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.

 addnid wrote:

 Leth wrote:
So back to 1/3 of the game spent properly spacing units. Got it. I don’t miss blast templates because I remember one of the. First questions asked was “how many blast weapons”, slowed the game down a lot.

The only people missing scattering templates are people who played max 1000 point games. I remember the 10 minutes required to shoot a few wyverns (they were the worst of all).
I would mind as much having the flamer blast back though (or the light flamer blast from even more years ago), but at the end of the day looking at who was under was just too cluncky stuff really

I've been playing since the release of 2nd edition and I play all sized games. Blasts were never an issue, it was when they introduced MULTIPLE blast that things got silly. Thats an easy fix, rather then making a quad launcher shoot 4 tiny blasts you just give it one large blast. GW hates taking the short simple route sometimes though for whatever reason.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

Repeated due page change


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 addnid wrote:

 Leth wrote:
So back to 1/3 of the game spent properly spacing units. Got it. I don’t miss blast templates because I remember one of the. First questions asked was “how many blast weapons”, slowed the game down a lot.

The only people missing scattering templates are people who played max 1000 point games. I remember the 10 minutes required to shoot a few wyverns (they were the worst of all).
I would mind as much having the flamer blast back though (or the light flamer blast from even more years ago), but at the end of the day looking at who was under was just too cluncky stuff really

I've been playing since the release of 2nd edition and I play all sized games. Blasts were never an issue, it was when they introduced MULTIPLE blast that things got silly. Thats an easy fix, rather then making a quad launcher shoot 4 tiny blasts you just give it one large blast. GW hates taking the short simple route sometimes though for whatever reason.

Multi blasts were tricky and power creepy... but fun.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

Like someone else pointed out, it doesnt miss the point. A gadzillion points could be made better in the game. so what.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

torblind wrote:

jeff white and yukishiro1

Failing to cover other relevant examples doesn't mean it doesn't still do what it does. Getting around it in more or less weird ways doesnt still mean that it doesn't do what it does.

This is an abstraction.

Why on earth would you go through a game of 40k looking for logical fallacies? There are too many to count. You go MSU to be better off wrt moral? Bigger squads is the answer to that. You pick casualties in the back, from out of sight of the firing gun? Come on! You target a unit indistinguishibly mixed in with models from another unit and miraculously manage to only hit the unit you were aiming for? ...

The blast rule should not be what keeps you from sleeping at night.

Why do you champion mediocrity with such fervor?

wtf dont mix in me

 jeff white wrote:

torblind wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

Like someone else pointed out, it doesnt miss the point. A gadzillion points could be made better in the game. so what.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

torblind wrote:

jeff white and yukishiro1

Failing to cover other relevant examples doesn't mean it doesn't still do what it does. Getting around it in more or less weird ways doesnt still mean that it doesn't do what it does.

This is an abstraction.

Why on earth would you go through a game of 40k looking for logical fallacies? There are too many to count. You go MSU to be better off wrt moral? Bigger squads is the answer to that. You pick casualties in the back, from out of sight of the firing gun? Come on! You target a unit indistinguishibly mixed in with models from another unit and miraculously manage to only hit the unit you were aiming for? ...

The blast rule should not be what keeps you from sleeping at night.

Why do you champion mediocrity with such fervor?

wtf dont mix in me

Again, why do you champion mediocrity with such fervor?

and I said wtf, dont make this about me.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

Give that horse a rest, it's starting to rot.

Auras cause the "clumping" you're so against, and even then people spider out their units to form some kind of aura octopus to gain buffs.

Just because we don't have templates that requires everyone to spend five minutes every time they move a unit it doesn't mean the abstraction failed, your imagination failed instead. Clumping units up to get them into cover (or letting a few models outside of terrain die first to allow the rest of the unit that fit in terrain to gain cover) was already a thing. This changed nothing, if anything it at least allows the weapons to hit units closer to how we imagine they should.

