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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I don't see why they wouldn't, they stuck the templates in the starter box and put rules about template weapons into the rulebook for a reason.

Likely for bigger titan graded weapons. Some basilisk firing templates would be silly.

Note how even knight sized flamer doesn't use template.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
yup, fully expecting artillery with 3" templates and scattering, though hopefully the unit fires as one, scatters as one and then is resolved based on the number of firing units.. not "this has six shots as a unit and they all scatter individually!"

I note I have yet to read that bit of the book as I've not used, or faced, anything that uses them

Titans have 5" and flamer. Knight has 3".

I expect those to be for BIG guns. Stuff that in 40k uses more likely to be what those are in legions now. Non-template.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Pretty sure once the artillery units are added to the game that strategy becomes significantly less feasible.

Yes, in classical warfare, artillery is ment as the anti infantry, and solar is bound to have a gakload of them in the future.

Allso, it might not be the smartest use of points, but i doubt a SM player will want to infantry charge an objective if a warhound with inferno cannons is on the prowl.

tneva82 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I don't see why they wouldn't, they stuck the templates in the starter box and put rules about template weapons into the rulebook for a reason.

Likely for bigger titan graded weapons. Some basilisk firing templates would be silly.

Note how even knight sized flamer doesn't use template.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
yup, fully expecting artillery with 3" templates and scattering, though hopefully the unit fires as one, scatters as one and then is resolved based on the number of firing units.. not "this has six shots as a unit and they all scatter individually!"

I note I have yet to read that bit of the book as I've not used, or faced, anything that uses them

Titans have 5" and flamer. Knight has 3".

I expect those to be for BIG guns. Stuff that in 40k uses more likely to be what those are in legions now. Non-template.

Like leopard, I expect an artillery battery of 6-8 earthsakers or whirlwinds or whatever will be using a template. They may not be BIG guns, but they are area saturation weapons rather than more precise precision or point target weapons.

They are big enough

We'll see. So far we haven't seen LI templates on anything that's 3" and 5" in 40k. Plenty of 40k template weapons not using templates in LI we have seen though.

hopefully will find out in the not too distant future

need to get the boxes for the rest of the stuff in the current box first.. and actually manage to get stuff available

leopard wrote:
yup, fully expecting artillery with 3" templates and scattering, though hopefully the unit fires as one, scatters as one and then is resolved based on the number of firing units.. not "this has six shots as a unit and they all scatter individually!"

I note I have yet to read that bit of the book as I've not used, or faced, anything that uses them

Only Titan weapons use templates.

Haven't you noticed that huge blast weapons like Marauder bombs (even Colossus bombs!!) don't use templates? if those brutal bomb attacks do not use templates, Basilisk and Medusa won't either.

I even bet Malcador Infernus will not use the flame template, just a regular attack like the big flamers that Knights use.

Mark my words

tneva82 wrote:
We'll see. So far we haven't seen LI templates on anything that's 3" and 5" in 40k. Plenty of 40k template weapons not using templates in LI we have seen though.

There are no template weapons in 40k (anymore).

SU-152 wrote:

leopard wrote:
yup, fully expecting artillery with 3" templates and scattering, though hopefully the unit fires as one, scatters as one and then is resolved based on the number of firing units.. not "this has six shots as a unit and they all scatter individually!"

I note I have yet to read that bit of the book as I've not used, or faced, anything that uses them

Only Titan weapons use templates.

Haven't you noticed that huge blast weapons like Marauder bombs (even Colossus bombs!!) don't use templates? if those brutal bomb attacks do not use templates, Basilisk and Medusa won't either.

I even bet Malcador Infernus will not use the flame template, just a regular attack like the big flamers that Knights use.

Mark my words

my thinking is reasonably straight forwards, artillery using a template reflects the scattered nature, not the up close and personal of a bomb load

it also means an artillery barrage is effective against densely packed infantry while being much less so against things that are spread out - unlike say an artillery battery with conventional dice, which becomes much more effective at sniping titans, heavy tanks etc with all hits going onto them - you end up with no model being hit more than once, and with titans maybe even then on a 4+ only

agree the Maclador Crocodile will be the same sort of flame attack as everything else, we have that flame template as much because it comes with the 3" & 5" circles as anything else

I can see the Medusa being similar to the thudd gun, two profiles, one for anti infantry, which may see a template, and one thats anti building, which is a single shot with a normal to hit number

leopard wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

leopard wrote:
yup, fully expecting artillery with 3" templates and scattering, though hopefully the unit fires as one, scatters as one and then is resolved based on the number of firing units.. not "this has six shots as a unit and they all scatter individually!"

I note I have yet to read that bit of the book as I've not used, or faced, anything that uses them

Only Titan weapons use templates.

