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.

I'd like to see blasts go the other direction, actually - stabalize the number of shots you do, just make them roll to hit.

For example, a Heavy D6 would be a Heavy 6. You roll to hit with 6 attacks. An imperial guard Leman Russ, with a BS of 5+ would hit with about 2 attacks.

And personally, on the random attacks, I always thought stuff using the flamer template should be D3 hits, Blast D6 and Large Blast 2D6 (or D6 + D3, though that is less elegant).

I´m also leaning more towards the opinion of Xenomancers than that blast weapons are ok.
Though i find blast weapons always too weak because of their small templates and the 2"-coherency rule. Only the 2nd edition had proper templates.
Also flamers don´t need to stick out. But i would give them the "ignore cover"-rule.

In previous editions in fear of the templates the models made always use of their 2" coherency. As you were forced to center the template on a model, a hit with the 3"-Blast caught only 1 model. A little scatter in the right direction could hit 2 or maybe even 3 if you were lucky.
So now the D3 does quite fit.
A hit with the 5" caught 3 models in the best case you got 7 models. Now the D6 is worse. A 2D3+1 would be more fitting.
With the scatter dice a bs4 (now 3+) model had a 50% direct hit chance. (33% for the two hit sides, 2.8% to get a 2 on 2d6, 5.6% to get a 3, 8.3% to get a 4 on 2d6).
Even medium scatter had still a chance to hit a model, especially the 5" template.

That way it seems that a bs3+ model is now hitting better than before.

But as Stormonu and others said, the variance blast weapons now have are just too extreme, ranging from 1 to 6. At least it should be D3+1 per small blast and 2D3+1 per large blast. I would even prefer fixed numbers, 3 for each small blast and 5 for each large blast. Then you still have to hit.
The rule "if there are more than 10 models in the target unit, add D3 (or 2) to the number of attacks made by this weapon" would be quite fitting to all large blast weapons and would make those weapons better against large blobs without making them too killy vs. one model units.


TL;DR
Yes i want all previous blast weapons to autohit.
Balancing wise i´m fine with them aslong as they change the number of shots from D3 to D3+1 (even better 3) for small blasts and D6 to 2D3+1 (even better 5) per large blast.

Firefox1 wrote:
In previous editions in fear of the templates the models made always use of their 2" coherency. As you were forced to center the template on a model, a hit with the 3"-Blast caught only 1 model. A little scatter in the right direction could hit 2 or maybe even 3 if you were lucky.

The difference is that the small blast in previous editions was almost guaranteed to hit at least one model and could sometimes do better. The "small blast" weapon in 8th has a pretty significant chance of missing entirely, and a very low chance of getting more than one hit. That's a huge nerf to those weapons.

I would even prefer fixed numbers, 3 for each small blast and 5 for each large blast. Then you still have to hit.

At that point why even have "blast" weapons at all, if they're identical to conventional weapons? And what about the absurd fluff of a LRBT firing lots of small shots instead of a single powerful shot? All of this is overthinking an easy problem, just put blast weapons back to what they were in previous editions.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think D6 blast weapons should be D3+3. Ideally they would be D4+2 but GW are idiots.

What's wrong with just making it Heavy 4 (i.e- roughly average)? You have to roll to-Hit with each "shot" anyway, so there's still a random element anyway.
Heavy 4 in this case is easy and quick (no roll + more rolls) and gives blasts more reliable performance all round.

Right now the random number of shots is a really weird mechanic; the actual rolling to-Hit obviously represents the firer's skill, which is fine, but what does the random number of "shots" actually represent? Right now it feels a lot like all blast weapons in 40k have random yields, meaning it doesn't matter how good you are because you could be firing a dud (lowest roll for "shots") so even on a 6 to hit your max is one hit.

How about giving all Heavy weapons with a variable shot amount two dice and pick the highest for number of shots?

The fixed number of shots is part of the solution, but you need one more simple rule.