We haven't even seen the rules for hordes yet (we just know it's a rule), so frankly I don't get this several page whinefest. For all we know hordes will have bonuses, or the terrain rules will make it necessary for blast weapons to hit harder to work properly.

torblind wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

Like someone else pointed out, it doesnt miss the point. A gadzillion points could be made better in the game. so what.

This seems like a weird response to "this mechanic more often than not encourages you to shoot the more dispersed unit over the clumped up bunch of models, the exact opposite of what they claim to be trying to simulate."

If a gadzillion points could be made better in the game...why not make them better, instead of adding a new rule that is even worse than those rules?

This is the point that you are missing. Clumping should come at a cost, vulnerability to blast templates are that cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

Give that horse a rest, it's starting to rot.

Auras cause the "clumping" you're so against, and even then people spider out their units to form some kind of aura octopus to gain buffs.

Just because we don't have templates that requires everyone to spend five minutes every time they move a unit it doesn't mean the abstraction failed, your imagination failed instead. Clumping units up to get them into cover (or letting a few models outside of terrain die first to allow the rest of the unit that fit in terrain to gain cover) was already a thing. This changed nothing, if anything it at least allows the weapons to hit units closer to how we imagine they should.

We haven't even seen the rules for hordes yet (we just know it's a rule), so frankly I don't get this several page whinefest. For all we know hordes will have bonuses, or the terrain rules will make it necessary for blast weapons to hit harder to work properly.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Templates were horrible. They slowed the game both when people weren't arguing and when they were arguing. Because even when people were being polite they were asking:
"I think I can hit 4 with the template. Check it out to see if I am correct. I don't want to be a cheater."
Then the next person comes over to check it out, even if they trust their friend, because it was just etiquette. A social contract of sort.
"Yes, I think you are right. It's a bit reaching on that Ork toe, but I don't mind."
"So four hits?"
"Four hits it is."
"Okay, let's roll."

Then you had people spacing their models just to minimize the amount of models getting hit in a blast. It was a very bad mechanic for a game that had outgrown its original size considerably. 2nd Edition blast weapon templates I could get behind, as well as in smaller games like Necromunda, but in the huge game that 40k has become they were just cumbersome and problematic at the end of the day, because it took until the end of the day to play game.

Of course, if you play very casual they can maybe work faster. Don't worry too much about spacing and just have some beer, pretzel, and fun, then there is nothing problematic with blasts. However, considering that GW seems to be aiming at the tourney crowd templates are very unlikely to have a comeback in the foreseeable future.

Personally I am glad that they are gone. Games have been much smoother with both friends and pugs after their removal.

So polite social interaction and an actual strategy based on experience and skill? The horror.

It doesn't take long, especially if the guy knows his spacing because he's literally spacing them knowing what the max would be. The only part that lagged it down were scatter and multiple barrage. Fine, compromise and remove scatter. Place it, and roll to hit with BS and be done.

And as for arguing, anyone that I have ever played in a tournament or casually that would complain and watchdog blasts would literally argue over anything. BTW the same type still plays in 8th and they still argue, just over any other thing. It's best not to play anyone that's itching to complain about 1-2 more dudes being hit in a toy soldier game.

The rule is silly, but maybe designers intent was not to make a better simulation, but to nerf particular type of unit or rule combo (ie blobs on buffs).

torblind wrote:


and I said wtf, dont make this about me.

You are suggesting that this rule doesn’t miss the point of blast weapons, but that it is not good at representing their dynamics at the same time, no?

 jeff white wrote:
This is the point that you are missing. Clumping should come at a cost, vulnerability to blast templates are that cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

Give that horse a rest, it's starting to rot.

Auras cause the "clumping" you're so against, and even then people spider out their units to form some kind of aura octopus to gain buffs.

