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.

The following rule should be added to the template weapon rules:

The center of the circular end of the template must be centered of the base of an enemy model.

This would:

1. Make it more like blast weapons

2. Get rid of shenanigans.

Like all weapons, models that wield flamers should be forced to actually aim.

If you read the template rules they already prevent 'shenanigans" by forcing you to have to cover as much of the target unit as possible.

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you read the template rules they already prevent 'shenanigans" by forcing you to have to cover as much of the target unit as possible.

Really?

I did not know that.

I don't think I've ever seen it played that way.

Either way, I still think that the "has to be centered over an enemy model" thing would be a general improvement.

Because, again. They should have to aim.

Why should they have to aim?

 CrownAxe wrote:
Why should they have to aim?

Because apparently the OP has a problem with flamers hitting multiple units. He posted about it in the "small blast" thread.

Yeah why should the have to aim at a specific person? If you had a flame thrower, you would try and do as much damage as possible.

Same with small blasts...

 General Kroll wrote:
Yeah why should the have to aim at a specific person? If you had a flame thrower, you would try and do as much damage as possible.

I could say the same thing about blast weapons.

At any rate:

It always annoys me when I see someone trying to min-max a template weapon. "Ok, I'll hover it over this 1 guy in this unit which is my target, but these 5 guys on this other unit also..."

Or..."I'll aim at this rhino, but just barely; I'll also hit these 10 guys standing right next to it."

Among other things, it's incredibly unrealistic.

If you actually were using a flamethrower, you wouldn't take five minutes to min-max the heaviest damage. You'd make a split second decision on who the closest group of people is and unload dead center on them.

Say what you want, but it would make the game go faster.

And if you can't center the template on anyone?

No template for you. Roll wall of death.

Traditio wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Yeah why should the have to aim at a specific person? If you had a flame thrower, you would try and do as much damage as possible.

I could say the same thing about blast weapons.

Then fix small blasts, not templates.

At any rate:

It always annoys me when I see someone trying to min-max a template weapon. "Ok, I'll hover it over this 1 guy in this unit which is my target, but these 5 guys on this other unit also..."

They're "min-maxing" because the rules state they have to hit the most models as possible. In other words, its not min-maxing, its the rules.

Or..."I'll aim at this rhino, but just barely; I'll also hit these 10 guys standing right next to it."

This could be my constant confusing of editions, but don't blasts still have to aimed at the vehicle center, and can then scatter as per the dice? As in, you can't choose to place the initial placement on the side of the vehicle to get more hits in.

But correct me if I'm wrong, don't have my rulebook with me.

Among other things, it's incredibly unrealistic.

If you actually were using a flamethrower, you wouldn't take five minutes to min-max the heaviest damage. You'd make a split second decision on who the closest group of people is and unload dead center on them.

Realism doesn't matter. If we cared about realism, we wouldn't have half the rules we have. Its an abstraction that the person wielding it would spray it in the direction of the largest concentration trying to cause the most damage, which is totally sensible.

Say what you want, but it would make the game go faster.

As opposed to humming and hawing about if the center of the circle is exactly centered over a model, thus causing min-maxing issues of finding the most centered model.

And if you can't center the template on anyone?

No template for you. Roll wall of death.

Which, if you argue for realism, is quite possible the least realistic you could propose.

Blacksails wrote:They're "min-maxing" because the rules state they have to hit the most models as possible. In other words, its not min-maxing, its the rules.

In the targeted unit.

That's not what I'm describing.

This could be my constant confusing of editions, but don't blasts still have to aimed at the vehicle center, and can then scatter as per the dice? As in, you can't choose to place the initial placement on the side of the vehicle to get more hits in.

No. The center of the blast has to be fully centered on any part of the hull.

As opposed to humming and hawing about if the center of the circle is exactly centered over a model, thus causing min-maxing issues of finding the most centered model.

Over the base of a model. It's not that complicated. I can't even believe that you're even raising this issue.

Which, if you argue for realism, is quite possible the least realistic you could propose.

It works for overwatch.

Template weapons force you to a) commit to drop pods or b) find some way to cross the field against 80 scatter lasers. Templates are fine.

Small blasts, just like loyalist terminators have always sucked.

Martel732 wrote:
Template weapons force you to a) commit to drop pods or b) find some way to cross the field against 80 scatter lasers. Templates are fine.

False.

I mean, some do. But not all.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Template weapons force you to a) commit to drop pods or b) find some way to cross the field against 80 scatter lasers. Templates are fine.

False.

I mean, some do. But not all.

Which ones don't? Baledrakes? Grats, now you're in reserves.

Martel732 wrote:Which ones don't? Baledrakes? Grats, now you're in reserves.

It would nerf wraithguard.

C'mon. You know you like that idea.

Traditio wrote:

Blacksails wrote:They're "min-maxing" because the rules state they have to hit the most models as possible. In other words, its not min-maxing, its the rules.

In the targeted unit.

That's not what I'm describing.

Again, if they're not covering the most amount of models in the target unit, they're not playing by the rules. If it just so happens that the enemy unit has one model left and they can orient it in such a way to hit other units, then so be it. I'm not seeing a problem.

This could be my constant confusing of editions, but don't blasts still have to aimed at the vehicle center, and can then scatter as per the dice? As in, you can't choose to place the initial placement on the side of the vehicle to get more hits in.

No. The center of the blast has to be fully centered on any part of the hull.

Fair enough. Certainly not unrealistic though.

As opposed to humming and hawing about if the center of the circle is exactly centered over a model, thus causing min-maxing issues of finding the most centered model.

Over the base of a model. It's not that complicated. I can't even believe that you're even raising this issue.

