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.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

I wonder how it'd had been with a 1d6 scatter. Mybe to powerful this time, but also more reliable. We'll never know.

BA had 1D6 scatter. It was awesome, you could squeeze five man squads into tiny spaces pretty reliably.

Got to agree with the_scotsman, treating almost everything with the statue rules (minus the dorky morale bonus) more often than not grants cover when it seems logical that the unit should gain it. Likewise while I hope the terrain rules get a bit more robust one of these days, it baffles me when people on the Internet seem hellbent on never making agreements with their opponents about things that raise the level of their enjoyment. We use Movement negatives on difficult ground, tank traps and razor wires and such things both in the form they are in the rulebook (yes, it has a section on terrain) and in our house ruled ways as suits us and it never feels like it doesn't exist. Why are people not bothering to use them in a varied and plentiful way, I just wonder. Because it requires a bit of creatively productive talking with your opponent, you know, a human being who probably also wants to enjoy the game?

I pity the circles where one has to even consider something as dumb as "no opponent allows any interesting terrain if it doesn't suit their army". Now that right there is something ruinous for the game and speaks volumes about the sad, sad person on the other side of the table.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I believe you can try to create no go zones against deep strike for any edition, just deny the interesting positions.

Randomness in deep strikes was IMO good thing as defender could choose to have 100% coverage, or risk it and deploy army more efficiently but potentially leave room for dangerous (but risky) deep strike.
That said, I think deep strike was bit too random and dangerous in old editions which often made it tactically useless unless you had Drop pods or some no-scatter rule.

I wonder how it'd had been with a 1d6 scatter. Mybe to powerful this time, but also more reliable. We'll never know.

I didn't like when they added no-scatter to some units in 7th edition (for example Belial), they made Deep Strikes too point & click. IMO the problem was Mishap table which was just too ruthless, particularly in 5th edition where there was 1/3 chance to lose the unit right away.
Ask any Chaos Daemon player how they felt about it. Here comes my Bloodthirster!!...and lands into sharp rock head-first. Oh ffffu...

Scott-S6 wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

I wonder how it'd had been with a 1d6 scatter. Mybe to powerful this time, but also more reliable. We'll never know.

BA had 1D6 scatter. It was awesome, you could squeeze five man squads into tiny spaces pretty reliably.

Backfire wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I believe you can try to create no go zones against deep strike for any edition, just deny the interesting positions.

Randomness in deep strikes was IMO good thing as defender could choose to have 100% coverage, or risk it and deploy army more efficiently but potentially leave room for dangerous (but risky) deep strike.
That said, I think deep strike was bit too random and dangerous in old editions which often made it tactically useless unless you had Drop pods or some no-scatter rule.

I wonder how it'd had been with a 1d6 scatter. Mybe to powerful this time, but also more reliable. We'll never know.

I didn't like when they added no-scatter to some units in 7th edition (for example Belial), they made Deep Strikes too point & click. IMO the problem was Mishap table which was just too ruthless, particularly in 5th edition where there was 1/3 chance to lose the unit right away.
Ask any Chaos Daemon player how they felt about it. Here comes my Bloodthirster!!...and lands into sharp rock head-first. Oh ffffu...

Well GW why didn't you do it then (disapointment). And instead give the units that already had a d6 scatter a re roll or something.

The accident chart was harsh. Very harsh. Once in a 1v3 game we gave the lone one 500, that he spent into a squad of armed to the teeth assault terminators, and luckily they arrive at turn 2, and he lands them on a flat, nearly empty area but... scatter in my borther's grots. I take a dice and roll on the chart: displaced squad, but he comes up and says "could I please roll it? It's my unit after all" and I decide he is right, so I hand in the dice. 1. Rest in peace dear terminators, and his 500 pts perk.

Uncle Walter's bedstory time is over my children, go pray the emperor and lay to bed.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I believe you can try to create no go zones against deep strike for any edition, just deny the interesting positions.

