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.

 Vankraken wrote:
Personally I find aura blobs to feel far more immersion breaking and tedious to play with/against than spacing models out.

Are you sure you're thinking of right game?

I think the problem with blast wasnt blst itslef but the scatter which always got a bit shifty.

The point I was trying to make that we effectively measure out 3" from an imaginary center point to do stuff I.e. MW. I wonder if I randomly started using small blast for these effects rather than use tape measure would that make people think about spacing more?

These effects are not common but it appears out of the 3 newest codex all have some sort of 3" radius effect. So why cant people just go back to using templates for these ?

 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.

I think it needs shutting down, it is beyond recovery at this point

 Argive wrote:
I think the problem with blast wasnt blst itslef but the scatter which always got a bit shifty.

The point I was trying to make that we effectively measure out 3" from an imaginary center point to do stuff I.e. MW. I wonder if I randomly started using small blast for these effects rather than use tape measure would that make people think about spacing more?

These effects are not common but it appears out of the 3 newest codex all have some sort of 3" radius effect. So why cant people just go back to using templates for these ?

I mean, nothing stops you from fabricating a 6" blast marker and use it to resolve such rules.

 kodos wrote:

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

Well lets see, in 5th if I didn't space out my horde army exactly right I would get hit with a plethora of blast weapons...of which the game was littered with, for instance A SM Missile launcher was a Small blast weapon and had AP to shred boyz, and I would lose that entire horde. But for normal movement, yeah I would measure 1-3 guys and move the rest of the horde into rough position and than break out da ruler and move them (Backwards or oblique) to space them out and not die instantly. I honestly probably lost movement doing this, but it also sped the game up dramatically and I never ran across a WAAC/TFG tournament player so anal that he made me measure every single model's movement ...actually that isn't true, I did run into 1 at a 24 player tournament once, after he made his request I called the TO over and asked him and he said basically don't be a d*** about it to my opponent, guy was kind of renowned for being one in that area. And in 9th I do pretty much the same thing, granted its harder to get to tournaments since everything is shut down, but the game I do have I set them up "roughly" 2' away from one another, and if its for something important like holding an objective or blocking a DS than I will ask if he wants me to measure out each individual model, twice, to ensure they aren't further away from one another than is allowed. At that point I don't mind because its important and can mean the difference between a successful DS or a failed attempt and forced to DS somewhere else.

But that is how I play and how basically everyone I've met plays in 7 different States and a host of TO's and game stores.

 kodos wrote:

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

Well, templates wouldn't have been such a problem to begin with if people in 5th had played it more casually, by intend and relaxed. And for the most part 99% of people did. Templates were a problem because there's always that one WAAC idiot that wanted to argue over millimetres in a game of roughly inches.

I can't grasp all the people outright lying about how important spacing out models was to dodge templates and blasts. If there was even was one cluster of boyz in your unit and that allowed a multiple blast weapon or a transport with templates inside 2 or 3 additional hits, this could easily cost you the entire unit.
"They scattered all the time!" just means that you didn't understand the old rules. One third was a hit anyways, you substracted BS from scatter for regular blasts, twinlinked blast was a thing, and multiple barrage weapons or thrown template could essentially hit whatever the feth they wanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, templates wouldn't have been such a problem to begin with if people in 5th had played it more casually, by intend and relaxed. And for the most part 99% of people did. Templates were a problem because there's always that one WAAC idiot that wanted to argue over millimetres in a game of roughly inches.

Sadly, it's more like 75%... my least favorite experience in that regard was when I had a 2v2 game and one opponent declared that he had hit 4 boyz with a small blast, I simply said "sure, sounds right" without checking, as I knew the guy was a great sportsman from previous games. My teammate wouldn't have it though, looked through the template and declared that it only hit 3. They then started arguing without either one wanting to back down, both their heads getting red. So I had to take a look myself and while it was a close call, it definitely was 3 models hit, as the blast marker was over the boyz' choppa and not the base.

Just not having these kind of things happen is worth all the loss of immersion.

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.

