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.

 Jidmah wrote:


I guess he does have a point though - you could just use templates/blast markers to determine which units were hit by those rules.

You could, although such rules also aren't particularly common or even standardized in terms of radius, so I'm doubtful of the economics of introducing and producing templates for such reason.

 kodos wrote:
so the reason why you are faster in 9th is that you don't measure the distance between models anymore and your opponents are fine with it that, while in 5th they were not

In 5th, the difference between being in coherency and not being shred by a blast, was a small margin. You had to measure it.

In 9th, in 99% of cases when playing an horde you end up in formations which are obviously in coherency. Maybe you need to measure 3 or 4 models if you are stringing toward an objective. If an opponent asks you to measure all coherencies in that situation, you call the TO on him for slow playing.

Templates definitely slowed the game down due to measuring scatters when firing them as well as the opponent needing to space out models to reduce the effectiveness of blast weapons. That said the added time was IMO well worth it as blasts operated in a way that made concentrations of models matter, had natural diminishing returns as the game went on (due to casualties) and was not easy to calculate in theoretical mathhammer situations which made real time battlefield assessment important to how well they would perform. It was also just a fun mechanic that felt different than typical shooting weapons.

 kodos wrote:
so the reason why you are faster in 9th is that you don't measure the distance between models anymore and your opponents are fine with it that, while in 5th they were not

Way to miss the point. The difference is that in 5th spacing out every single ork exactly 2", no more, no less, was mandatory to not lose games. In 9th anything between 0 and 2" is fine. After I'm done moving, I quickly check if I exceeded 2" anywhere with the combat gauge and am done with measuring.

The more you abstract, the less you need miniatures. At a certain point some token or cards will perform the exact same function.
We are almost already there. And no, it's not in the physical modeling that lies the issue: it's in the management of the board and the scenery

 Vankraken wrote:
That said the added time was IMO well worth it as blasts operated in a way that made concentrations of models matter

Punishing concentrations of models was bad for the game though, because it forced exact measurements for every move.

Spoletta wrote:

 kodos wrote:
so the reason why you are faster in 9th is that you don't measure the distance between models anymore and your opponents are fine with it that, while in 5th they were not

In 5th, the difference between being in coherency and not being shred by a blast, was a small margin. You had to measure it.

In 9th, in 99% of cases when playing an horde you end up in formations which are obviously in coherency. Maybe you need to measure 3 or 4 models if you are stringing toward an objective. If an opponent asks you to measure all coherencies in that situation, you call the TO on him for slow playing.

So someone questioning if those 6 models gaining you the objective are legally placed is slow playing. WOW
If your TO's agree with that assessment they really need to start asking questions about if they should be running events.

Anyone who supports the attitude that cheating is Okay in the name of speeding up the game is someone I never want to ever meet in an event.

Playing the rules is as important as playing the opponent and the judges at a tournament of any kind. So there is that. Doesn't make you a good or bad person. Just a tournament attended.

 Vankraken wrote:
Templates definitely slowed the game down due to measuring scatters when firing them as well as the opponent needing to space out models to reduce the effectiveness of blast weapons. That said the added time was IMO well worth it as blasts operated in a way that made concentrations of models matter, had natural diminishing returns as the game went on (due to casualties) and was not easy to calculate in theoretical mathhammer situations which made real time battlefield assessment important to how well they would perform. It was also just a fun mechanic that felt different than typical shooting weapons.

And what was gained in removal of blast was lost elsewhere. 8e slower than 7e, 9e slower than 8e. And now dg is slowing things even slower. Fun fun fun

I think the problem GW has tried to replace mechanical depth with dice.

Instead of explosives interacting with models on the table, just make it a random modifier.
To give a sense of "leadership" from characters in an army, dump a bunch of rerolls in.
Then slap stratagems on to add all the special rules they took out of the rulebook.

Spoletta wrote:

 kodos wrote:
so the reason why you are faster in 9th is that you don't measure the distance between models anymore and your opponents are fine with it that, while in 5th they were not

In 5th, the difference between being in coherency and not being shred by a blast, was a small margin. You had to measure it.

