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.

That's an entirely different discussion - how they implemented the rolls. Should a flamer be 3+D3? Probably, but the loss of templates is something I'm completely fine with. You'll note that even GW is trying to "fix" some of the super lackluster weapons with special rules, etc.

Things I don't miss:

Templates
Scatter Dice
Sustained Fire Dice (and Jams)
Guess Weapons (even with the Pythagorean grid)
Drifting Templates

Seriously, I love the fact that I can show up to a game with my army, my dice, and a tape measure! You people trying to add the cruft back to the game are the reason we can't have nice things.

 Elbows wrote:
But, that argument is entirely undone by wasting 45 friggin' minutes as a guard player carefully measures 2" maximum between every single model in a 20-30 man squad or unit...feth that noise.

The time wasted in preventing template coverage was of borderline biblically stupid proportions. Removing that was massively important.

Movement trays. Make them mandatory for large units in the main rules, sorted.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
But, that argument is entirely undone by wasting 45 friggin' minutes as a guard player carefully measures 2" maximum between every single model in a 20-30 man squad or unit...feth that noise.

The time wasted in preventing template coverage was of borderline biblically stupid proportions. Removing that was massively important.

Movement trays. Make them mandatory for large units in the main rules, sorted.

Didnt always work for some tables or terrain but yeah its a massive help on some very flat open tables. was really useful moving 400 skaven models

 Desubot wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
But, that argument is entirely undone by wasting 45 friggin' minutes as a guard player carefully measures 2" maximum between every single model in a 20-30 man squad or unit...feth that noise.

The time wasted in preventing template coverage was of borderline biblically stupid proportions. Removing that was massively important.

Movement trays. Make them mandatory for large units in the main rules, sorted.

Didnt always work for some tables or terrain but yeah its a massive help on some very flat open tables. was really useful moving 400 skaven models

True, but I think the time spent working out a way to represent the unit's position when the whole tray couldn't fit (such as placing down models in the positions of the corners of the unit etc.), was less than the time it would have otherwise taken to move them all without trays whilst maintaining formation

You could alternatively introduce rules whereby particularly large units cannot enter extremely dense terrain, due to them being unable to maintain their formation/communication amongst the unit (or whatever other excuse you want ). So that means all armies would need to make sure they have small units of scout-y skirmishers to hold/clear out enemies from dense terrain, or weapons designed to flush them out (flamers, napalm for clearing forests etc.)

Certainly ways of house ruling terrain. though personally i think the removal of templates is much easier for everyone.

im glad they did bring it back for necromunda levels of games though.

i think it makes more sense in smaller more granular type games.

 Desubot wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
But, that argument is entirely undone by wasting 45 friggin' minutes as a guard player carefully measures 2" maximum between every single model in a 20-30 man squad or unit...feth that noise.

The time wasted in preventing template coverage was of borderline biblically stupid proportions. Removing that was massively important.

Movement trays. Make them mandatory for large units in the main rules, sorted.

Didnt always work for some tables or terrain but yeah its a massive help on some very flat open tables. was really useful moving 400 skaven models

Trays were good in FB, yes, but are utterly useless on any 40k table I'd personally like to play on as there should be a metric ton of ruins, rocks, rubble, woods, buildings and whatnot everywhere that require individual placement of the miniatures to function. Open tables create problems

On the topic of templates, glad they're gone from a company level game. I liked the scattering chance to hit your own troops and I support the notion that unit size should dictate the number of hits somewhat, but those could very well be ruled in differently.

 Desubot wrote:
Certainly ways of house ruling terrain. though personally i think the removal of templates is much easier for everyone.

im glad they did bring it back for necromunda levels of games though.

i think it makes more sense in smaller more granular type games.

Almost certainly, but then a game at the model count of 40K shouldn't really be considering the individual placement of models to the extent that it does. 8th went some way to fixing that, but not far enough. Having to go down and check LOS for every model in a 30 strong unit is idiotic, for example.

As much as I dislike the current system even I have to admit templates sucked. They favoured certain armies too well and caused arguments. The current systme would be fixed by just increasing the fire rates like the IG got.

 supreme overlord wrote:
I miss flamer templates immensely, as someone who's built an entire GSC army around that template it was sad to see it go. I understand the blast templates being removed due to scatter arguments but I think they could've stayed with a different mechanic.