As far as close combat, I don't really know what it could have done at all with 8th's modifications. We house ruled it to make it way simpler because we found it overly and uselessly complicated, plus that lends the orks a hand: basically, if after the overwatch you can still reach the unit, the units is fully engaged and fight with all their models regardless of piles in, first opponents and so on.

"8th is so simple baby game has no tactics anywhere zzzzz"

"Close combat is the most tactical it has ever been in any edition of the game"

"Yeah it was too complicated so we houserule it to be simple."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Got to agree with the_scotsman, treating almost everything with the statue rules (minus the dorky morale bonus) more often than not grants cover when it seems logical that the unit should gain it. Likewise while I hope the terrain rules get a bit more robust one of these days, it baffles me when people on the Internet seem hellbent on never making agreements with their opponents about things that raise the level of their enjoyment. We use Movement negatives on difficult ground, tank traps and razor wires and such things both in the form they are in the rulebook (yes, it has a section on terrain) and in our house ruled ways as suits us and it never feels like it doesn't exist. Why are people not bothering to use them in a varied and plentiful way, I just wonder. Because it requires a bit of creatively productive talking with your opponent, you know, a human being who probably also wants to enjoy the game?

I pity the circles where one has to even consider something as dumb as "no opponent allows any interesting terrain if it doesn't suit their army". Now that right there is something ruinous for the game and speaks volumes about the sad, sad person on the other side of the table.

If you have a complex, forge the narrative terrain board, a solid mix of Craters, Ruins, Statues and difficult terrain makes for the best terrain.

And if you have a simple board with big pieces the core rules "any unit within terrain is in cover" work the best.

Weird how that is.

 amanita wrote:
Skaorn, since when have partial hits been a thing? Wasn't it 5th Ed where all partials counted as hits? That's how we play it.
!

l

What's your point? Most of my free gaming time was during 3rd and 4th. How long was 3rd around compared to 5, 6, & 7? Yes when I think of blast weapons I think of partials because I've had more games with them. Believe it or not though, I used partials on purpose because it was an extra step in the process at the time that added an extra dice roll (maybe eating up an extra minute, tops) when the most time I saw was being wasted on the best position of a small blast. Most of the time it changed the dialogue to "looks like I clipped 4 guys" " I'll buy that". I think my most strenuous arguement in later editions was with a friend, his plasma cannon, and convincing him that it looked like he hit more guys of mine than he thought.

While I don't doubt that there are ten minute long arguments over templates, I wonder how many could be solved quickly by taking the smaller number as hits and rolling a d6 for each extra hit the other player is calling for? How many were against players who were going to be arguing about something, even if there was no templates involved. The d6 method was supposed to stop these arguments from taking up a lot of time and rules look ups. You get a fifty fifty shot of getting your way, you can go look it up and go to forums later.

Skaorn wrote:
Can we start a different thread about whether or not 30K is just about banging two SM armies together? I honestly wouldn't mind discussing it but it's off topic here.

As for as templates go, the most time consuming aspect I found was waiting for a player to find the best place to put their small blast template over a squad to get the most effect. Normally it was followed by:

"I see 1 and 3 partials" or "2 and 1 partial"
"Looks about right"
<Roll for partials>

That was my general experience with templates. There were exceptions but usually from players that no one really wanted to play anyways because of things like persistent rules lawyering. My most notable was playing a railhead vs IG. My opponent's army was beautifully painted and converted but he was not a good player. He was kind of known for his temper when loosing, not towards other players either, but many people commented that they thought he was going to start smashing his models into the wall when they failed him. I was just playing mop up at that point in the game so I fired a submunitions shot at his only remaining intact infantry squad. I said it got most of the squad, he claimed a lot of it was partial, we argued for a minute or two but ultimately I just relented becaused I didn't want him taking a hammer to his army. That's about the only argument I remember having with someone who wasn't a rules lawyer who would still find things to argue about in 8th.