Nope, that's not how the real world works, Karol. Some sports are crooked, but sportsmanship exists. Even in Poland.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Templates were a problem because there's always that one WAAC idiot that wanted to argue over millimetres in a game of roughly inches.

but this did not change as those people now argue about the formation

point is that removing one such rule in the name of "speed up the game" and replace it with another rule that let you do the same is stupid

we accept the changed in balance and gained nothing

Unfortunately anectodes like the one Jidmah mentioned weren't uncommon, at least in my experience and I never played against people we may call TFG. Blasts could easily open up controversies, just like facings. I'm really happy they are gone even if games aren't actually faster due to that change.

Blasts fired from high BS models didn't really scatter, especially against mid-sized or large units.

 kodos wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Templates were a problem because there's always that one WAAC idiot that wanted to argue over millimetres in a game of roughly inches.

but this did not change as those people now argue about the formation

No, they don't. Both people from my anecdote still play the game occasional and there hasn't been a single argument in that regard.

In fact, there hasn't been as single argument in my group about coherency at all, because it's a 100% clear rule without any room for mistakes, unlike scattering and looking through a transparent disc at different angles.

Just one word people: wyverns. Each took like 5 minutes to shoot. Often more. Me and other people just refused to play against more than 1 wyvern tank, just because of how tedious it was. They were incidentally super strong too.

Honestly only elite army players pine for those bygone days. I think it is a very selfish way to see things, but that is just me. The nice people I played with all agreed there was an issue with light infantry back then

 Jidmah wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Templates were a problem because there's always that one WAAC idiot that wanted to argue over millimetres in a game of roughly inches.

but this did not change as those people now argue about the formation

No, they don't. Both people from my anecdote still play the game occasional and there hasn't been a single argument in that regard.

In fact, there hasn't been as single argument in my group about coherency at all, because it's a 100% clear rule without any room for mistakes, unlike scattering and looking through a transparent disc at different angles.

than those guys got much more relaxed about the rules

not like "role a dice if you are not sure if something was hit" was a possibility past than
but if 3 or 4 guys under a template caused red faces while being 1,9 or 2,1 inch next to 2 other models or being close enough to an objective does not, it is not the rules that make it better but because people got past it

I think it's definitely true that having a bunch of units arranged at 1.5 coherency of 2.5" coherency is less significant now.
Before, as mentioned that could genuinely be the difference between several extra casualties, so the stakes for getting it wrong mattered for both players.
Now, it's that big of a deal. If you want to string out your models it's quite easy to just measure the 2" coherency in the string and then place a second layer besides it to maintain the two measurements. If they're too close, you don't care because there's no blasts to shred them.

So in effect you're both right.
It's only not an issue now because people don't care.
But also people don't care because it doesn't matter much.

 addnid wrote:
Just one word people: wyverns. Each took like 5 minutes to shoot. Often more. Me and other people just refused to play against more than 1 wyvern tank, just because of how tedious it was. They were incidentally super strong too.

Honestly only elite army players pine for those bygone days. I think it is a very selfish way to see things, but that is just me. The nice people I played with all agreed there was an issue with light infantry back then

Well it wad also slightly nice to not have Leman Russes take 8 shots into your vehical because they just get d6 shots against everything including charictors.

I don't particularly miss templates they had upsides but I agree the arguments were not worth it.

I'm just of the opinion that the newer choherency rules have brought back the same issue by a different rule.

Not to mention the number of people I have seen make either super confused faces when you magically kill a squad via casualty removal or dont understand why they can't just kill this dude anf this dude without loosing half their squad.

Unless they play marine's and get to just entirely ignore such tedious rules.

Hecaton 795183 11033113 wrote:

Nope, that's not how the real world works, Karol. Some sports are crooked, but sportsmanship exists. Even in Poland.

Sure.Tell me which profesional sports has that. Because it ain't any contact sport, not any fight sports, not biking. Heck MKOL and FIFA are more or less mob organisations right now exampts from local laws all around the world. Sports is money, and money makes stuff serious, and the more money there is the more serious it gets. In US there are technicaly non professional sportsmen in collages, but because beting on results of their games is a thing, they get the same treatment, without any of the money, the professionals get. Sportsmanship is a nice word, that people like to throw around. But no one mentions stuff like state, or in case of US private, run programs. And by programs I mean everything. I can't think of a single sport that runs adds, that doesn't use sportsmanship as a smoke screen. It is like the world freedom, in general it means for me, and in the way my people want it, not the same freedom for all, even if in documents it says it is.