Just because we don't have templates that requires everyone to spend five minutes every time they move a unit it doesn't mean the abstraction failed, your imagination failed instead. Clumping units up to get them into cover (or letting a few models outside of terrain die first to allow the rest of the unit that fit in terrain to gain cover) was already a thing. This changed nothing, if anything it at least allows the weapons to hit units closer to how we imagine they should.

We haven't even seen the rules for hordes yet (we just know it's a rule), so frankly I don't get this several page whinefest. For all we know hordes will have bonuses, or the terrain rules will make it necessary for blast weapons to hit harder to work properly.

8th edition had the same problem. You're just throwing a fit because GW won't sell you a plastic tea cup saucer and bring back arguments.

I am not against the idea of blasts doing some kind of splash damage or the like but clearly that's not how it's going to work (unless there is a strat for that). So spending PAGES throwing a fit about it is beyond tired. It's not going to change just because it doesn't fit your narrow world view of how it "should" work.

Corsair nailed it in his last post above...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

8th edition had the same problem. You're just throwing a fit because GW won't sell you a plastic tea cup saucer and bring back arguments.
.

No. You are wrong. You obviously have no idea what I think...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

Give that horse a rest, it's starting to rot.

Auras cause the "clumping" you're so against, and even then people spider out their units to form some kind of aura octopus to gain buffs.

Just because we don't have templates that requires everyone to spend five minutes every time they move a unit it doesn't mean the abstraction failed, your imagination failed instead. Clumping units up to get them into cover (or letting a few models outside of terrain die first to allow the rest of the unit that fit in terrain to gain cover) was already a thing. This changed nothing, if anything it at least allows the weapons to hit units closer to how we imagine they should.

We haven't even seen the rules for hordes yet (we just know it's a rule), so frankly I don't get this several page whinefest. For all we know hordes will have bonuses, or the terrain rules will make it necessary for blast weapons to hit harder to work properly.

But it doesn't do that. It allows weapons to hit units the opposite of how we think they should in most cases, by more likely than not incentivizing you to target the spread out larger unit instead of the tightly packed clump of models that ought to be the obvious target for a big explosion. Going from the status quo of "everyone hit equally" to the new normal of "clumped up models being hit less hard than dispersed ones by blast weapons" is not a net gain in immersion or realism, it is a net loss. A rule that accomplishes the exact opposite of stated rationale is not an aid to imagination, it's a detriment to it.

I have also never said I wanted templates back, so I don't know why you want to make this personal and accuse me of a lack of imagination because I don't agree with you that this is a good change. If you want to accuse that imaginary straw man of lacking imagination go ahead, but please don't bring me into it.

This rule doesn't key off any "horde" keyword. Nor has any such keyword been announced, as far as I know. So I don't see what that has to do with anything either way.

 Shadenuat wrote:
The rule is silly, but maybe designers intent was not to make a better simulation, but to nerf particular type of unit or rule combo (ie blobs on buffs).

Honestly the less like a simulation the game can get the better. Honestly the game runs better when it does abstraction.

yukishiro1 wrote:

torblind wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

Like someone else pointed out, it doesnt miss the point. A gadzillion points could be made better in the game. so what.

This seems like a weird response to "this mechanic more often than not encourages you to shoot the more dispersed unit over the clumped up bunch of models, the exact opposite of what they claim to be trying to simulate."

If a gadzillion points could be made better in the game...why not make them better, instead of adding a new rule that is even worse than those rules?

Because as any being with finite means you have to draw the line. Obviously.

Shoot a blast weapon against 30 orks, 10 die.
Shoot a blast weapon at 7 orks, 3 die.

Mission acomplished.

Failing to hit 5 out of 5 of clumped together gretchins in the corner? Above mission still acomblished.

Remember these are abstractions.

- number of hits doesnt have to reflect number of shells goind through the barrel.
- number of models doesn't have to reflect number of bodies in physical reality.
- the number 11 doesn't have to relate to 11 physical bodies. It's a game mechanic that does things to things like 30 orks as mentioned above

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

Give that horse a rest, it's starting to rot.