I won’t reply again but only to say that 30k is more than 95% games Marines vs Marines. Some are traitors coz you need a bad guy right. You never ever see any xenos. Admech is the one non marine army you occassionally see and it’s BAF.

 Primark G wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
Can we start a different thread about whether or not 30K is just about banging two SM armies together? I honestly wouldn't mind discussing it but it's off topic here.

As for as templates go, the most time consuming aspect I found was waiting for a player to find the best place to put their small blast template over a squad to get the most effect. Normally it was followed by:

"I see 1 and 3 partials" or "2 and 1 partial"
"Looks about right"
<Roll for partials>

That was my general experience with templates. There were exceptions but usually from players that no one really wanted to play anyways because of things like persistent rules lawyering. My most notable was playing a railhead vs IG. My opponent's army was beautifully painted and converted but he was not a good player. He was kind of known for his temper when loosing, not towards other players either, but many people commented that they thought he was going to start smashing his models into the wall when they failed him. I was just playing mop up at that point in the game so I fired a submunitions shot at his only remaining intact infantry squad. I said it got most of the squad, he claimed a lot of it was partial, we argued for a minute or two but ultimately I just relented becaused I didn't want him taking a hammer to his army. That's about the only argument I remember having with someone who wasn't a rules lawyer who would still find things to argue about in 8th.

I won’t reply again but only to say that 30k is more than 95% games Marines vs Marines. Some are traitors coz you need a bad guy right. You never ever see any xenos. Admech is the one non marine army you occassionally see and it’s BAF.

40k is about 70% Marines vs Marines too if you go looking around tables at most places. At least in 30k it's fluffy for that to happen almost all of the time.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I believe you can try to create no go zones against deep strike for any edition, just deny the interesting positions.

As far as close combat, I don't really know what it could have done at all with 8th's modifications. We house ruled it to make it way simpler because we found it overly and uselessly complicated, plus that lends the orks a hand: basically, if after the overwatch you can still reach the unit, the units is fully engaged and fight with all their models regardless of piles in, first opponents and so on.

"8th is so simple baby game has no tactics anywhere zzzzz"

"Close combat is the most tactical it has ever been in any edition of the game"

"Yeah it was too complicated so we houserule it to be simple

1: we once again used a transposed bolt action formula. Ot works very well. In fact most of the "tactic" are mere rules exploits in the case of close combat otherwise.

2:There was still tactics managing the duels (which weren't a good idea rulewise by the way, and that we pretty much shortened as well), to have them arrive, to choose unit (pretty mych universal i confess) to give your unit a formation you like while bringuing the models closer "for the cinematics", in gearing the units, in trying to create the condition to "jump" from unit to unit, locking enemy units to neutralise them... Not much had changed, it was just simplier and helped the poor orks a great deal as they hadn't wasted attacks anymore.

3: you may be dumb enough to reply in a condescending manner to whom disagres with you, i'm not dumb enough to house rule something without checking on several games we did. We actually troed it out to know if it'd be stupid and work badly or if it'd be a good change, which it proved to be so that we kept it. What's more as english is your native language, not mine, i thought most people on this forum would recognise an adverb class word bringing nuances to a speech such as uselessly, that implies there were complicated parts that did not bring much USE, because less added to somthing negates it. so USE-LESS means we didn't lise anything getting rid of it.

The same can't be said for no flanking and zero risk deep strikes for example, that do have a use although they could had been bettered in some cases.

That being clarifyed, moving on.

The forge the narrative itself isn't bad at all, on the contrary, but GW ignored on purpose the fact that we didn't nedd them to tell us to start to get the things modified by ourselves. Which allows them to be somewhat loose on some matyers and then invoke forge a narrative to tell you to get along as you wish. Whereas they could just have tried to be once again, simple and effective. I don't say it is not hard, on the contrary it takes time, but why it would be worth it finding a balance. Whole point is: isn't GeeDuns a bit lazy in their rules design?

Formosa wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The issue is that if you open the door to players arguing they will.

