In Adeptus Titanicus and Necromunda I don't mind scatter as much since it only happens when you miss. It's still mighty annoying to resolve when you miss, but at least it doesn't happen every single time you shoot


?? My scatter dice have crosshairs on two sides. Yours didn't?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 17:36:07


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you would rather have accuracy of measurement than convenience, that's fine.

A "Large Blast" weapon could hit every mini within 2.5" (or 2" or whatever) of the target model.

If that's all that's needed to mollify your concerns, that's FINE with me. It's just a template but harder to use.


No, thats awful (and also nothing like a template). Assuming 2.5", If I hit a model with a 25mm base it creates a blast area with a 6" diameter. If I hit a model with a 60mm base (which is actually 65mm in diameter) it creates a blast area with a 7.5" diameter. If I hit something on a 92x120mm base, we're talking about an area roughly 8.6" x 975".

For all the gak you people gave me about my concept destroying the game because of 30 man units blanketing the entire board, this is worse. Far far worse. In my case, at least I limit the number of nearby units that can potentially be harmed, even moreso because the number of attacks generated is strictly limited by the terms of the rule. In the case of this rule, because you're hitting every model in the area, targeting a larger base nets you a larger coverage area and with it a greater number of hits and attacks generated, for absolutely no logical reason other than the fact that your weapon hit a bigger target, magically turning a hand grenade into a howitzer.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 17:58:58


Post by: AnomanderRake


ccs wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Given that we haven't seen much complaining about the effects that use that model in 9th, I'd guess the dislike for templates in prior editions really came down to their prevalence and scatter.

I'll say this is true for me. In Adeptus Titanicus and Necromunda I don't mind scatter as much since it only happens when you miss. It's still mighty annoying to resolve when you miss, but at least it doesn't happen every single time you shoot


?? My scatter dice have crosshairs on two sides. Yours didn't?


That's still having to scatter on 2/3rds of shots instead of 2/9ths of shots (assuming BS4/BS3+).


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 20:19:17


Post by: carldooley


I'll say that a great mitigating factor of scatter was reducing it by ballistic skill, which admittedly worked better with the other BS scale.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/27 20:57:25


Post by: Unit1126PLL


chaos0xomega wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you would rather have accuracy of measurement than convenience, that's fine.

A "Large Blast" weapon could hit every mini within 2.5" (or 2" or whatever) of the target model.

If that's all that's needed to mollify your concerns, that's FINE with me. It's just a template but harder to use.


No, thats awful (and also nothing like a template). Assuming 2.5", If I hit a model with a 25mm base it creates a blast area with a 6" diameter. If I hit a model with a 60mm base (which is actually 65mm in diameter) it creates a blast area with a 7.5" diameter. If I hit something on a 92x120mm base, we're talking about an area roughly 8.6" x 975".

For all the gak you people gave me about my concept destroying the game because of 30 man units blanketing the entire board, this is worse. Far far worse. In my case, at least I limit the number of nearby units that can potentially be harmed, even moreso because the number of attacks generated is strictly limited by the terms of the rule. In the case of this rule, because you're hitting every model in the area, targeting a larger base nets you a larger coverage area and with it a greater number of hits and attacks generated, for absolutely no logical reason other than the fact that your weapon hit a bigger target, magically turning a hand grenade into a howitzer.


Sorry, the center of the model.

Though, you're exactly right, templates are way better, thanks for making that point for me. Almost got stuck believing there was an alternative


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 00:45:18


Post by: Backspacehacker


So because targeting a larger model with the idea of anything within x" of a model would actually end up favoring hitting large targets over smaller bases it's almost like....a template would be better...

For every suggestion, every single one its always a case of, "yeah but templates were a lot easier and faster."
If your trying to stop arguments with a player over what's under it, that's easy, just don't play with them, or tell them to stop making a big deal over everything, or.use the roll off in the BRB.

Templates were never and issue players were.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 12:53:14


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Backspacehacker wrote:
So because targeting a larger model with the idea of anything within x" of a model would actually end up favoring hitting large targets over smaller bases it's almost like....a template would be better...

For every suggestion, every single one its always a case of, "yeah but templates were a lot easier and faster."
If your trying to stop arguments with a player over what's under it, that's easy, just don't play with them, or tell them to stop making a big deal over everything, or.use the roll off in the BRB.