Auras cause the "clumping" you're so against, and even then people spider out their units to form some kind of aura octopus to gain buffs.

Just because we don't have templates that requires everyone to spend five minutes every time they move a unit it doesn't mean the abstraction failed, your imagination failed instead. Clumping units up to get them into cover (or letting a few models outside of terrain die first to allow the rest of the unit that fit in terrain to gain cover) was already a thing. This changed nothing, if anything it at least allows the weapons to hit units closer to how we imagine they should.

We haven't even seen the rules for hordes yet (we just know it's a rule), so frankly I don't get this several page whinefest. For all we know hordes will have bonuses, or the terrain rules will make it necessary for blast weapons to hit harder to work properly.

But it doesn't do that. It allows weapons to hit units the opposite of how we think they should in most cases, by more likely than not incentivizing you to target the spread out larger unit instead of the tightly packed clump of models that ought to be the obvious target for a big explosion. Going from the status quo of "everyone hit equally" to the new normal of "clumped up models being hit less hard than dispersed ones by blast weapons" is not a net gain in immersion or realism, it is a net loss. A rule that accomplishes the exact opposite of stated rationale is not an aid to imagination, it's a detriment to it.

I have also never said I wanted templates back, so I don't know why you want to make this personal and accuse me of a lack of imagination because I don't agree with you that this is a good change. If you want to accuse that imaginary straw man of lacking imagination go ahead, but please don't bring me into it.

This rule doesn't key off any "horde" keyword. Nor has any such keyword been announced, as far as I know. So I don't see what that has to do with anything either way.

I never said this rule triggers off a horde keyword, I said we don't know what rules that hordes get that might help them against this. If you're going to bitch at least get it right.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

8th edition had the same problem. You're just throwing a fit because GW won't sell you a plastic tea cup saucer and bring back arguments.

I am not against the idea of blasts doing some kind of splash damage or the like but clearly that's not how it's going to work (unless there is a strat for that). So spending PAGES throwing a fit about it is beyond tired. It's not going to change just because it doesn't fit your narrow world view of how it "should" work.

Ah, now we get to the real rub of your argument: "stop throwing a fit because you don't like the rules! the rules are the rules and if you don't like them shut up, your opinion is not welcome!"

This is a message board forum. We come here to talk about things, not to not talk about them. If you don't want to talk about rules reveals for 9th edition, why are you posting in a thread about talking about rules reveals for 9th edition?

The only one I see "throwing a fit" here is, well...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:
The rule is silly, but maybe designers intent was not to make a better simulation, but to nerf particular type of unit or rule combo (ie blobs on buffs).

Honestly the less like a simulation the game can get the better. Honestly the game runs better when it does abstraction.

How is it that dispensing with common intuitions confirmed by everyday experience makes the game better? Unless one has no experience and less power of intuition... why not play a video game? No chance to argue there.

 jeff white wrote:

torblind wrote:


and I said wtf, dont make this about me.

You are suggesting that this rule doesn’t miss the point of blast weapons, but that it is not good at representing their dynamics at the same time, no?

I don't understand. Did you misuote me?

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

8th edition had the same problem. You're just throwing a fit because GW won't sell you a plastic tea cup saucer and bring back arguments.

I am not against the idea of blasts doing some kind of splash damage or the like but clearly that's not how it's going to work (unless there is a strat for that). So spending PAGES throwing a fit about it is beyond tired. It's not going to change just because it doesn't fit your narrow world view of how it "should" work.

Ah, now we get to the real rub of your argument: "stop throwing a fit because you don't like the rules! the rules are the rules and if you don't like them shut up, your opinion is not welcome!"

This is a message board forum. We come here to talk about things, not to not talk about them.

The only one I see "throwing a fit" here is, well...