Every time a model was 1mm under or out of the template you get a potential dispute. You wouldn't have thought this would happen often but it seemed to come up a lot - especially with the small blast template.

I'd have probably kept the flamer - which seemed to cause comparatively few arguments because you could place it as you wanted (so it could be manipulated until both players agreed on the result) and it had an iconic coolness to it. Changing blast to D3/D6 wasn't the worst idea - but these should have been flat hits and everything balanced accordingly. "DX" shots that you then have to hit with is a stupid mechanic and I'd love it to be taken out.

Hold template over enemy models

“How many models are under there mate, can’t really see from my angle”

“About 3, possibly 4, lets call it 4”

“Ok bud”

99.999999% of games

The whole template argument thing is pure cods wallop, barely anyone ever actually argued about it, it’s internet hyperbole as usual

But meh, it’s gone, replaced by a system that hasn’t actually replaced it, thing is I liked the idea of the d6 multi shot, it just hasn’t worked, GW needs to resolve the issue.

Do you think that this anecdotal account is a completely infallible representation of 99.999999% of all games, or just your own? Because not everyone is as agreeable as your opponents - especially not when their is stakes. Hell, even I'm not even going to let you do that in anything bar truly casual matches, if it's 3 its 3, if its 4 its 4, and I want to be sure we've gotten it right.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Formosa wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The issue is that if you open the door to players arguing they will.

Every time a model was 1mm under or out of the template you get a potential dispute. You wouldn't have thought this would happen often but it seemed to come up a lot - especially with the small blast template.

I'd have probably kept the flamer - which seemed to cause comparatively few arguments because you could place it as you wanted (so it could be manipulated until both players agreed on the result) and it had an iconic coolness to it. Changing blast to D3/D6 wasn't the worst idea - but these should have been flat hits and everything balanced accordingly. "DX" shots that you then have to hit with is a stupid mechanic and I'd love it to be taken out.

Hold template over enemy models

“How many models are under there mate, can’t really see from my angle”

“About 3, possibly 4, lets call it 4”

“Ok bud”

99.999999% of games

The whole template argument thing is pure cods wallop, barely anyone ever actually argued about it, it’s internet hyperbole as usual

But meh, it’s gone, replaced by a system that hasn’t actually replaced it, thing is I liked the idea of the d6 multi shot, it just hasn’t worked, GW needs to resolve the issue.

Do you think that this anecdotal account is a completely infallible representation of 99.999999% of all games, or just your own? Because not everyone is as agreeable as your opponents - especially not when their is stakes. Hell, even I'm not even going to let you do that in anything bar truly casual matches, if it's 3 its 3, if its 4 its 4, and I want to be sure we've gotten it right.

Yep it’s completely and utterly infallible. Airtight and can’t be argued with

 SHUPPET wrote:

Do you think that this anecdotal account is a completely infallible representation of 99.999999% of all games, or just your own? Because not everyone is as agreeable as your opponents - especially not when their is stakes. Hell, even I'm not even going to let you do that in anything bar truly casual matches, if it's 3 its 3, if its 4 its 4, and I want to be sure we've gotten it right.

MASSIVELY this! Everyone comes on to the internet to put forward their view of the game and forgets that they're talking to people in totally different gaming cultures who interpret everything differently. I've lost count of the number of times blast and templates caused disruption to games. I'm not a fan of 8th as a whole but getting rid of templates in my opinion (in my gaming environment) has been a big improvement. If it wasn't in yours then so be it but overwhelmingly the people I encounter prefer it.

Getting rid of vehicle facings though...oh boy don't get me started.

 Nithaniel wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Do you think that this anecdotal account is a completely infallible representation of 99.999999% of all games, or just your own? Because not everyone is as agreeable as your opponents - especially not when their is stakes. Hell, even I'm not even going to let you do that in anything bar truly casual matches, if it's 3 its 3, if its 4 its 4, and I want to be sure we've gotten it right.