Templates were never and issue players were.


Give it a rest dude, templates are dead and not coming back, good riddance. Your arguments are baded on logical fallacies and hold no water. You can't blame players for gakky rules. The system based on targeting units is way way faster than any template could ever be, is 100% objective in outcome with no room for subjectivity, and at no point in this discussion has "yeah but templates would be better" actually been true.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 13:40:14


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


I'm just not sure how other games can handle templates if they're so bad. And if it was an issue with players arguing over whether a model is under the template or not, that's not on the rule. That is on the players. And is speed a virtue in this scenario, rather than what makes sense? At worst, I'd say it's subjective which is better, but templates do make a lot more sense to me.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 13:42:05


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Good counterargument, 10/10, love the part where you didn't just repeat yourself again with no proof or evidence.

Also loved the part where you called it 100% objective, as if templates are impossibly wonky spatial anomalies but no human has ever used a tape measure wrong or dodgily in all of known history.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 13:47:09


Post by: Noir Eternal


chaos0xomega wrote:

Give it a rest dude, templates are dead and not coming back, good riddance. Your arguments are baded on logical fallacies and hold no water. You can't blame players for gakky rules. The system based on targeting units is way way faster than any template could ever be, is 100% objective in outcome with no room for subjectivity, and at no point in this discussion has "yeah but templates would be better" actually been true.


Playing since 3rd edition myself I sometimes get that nostalgic feeling of using templates as a way to narratively show blast weapons but I am personally glad they are gone. They just had too many limitations, hand flamers being the same size template as a Land Raider mounted heavy flamer, 1 wound limit to monstrous creatures as many pointed out, and the 3" blast being all around pretty useless.

Using a D6 random result with minimums for large squads is just all around easier and faster. Anyone saying templates are faster must be forgetting having to flip the blast marker for weapons that had multiple shots. It was difficult to be accurate with flipping the blast marker even when you were trying to be fair as possible. I have also had plenty of times where someone would roll the scatter dice too far away from the target making moving the blast marker in the correct direction very difficult.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 13:59:03


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Again, both scatter and multiple blast were much rarer in 4th than in 7th.

People forget the difference between "templates of whatever size or shape to allow blast weapons to hit multiple scrunched up units" and "GW's 7th edition incarnation of templates with no further modification"

Scatter doesn't particularly excite me either, which is why 4th is the edition I went back to (the "every blast scatters" thing was 5th)


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 15:27:59


Post by: chaos0xomega


 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'm just not sure how other games can handle templates if they're so bad. And if it was an issue with players arguing over whether a model is under the template or not, that's not on the rule. That is on the players. And is speed a virtue in this scenario, rather than what makes sense? At worst, I'd say it's subjective which is better, but templates do make a lot more sense to me.


Lots of other games have removed, restricted, or limited them, and many other games don't include them at all, its not just 40k. In any game that does use templates, the same issues exist and result in many of the same problems they did in 40k. Bolt Action is the only game that I know of which made a conscious decision to add templates into the game after the fact.

Good counterargument, 10/10, love the part where you didn't just repeat yourself again with no proof or evidence.


I've written more words in this thread than anyone else, at this point theres not much I could say that wouldn't be repeating myself, and no sense continuing to provide proof or evidence when I have already provided it and its been roundly ignored. If you want proof/evidence, go back to my previous posts and find it for yourself.

As it stands, its actually kinda sorta totally "your side" thats actually just repeating themselves. Look through how many posts backspacehacker has made that in their totality amount to "templates are faster and better, every discussion about this ends up having someone say we should just bring them back, so thats proof we should do it". Wheres the proof? Wheres the evidence?

Your side of the argument has yet to actually demonstrate or evidence how it would ever be possible for placing a template to actually be more objective, accurate, or faster than the sheer simplicity of rolling a die and reading the result. The mere act of placing the template alone often took longer than the entire attack resolution sequence for the current die-based methodology does now, as players would often typically place it and move it around to try to determine what the "optimal" placement was by counting up the number of models underneath in multiple permutations before committing to a singleplacement - and then and only then would they actually even bother to start picking up dice.

Also loved the part where you called it 100% objective, as if templates are impossibly wonky spatial anomalies but no human has ever used a tape measure wrong or dodgily in all of known history.