Haven't you noticed that huge blast weapons like Marauder bombs (even Colossus bombs!!) don't use templates? if those brutal bomb attacks do not use templates, Basilisk and Medusa won't either.

I even bet Malcador Infernus will not use the flame template, just a regular attack like the big flamers that Knights use.

Mark my words

my thinking is reasonably straight forwards, artillery using a template reflects the scattered nature, not the up close and personal of a bomb load

LOL, what??

indeed, a low level bomber, within range of ground lighter weapons is quite likely going to be using guided/semi guided munitions or various techniques to strike at specific targets - hence the anti tank profiles

potentially even dive bomber techniques, hence the vulnerability to ground fire.

anything closer to high level unguided area bombing is not, yet, represented but will be closer to orbital strikes

even the Marauder isn't massive as a bomber goes, its closer to a ground attack aircraft

The... Marauder BOMBER? The one that's basically a cross between a B-26 Marauder and a B-17 Flying Fortress?

...right ^^

I mean, yes, it's not B-52 Stratofortress big, no... and it's not meant to be, as it is, as with almost every other IG model, "WWII IN SPAAAACE", with a little bit of superdeformed-ness because GW is GW.

But it is very much a bomber.

 Albertorius wrote:
The... Marauder BOMBER? The one that's basically a cross between a B-26 Marauder and a B-17 Flying Fortress?

...right ^^

I mean, yes, it's not B-52 Stratofortress big, no... and it's not meant to be, as it is, as with almost every other IG model, "WWII IN SPAAAACE", with a little bit of superdeformed-ness because GW is GW.

But it is very much a bomber.

the one flying low level enough to be vulnerable to ground fire, at which point it could be a Lancaster or Mozzie (both of which did low level pin point stuff quite well), but its low enough it can hit a tank directly, without harming the one adjacent to it was my point

for me artillery in an anti-infantry role should be using airbrush fragmentation - which is ideally shown via a template, where as anti tank stuff is better represented by more accurate stuff thats not a blast

and the Lancaster was very much a bomber, some of the tricks one squadron specifically got up to in it were the sort of thing that probably voided the warranty


Automatically Appended Next Post:
point being it makes sense to have a split profile for say a Basilisk, an anti tank profile and an anti infantry one, ditto the other proper artillery really though in some cases the massive siege mortar rounds may remain as bunker buster "demolisher" type rounds designed to work against buildings

firstly, hopefully we don't have too long to wait, and secondly the reason for hoping for such split roles is to stop artillery being used as sniper rifles across the board

Yeah, my point is that the Marauder is enough of a bomber to do bombing instead of precision stuff, but they don't have a template option, so it would follow that it's at least within the realm of the possible that they would do the same for regular sized artillery and leave the templates for the titan-scale stuff.

...or maybe GW is waiting to give those options on a later DLC.

The marauders bomb payload is actually pretty light. despite its appearance the fact that it has options to carry what are in actuality precision guided missiles indicates that it's bomb payload is likewise intended for precision Bombardment rather than ww2 in space area saturation bombings.

Then again, the current rulebook seems to have been written with some degree of expansion in mind as there are a number of rules that aren't currently used. As there's no rule which currently enables a detachment of artillery models to combine fire into an AOE that I can find, it's certainly possible that gw will treat artillery as any other weapon.

its all exciting..

earlier editions had the "to hit" roll based on the number of "barrage points", we may see something similar

then again we may not

chaos0xomega wrote:
The marauders bomb payload is actually pretty light. despite its appearance the fact that it has options to carry what are in actuality precision guided missiles indicates that it's bomb payload is likewise intended for precision Bombardment rather than ww2 in space area saturation bombings.

Then again, the current rulebook seems to have been written with some degree of expansion in mind as there are a number of rules that aren't currently used. As there's no rule which currently enables a detachment of artillery models to combine fire into an AOE that I can find, it's certainly possible that gw will treat artillery as any other weapon.

I think you're thinking about the Marauder Destroyer, rather than the regular one (and it's very possible that GW itself is sort of confused too xD)

Marauder Bomber:
https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Marauder_Bomber

While capable of fulfilling a variety of roles, they are often used for one of three mission types:

Strategic bombing: long-range attacks on enemy cities and institutions while operating at high altitudes beyond most anti-aircraft weapons ranges and with Thunderbolt escort. While successful in this role, the Marauder is considered to have too small of a payload to be a truly effective strategic bomber.[1a]
Free range interdiction: squadrons seek targets of opportunity such as supply dumps and convoys, which have been identified by aerial or orbital reconnaissance,[1a] before ex-filtrating under cover from friendly fighters.[2] While these missions are not performed in concert with ground troops, they are seen as the most effective use of Marauder bombers.[1a]
Dedicated ground attack and support: Very close assistance of friendly ground forces by engaging specific targets on the front lines. These are seen as the riskiest type of mission, as the bombers must fly at very low altitudes and risk friendly fire. Though adequate, the Marauder is considered to lack the appropriate weaponry for a dedicated ground attack role.[1a]