In 9th, in 99% of cases when playing an horde you end up in formations which are obviously in coherency. Maybe you need to measure 3 or 4 models if you are stringing toward an objective. If an opponent asks you to measure all coherencies in that situation, you call the TO on him for slow playing.

so you just don't care for formation because it is only important for the opponent and not for you
as models out of coherency are gone and being close the the objective is an advantage for you to not measure everything, while the opponent who ask you to measure is the bad player

in 5th it was an advantage for you to measure everything exactly 2", no more no less, so it was not you being the slow player but the templates causing it

so the main change is that you can now blame the opponent for slow play so the rules are fine
while in 5th the opponent could blame you, so the rules were bad

Karol wrote:
Playing the rules is as important as playing the opponent and the judges at a tournament of any kind. So there is that. Doesn't make you a good or bad person. Just a tournament attended.

In MtG, playing the judges can get you banned. Good sportsmanship is not optional.

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
Playing the rules is as important as playing the opponent and the judges at a tournament of any kind. So there is that. Doesn't make you a good or bad person. Just a tournament attended.

In MtG, playing the judges can get you banned. Good sportsmanship is not optional.

Yes, because MTG and WotC are perfect examples of a company that does right by it's playerbase and never, ever screws them in the short sighted pursuit of profit and/or virtue signaling.

Oh wait...

And that's an exult for BCB

The ongoing shambles of mtg pro play makes such an undertaking for 40k have me torn betwixt wanting it to happen for shirts and giggles and thinking it would unwise

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
Playing the rules is as important as playing the opponent and the judges at a tournament of any kind. So there is that. Doesn't make you a good or bad person. Just a tournament attended.

In MtG, playing the judges can get you banned. Good sportsmanship is not optional.

It can also help you drop your opponent too. People accuse others just, because they don't like them and presto life long ban. While at the same time Wizards employees can do inside info trading regarding the secondary market or Wizards changing rankings just because they don't like someones political afiliation or because someone started an anti Hasbro campaign in their country. Everyone plays the rules, some people play them more and some are better at it.

And I really don't like the term sportsmanship because it is an empty word used litteraly to grand stand over other people in sports, while you yourself are getting away with the same stuff. And it happens in every sport, because you can bet on every sport. And when money and beting companies are involved stuff automaticaly becomes unsportsmanlike.

Karol wrote:
And I really don't like the term sportsmanship because it is an empty word used litteraly to grand stand over other people in sports, while you yourself are getting away with the same stuff. And it happens in every sport, because you can bet on every sport. And when money and beting companies are involved stuff automaticaly becomes unsportsmanlike.

I'm pretty sure you don't like the term "sportsmanship" because, from the examples you've provided, it seems like Polish sports don't actually involve sportsmanlike behaviour. This POV may have been exacerbated by the toxic gaming group(s) you've participated in to date.

tneva82 - I might've missed something, but what about the new DG stuff indicates they'll play more slowly? Shouldn't losing the DR FNP rolls speed things up over the length of a game?

Karol wrote:
Playing the rules is as important as playing the opponent and the judges at a tournament of any kind. So there is that. Doesn't make you a good or bad person. Just a tournament attended.

no but it sure as hell makes me not want to play with them again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:


And I really don't like the term sportsmanship because it is an empty word used litteraly to grand stand over other people in sports, while you yourself are getting away with the same stuff. And it happens in every sport, because you can bet on every sport. And when money and beting companies are involved stuff automaticaly becomes unsportsmanlike.

yea, no surprise here -.-

Poor you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
Playing the rules is as important as playing the opponent and the judges at a tournament of any kind. So there is that. Doesn't make you a good or bad person. Just a tournament attended.

In MtG, playing the judges can get you banned. Good sportsmanship is not optional.

Yes, because MTG and WotC are perfect examples of a company that does right by it's playerbase and never, ever screws them in the short sighted pursuit of profit and/or virtue signaling.

Oh wait...

in the context that Jidmah brought up, yes, WotC does right with its playerbase. These rules were present even back before the BFZ downfall of the game.

When I was still regularly attending MtG tournaments, judges and event rules still belonged to the DCI, not to WotC.