A die roll is a die roll, if the die comes up a 4 there is no debate whether or not thats actually a 3 or a 5. That is objective.

With a template, there are many scenarios in which you cannot precisely determine whether a model is actually within the area of a template or not. Either because hands are shaking, the template is drifting, the viewing angle, terrain, other models, etc. make it difficult to see, etc. At this point, you and/or your opponent rely on judgement calls to determine whether or not something is hit. That is subjective. "Rolla 4+ if you can't figure it out" doesn't change that, thats simply using RNG to attempt to resolve the subjectivity in the face of an inability to render an accurate judgement.

Playing since 3rd edition myself I sometimes get that nostalgic feeling of using templates as a way to narratively show blast weapons but I am personally glad they are gone. They just had too many limitations, hand flamers being the same size template as a Land Raider mounted heavy flamer, 1 wound limit to monstrous creatures as many pointed out, and the 3" blast being all around pretty useless.


Wait, hold on - lemme channel the response of the pro-template crowd to resolve this complaint...

"ADD MORE TEMPLATES IN MORE SIZES AND SHAPES ADD AN ADDITIONAL HALF-PAGE OF RULES ABOUT WHAT TO DO IF THE TEMPLATE HITS A MONSTROUS CREATURE OR A VEHICLE SPECIFICALLY!!!!"

Anyone saying templates are faster must be forgetting having to flip the blast marker for weapons that had multiple shots. It was difficult to be accurate with flipping the blast marker even when you were trying to be fair as possible.


God, that was the worst. The proper solution that would have made more sense (IMO) would have been to simply put a second template in contact with the first one in order to get a slightly more accurate placement (or make like one of those apocalyptic barrage style templates but with 3" templates instead of 5". Why they expected players to be able to "flip" a template in 3-dimensions and land it in the correct spot, I will never know. For me, personally it was a huge source of feelsbadman because I don't think I ever encountered a single player who actually flipped the template properly (I myself never played an army that used weapons in which I would be required to do it myself), to the extent that you could actually visibly see that they were flipping it around an axis that ran through the area of the template rather than tangential to its edge like you were supposed to in order to avoid overlapping the original placement. I definitely also encountered players who would intentionally flip it incorrectly in order to score more hits, including a few who would try to flip it more or less in-place and hope their opponent wouldn't notice (its surprising how many didn't - you would think people would figure out that if the template was flipped correctly it would be impossible for literally every model that was hit the first time to be hit the second time around, but that skirted under the radar a lot).

Of course, some would say that the rule was perfect as-is and its the players fault if they couldn't flip it properly.

Again, both scatter and multiple blast were much rarer in 4th than in 7th.


I'm glad I sat on the bench for 7th, because scatter and multiple blast seemed to already be excessively common in 4th, 5th, and 6th. Any of my regular opponents in each of those editions would typically have multiple such weapons in their lists.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 16:27:08


Post by: Backspacehacker


Imagine thinking and getting so upset by the objective fact that template were eaiser and faster then writing a wall of text about it.

Hold template over target unit
"Hey 4 are under here agree?"
"Yeah" "idk this one looks out roll off for it?"
"Ok 4 hits"

Best representation of a blast, and was never an issue in the rules. Just because crappy player argue over it does not make it a abad rule.

No matter how you slice it, template were absolutely the best representation of a blast effect in the game. It worked exactly as a blast should, things within the blast area were automatically hit. Did not matter if it was just that unit, multiple units, vehicles, what ever, if it was under it, it kit it.

Now if you wanna talk about scattering, strength of damage under the template, effects of a direct hit, sure that's totally up for debate and over how points where be effected if scatter was removed. But as far as determining who and or what gets hit, template were always the best.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 16:50:34


Post by: Eldarsif


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
Ah, template discussions.

Damn those things sucked. Good riddance. Game has been better for it.


No it hasn't. #Bringbacktemplates2022!


You have your opinion and I have mine. I enjoy rolling dice and interacting with my enemy more than measuring out formation lengths between models just to minimize template fallout which I still remember in excruciating pain. On the flipside I admit I enjoy playing a game rather than engaging in some hardcore reality simulation that I personally find tedious. It's one of the two reasons I don't intend to play something like Flames of War. I do, however, acknowledge that a sub-section of people love that so to each their own.