I mean what do people want me to do, go over lists of DQ players, player fueds , all the times players kicked each other from olympic teams, stole each other scholarships etc. I have family in canada and two of my cousins had to go to a different university, because their vollayball scholar ship was pulled. And they had much better results of 2 prior sesons then the girl that was taken in.

Only time I saw sportsmanship happen was if either it didn't matter, because you both were already placed low, or the person was a personal friend or real world politics was involved. So a belarussian wrestler will act different when bouting against a Russian one, then lets say an Egyptian one fighting one from Israel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 addnid wrote:

Honestly only elite army players pine for those bygone days. I think it is a very selfish way to see things, but that is just me. The nice people I played with all agreed there was an issue with light infantry back then

What are they suppose to pine about then? 8th ed you play horde or your army doesn't work to a point where knight armies were taking IG or mechanicus ally to get bodies on the table. You think being told that your army will be semi okey just as long you take some IG with it, is a good thing to hear.


someone said it in the thread before. In the end it comes down to this. If it limits your army and your wait of playing, you ain't going to like it. If it is going to limit others, it doesn't matter.

Karol wrote:

Hecaton 795183 11033113 wrote:

Nope, that's not how the real world works, Karol. Some sports are crooked, but sportsmanship exists. Even in Poland.

Sure.Tell me which profesional sports has that.

There's one very high profile example from English football a few years ago. Arsenal beat Sheffield Utd in an FA Cup game. The winning goal was scored after Arsenal failed to give the ball back to their opponents who had put it out of play so an injured player could get treatment. The game was replayed even though there was not a single rule or law of the game or competition that required it. Why? Because everyone except the player who scored understood that sportsmanship is important, in this case literally more important than the result of the game.

Golf has a well-established tradition of calling fouls on yourself, as does snooker. The outcry and backlash if a player is caught not doing that is huge. Sportsmanship exists even at the highest level of many sports. That doesn't mean corruption and unsporting behaviour don't exist but they're nowhere near as normal as you think.

As far as the coherency argument goes, the removal of blasts has definitely sped up the movement phase. There's just no comparison to measuring out 1 or 2 models to make sure you're in coherency compared to doing it for every single model in a unit.

Less than two years ago Coach Marcelo Bielsa ordered their players to let the opponents score a goal because his team had scored a controversial goal as his players didn't see one of the opponent that was lying injuried while some of his mates stopped playing to assist him.

Sportmanship exists in every sport, especially professional ones. Poor sportmanship cases end up in disqualifications or public shaming, which sometimes could be enough to ruin a career.

In an amateur environment like a 40k meta poor sportmanship situations actually lead to the ban of some players.

RE: Spreading out models to avoid blasts.

People say the 2" spread was automatic, but it is not.

In the HH game (that still uses templates), I play Daemons. I have multiple melee units that are protected from enemy shooting while in CC. I always make sure to ally in blast weapons. Why?

Because the enemy gets this idea in their head that the MUST spread out 2".

Let me tell you that a 20-man tactical marine squad spread out 2" between each marine takes up a huge amount of space. If they go wide (say, 2 ranks) they're something like 30" wide. If they go deep (say, 4 ranks) they're still like 15" wide and 12" deep and now the back two ranks will struggle to be in rapid fire (or even in range) at the same time as the front two ranks.

When I see an opponent spreading out like this against my templates, I smile with glee, because it means instead of getting 1 daemon unit into combat and protected from shooting, I can get say, 5 or even 8 depending on positioning. If they go deep rather than wide, it means fewer bullets are hitting me in the face. Furthermore, if I am going to kill the unit rather than trap it, it gives space for my 1" bases to infiltrate among their unit, getting near objectives and increasing the number of attacks I make in CC (as well as surrounding models).

Even without my daemons, making an opponent spread out means their unit is more likely to bump into terrain, slowing it from 6" to 2d6/highest" movement. It also means my weapons are more likely to have line of sight because their unit physically takes up more space on the board so it's harder to hide behind terrain.

There's interaction there, there's gameplay, there's planning. the positioning of models on the table affects the tactical decisions the players make in the game. This is a good and desirable state.

To say "lol spread out an automatic 2 inches" is a thing I hear a lot, and it always makes me wonder if the people who did that were not understanding the significant impacts it could have on the play of the game - because model positioning mattered for other rules too.