Just doesn't seem likely that I'd shoot a flame template at a squad and only get 1 hit ya know?

Seems about as likely as my Riptide shooting his Ion Accelerator at a Leman Russ a couple inches in front of him and have the shot not just miss, but land behind the Riptide on the opposite side from the Leman Russ and where he was facing because the Scatter Dice said so.

Say what you will about trying to explain how a flamer could only hit one guy when shot at a 30 man squad bunched up inside a building, but that's much easier to explain in my mind than a super advanced giant robot shooting a direct fire energy weapon at a tank right in front of him and the shot not only missing but impacting behind the giant robot in the opposite direction of the way his weapon was pointed.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

 supreme overlord wrote:
I miss flamer templates immensely, as someone who's built an entire GSC army around that template it was sad to see it go. I understand the blast templates being removed due to scatter arguments but I think they could've stayed with a different mechanic.

Just doesn't seem likely that I'd shoot a flame template at a squad and only get 1 hit ya know?

Seems about as likely as my Riptide shooting his Ion Accelerator at a Leman Russ a couple inches in front of him and have the shot not just miss, but land behind the Riptide on the opposite side from the Leman Russ and where he was facing because the Scatter Dice said so.

Say what you will about trying to explain how a flamer could only hit one guy when shot at a 30 man squad bunched up inside a building, but that's much easier to explain in my mind than a super advanced giant robot shooting a direct fire energy weapon at a tank right in front of him and the shot not only missing but impacting behind the giant robot in the opposite direction of the way his weapon was pointed.

It is pretty easy to explain: it bounced.
I miss template too. They were efficient and fun, and 40 is a game, game are supposed to be fun.

 godardc wrote:
...They were efficient and fun, and 40 is a game, game are supposed to be fun.

No. Games are what ever you want out of them. They aren't exclusively for fun. There is a reason some people actually choose to play games competitvely

I'm thrilled templates are gone. I hope they never return.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 godardc wrote:
...They were efficient and fun, and 40 is a game, game are supposed to be fun.

No. Games are what ever you want out of them. They aren't exclusively for fun. There is a reason some people actually choose to play games competitvely

Why do people believe that 'fun' and 'competitive' are mutually exclusive?

I don't miss templates. Rolling a die is way (like wayyyyy) faster.

 amanita wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 godardc wrote:
...They were efficient and fun, and 40 is a game, game are supposed to be fun.

No. Games are what ever you want out of them. They aren't exclusively for fun. There is a reason some people actually choose to play games competitvely

I
Why do people believe that 'fun' and 'competitive' are mutually exclusive?

Yeah man, you tell him

You do realize that I didn't even speak about competitivness ? I just said they were fun. You, and only you, excluded competitivness. I was speaking about having fun with the template and the mini. Never did I say "they were not competitive so they were fun", although I think 40k is beer and bretzel and that there are tons of truly competitive games out there.
But I will never ask someone to stop, I may even try it this year. You see ? I'm open minded and I don't try to take anything from you, so just stop being aggressive.
(I play several video games competitvely, so don't worry, I know one can have fun trying to win)

I never liked them myself. You're relying on people eyeballing the angle and what units are covered. That can rely heavily on what exact angle your viewing the template from and ended in arguements too often. It also slowed things down a ton with people spreading things out as far as possible. I wouldn't even call it a real tactical decision as it had no downsides in most editions.

Also for as much as people say they felt logical, torrent always truck me as the dumbest thing ever. "No guys, the flamethrower goes in a straight line and then curves 90 degrees before spreading out." >.>

Granted, I feel some weapons that were templates have been depowered a bit and could have the number of possible hits upped a bit.

Hatachi wrote:
I never liked them myself. You're relying on people eyeballing the angle and what units are covered. That can rely heavily on what exact angle your viewing the template from and ended in arguements too often. It also slowed things down a ton with people spreading things out as far as possible. I wouldn't even call it a real tactical decision as it had no downsides in most editions.

Also for as much as people say they felt logical, torrent always truck me as the dumbest thing ever. "No guys, the flamethrower goes in a straight line and then curves 90 degrees before spreading out." >.>

Granted, I feel some weapons that were templates have been depowered a bit and could have the number of possible hits upped a bit.