What would be interesting to see is the overlap between people who like Templates and who enjoy rank and file gameplay. Now that is a poll that I'd be interested in.

#Donotbringbacktemplates!

Now if you wanna talk about scattering, strength of damage under the template, effects of a direct hit, sure that's totally up for debate and over how points where be effected if scatter was removed.


Scatter made a subjective system worse. I agree that templates would be marginally better if scatter would die a permanent horrible death and never be seen in any GW product ever again. I will, however, accept templates if Craftworlds get proper D-weapons again. Now those things were fun to get people out of the hobby.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 16:58:02


Post by: Backspacehacker


Like if we had templates, no scatter, save for barage weapons at a full d6, then increased the point value of all models/weapons that have a blast, hell yeah sign me up.

But hit determining with templates was the best representation of a blast or flamers.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 17:30:14


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Imagine thinking and getting so upset by the objective fact that template were eaiser and faster then writing a wall of text about it.


Hey Unit, what was that about people repeating themselves without proof or evidence?

Hold template over target unit
"Hey 4 are under here agree?"
"Yeah" "idk this one looks out roll off for it?"
"Ok 4 hits"


Which is a lot slower than "I rolled 4 attacks, 3 of them hit" - or in the case of flame weapons, "I rolled 4 attacks, they hit automatically".

Too bad for you.


Best representation of a blast, and was never an issue in the rules. Just because crappy player argue over it does not make it a abad rule.

No matter how you slice it, template were absolutely the best representation of a blast effect in the game. It worked exactly as a blast should, things within the blast area were automatically hit. Did not matter if it was just that unit, multiple units, vehicles, what ever, if it was under it, it kit it.

Now if you wanna talk about scattering, strength of damage under the template, effects of a direct hit, sure that's totally up for debate and over how points where be effected if scatter was removed. But as far as determining who and or what gets hit, template were always the best.


Seriously Unit, the repetition.

And the "evidence" - hoo boy. Its great to say "never an issue with the rules" for the umpteenth time, even though we've had more than half the posters in the thread say that they had too many arguments and issues result from them - including a professional game designer. Through and through, its a problem with the rules no matter how much you want to deny it. The rules create room for error, therefore its a problem with the rules when that room for error hinders gameplay.

Also they do *not* work "exactly as a blast should", only an idealized representation of how people *think* they should work. As I stated previously, in real life blast weapons have a non-constant area of effect and generally speaking that area of effect is more of an irregular elliptical shape rather than a circular one. The idea that they will have a consistent and constant area of effect is pure fiction. If they worked "exactly as a blast should", each and every time they would have a different area and a different shape. If you wanted a system that worked "exactly as a blast should" then in reality every time you fired one you would pick a point on the table, scatter it some distance and direction, then roll a scatter die again to determine the direction of the blasts major axis and a number of dice (based on the size of the weapon) to determine the length of the major axis centered on the point to which the blast scattered on the table, then roll another number of dice to determine the length of the minor axis cenetered on the same point. From that you would then create an elliptical shape under which any model contained would be hit a randomized number of times, with the number of hits and probability of hitting/wounded decreasing the further away from the centerpoint of the two axes the model is located.

THAT is exactly how a blast would work.

OR, you can just work within the actual abstraction and assumptions that underly the games actual mechanical design, which is that model scale and ground scale are two separate concepts and that models within each unit are already disperse over a wider area in order to mitigate the effects of explosive weaponry regardless of how they are actually placed on the table - as is SOP in the real world - and likewise units do the same - again, as is SOP in the real world. As such, the existing system abstracts that entire process into a single simple dice roll and thus PERFECTLY ENCAPSULATES EXACTLY how a blast actually DOES work, no need for templates, scatter dice, or anything else.

The only reason to modify it, is because some people take umbrage with the second clause, that is that units will disperse enough between eachother to mitigate blast effects, which is where the modified rules I proposed come in, which somehow *still* do a better job at perfectly encapsulating the reality of blast weapons within dice rolls than any template or scatter die could.

 Eldarsif wrote:

What would be interesting to see is the overlap between people who like Templates and who enjoy rank and file gameplay. Now that is a poll that I'd be interested in.

The venn diagram is a circle.

#Donotbringbacktemplates!

Amen.



 Backspacehacker wrote:

But hit determining with templates was the best representation of a blast or flamers.