MASSIVELY this! Everyone comes on to the internet to put forward their view of the game and forgets that they're talking to people in totally different gaming cultures who interpret everything differently. I've lost count of the number of times blast and templates caused disruption to games. I'm not a fan of 8th as a whole but getting rid of templates in my opinion (in my gaming environment) has been a big improvement. If it wasn't in yours then so be it but overwhelmingly the people I encounter prefer it.

Getting rid of vehicle facings though...oh boy don't get me started.

Ok jokes aside, no I have encountered very little in the way of bickering due to templates, usually if there is bickering it’s from the kind of person that would bicker anyway, if you know you are playing this kind of person (which becomes apparent very quickly)then just go with the flow, honestly who cares if it’s 3 or 4 models, ah I know, tourney players, I could see it matter to them.

Now with 8th we have a squiffed situation that traditionally anti horde weapons, suck at killing hordes, this issue is further compounded by the movement phase having less of an impact on the game, model spacing literally meaning nothing either.

So both systems are certainly lacking in areas, templates apparently causing great issues and the Dx system is far too lacking to deal with hordes, properly, does this mean we need to bring back templates? No, they just need to fix the horde issue or the Dx issue.

 Formosa wrote:
just go with the flow, honestly who cares if it’s 3 or 4 models, ah I know, tourney players, I could see it matter to them.

You say this with such disdain as though caring about the game being played by the rules is the problem here, and not the style of writing that leads to such open ended and consistent disputes.

If you only play casually with people who just shrug away models, then why would you speak on the community as a whole and act like this doesn't happen? You've been on Dakka for nearly a decade now, you must have at some point stopped and realised that not everyone plays, or wants the game to be played, so loosely?

 Formosa wrote:

Ok jokes aside, no I have encountered very little in the way of bickering due to templates

My group had quite a bit, though it was usually less to do with how many models were under the template and more to do with the scatter dice - which often had to be measured/remeasured multiple times (since people disagreed on angles and such).

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
just go with the flow, honestly who cares if it’s 3 or 4 models, ah I know, tourney players, I could see it matter to them.

You say this with such disdain as though caring about the game being played by the rules is the problem here, and not the style of writing that leads to such open ended and consistent disputes.

If you only play casually with people who just shrug away models, then why would you speak on the community as a whole and act like this doesn't happen? You've been on Dakka for nearly a decade now, you must have at some point stopped and realised that not everyone plays, or wants the game to be played, so loosely?

Yep I have seen what you say, but im a pragmatist, I understand that Dakka represents a tiny tiny part of the player base that tends to blow things out of proportion, I can only reliably go on my own experiences and can happily say it was not as much of a problem as most here claim, sure you guys can disagree and thats fine, you can only go on your own experiences.

So yes, I am saying that in the majority of cases people just got on with templates just fine, for nearly 3 decades and in many game systems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Ok jokes aside, no I have encountered very little in the way of bickering due to templates

My group had quite a bit, though it was usually less to do with how many models were under the template and more to do with the scatter dice - which often had to be measured/remeasured multiple times (since people disagreed on angles and such).

Hmmm have I misunderstood what were talking about?

are we talking templates or scatter dice? dont like the scatter dice mechanic, templates are fine, I prefered the trial rules for templates way back in 3rd/4th, roll to hit, place template wholly over models base, was quick and easy.

 Formosa wrote:

Hmmm have I misunderstood what were talking about?

are we talking templates or scatter dice? dont like the scatter dice mechanic, templates are fine

You were indeed talking about templates. I just mentioned scatter dice because it was part of the template mechanic in past editions.

But yeah, I think scatter dice were more the problem, rather than the templates themselves.

 Formosa wrote:
I prefered the trial rules for templates way back in 3rd/4th, roll to hit, place template wholly over models base, was quick and easy.

Would I be right in assuming that nothing happens if you miss (as in, the template doesn't scatter at all)?

 vipoid wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Hmmm have I misunderstood what were talking about?

are we talking templates or scatter dice? dont like the scatter dice mechanic, templates are fine

You were indeed talking about templates. I just mentioned scatter dice because it was part of the template mechanic in past editions.