Your exact quote:

The center of the circular end of the template must be centered of the base of an enemy model.

Therefore, according to your rule, it would have to be perfectly centered or it couldn't be fired. Which is more complicated and time consuming, not to mention absolute nonsense from any sort of realism perspective.

Which, if you argue for realism, is quite possible the least realistic you could propose.

It works for overwatch.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:Which ones don't? Baledrakes? Grats, now you're in reserves.

It would nerf wraithguard.

C'mon. You know you like that idea.

Not in a way that needs to happen. Str D is the problem, not the template part. Str 4 AP 2 was horrific, but had limitations. SD -1? Not so much.

Blacksails wrote:Again, if they're not covering the most amount of models in the target unit, they're not playing by the rules. If it just so happens that the enemy unit has one model left and they can orient it in such a way to hit other units, then so be it. I'm not seeing a problem.

At the very least, if you're aiming for my rhino, you should have to fire dead center at my rhino.

The center of the circular end of the template must be centered of the base of an enemy model.

That was an ambiguity on my part. I didn't mean that the hole should be over the center of the base. I meant that the center of the hole should be somewhere over the base. I.e., that if you look down through the center of the circular part of the flamer, you see nothing but base.

Same as blast templates.

I don't want to argue over "dead center". Let people aim it however they want. It's not that important.

Small blasts suck. Get over it.

Traditio wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Again, if they're not covering the most amount of models in the target unit, they're not playing by the rules. If it just so happens that the enemy unit has one model left and they can orient it in such a way to hit other units, then so be it. I'm not seeing a problem.

At the very least, if you're aiming for my rhino, you should have to fire dead center at my rhino.

Which I don't disagree, as I'm 90% sure it used to be that way (plus you'd only get full strength if the hole was over the vehicle, not just any part of the blast) which was reasonable. If the current rules state you can move the blast anywhere within the vehicle footprint, then so be it. Both methods can be argued as being equally realistic, and neither is inherently more or less complicated. Either way, that's a blast rule issue, not a template one. If you proposed it had to be centered, I wouldn't really be bothered as a house rule.

The center of the circular end of the template must be centered of the base of an enemy model.

That was an ambiguity on my part. I didn't mean that the hole should be over the center of the base. I meant that the center of the hole should be somewhere over the base. I.e., that if you look down through the center of the circular part of the flamer, you see nothing but base.

Same as blast templates.

I have no proposals for small blasts other than making them bigger. It's another mathematical corner that GW has painted themselves into. Just like I also have no truly feasible proposals for bolters or even BA, given what GW has vomited forth in 7th. Small blasts are one of THOSE kind of problems, imo. You'd need a total game rewrite.

Templates don't need "fixed". The only templates that are a problem are the ones that roll on the "D" table.

Which is at least better feedback then "Deal with it". At least now we can discuss something.

And yes, I agree that templates don't need fixing. There's nothing broken about them and they're pretty straightforward to use.

It's burnout and frustration. The plasma cannon SHOULD be good. Throwing plasma 36" should be good. But small blast makes it suck. It's been this way since 3rd. Frag missiles. Okay idea. They suck because small blast. It doesn't matter where you put the bloody thing, because it will still be terrible, just as it has been for 20 years. It's especially stupid because look at what a fragmentation missile does in real life. It sure as hell hits more than two guys.

There's a lot of things that should be good and other things that should be worse. If you have any ideas or want discussion, start a thread here. Its literally the purpose of the forum.

Make all blasts larger maybe and then adjust points as necessary.

I like the idea of just placing the Small Blast template anywhere in the targeted unit, as someone pointed out in another thread, if it doesnt scatter, you'll hit at least 3 models because of the 2" coherency.

Also yes, Templates are fine, leave them alone. SoB don't need to deal with more crap. Just take the D off of Wraithguard and give them their 6th ed weapon profile, it was fine then and it would still be fine now.

Or..."I'll aim at this rhino, but just barely; I'll also hit these 10 guys standing right next to it."

Again the template rules specifically prevent you from doing this

That rule does way more harm than good. That just means that you have to stay at a minimum range for any template. For no good reason.

Also, the easiest fix to small blasts is not having to center it over the model. After that, we can test if Plasma Cannons and Frag Missiles are worth it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also, the easiest fix to small blasts is not having to center it over the model. After that, we can test if Plasma Cannons and Frag Missiles are worth it.

IIRC, back in 4th edition, you simply had to place the template anywhere over the target unit itself if you rolled a hit - no centering on a specific model. It allowed for typically 3-4 hits per small blast, and Plasma cannons were definitely well worth their steep pts cost back then.

Go back to basic BS with small blasts for starters, and remove the stupidity of having to center the template itself over the base of a specific model. (especially now that 32mm is becoming the 'standard size' in 40k!)
If your to-hit succeeds, place the small blast marker anywhere within the target unit, that's also within the firer's line of sight.
If you to-hit roll fails, place the small blast marker anywhere within the target unit, within the firer's line of sight, then scatter it 2D6" - shooter's BS. (using the little arrow on the 'Hit' side to determine direction)

This makes it basically impossible for large hordes to be missed entirely, which makes sense, since a horde of 20-30+ Gaunts/Ork Boyz/Cultists/etc... is an abstraction for what really is potentially 100's to even 1000's of critters all charging en mass. I don't care how bad a shot a soldier is - you're not missing THAT huge a target!

Now small blasts are fearsome again.


When it comes to Bolters... all they need is a form of the Shred special rule, even if it's something as simple as say re-rolling to-wound rolls of 1.
It at least gives them a unique tiny bonus, similar to how Gauss weapons en mass can be dangerous to vehicles.