Good thing that works for you in a completely different, much better balanced game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


To say "lol spread out an automatic 2 inches" is a thing I hear a lot, and it always makes me wonder if the people who did that were not understanding the significant impacts it could have on the play of the game - because model positioning mattered for other rules too.

And every time I see a really specific example used to counter a general one I wonder at the inability of people to understand how generalisations work. Hint: both positions can be true.

 Jidmah wrote:
Good thing that works for you in a completely different, much better balanced game.

Oh it works in other games (not 40k) & previous editions of 40k as well where templates exist.
And whenever templates return to 40k? It'll work then to.
Why? Because theirs plenty of people who see templates & stop thinking beyond "gotta spread out".

Slipspace wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


To say "lol spread out an automatic 2 inches" is a thing I hear a lot, and it always makes me wonder if the people who did that were not understanding the significant impacts it could have on the play of the game - because model positioning mattered for other rules too.

And every time I see a really specific example used to counter a general one I wonder at the inability of people to understand how generalisations work. Hint: both positions can be true.

No, actually, you just don't understand generalizations. When someone makes a generalization, a specific example that does not follow that generalization disproves the whole thing.

It is impossible to say "all swans are white" and have "this swan is black" simultaneously be true.

"Templates are painful because spreading out is the overriding concern" is a generalization. All it takes is one counter-example (a case where templates exist and spreading out isn't the overriding concern) to disprove the argument.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


To say "lol spread out an automatic 2 inches" is a thing I hear a lot, and it always makes me wonder if the people who did that were not understanding the significant impacts it could have on the play of the game - because model positioning mattered for other rules too.

And every time I see a really specific example used to counter a general one I wonder at the inability of people to understand how generalisations work. Hint: both positions can be true.

No, actually, you just don't understand generalizations. When someone makes a generalization, a specific example that does not follow that generalization disproves the whole thing.

It is impossible to say "all swans are white" and have "this swan is black" simultaneously be true.

"Templates are painful because spreading out is the overriding concern" is a generalization. All it takes is one counter-example (a case where templates exist and spreading out isn't the overriding concern) to disprove the argument.

Your example isn't a generalization, it's an absolute.

Absolutes are disproven by a single counterexample. A generalization is not.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


To say "lol spread out an automatic 2 inches" is a thing I hear a lot, and it always makes me wonder if the people who did that were not understanding the significant impacts it could have on the play of the game - because model positioning mattered for other rules too.

And every time I see a really specific example used to counter a general one I wonder at the inability of people to understand how generalisations work. Hint: both positions can be true.

No, actually, you just don't understand generalizations. When someone makes a generalization, a specific example that does not follow that generalization disproves the whole thing.

It is impossible to say "all swans are white" and have "this swan is black" simultaneously be true.

"Templates are painful because spreading out is the overriding concern" is a generalization. All it takes is one counter-example (a case where templates exist and spreading out isn't the overriding concern) to disprove the argument.

Your example isn't a generalization, it's an absolute.

Absolutes are disproven by a single counterexample. A generalization is not.

Well, to say we shouldn't have templates because they had no impact on the game other than to waste time by forcing people to spread out reads like an absolute.

 Jidmah wrote:
Good thing that works for you in a completely different, much better balanced game.

This is the game with Quad/Medusa Phosphex.. Yeah I'm not counting that game as balanced, though they've certainly tried since they've balanced out some of the earlier stuff like Moritat's forever shooting.

Spreading out models was absolutely essential and one of the first things you had to learn when playing an army like orks or nids. Not doing it properly against an army with multiple blasts and templates was an automatic loss. Remember how every deep striker ever made run roll after arriving to get out of formation?

If a small blast hit more than one ork, you were doing it wrong. If a large blast was hitting more than 5 orks, you were doing it wrong. If a template hit more than 3-5, you were doing it wrong.
A small could easily hit 5+, a large blast 12+, a template 7-8 models when not properly spaced out. You could easily multiply your opponent's shooting.
How about you letting your opponent double the shooting of all their blast weapons next game and see how that goes.

Seriously, people are scurrying to hide in terrain for +1 armor, but spreading out to massively reduce anti-horde shooting didn't matter? Give me a break.