A weapon with this rule suffers a -1 to hit if it is fired at a unit with less models than the number of its shots. It gains a +1 to hit if it is fired at a unit with a number of models more than double the number of its shots.

Example:
A "blast 3" weapon with BS 4+ would hit units with 2 or less models on a 5+, units with 3 to 6 models on a 4+ and units with 7 or more models on a 3+.

This simulated perfectly how small footprint units are less vulnerable to explosions than big hordes. It automatically scales with the size of the weapon.

For streamlining purposes it could be used with flamers aswell if people could get over the tiny chance of flamers not hitting anything.
It would allow for heavy flamers to have a slightly bigger "template" than normal ones.
On to of that a space marine would finally be more skilled in the use of a flamer than a guards dude and the higher costs for MEQ flamers would mean something.

Oh and salamanders could finally treat their heat weapons all the same. Flamers could even profit from their CT.

Any other random number of shots solution is more time consuming, not easier rules wise, way more unpredictable and way less elegant.

Disclaimer:
Which weapon would have what number of shots and which would need points adjustment is not part of this post to propose.
But even having the option of different blast sizes than only d3 or d6 is already an improvement.

Blast templates were turning people away from 40k. Lots of people who would have otherwise joined in to play were turned off by blast templates. They just didn't want to deal with it.

Oh, and 2 armies heavy with auto hitting artillery sounds about as much fun as playing Battleship, side by side, instead of head to head.

My first thought for blast weapons was they want to speed up the game so now we have to roll more dice, the very thing that slows the game down the most.

duWhee wrote:
Blast templates were turning people away from 40k. Lots of people who would have otherwise joined in to play were turned off by blast templates. They just didn't want to deal with it.

Oh, and 2 armies heavy with auto hitting artillery sounds about as much fun as playing Battleship, side by side, instead of head to head.

I find it really hard to believe that, out of all of the many flaws of 40k, it was the use of blast templates (something used in other games without any problems) that drove people away.

vaurapung wrote:
My first thought for blast weapons was they want to speed up the game so now we have to roll more dice, the very thing that slows the game down the most.

Rolling number of shots and then making a to hit roll is faster, by a considerable amount, than placing the blast template trying to maximize hits, rolling scatter, moving the template (ensuring the direction is precise), recalculating number of hits. The only time it is even close is when a hit is rolled on the scatter, and even then it is at best the same.

duWhee wrote:
Blast templates were turning people away from 40k. Lots of people who would have otherwise joined in to play were turned off by blast templates. They just didn't want to deal with it.

Oh, and 2 armies heavy with auto hitting artillery sounds about as much fun as playing Battleship, side by side, instead of head to head.

Blast templates were essentially auto hitting, having a small amount of auto hits tries to emulate blast templates without templates themselves

duWhee wrote:
Blast templates were turning people away from 40k. Lots of people who would have otherwise joined in to play were turned off by blast templates. They just didn't want to deal with it.

Oh, and 2 armies heavy with auto hitting artillery sounds about as much fun as playing Battleship, side by side, instead of head to head.

First off i seem to hear that from some people but dont really believe it. Second, something tells me that the templates weren't the problem but the people using them were. So now we all suffer an idiot proof board game because people can't be civil. Frankly templates were better than what we have now. Wish they'd just bring those back but, oh, right, then people would have to learn to be civil or we would have to find a way to idiot proof templates. My idea is put them on stands with a laser around the edge shining a fat circle of blast straight at the table... Hard to argue with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

duWhee wrote:
Blast templates were turning people away from 40k. Lots of people who would have otherwise joined in to play were turned off by blast templates. They just didn't want to deal with it.

Oh, and 2 armies heavy with auto hitting artillery sounds about as much fun as playing Battleship, side by side, instead of head to head.

I find it really hard to believe that, out of all of the many flaws of 40k, it was the use of blast templates (something used in other games without any problems) that drove people away.

Exactly...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
I'd like to see blasts go the other direction, actually - stabalize the number of shots you do, just make them roll to hit.