But yeah, I think scatter dice were more the problem, rather than the templates themselves.

 Formosa wrote:
I prefered the trial rules for templates way back in 3rd/4th, roll to hit, place template wholly over models base, was quick and easy.

Would I be right in assuming that nothing happens if you miss (as in, the template doesn't scatter at all)?

If you hit you place the template, if you miss then you just miss, no template, it was mega simple, but given the Ed it was very very powerful, 17pt space marines and 10pt guard, these days it would just be a flash in the pan.

 Formosa wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
just go with the flow, honestly who cares if it’s 3 or 4 models, ah I know, tourney players, I could see it matter to them.

You say this with such disdain as though caring about the game being played by the rules is the problem here, and not the style of writing that leads to such open ended and consistent disputes.

If you only play casually with people who just shrug away models, then why would you speak on the community as a whole and act like this doesn't happen? You've been on Dakka for nearly a decade now, you must have at some point stopped and realised that not everyone plays, or wants the game to be played, so loosely?

Yep I have seen what you say, but im a pragmatist, I understand that Dakka represents a tiny tiny part of the player base that tends to blow things out of proportion, I can only reliably go on my own experiences and can happily say it was not as much of a problem as most here claim, sure you guys can disagree and thats fine, you can only go on your own experiences.

So yes, I am saying that in the majority of cases people just got on with templates just fine, for nearly 3 decades and in many game systems.

The fact that even you can only say the majority of the time, is the point. If you roll to hit you roll to hit. Theres no "ehhhhh that 2 looks like a 4, we'll call it a hit". Not opening the rules up to interpretative stances it the mark of a better ruleset. You don't care, you've said 3 models is the same as 4 to you, I get it, but you need to stop talking as though you speak for anyone but yourself.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
just go with the flow, honestly who cares if it’s 3 or 4 models, ah I know, tourney players, I could see it matter to them.

You say this with such disdain as though caring about the game being played by the rules is the problem here, and not the style of writing that leads to such open ended and consistent disputes.

If you only play casually with people who just shrug away models, then why would you speak on the community as a whole and act like this doesn't happen? You've been on Dakka for nearly a decade now, you must have at some point stopped and realised that not everyone plays, or wants the game to be played, so loosely?

Yep I have seen what you say, but im a pragmatist, I understand that Dakka represents a tiny tiny part of the player base that tends to blow things out of proportion, I can only reliably go on my own experiences and can happily say it was not as much of a problem as most here claim, sure you guys can disagree and thats fine, you can only go on your own experiences.

So yes, I am saying that in the majority of cases people just got on with templates just fine, for nearly 3 decades and in many game systems.

The fact that even you can only say the majority of the time, is the point. If you roll to hit you roll to hit. Theres no "ehhhhh that 2 looks like a 4, we'll call it a hit". Not opening the rules up to interpretative stances it the mark of a better ruleset. You don't care, you've said 3 models is the same as 4 to you, I get it, but you need to stop talking as though you speak for anyone but yourself.

I am speaking for everyone I have encountered too, this is an issue I have only really seen complained about online hence my calling it “internet hyperbole”

But since you guys have made the assertion that most people hated it, time to prove it.

Will check back on it later but it seems most people on 40k for grown ups liked templates, will re post results in a few hours to see if things change.


Caveat: this is just a poll on 40k for grown ups and is not representative of the whole community

I like templates too; they are a great visual way to represent something like flame thrower or a grenade or mortar blast on the table. You get a visual BAM that's where it strikes effect.

They can be tricky to resolve and induce debates, but people debating online often forget that aspect of increase error margin over other ways to create blast effects on the table.

In the end wargames have to walk that line between mathematical perfection and the inaccuracies of a visual medium on a tabletop.

 Formosa wrote:


But since you guys have made the assertion that most people hated it, time to prove it.