 Jidmah wrote:
When I was still regularly attending MtG tournaments, judges and event rules still belonged to the DCI, not to WotC.

duh, forgot about that.

Still 100% a valid argument that you brought up. Denying players the option to "play the judges" to win games is a completely player-friendly decision.

Not to be "that guy," but I think the conversation should probably steer back to the topic at hand: New FAQ, points, and errata, before the whole thing gets shut down.

 CommunistNapkin wrote:
Not to be "that guy," but I think the conversation should probably steer back to the topic at hand: New FAQ, points, and errata, before the whole thing gets shut down.

Are you new around here? Any topic over three pages long has usually gone off the rails and jumped the shark by page five.

 Jidmah wrote:

 kodos wrote:
so the reason why you are faster in 9th is that you don't measure the distance between models anymore and your opponents are fine with it that, while in 5th they were not

Way to miss the point. The difference is that in 5th spacing out every single ork exactly 2", no more, no less, was mandatory to not lose games. In 9th anything between 0 and 2" is fine. After I'm done moving, I quickly check if I exceeded 2" anywhere with the combat gauge and am done with measuring.

I don't think this was actually true. It was just mandatory to maximize your advantage. If you failed to precisely maximize your squad size in 5th, you might have lost another dude or two to blast, in the very low probability that it scattered to precisely the right place to take advantage of your mistake. Is that really costing you the game? Meanwhile, in 9th, if you string out badly, you lose your squad down to 5 models, and if you don't, you run the risk of your opponent being able to do something game-winning like squeeze onto an objective after consolidation or DS into a gap that otherwise wouldn't have been there. Was losing a boy or two more than you otherwise would have really that earth-shattering an outcome? Was it really more game-losing than failing to maximize your broad presence can be in 9th edition?

It seems to me that, for whatever reason - probably psychological, because it involved losing "your dudes" - you just cared more about it in 5th, and you're willing to be more cavalier about the 9th edition rules because <reasons>.

All those arguments are against the current unit coherency rules, yet none of them are really in favor of templates, as they are all just basically variations "but coherency is worse".

 Tyran wrote:
All those arguments are against the current unit coherency rules, yet none of them are really in favor of templates, as they are all just basically variations "but coherency is worse".

Exactly true. I said that earlier. I'm not saying we should bring back templates, or saying we should go back to 5th edition or anything silly like that. I'm just pointing out the weird cognitive dissonance of "we had to get rid of templates because they slowed things down! now we're moving to having to check coherency to two different models which slows things down even more to position for maximum advantage, but that's fine!"

With the current 9th edition rules, dropping in blasts wouldn't really significantly change play times in what is already a game that GW has seen fit to lengthen through very finnicky movement and combat rules. You already have to be thinking about the things you had to think about with blast templates.

There are ways around the coherency rules, like separating models in imaginary groups of 5, or just making lines of very close models. Both would have been terrible ideas against templates.

Also dropping in blasts would increase the lethality, and we definitively don't need that.

This coherency argument basically breaks down to one simple thing: It will take time to optimize the amount of space your unit will take.

If you don't optimize, it is trivially easy to keep your unit in coherency for all but the largest base-size models. It is up to you to pick which you will do based on available time.

 alextroy wrote:
This coherency argument basically breaks down to one simple thing: It will take time to optimize the amount of space your unit will take.

If you don't optimize, it is trivially easy to keep your unit in coherency for all but the largest base-size models. It is up to you to pick which you will do based on available time.

The blast template argument basically breaks down to one simple thing: It will take time to minimize your exposure to blast weapons.

If you don't optimize, it is trivially easy to play against blast templates. It is up to you to pick which you will do based on available time.

That's precisely my point: the arguments against blast templates are essentially the same as the ones against the new coherency rules. I happen to think both are wastes of time for the very same reasons.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 kodos wrote:
so the reason why you are faster in 9th is that you don't measure the distance between models anymore and your opponents are fine with it that, while in 5th they were not

In 5th, the difference between being in coherency and not being shred by a blast, was a small margin. You had to measure it.

In 9th, in 99% of cases when playing an horde you end up in formations which are obviously in coherency. Maybe you need to measure 3 or 4 models if you are stringing toward an objective. If an opponent asks you to measure all coherencies in that situation, you call the TO on him for slow playing.