Yeah, torrent was fething stupid
They should have made a torrent template, like a 16" flame template !

I miss Templates and scatter dice a lot.

I feel they suffered from GWs poor implimentation and excessive use than being a poor concept.

I also really don't get why everyone is suddenly thrilled they don't have to space their units out so carefully when every discussion on the current competative meta is about carefully spacing your units out to deny deepstrike, congaline to a specific model, to hang out in this guys aura.

If you're not playing competatively, you don't have to do that, but just as much you never had to spent your movement phase dedicated to ensuring I hit less models with my battlecannon, either.

If you're playing games with people whom you have _actual arguements_ that neither of you enjoy about the scatter dice, I strongly suspect you're playing with the wrong people, and the removal of the scatter dice is unlikely to have turned your opponent from TFG till your best bro.
Likely now you're arguing about some obsecure loopholl in the rules, like if Tallarn transports can outflank with non tallarn infantry in using the stratagem.

Problem players always exist. That's not the scatter dice's fault. 40k's rules have never held up under super compeative play, but stuff like scatter dice and templates often made it more fun for casual play. I miss that. It is, as people keep repeatedly noting, a lot more bland now.

 godardc wrote:
You do realize that I didn't even speak about competitivness ? I just said they were fun. You, and only you, excluded competitivness. I was speaking about having fun with the template and the mini. Never did I say "they were not competitive so they were fun", although I think 40k is beer and bretzel and that there are tons of truly competitive games out there.
But I will never ask someone to stop, I may even try it this year. You see ? I'm open minded and I don't try to take anything from you, so just stop being aggressive.
(I play several video games competitvely, so don't worry, I know one can have fun trying to win)

yeah but you are wrong for saying games are supposed to be fun. I was using using competitive players as an example.

No need to get your panties in a bunch

With Orks I love aiming blast weapons into the middle of the enemy lines and watching shots scatter onto other units. Scatter weapons really give a feeling of the battlefield and spacing being important to the game instead of it just being a game of point and shoot. Templates where not the easiest to read and many mild arguments crop up due to interpreting how many models are under the template and how it scattered but it really gave the game character and was far less mathy than regular shooting. Its one of the ommisions that really ruins 8th for me because the game feels so sterile and bland without it.

 Vankraken wrote:
With Orks I love aiming blast weapons into the middle of the enemy lines and watching shots scatter onto other units. Scatter weapons really give a feeling of the battlefield and spacing being important to the game instead of it just being a game of point and shoot. Templates where not the easiest to read and many mild arguments crop up due to interpreting how many models are under the template and how it scattered but it really gave the game character and was far less mathy than regular shooting. Its one of the ommisions that really ruins 8th for me because the game feels so sterile and bland without it.

I will say i do miss the random unintended target nature of blasts. but the speed of just getting the number of hits and not needing to deal with arguments on the quantum nature of which side a molecule of hydro carbon is in relation to the perpendicular line of the blast template is a god send. (sure it never really happend thaaat much but it sucked when it did in situations where both sides of the table wouldnt yield and mean while your template is shifting side to side while you are trying to hold it up)

 Lum wrote:
I think it is wierd that for example battle cannons can inflict up to 6 hits onto a single model that can deal x wounds each (I don't have the exact figures right now).

It's great. I always found the idea the Vindicator shot that can level bunkers and turn Terminators into a bloody mist can only ever deal 1 wound to Monstrous Creature or T6+/EW characters to be patently absurd. Now it's realistically dangerous. Ditto for flamers, when you focus it on single target instead of spraying in an arc it definitely should deal more damage...

Pancakey wrote:

 Brotherjulian wrote:
I miss templates for flame weapons. Are you going to tell me I hit a 30 man conscript squad with a Hellhound and I'd only get d6 of them? The variable damage die doesn't scale for densely packed models.

10,000 times this.

No counter to cheap hordes. Guess what rules now?

Take off rosy nostalgia glasses and do tell how many models usually fit under a flame template against a competent opponent. Max was usually 2-3, 1 less than current average of 3-4, and getting 6 you could now was all but impossible. In fact, it was even worse because in 7th it was usually big fat zero as short range flamers either were torrented out as first casualty if in front or were unable to fire at all because template clipped 0.1 mm of friendly base in most positions if you tried to hide them behind friendlies.