(Honestly, it comes off a bit as "it really doesn't do anything particularly well, so let them sort of roam)

Marauder Destroyer:
https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Marauder_Destroyer

The Marauder Destroyer is used primarily as a low level attack craft for close ground support missions. Indeed the deafening roar of a low-flying Marauder Destroyer often has a positive impact on friendly ground troops' morale. However it lacks the bomb payload for strategic bombing, and while adequate for interdiction missions there are generally too few Destroyers for it to be wasted in this role. Favorite targets of Destroyers include airbases, headquarters and supply depots. These heavily-defended targets, which might normally take an entire squadron of Marauders to carpet-bomb from high altitude, can be more easily destroyed with less risk of failure by a smaller number of Destroyers. Thus Marauder Destroyers are crewed only by hand picked Imperial Navy pilots.

(It does certainly look more the part, TBH, what with the cannons array and the missiles)

All that said... the *old* Epic metal Marauder did certainlt look like a Warthog:

If you look at the rules for the marauder bomber in... Basically every game... it can take a missile armament on its wing hard points. Those missiles are all described as being guided or seeking, etc. In the fluff. So no, not confused at all.

Likewise, the four mission sets you pulled from lexicanum are all things that modern air forces use precision guided munitions for. As is the case in the real world, ground forces prefer receiving close air support from gunfire instead of PGMs and similarly consider bombers inadequate for the role (hence marauder destroyer and A-10 warthog), but the USAF (amongst others) has demonstrated that PGMs can be employed from B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s to fulfill that mission with incredible effectiveness, even though the Army and Marines still consider it inadequate and less than ideal (not unlike the Marauder Bomber).

leopard wrote:


firstly, hopefully we don't have too long to wait, and secondly the reason for hoping for such split roles is to stop artillery being used as sniper rifles across the board

Funny note. Template weapons can actually be used as literal sniper rifles removing say commander from detachment lf lt'" on edges and you feel gambling missing entirely.

Do not expect anything like that. Not even the Apocalypse missile launcher on the Reaver uses a template.

Most likely no unit other than Titans will get to use templates, it seems like a design choice (one of the few I like to be honest, I have to stay possitive ).

I expect Basiliks to be similar to the Thudd gun profile (a bit more powerfull, indeed) with an indirect, and a direct fire mode.

Medusas won't use templates either. Probably they will be the first ones to use the Siege weapon trait...

Malcador Infernus will probably have something very very simiar to the flamer of the Armiger (¿?).

Anyways, don't you agree that avoiding templates is better for a simpler and faster game? (and as hit allocation works, no sniping is possible). I hoped they did that for Epic Armageddon (similar to how they got rid of templates in 40K, wise choice).

Well... yes and no. It certainly speeds up gameplay, but it also takes a bit away in the tactical sense, as you can bunch up all your stuff without repercussions.

The EA way of blasts is quick and easy though, as there is no scatter and the template simply determines the amount of attacks you make without needing to keep track which units were under it. LI is... not.

 Sherrypie wrote:
The EA way of blasts is quick and easy though, as there is no scatter and the template simply determines the amount of attacks you make without needing to keep track which units were under it. LI is... not.

E: 40k does the same, yes. Number of units under the template = FP for the attack.

 Albertorius wrote:
Well... yes and no. It certainly speeds up gameplay, but it also takes a bit away in the tactical sense, as you can bunch up all your stuff without repercussions.

there is that, however you then also get the absurdity of how 40k now handles "blast" type weapons

with a template as described you hit anything entirely under them, and a 4+ on anything partially under them you cannot generate more hits that there are models under the template

the way 40k has gone, and the way Legions appears to have decided to go with some weapons is to have a lot of attack dice, which makes such weapons deadly to smaller units in a way they likely shouldn't be, while far less dangerous to a larger unit as now you can easily stack several hits on one model

and also encourages, as noted, bunching up, where as the ability to encourage an enemy to spread out can provide other tactical bonuses

the other benefit for templates is they can scatter making indirect artillery support in proximity to your own troops a risk, that barrage had to land somewhere afterall

we will see shortly I hope one way or the other

SU-152 wrote:


Anyways, don't you agree that avoiding templates is better for a simpler and faster game?

I absolutely do. I am generally against templates. However, in this case it seems like (absent a major points rebalance or significant other changes to the rules) templates are almost necessary as a counterweight to players who bring an army of 200 infantry bases.

