Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay i played my first game of 4th edition this weekend (been on a lotr spree so shoot me) and apparently template casualties dont have to be taken from under the template anymore. okay.... so what exactly is the point of having them anymore then and not rolling a d6/d3/whatever to decide how many hits you take. part of the fun with ordinance templates (at least in my mind) was the possability of making a squad have to get back within 2" of itself.


do you guys think they need to put it back to the old way where you HAD to take the casualties from under the template or what

I'd love to see it go back to more of a random nature. Warfare is random, and actual casualty selection should reflect that. It can make for a far more interesting game.

"Template-sniping" was a lame part of 3rd; leave it out.

I don't have a problem with casualties coming from anywhere in the unit. What I have a problem with is having to place the centre dot over a model (explosions are not that discriminate), and having to resolve each marker/template one at a time. It slows the game down and makes the small blast weapons useless.

It should be like 3rd Ed. Place the marker to cover as many models as possible, roll partials, and then multiply the result by the amount of markers that hit (ie. 3 frags hit a unit, and the marker can get 2 and a partial, roll the partial, and then multiply the result by 3 for the 3 Frag hits).

So much simpler...

BYE

100% agreed with HB. I'd like to be able to place the template anywhere to get as many full/ partials as possible, regardless of that damned center hole.

Don't worry HBMC, I'm sure Jervis and Co. are thinking of all kinds of neat ways to make 5th edition easier for us.

its rather slowed to be honest. "template sniping" isn't lame at all, its the model with the frag missile launcher shooting a missile at the dude with a lascannon/plasma gun. if you group them two models right next to eachother, then why shouldn't the other player get to take advantage of your stupidity. having 8 failed saves for your lascannon and plasma weapon is stupid.

I always liked a combination of HBMC's method and the 3rd ed rules. For blast markers (of any type), you place it to maximize hits, roll to see how many partials are caught, if a mixed armor/toughness unit, allocate hits (otherwise it doesn't matter as owning player gets to choose casualties), roll to wound, owning player rolls to make any applicable armor/cover/invulnerable saves and remove casualties from wherever within the targeted unit. In case of mixed armor/toughness, he removes the appropriate number of casualties from each range, wherever in the targeted unit they may be. Real easy and doesn't involve an argument.

For infantry (incl. jump inf) carried flame templates, you can "snipe" (sort of), in that the the template is placed with the narrow end touching the base/end of the flamer and angled to wherever he wants so long as at least one model is within LOS (does NOT have to maximize hits, can target additional models possibly out of LOS), any model covered by the template (even partially) is allocated a hit. Roll to wound hit models, owning player rolls to make any applicable armor or invulnerable saves (no cover saves) and must remove casualties from those under the template. In case of mixed armor/toughness, roll separately as necessary. Returns flame throwers (and their sci-fi clones) to being rightly feared weapons.

Vehicle-borne template weapons (ie: Inferno Cannons, or even hull mounted Heavy Flamers or similar) are much more indiscriminate (fields of view from armored vehicles are extremely limited). As such, they would follow the same procedure as blast markers with two important exceptions: No partial hits, any model covered counts as a hit, and no cover saves. A neat (and realistic) special rule here could allow vehicles to use the infantry template rules if a friendly infantry model is in base to base contact with the firing vehicle (ie: infantry targeting the vehicle's fire).

About now is where I should mention I play a lot of WW2 historicals (namely Command Decision 3) that penalizes AFV's figthing infantry without infantry support and conversely, offers considerable benefits with they AFV's are fighting infantry *with* infantry support. Also, as to the issue of sniping with blast weapons: Unless caught on fire, or directly hit, heavy weaponry almost always, always survives bombardments (at least in the real world). It's the soft fleshy things (covered in carapace or power armor they may be) that have a harder time and what survivor isn't going to use that perfectly good (insert heavy/special weapon here) just because Corporal Jones caught one in the noggin?

thats a good point man, but the thing i missed most personally was hitting squads with ordinance and making the squad get out of cohesion. now, you can just pluck models out of random spots.

Ordnance weapons, and weapons that scatter, should always have models removed from under the template.

BYE

I really hate the template sniping way of doing things. Just figure out how many wounds the squad took and then pull them off. On the other hand I also want to see blast weapons go back to being placed anywhere to maximize damage and then multiplied in the case of several shots. All this shooting is supposed to be happening simultaneously anyway. Right? Aside from that, blast weapons right now are worthless. I'd like to see them go back to being useful again.

Agree with hbmc totally.