No, you don't get it. It's one thing to go "I don't like this" or "this looks bad" it's another to complain that it causes the game to abstract wrong (in your opinion) and then spend pages browbeating people to establish nerd dominance.

You have been doing the last one since the WHC article went up and I'm pretty sure everyone gets it. You're salty about this and you can't understand people might not be as upset about it as you are. We good? Can we move on now?

I like the change to blast weapons, personally. While I did really like using blast templates back in the day I also appreciate the convenience that comes with not having them. The way 9th is slicing it creates a medium I am happy with.

But I can also understand how some people may not like that approach. And as always some of each portion confuse personal preference with overall quality. It is the nature of things.

 jeff white wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:
The rule is silly, but maybe designers intent was not to make a better simulation, but to nerf particular type of unit or rule combo (ie blobs on buffs).

Honestly the less like a simulation the game can get the better. Honestly the game runs better when it does abstraction.

How is it that dispensing with common intuitions confirmed by everyday experience makes the game better? Unless one has no experience and less power of intuition... why not play a video game? No chance to argue there.

Video games do simulations better, table top games do abstractions better.

Like pretending that GW terrain full of holes blocks Line of Sight is more fun, in my opinion, than hunkering down with a laser pointer to line up a sniper shot through two (or more) buildings with a battle cannon so you can shoot something you can barely claim to actually see.

torblind wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

torblind wrote:


and I said wtf, dont make this about me.

You are suggesting that this rule doesn’t miss the point of blast weapons, but that it is not good at representing their dynamics at the same time, no?

I don't understand. Did you misuote me?

I got tired of quoting.
So many fallacies and bad rules, why bother, right?
To this I asked why you champion such a sad state of affairs in the first place.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


No, you don't get it. It's one thing to go "I don't like this" or "this looks bad" it's another to complain that it causes the game to abstract wrong (in your opinion) and then spend pages browbeating people to establish nerd dominance.

You have been doing the last one since the WHC article went up and I'm pretty sure everyone gets it. You're salty about this and you can't understand people might not be as upset about it as you are. We good? Can we move on now?

If you are feeling so "browbeaten" by someone pointing out that they don't think the rule is very good and not immediately agreeing with your responses that attempt to defend the rule, I think you may need to take a deep breath and a bit of a break, mate.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to discuss things for as long as we want to discuss things. Nobody's forced to post in this thread, or on this topic.

The only one trying to browbeat anyone into anything here is you trying to shut down the discussion for no apparent reason.

yukishiro1 wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

The rule could be more elegant (clearly) but I don't think it misses it's point.

I agree it doesn't miss it's point, assuming the point was to screw over 11+ man units. I just don't think that's a very good point to have.

But they called it blast for a reason. They're making reference to a historical rule that behaved completely different from this one, a rule that punished model density, not unit size. These are completely different mechanics. The only reason they borrowed that terminology from the past is to try to lend a veneer of respectability to what is actually just a rule designed to screw 11+ man units.

And it's not just the terminology. They specifically referenced the idea of big explosions in crowded spaces. Now the rule doesn't actually do that at all, and I have to assume they are competent enough to realize that, and therefore that there is some element of bait and switch at work. But we can't ignore what they called the rule and the supposed justification they made for it.

There are two possibilities:

1. Either they wanted to simulate a large explosion in a crowded area, i.e. a blast template, but without templates, and failed miserably, which shows a startling level of incompetence.

or.

2. They told us they wanted to mimic a large explosion in a crowded area, but in fact used the opportunity to sneak in a completely new mechanic designed to discourage taking units of more than 10 models.

I think the latter is far more likely; it seems you do too. I just don't see how this positively impacts the game.