I think you know how hard it is to prove and the following may not be enough proof for you and its not really our job to change your mind however...

It was clearly a big enough problem for GW to decide to remove what was an iconic aspect of 40k and they stated the same reason why the game mechanic was changed.

I think your poll misses the point entirely, I liked templates and blast markers. They made sense to me as a visual representation of what was happening. I however like that there is an attempt to represent that game mechanic in a different way because there was an associated problem (for some people) with templates and blast markers and scatter.

Personally I think scatter and blasts were harder because templates came from a set point and were easier to agree on.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
just go with the flow, honestly who cares if it’s 3 or 4 models, ah I know, tourney players, I could see it matter to them.

You say this with such disdain as though caring about the game being played by the rules is the problem here, and not the style of writing that leads to such open ended and consistent disputes.

If you only play casually with people who just shrug away models, then why would you speak on the community as a whole and act like this doesn't happen? You've been on Dakka for nearly a decade now, you must have at some point stopped and realised that not everyone plays, or wants the game to be played, so loosely?

But tournament players act as if tournaments are the only way people play the game so it's all equal really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Will check back on it later but it seems most people on 40k for grown ups liked templates, will re post results in a few hours to see if things change.


Caveat: this is just a poll on 40k for grown ups and is not representative of the whole community

In fairness I think there's a lot of rose tinted glasses being passed around in that community.

As a disclaimer, this post will be SOLELY from the perspective of my Ork army; so take anything said here as anecdotal and not based upon anything more.

TEMPLATES:

Pros:
My Ork army had a love hate relationship with Templates. On the one hand, it was just about the only reliable way to get decent shooting for Orkz in 4th-7th edition. The stompas as an example was complete trash, but its blast weapons at least made it decent for one purpose. Lobbas for another example were great. Burnas were an actual tactic, put them in a wagon or trukk and then drop 10-15 flame templates on a squad.

Cons:
On the negative side though, they were wicked slow to use. People would constantly complain about scatter, direction of scatter, how many models were hit, how terrain effected the results and so forth. AND, on my end, when getting shot, I would spend so much more time figuring out how best to position my mobz so that a handful of blasts or large blast units didn't obliterate my entire army. Flamers were the exact same in regards to positioning.

Overall:
Blast weapons were completely OP against hordes and border line useless against small units if your opponent spaced them correctly. I didn't like the blast weapon rules overall, to one sided against my faction.

DEEPSTRIKE:

Pros: Well....I never had deep strike really, I could use "Da Jump" but the rules for deep strike were so limiting back then that the one unit I did deep strike was then left exposed to get shot off the table by my opponent. So on the plus side...i guess there isn't any for 7th edition for my faction

Cons: We didn't have units that could independently deep strike, I think Stormboyz could...but again, you were just throwing away an expensive unit to rapid fire bolters or similar weapons. Scatter was inherently unbalanced by who used it, SMs with their guidance systems would almost never mishap, where as the damage caused by a mishap was usually catastrophic for that unit. Place the enemy unit on the far corner and poof its basically useless the rest of the game, or worse, the unit is simply killed outright.

Overall: I didn't like it, and hardly used it.

AV FACINGS:

Pros: It was nice to have AV14 armor, and it defeated a LOT of anti-armor weapons including lascannons most of the time. The ability to completely ignore most S4 and under weapons was also nice and sped the game up a bit.

Cons: Constant argument about facings, worse, My army didn't have any good vehicles with armor to use. The most heavily armored unit we had was the Battle Wagon which was 14/12/10...The front 14 was about 3 inches long and the sides were closer to 8 inches long, ironically our big butt AV10 was bigger then our front. basically you were almost never getting AV14 ever. It was also really annoying with the open topped rules adding +1 to damage charts. Nothing like watching your 180pt unit die to a single Missile Launcher, or Lascannon with +2 to explode or Melta with +3 or Eldar with +4 to explode.