There are other ways to achieve similar results without introducing templates, which are faster and have less room for error or disagreement - the approach taken by 40k (d6 hits) is a very simplistic example of one such method - but it doesnt look like LI has any room in the rules for anything like that either. As leopard noted, the way they seem to be going with the rules for future artillery rules, absent any surprises, will result in artillery units effectively being sniper rifles which are devastating against small units or individual models, whereas they are inconsequential to larger models. Likewise, the lack of any sort of "area of effect" on their attacks removes much of the necessary impetus for proper "maneuver" in gameplay (i.e. spreading out your dudes).

 Sherrypie wrote:
The EA way of blasts is quick and easy though, as there is no scatter and the template simply determines the amount of attacks you make without needing to keep track which units were under it. LI is... not.

Well, you are wrong.

In EA it is clear in the rules that you roll to-hit individually per each model under the template (including Comissars for example, sniping is a big thing with templates in EA) AND also rolling for saves individually. It is very time consuming (that you speed up the process with house rules is another subject).

And wrong again. In LI you don't keep track. It is number of minis under template x dice value of the weapon. Done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
The EA way of blasts is quick and easy though, as there is no scatter and the template simply determines the amount of attacks you make without needing to keep track which units were under it. LI is... not.

E: 40k does the same, yes. Number of units under the template = FP for the attack.

No, it is not the same.

3rd ed indeed uses a swift system where one just works out the total FP. Similar to LI luckily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

SU-152 wrote:


Anyways, don't you agree that avoiding templates is better for a simpler and faster game?

I absolutely do. I am generally against templates. However, in this case it seems like (absent a major points rebalance or significant other changes to the rules) templates are almost necessary as a counterweight to players who bring an army of 200 infantry bases.

There are other ways to achieve similar results without introducing templates, which are faster and have less room for error or disagreement - the approach taken by 40k (d6 hits) is a very simplistic example of one such method - but it doesnt look like LI has any room in the rules for anything like that either. As leopard noted, the way they seem to be going with the rules for future artillery rules, absent any surprises, will result in artillery units effectively being sniper rifles which are devastating against small units or individual models, whereas they are inconsequential to larger models. Likewise, the lack of any sort of "area of effect" on their attacks removes much of the necessary impetus for proper "maneuver" in gameplay (i.e. spreading out your dudes).

We agree for the first time in history!!!

SU-152 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
The EA way of blasts is quick and easy though, as there is no scatter and the template simply determines the amount of attacks you make without needing to keep track which units were under it. LI is... not.

E: 40k does the same, yes. Number of units under the template = FP for the attack.

No, it is not the same.

3rd ed indeed uses a swift system where one just works out the total FP. Similar to LI luckily.

hm?

With Barrage weapons you put a single barrage template (it doesn't scatter) wholly within range and line of fire (if it doesn't have indirect fire capability) of all of the Barrage units that contribute to the attack, covering as many units of the enemy detachment as possible. Count the number of units under the template and multiply by the number of barrage units that fired, and that's the FP they contribute to the attack. As far as I understand it, it basically is the same process as the bolded part, but with FP instead. I parsed that as "it does the same" personally.

 Albertorius wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
The EA way of blasts is quick and easy though, as there is no scatter and the template simply determines the amount of attacks you make without needing to keep track which units were under it. LI is... not.

E: 40k does the same, yes. Number of units under the template = FP for the attack.

No, it is not the same.

3rd ed indeed uses a swift system where one just works out the total FP. Similar to LI luckily.

hm?

With Barrage weapons you put a single barrage template (it doesn't scatter) wholly within range and line of fire (if it doesn't have indirect fire capability) of all of the Barrage units that contribute to the attack, covering as many units of the enemy detachment as possible. Count the number of units under the template and multiply by the number of barrage units that fired, and that's the FP they contribute to the attack. As far as I understand it, it basically is the same process as the bolded part, but with FP instead. I parsed that as "it does the same" personally.

You are right about 3rd ed (this is the one similar to LI). It is EA the one that works differently. So not the same...

Alright then, my bad ^^

SU-152 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
The EA way of blasts is quick and easy though, as there is no scatter and the template simply determines the amount of attacks you make without needing to keep track which units were under it. LI is... not.

Well, you are wrong.

In EA it is clear in the rules that you roll to-hit individually per each model under the template (including Comissars for example, sniping is a big thing with templates in EA) AND also rolling for saves individually. It is very time consuming (that you speed up the process with house rules is another subject).

And wrong again. In LI you don't keep track. It is number of minis under template x dice value of the weapon. Done.

Yeah, my bad on an oversimplified EA statement. In some cases you need to care about specific units like commisars, but in most cases where target detachments have 1-3 different unit types there you just assign that many hits from the closest unit of a given type onwards (which isn't a houserule, it's a suggestion given in the barrage rules).

In LI, though, you do need to keep track because as stated in the Blast rule, while you roll dice equal to the number of models under the template multiplied by the weapon's dice value, any hits from that can only be assigned to those particular models. It can't touch the rest of the detachment regardless of your gun's size. Page 78, end of second paragraph.