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.

One of my major issues with 8th and AOS was the removal of blasts and templates altogether in exchange for "random attacks". I understand people dislike resolving scatter, or their opponent "spacing out" for maximum coherency (to be fair, they will do that anyway: Remember 5e Kroot vs White Scars?), but I feel the removal of any AOEs whatsover has weird potential implications, like being able to run units in ranks like it's old-school WHFB. As much as the idea of Ork Shootaboyz forming Napoleonic musket-lines is an amusing mental image, this just doesn't feel right for a game that's about high-powered space troopers, etc.

Proposal: When firing a blast weapon, do not declare a target but just place the blast marker down anywhere permitted by range and line of sight. For each model that is at least partially under the template, make a roll to-hit against that model's unit. If more than half of the blast marker is over a single model, the blast weapon makes an additional D3 rolls to-hit against that model's unit.

This seems a lot faster, less "all-or-nothing", and prevents the game from becoming Empire: Total War.

Sorta like how they do in Maelstrom's Edge.

So I'm for it.

One thing I'm thinking of is making the extra D3 hits based on "centering" the blast instead of it being "covering more of the target."

Blasts are a weird problem; on one hand the templates slow the game down, make blasts irrelevant against single-model units, and cause arguments, on the other hand the random-shots mechanism makes a blast do exactly as much to one dude hiding in a bush as a whole firing line in close order and let a blast hit the line of dudes bubble-wrapping the tank without touching the tank.

The other problem is the flat damage to everything hit by the blast, which means that if GW wants to make a giant gun a threat to vehicles it has to be just absurd overkill when shooting non-vehicle targets or multiple vehicles.

I personally prefer random-shots to the blast template for ease/speed of play, but at the same time I'd rather see something more like Mk.1 Bolt Action's approach where a high explosive weapon didn't have really high strength, but when you shot a big target with it you made one damage roll with a strength based on the number of 'hits' you'd gotten rather than just making a lot of low-damage rolls. Blasts could be less overwhelming against infantry than if they were just "everyone hit is hit as if with an anti-tank gun" and remain a threat to vehicles.

Though if you want to use blast templates you could always take WHFB's solution and have one S/AP value for one model under the center hole and a lower S/AP value for people caught by the blast. Solve the "uniform explosion" issue and keep the dynamic/board-state-based number-of-hits scaling?

Personally, I consider scattering the larger issue rather than "Perfect model spacing" and to some degree imagine that adding a "center hit = D3 extra shots" would offset some of the gains from attempting to perfectly space stuff out; hitting only one centered model with a small blast = D3+1 shots, but hitting two models that are spaced out but not a perfect 2" apart would only be 2 shots. It's a bit hacky but can be fluffed as ricochets/etc for shooting grunts, and a "direct hit" vs larger models.

And while something like a BS hit for each model under a template would be gamey for stuff that logically shouldn't miss (Vortex Missiles or any real MOAB-equivalent), that's probably for the best.

I think more of the point of getting rid of the templates was about accessibility. The more accessories you need to play the harder it is for new players to pick up and play.

And the 3 basic ones are fine... but then you need the apocalyptic ones for c'tan and knights... and then there are 2 different apocalyptic barrage ones... apparently both valid.

Easier to just roll some dice.

I like the removal of blasts.

I enjoy the idea of making Napoleonic style musket lines more viable.

 Lance845 wrote:
I think more of the point of getting rid of the templates was about accessibility. The more accessories you need to play the harder it is for new players to pick up and play.

And the 3 basic ones are fine... but then you need the apocalyptic ones for c'tan and knights... and then there are 2 different apocalyptic barrage ones... apparently both valid.

Easier to just roll some dice.

Eh...personally I would be happier seeing Apocalypse blasts going but that's another story. It's not like templates can't be included in a starter set anyway...

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I think more of the point of getting rid of the templates was about accessibility. The more accessories you need to play the harder it is for new players to pick up and play.

And the 3 basic ones are fine... but then you need the apocalyptic ones for c'tan and knights... and then there are 2 different apocalyptic barrage ones... apparently both valid.

Easier to just roll some dice.

Eh...personally I would be happier seeing Apocalypse blasts going but that's another story. It's not like templates can't be included in a starter set anyway...

They can be easily included in starters. But you would need to want one of both armies in the starters. They also don't scale as well.

Point being I think GWs decision to remove templates from the game seems to be based on more than the, could be wonky, scatter mechanic. It looks like a conscious decision to reduce accessories and increase accessibility. The fact that d3 2d3 d6 2d6 ect ect... is significantly more scaleable helps a lot.

That said, from a simple gaming perspective it has side-effects as mentioned. You eliminate a major drawback to running stuff in close order formation; this arguably wasn't "as" big of an issue for Age of Sigmar since most armies were stuck in such formations anyway, but it becomes increasingly noticeable in a game like 40k, and that's where it gets weird. Something about the idea of Ork Shootaboyz in musket formation is a bit off-putting if you ask me.

Then there's the "crowd control"/hitting multiple *units* aspect. Theoretically, that unit of 30 Orks in 3 x 10 line could potentially take d6 hits from a flamer, no matter what. However if you had (This is hypothetical again) 30 individual models lined up in that same 3 x 10 line, it's d6 hits...on the same model.

"Quick, the enemy is massing to overwhelm us! Fire the artillery onto them!"

"Sir, it appears to be a mixed force from multiple squads!"

"Use the smart munitions, make sure each squad is destroyed one by one before going to the next!"

And then you need 30 Basilisk shots to kill 30 Orks, because there's absolutely no collateral damage.

(And that's before one brings up the usage of flamethrowers as anti-aircraft but that's another topic altogether)

Anyway, I feel that using to-hit vs models under the blast would be a *lot* faster than resolving scatter. Ymmv.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Anyway, I feel that using to-hit vs models under the blast would be a *lot* faster than resolving scatter. Ymmv.

I certainly agree with this.