UNIT, THE REPETITION.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 17:36:44


Post by: Backspacehacker


Can scream it all you want in as many caps as you want. Template hit determination was the best.

Oh no, you have to roll to wound a few other units not just one. Oh. My. God. In a game where we push around models for 2+ hours we have to roll against this unit....and this other unit in this super unlikely situation that only happens so rarely ahhhh the horror!

C'mon man
Template were fine I'm sorry you had crappy people that made it an issue but template dof rhir determination was the way to go.

There is no good argument over not using template because every argument against it voild down to "well people argue over it or it's confusing" no it's not, you just have crappy players or they did not read the rules.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 17:42:22


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Can scream it all you want in as many caps as you want. Template hit determination was the best.

Oh no, you have to roll to wound a few other units not just one. Oh. My. God. In a game where we push around models for 2+ hours we have to roll against this unit....and this other unit in this super unlikely situation that only happens so rarely ahhhh the horror!

C'mon man
Template were fine I'm sorry you had crappy people that made it an issue but template dof rhir determination was the way to go.

There is no good argument over not using template because every argument against it voild down to "well people argue over it or it's confusing" no it's not, you just have crappy players or they did not read the rules.


Unit, do you see it? THE REPETITION.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 17:44:01


Post by: Backspacehacker


Uhhhh who care? It's a game where we roll 100s of dice In. A single game?
Oh no, my blast template hit 3 units! Ok here is a roll for this one, this one and this one.

You are making an issue out of something that literally no one had an issue with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are complaing about repetition In a game where you can spam the same weapon, and roll for the same things over and over, and your hang up on them is "oh no! Every once and a while my timolate might clip 2 units that are standing to close together!"

C'mon man your complaing about scinarios that either never happen or happen once In a blue moon and are completely avoidable I'd you don't group up, you know the thing that blasts are meant to punish you for doing?


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 17:48:47


Post by: Mezmorki


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Can scream it all you want in as many caps as you want. Template hit determination was the best.

Oh no, you have to roll to wound a few other units not just one. Oh. My. God. In a game where we push around models for 2+ hours we have to roll against this unit....and this other unit in this super unlikely situation that only happens so rarely ahhhh the horror!

C'mon man
Template were fine I'm sorry you had crappy people that made it an issue but template dof rhir determination was the way to go.

There is no good argument over not using template because every argument against it voild down to "well people argue over it or it's confusing" no it's not, you just have crappy players or they did not read the rules.


Make no mention of present arguments over whether the tip of a horn sticking off the buttcrack of a Tyranid warrior is sufficiently visible to constitute LoS!

Honestly, there are so many situations in 40K that come down to interpretation and *not being a dick* - and that's part of the appeal of playing a miniatures based tactical wargame. People demanding perfect precision on rulings and having rules that are not open to any interpretation are playing the wrong sort of game, IMHO. 40K works best with some fluidity and grey area, because it allows the rules to be more coherent and direct from a simulation and intuitiveness standpoint. 40K is increasingly becoming more abstracted as these gray areas get shaved away.

It would be interesting to see a 40K variant that does what Battletech does - allowing you to either play it on a precise hex grid where there is very little interpretation, or play it as a freeform miniature game. In this case, the control jockeys can all play the hex-based version and I'll know right away what sorts of gamer's I'm dealing with.





Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 17:53:15


Post by: Backspacehacker


So that's my earlier point the thing about the spear tip of the model?
That's not an issue with the rules, that's a problem with the player themselves. Like the people that would argue about that kidna stuff? Guess what happened when templates were removed, they just found new things to argue over in the game that were not template. The big one being deep striking and and assaulting, until it was clarified the same people that argued over template also argued about the technically of needing a 10 to actually make it into pass contact if you deep stike.



Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 17:53:26


Post by: JNAProductions


What if you did this for templates:

Place the template down, with the center over the unit that is your primary target. Then, roll to hit, one shot for each model under the template. So, if you have one unit with 15 guys super scrunched up, you'd roll 15 shots against them. If you have five units-two Troops of 10 men each, a Bodyguard unit of 3, and two solo Characters-muddled together, and you targeted the Bodyguard squad, you'd roll three shots against them, one shot against each Character, and then 1-10 against the Troops, depending on how many models are physically near that location.