It's made to be efficient against 11+ men units. Yes. Quite literally. This is what they said " weapons designed to engage and destroy large groups of enemies will benefit from a more reliable number of attacks to ensure they make their presence felt". So obviously their definition of "large group of enemies" is "units of 11+ models".
As we already discussed they can't make a 2D6 weapon always make 12 shots, so you have to deal with the fact that now when something like a shadow weaver shoots "a large group" of grots, it won't just kill one model because you don't want to spend a CP to reroll your number of shots when you're using the weapon like you should. It's like you're mad at them because these weapons will achieve their intent without being overbearing on the rest of the game.
And SURE conga lines aren't really a large group of enemies but that's an issue with conga lines in the first place. And SURE 4*5 men isn't treated as 1*20 men, it's not perfect but also 4*5 men might be easier to tackle than 1*20 (for various reasons like buffs, charge rolls and whatnot like CP like previously mentioned but seems it wasn't worth noticing). Would it be fine if instead of "large groups of enemies" they would have written "large units" ? Do we need to argue every word ? Should we discuss the other weapons in the game that are more effective against certain targets and less against others ?

If you feel like having weapons which main purpose is to target large units (the game defining large units as 11+ models) is bad for the game, I can't argue with that, it's your opinion. As far as i'm concerned, I would like to know more and don't feel like it's a huge issue right now.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:
The rule is silly, but maybe designers intent was not to make a better simulation, but to nerf particular type of unit or rule combo (ie blobs on buffs).

Honestly the less like a simulation the game can get the better. Honestly the game runs better when it does abstraction.

How is it that dispensing with common intuitions confirmed by everyday experience makes the game better? Unless one has no experience and less power of intuition... why not play a video game? No chance to argue there.

Video games do simulations better, table top games do abstractions better.

Like pretending that GW terrain full of holes blocks Line of Sight is more fun, in my opinion, than hunkering down with a laser pointer to line up a sniper shot through two (or more) buildings with a battle cannon so you can shoot something you can barely claim to actually see.

This example is arbitrary ... not a simulation at all.

And given the upshot of abstraction, why bother with the painting and realistic terrain?

yukishiro1 wrote:
Nobody's forced to post in this thread, or on this topic.

Wait... you dont have a Dakka mod in your house whipping you by the hour should you fail to engage 40k discussion?

dhallnet wrote:

If you feel like having weapons which main purpose is to target large units (the game defining large units as 11+ models) is bad for the game, I can't argue with that, it's your opinion. As far as i'm concerned, I would like to know more and don't feel like it's a huge issue right now.

Because it is arbitrary and doesn’t capture the dynamics that blasts should represent... it could. Easily. This is the real trouble... disappointment that the experience must be leveled down so people who lack civility can play 40k without having to learn how to be civil, which had been a great social benefit of tabletop war games imho...

 Red Corsair wrote:

 addnid wrote:

 Leth wrote:
So back to 1/3 of the game spent properly spacing units. Got it. I don’t miss blast templates because I remember one of the. First questions asked was “how many blast weapons”, slowed the game down a lot.

The only people missing scattering templates are people who played max 1000 point games. I remember the 10 minutes required to shoot a few wyverns (they were the worst of all).
I would mind as much having the flamer blast back though (or the light flamer blast from even more years ago), but at the end of the day looking at who was under was just too cluncky stuff really

I've been playing since the release of 2nd edition and I play all sized games. Blasts were never an issue, it was when they introduced MULTIPLE blast that things got silly. Thats an easy fix, rather then making a quad launcher shoot 4 tiny blasts you just give it one large blast. GW hates taking the short simple route sometimes though for whatever reason.

I suppose you never shot a Venom cannon or Thudd gun in 2nd edition.

 jeff white wrote:

torblind wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

torblind wrote:


and I said wtf, dont make this about me.

You are suggesting that this rule doesn’t miss the point of blast weapons, but that it is not good at representing their dynamics at the same time, no?

I don't understand. Did you misuote me?

I got tired of quoting.
So many fallacies and bad rules, why bother, right?
To this I asked why you champion such a sad state of affairs in the first place.

Sad?

And I said my person is OFF TOPIC.