The only reason to claim that spreading out didn't matter in editions past was because either you were a horrible player, or your army was well-armored elite and didn't care about getting hit by templates.

Templates make the placement of every single model matter for every move you ever do, from deployment to deep strikes to assaults. Placing every single model properly takes time, even if you don't space out 2" for tactical reason, you still need to make that decision for every model on the board.
Removing templates removed the need to properly place every single model.
Coherency doesn't care who much space there is between models, as long as it's 2" or less. Coherency also has existed in previous editions. So, that's neither new, nor does it take more time - in fact, it's easier to eyeball coherency when you can just stick the models next to each other without worrying about losing an entire unit because a griffon hit 4 boyz at once because they weren't at maximum coherency.
Deep strike screening stops caring about being exactly 2" as soon as all deep strikers have arrived, and units not part of the screen don't care either. Plus, screening against deep strikes isn't new in 8/9th either, I always had a unit of gretchin dedicated to blocking suicide melta from getting in melta range of my battlewagon's rear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Good thing that works for you in a completely different, much better balanced game.

This is the game with Quad/Medusa Phosphex.. Yeah I'm not counting that game as balanced, though they've certainly tried since they've balanced out some of the earlier stuff like Moritat's forever shooting.

Oh, I'm sure. People playing 30k just keep reiterating how much better balanced 30k is than any incarnation of 40k.

 Jidmah wrote:
Placing every single model properly takes time, even if you don't space out 2" for tactical reason, you still need to make that decision for every model on the board.
Removing templates removed the need to properly place every single model.

I'm gonna crop a bunch of stuff so I can focus on some things you said that I think are the core disconnect between us. Lemme break this quote out:
1)"Placing every single model properly takes time, even if you don't space out 2" for tactical reason, you still need to make that decision for every model on the board."
- Well, yes, yes that's a decision you have to make. Deciding where your models go on the board is wargaming. To say that this takes too much time is just... mind-boggling. What wargame would you like to play where you DON'T care about model position? And does that even count as a wargame? The idea that "having to position your miniatures correctly based on the tactical situation is a time-waster that shouldn't be in wargaming" is just... what? Of course you have to make that decision for every model on the board. That's the tactics part!

2)"Removing templates removed the need to properly place every single model."
- Well, yes, but why is this a good thing? If the position of every single model doesn't matter, why do we bother tracking them at all? Maybe we should be moving units on movement trays or single large bases or something. If there's no reason to track the position of individual models, there's no reason to bother moving individual models.

Plenty of games have a "Unit Leader" concept, where the position of the Unit Leader is what matters and the rest of the unit are just wound-counters and/or aesthetic. This has simpler coherency too, because all it says is "place the other models wherever you want within 6" of the unit leader" or whatever.

Karol wrote:

Sure.Tell me which profesional sports has that. Because it ain't any contact sport, not any fight sports, not biking. Heck MKOL and FIFA are more or less mob organisations right now exampts from local laws all around the world. Sports is money, and money makes stuff serious, and the more money there is the more serious it gets. In US there are technicaly non professional sportsmen in collages, but because beting on results of their games is a thing, they get the same treatment, without any of the money, the professionals get. Sportsmanship is a nice word, that people like to throw around. But no one mentions stuff like state, or in case of US private, run programs. And by programs I mean everything. I can't think of a single sport that runs adds, that doesn't use sportsmanship as a smoke screen. It is like the world freedom, in general it means for me, and in the way my people want it, not the same freedom for all, even if in documents it says it is.

I mean what do people want me to do, go over lists of DQ players, player fueds , all the times players kicked each other from olympic teams, stole each other scholarships etc. I have family in canada and two of my cousins had to go to a different university, because their vollayball scholar ship was pulled. And they had much better results of 2 prior sesons then the girl that was taken in.

Only time I saw sportsmanship happen was if either it didn't matter, because you both were already placed low, or the person was a personal friend or real world politics was involved. So a belarussian wrestler will act different when bouting against a Russian one, then lets say an Egyptian one fighting one from Israel.

Others provided examples that explicitly contradicted what you were saying. Are you going to admit you're wrong or keep making up ridiculous stories about this sociopathic world you live in?

Guess what, you're wrong. Admit it.

This thread really hasn't been about the FAQ or new points for at least a couple of pages now, so it's probably best to let it ride off into the sunset