So someone questioning if those 6 models gaining you the objective are legally placed is slow playing. WOW
If your TO's agree with that assessment they really need to start asking questions about if they should be running events.

Anyone who supports the attitude that cheating is Okay in the name of speeding up the game is someone I never want to ever meet in an event.

Yeah...I'm supporting spoletta on this one. The difference between measuring in 5th and now is that a small blast could theoretically kill 5-7 models if not properly spaced, hell I wiped out 10 terminators using 3 small blast templates 1 game, a pieplate could get a HUGE amount. So you measured to ensure you were the furthest away from everyone you could get. In 9th you can wing it pretty easily since triangles are fairly simple to do.

As far as calling the judge and you calling it cheating to not measure every single model...I honestly wouldn't play against you, and I would ask the judges to make a ruling in order to speed up the game. When I play my horde army I measure maybe two or three times per mob, at most. After that I just eyeball where they should be, not for advantage but because measuring 90+ models is just silly. Now when it comes to important things like who gets into a charge and who is on an objective, yeah i'll measure for every model that can get in, and after that i'll just eyeball the rest.

Karol wrote:
And I really don't like the term sportsmanship because it is an empty word used litteraly to grand stand over other people in sports, while you yourself are getting away with the same stuff. And it happens in every sport, because you can bet on every sport. And when money and beting companies are involved stuff automaticaly becomes unsportsmanlike.

I am not trying to be insulting Karol, but from your attitude and posts I can only assume you are extremely young. Your attitude towards sportsmanship is appalling to say the least. In a tournament I won't tell my opponent when they forget things but, for example, if they forget to move a key unit and jump into the next phase i'll let them go back and move the unit or cast the spell they forgot in the psychic phase, so long as their more recent actions didn't influence the need to do so. At the end of the game, regardless of who won I am cordial and will tell them any mistakes they made that they can work on or how they might have fared better in a specific part of the game. If you want a sports analogy, I was a Hockey, Lacrosse and Tennis player in High school and into college. I was in a game where i laid out a body check on an opponent and knocked the ball loose, unfortunately, when he hit the ground he landed poorly and twisted his ankle pretty badly. So I stopped the play by throwing the ball out of bounds so that the opposing team's doctor could get onto the field quicker and help him. After they cleared the injured player off the field the opposing team immediately gave the ball back to us. Why? because sportsmanship and respect.

SemperMortis wrote:
When I play my horde army I measure maybe two or three times per mob, at most. After that I just eyeball where they should be, not for advantage but because measuring 90+ models is just silly. Now when it comes to important things like who gets into a charge and who is on an objective, yeah i'll measure for every model that can get in, and after that i'll just eyeball the rest.

so in 5th you measured everything to make sure to have an advantage and not losing any models to templates
and in 9th you just don't care about unit coherency and eyeball if everything is in 2" and won't play against people who say you have to measure more often
(and it is a disadvantage for the opponent that you may save some models by doing that)

I guess we should have just called the judge and refuse to play against those people in 5th who did that the exact measurment because for the same reason you do it now

so the main argument from those people who claim that templates made the game slower is still that they just don't care to measure in 9th while they did very exact measurments in 5th

for the same reason I can say that 5th was fast to move hordes because I used movemant trays while 9th is slower because I don't want to use them any more

 Jidmah wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
That said the added time was IMO well worth it as blasts operated in a way that made concentrations of models matter

Punishing concentrations of models was bad for the game though, because it forced exact measurements for every move.

It didn't force anything, you can choose to do that just as you can choose to set up screens to block charges and konga line across the board if you want. Yeah you don't want to get sloppy and pile models into a tight blob but you didn't need to measure out every model to be 2 inches apart. Most of the tedious measurements took place during deployment but once the game gets going, most people stop bothering with precise spacing and just measure once then eyeball the rest.

Without blast weapons, cramming units into aura bubbles becomes a thing because weapons that care about highly concentrated areas don't really exist in 8th/9th. Personally I find aura blobs to feel far more immersion breaking and tedious to play with/against than spacing models out.