You can still argue over it, but removing scatter means it's much, much easier to come to an agreement. And I won't go so far as to say "Arguments over templates are caused universally by bad players," but I will say that playing with good folk will minimize those arguments. And it's not like you can't argue over other things-look at the talk on Bomb Squigs in the Orks Tactics Thread.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 17:57:35


Post by: Backspacehacker


See I look at the template to hit and the scatter as two separate issues when it comes to it.

I would say that if you removed scatter, then yeah anything under the template gets to generate the number of hits


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes I agree with you on rules arguments, having badly worded rules does not help. But when a rule is very clear cut like templates were, at that point the only people arguing are "that guy" kinda people who will either say that the separ tip totally counts as being hit or that the guy that clearly is clipping into it is not hit, or refuses to do roll offs to determine the result


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/28 18:00:50


Post by: Mezmorki


 Backspacehacker wrote:
See I look at the template to hit and the scatter as two separate issues when it comes to it.

I would say that if you removed scatter, then yeah anything under the template gets to generate the number of hits


In the case of barrage weapons or multiple template shots, you can further speed it up by just placing the template once and then doubling/trippling/etc/ the numbers of models hit. That also speeds it up.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/29 00:29:20


Post by: catbarf


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Good counterargument, 10/10, love the part where you didn't just repeat yourself again with no proof or evidence.

Also loved the part where you called it 100% objective, as if templates are impossibly wonky spatial anomalies but no human has ever used a tape measure wrong or dodgily in all of known history.


I just put him back on ignore when he started adding personal insults to his usual condescending jackassery. I don't think the argument is going anywhere.

But yeah somehow other games have managed to make templates work. Or just artillery mechanics that don't need essays to browbeat you into accepting their modeling flaws as reasonable abstractions.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I would say that if you removed scatter, then yeah anything under the template gets to generate the number of hits


There's also a partway implementation, where you place the template wherever you want to determine eligible targets, then still roll to hit for each one. So if there are twelve models under the template, you get twelve shots.

That provides a measure of randomness in line with the current system and still allows for Ballistic Skill to matter. You're basically just replacing the current Blast/random shots mechanic with a physical template to determine number of shots.

Getting rid of scatter would, in my experience, get rid of most of the arguments over templates. You'll still have disputes over whether a model is really under the template, but in a game where you're constantly measuring for range and movement it's not like that never happens to begin with.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/29 09:25:15


Post by: Blackie


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Again, both scatter and multiple blast were much rarer in 4th than in 7th.



This. And that's another reason why blasts/templates won't be re-introduced in the game. In all my 3rd-5th lists I didn't have a single blast weapon and just a few templates from flamers/burnas.

But today weapons' fire way more shots than they used to fire in older editions, so we'd have tons and tons of blasts and templates to resolve each single game. To the point that they'd really slow down the game by a significant margin, not to mention that controversies would be very frequent.

They are a relic of the past, for a good reason. In a game like Necromunda, with 7-10 models per faction on the board and maybe no more than a couple of dudes with blast/template weapons they still work very well: they are rare enough to avoid slowing down the game significantly and since they can hit no more than one maybe two targets, due to the very small army sizes, they don't lead to controversies.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/29 09:48:03


Post by: Mozzamanx


My own preference is to stay without templates, for much the same reason that I dislike TLOS: The positions of the models are a convenient way to roughly approximate what is going on, but in reality they will be in constant motion.

A possible way to remedy the excess hits solution:
Roll a D6 to determine the number of hits against the target unit (Or 6 if Blast). If this is more than the number of models in the target unit, nominate a single model within the unit: excess hits are allocated to other units within 3" until all hits are allocated, or there are no more units within 3".

Allows you to clip characters or splash units in these fringe cases, without any further interpretation. The most game-able thing about it is spreading units out, which is pretty much a non-issue.


Took a break since 7th, just started with 9th. Where did all this random shots/damage come from? @ 2022/01/29 13:13:32


Post by: Unit1126PLL


What would you do about 3 separate blast weapons like the Mortars example? A single Mortar can (if it is lucky) wipe out the initial target.

Do all excess hits from an entire unit firing Blast weapons spill over, or just excess hits from a single weapon? If it is the former, that's alright. The latter, much less so.

You would also get some weird effects - like can the units hit be out of Line of Sight and range? Or worse, conventionally untargetable (e.g. characters)