But hey, keep targeting that strawman you set up based on your image of 8th ed rules with small blast. No wonder you miss so often

 Irbis wrote:

 Lum wrote:
I think it is wierd that for example battle cannons can inflict up to 6 hits onto a single model that can deal x wounds each (I don't have the exact figures right now).

It's great. I always found the idea the Vindicator shot that can level bunkers and turn Terminators into a bloody mist can only ever deal 1 wound to Monstrous Creature or T6+/EW characters to be patently absurd. Now it's realistically dangerous. Ditto for flamers, when you focus it on single target instead of spraying in an arc it definitely should deal more damage...

Pancakey wrote:

 Brotherjulian wrote:
I miss templates for flame weapons. Are you going to tell me I hit a 30 man conscript squad with a Hellhound and I'd only get d6 of them? The variable damage die doesn't scale for densely packed models.

10,000 times this.

No counter to cheap hordes. Guess what rules now?

Take off rosy nostalgia glasses and do tell how many models usually fit under a flame template against a competent opponent. Max was usually 2-3, 1 less than current average of 3-4, and getting 6 you could now was all but impossible. In fact, it was even worse because in 7th it was usually big fat zero as short range flamers either were torrented out as first casualty if in front or were unable to fire at all because template clipped 0.1 mm of friendly base in most positions if you tried to hide them behind friendlies.

But hey, keep targeting that strawman you set up based on your image of 8th ed rules with small blast. No wonder you miss so often

Couldn't you have it where you use a template (spread out, 1 wound each) or a focused blast (profiles like we have now)? Flamers doing d6 hits seems pretty meh compared how they used to be, they were used for anti-horde, now they're the same no matter who you face. I really think that old template weapons could indeed do more hits than what they do now. I get why they did away with templates, and I love them myself, but they did neuter the effect of some of these weapons.

 Zid wrote:


Couldn't you have it where you use a template (spread out, 1 wound each) or a focused blast (profiles like we have now)? Flamers doing d6 hits seems pretty meh compared how they used to be, they were used for anti-horde, now they're the same no matter who you face. I really think that old template weapons could indeed do more hits than what they do now. I get why they did away with templates, and I love them myself, but they did neuter the effect of some of these weapons.

They had the potential to do more than 6 hits but that was rare out side people not caring about spacing out in a situation where you got the flamers in close. the best you were ever getting besides torrent weapon was going to be maybe 2-3 against a spread out conga, or potentially more off a DS ring or off multi story buildings.

D6 flamers as it currently is IS weaker against hords now yes. a simple demolishes style you do 2d6 or some other fancyness against units that have 10-15-20 more models or some flavor of that would help significantly.
but its not all nerfs.

a flamer used to only do a max 1 hit against a solo model. now you get to bathe them in napalm.


Oh speaking of nerfs the other thing that changed which i 100% agree on was overwatching. it made no sense you could have a flamer in a conga line litterally on the other side of the table but still get auto D3 hits in. though now we do get the full flamer profile instead of just d3.

Unless you were using a Torrent Flamer, you were lucky to really get more than 4 models, which is oddly around the average for the current Flamer.

What MAKES it seem weaker is that Infantry and Gaunts and Orks get their saves now.

 Desubot wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Yeah the 30" congo lines for buffs are just hideous.

So were perfectly spaced out units that also conga lined to avoid as much of a template as possible.

Couldn't both be dealt with by forcing models to all be within (X) inches of the squad leader (Sergeant/Nob etc)

"Fluff" reason could be they need to hear the squad leader's orders so can't go too far from them (I imagine units without a character leader could have one treated as it for such purposes. Maybe a use for Ld beyond morale- use that for the distance they can be from the focal model- e with a boost for super large horde units)

I dont miss the never ending arguments my grenade launchers brought to the table one bit. I do miss their bypass of the junket IG BS ability. The GL did not transition well in 8th and thats a big mistake. GL were the thermobaric flamer of old. Go out and touch few enemies out there a nice way to deal with hordes at the platoon level. Unless they get buffed they are useless especially since they share the slot with yhe mighty plasmagun. Sad to see their demise .

Bolt Action 1 did not have templetes...version 2 does..i wonder why?