For example, a Heavy D6 would be a Heavy 6. You roll to hit with 6 attacks. An imperial guard Leman Russ, with a BS of 5+ would hit with about 2 attacks.

And personally, on the random attacks, I always thought stuff using the flamer template should be D3 hits, Blast D6 and Large Blast 2D6 (or D6 + D3, though that is less elegant).

But what if the unit is spread out? Or too tightly packed together? People criticize but there a good reasons to do either depending on cover and unit role on the field... Now some of the risk in doing so is gone and with it the tension of model placement and so on... I don't really see that as a bonus. Templates were better IMO.

In 7th ed. Blast templates were clearly too weak. 2" coherency is far to easy to manipulate and it slowed the game down - not to mention that agreeing in a competitive setting on your blast placement was a NIGHTMARE. Come on - no one liked that. If you did I guess you are the kind of player that prides themselves in your "perfect placement" while your opponent probably thinks moving a unit of 20 guys shouldn't take 5 minutes of exact measuring. I'm all for using a dice roll.

The question is why do we need 2 dice rolls for number of hits? Blast type weapons ether need a fix hit number or it's random number of shots need to be auto hits. It would be faster and it would accomplish the same thing. A BS modifier to you auto hit roll would allow better shooters to get more hits.

So far my favorite Idea is this. Say for a vindicator D3 shots and because it's BS 3+ - it gets +1 hit.

I like this scale. Make a weapon type blast in addition to it's other types.

bs6 + = -2
bs5+ = - 1
bs4+ = +0
bs3+ = +1
bs2+ = +2

Weapons would obviously need to be balanced to fit this system but I think it would work a lot better.

 combatcotton wrote:
The fixed number of shots is part of the solution, but you need one more simple rule.

A weapon with this rule suffers a -1 to hit if it is fired at a unit with less models than the number of its shots. It gains a +1 to hit if it is fired at a unit with a number of models more than double the number of its shots.

Example:
A "blast 3" weapon with BS 4+ would hit units with 2 or less models on a 5+, units with 3 to 6 models on a 4+ and units with 7 or more models on a 3+.

This simulated perfectly how small footprint units are less vulnerable to explosions than big hordes. It automatically scales with the size of the weapon.

For streamlining purposes it could be used with flamers aswell if people could get over the tiny chance of flamers not hitting anything.
It would allow for heavy flamers to have a slightly bigger "template" than normal ones.
On to of that a space marine would finally be more skilled in the use of a flamer than a guards dude and the higher costs for MEQ flamers would mean something.

Oh and salamanders could finally treat their heat weapons all the same. Flamers could even profit from their CT.

Any other random number of shots solution is more time consuming, not easier rules wise, way more unpredictable and way less elegant.

Disclaimer:
Which weapon would have what number of shots and which would need points adjustment is not part of this post to propose.
But even having the option of different blast sizes than only d3 or d6 is already an improvement.

I think this is the most well-rounded solution for blasts. However, I would say that a Titanic target should always grant the bonus to-hit for size.

I don't think that this should apply to flamers though; it's reasonable for a flamer to do the same damage on fewer models as the attacker simply fires a sustained burst from their weapon rather than spraying it around. I think it's also fine that flamers auto-hit without using BS, as I don't think BS would have much effect on your ability to use one.

I like the new blast weapon rules. They are much less of a faff, speed up games massively, mean the same rules are used for blast weapons as every other weapon and represent the more abstract nature of combat in the game now.

I also dont think it is less realistic having it do the same damage to more compressed formations or spread out ones. most of these weapons land explosive rounds at a single point and explode out. More (generally quite armoured) bodies squashed around near by are simply going to act as better ablative shields to those further from the origin.

I do think flamer would be better hitting on a 2+ instead of auto hitting, representing a chance that the gun malfunctions, runs out of fuel, the target misses etc, though I supose that is represented by the gun rolling less than max hits.

I like the suggestion of;
Roll To Hit per number of shots on the profile, generate 1d3/1d6 potentual Wounds for each Success Hit, Roll these To-Wounds like normal.