Overall: They didn't help my orkz out at all, and usually hurt them because of our horribly short ranged and SLOW anti-tank options.

TERRAIN:

Pros: Getting 4+ cover for my unit was amazing. It made foot slogging boyz a realistic option (kind of) and with the right combo, you could use terrain as a strategic advantage over stationary gun line armies.

Cons: Slowed the game down with D6 movement and -2 to charge, positioning was always key as always in any edition with blast weapons. Worst of all, it felt like half the game ignored cover some way or other.

Overall: When I could get into terrain I would, but it was rarely as beneficial as I hoped it would be.


Just to touch on terrain again for 8th edition though. Who came up with the genius idea of +1 to armor instead of 4+ cover saves? And then they teamed it with a new rule that the entire unit has to be in cover to benefit from it? Why not just blatantly tell orkz and other horde armies not to use cover? As bad as 7th was with the plethora of ignores cover weapons, at least I had a chance of utilizing cover. It is somehow even more glaringly bad for my expensive ranged units like Lootas/Tankbustas and the lot who can't camp in cover anymore and get a decent save, now they have to rely on a 5+ in cover...

I never had any intense problems with templates/blasts. If the game is so close, that it makes a huge difference if 3 or 4 models are hit then the game most probably hinges mostly on who goes first or the variable game length roll or any other single dice really.

For me, removal of blasts just takes away too much - scattering blasts represent area effect weapons so much better than DX mechanics: non binary accuracy, compensation for poor ballistic skill, collateral friendly fire, indirect damage, effectiveness against crowded enemy, etc. DX just doesn't reflect any of that and the only goal it achieves is increased speed. I understand that that may be a key factor for some, but for me it is just bland and gamey. But I do prefer 2nd ed scatter rules over 7th ed variant.

 Formosa wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
just go with the flow, honestly who cares if it’s 3 or 4 models, ah I know, tourney players, I could see it matter to them.

You say this with such disdain as though caring about the game being played by the rules is the problem here, and not the style of writing that leads to such open ended and consistent disputes.

If you only play casually with people who just shrug away models, then why would you speak on the community as a whole and act like this doesn't happen? You've been on Dakka for nearly a decade now, you must have at some point stopped and realised that not everyone plays, or wants the game to be played, so loosely?

Yep I have seen what you say, but im a pragmatist, I understand that Dakka represents a tiny tiny part of the player base that tends to blow things out of proportion, I can only reliably go on my own experiences and can happily say it was not as much of a problem as most here claim, sure you guys can disagree and thats fine, you can only go on your own experiences.

So yes, I am saying that in the majority of cases people just got on with templates just fine, for nearly 3 decades and in many game systems.

The fact that even you can only say the majority of the time, is the point. If you roll to hit you roll to hit. Theres no "ehhhhh that 2 looks like a 4, we'll call it a hit". Not opening the rules up to interpretative stances it the mark of a better ruleset. You don't care, you've said 3 models is the same as 4 to you, I get it, but you need to stop talking as though you speak for anyone but yourself.

I am speaking for everyone I have encountered too, this is an issue I have only really seen complained about online hence my calling it “internet hyperbole”

But since you guys have made the assertion that most people hated it, time to prove it.

I didn't make any such assertion at all, and I never would, as that's not even an opinion I hold.

I saw you saying that people didn't argue over templates and it was not a flawed system in that regard, and it's just nonsense. That's the start and finish of my statement. Going and starting some strawman poll among a bunch of old "it was better in my day" players, asking a question that isn't even something I was contesting, does not make you right here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
just go with the flow, honestly who cares if it’s 3 or 4 models, ah I know, tourney players, I could see it matter to them.

You say this with such disdain as though caring about the game being played by the rules is the problem here, and not the style of writing that leads to such open ended and consistent disputes.

If you only play casually with people who just shrug away models, then why would you speak on the community as a whole and act like this doesn't happen? You've been on Dakka for nearly a decade now, you must have at some point stopped and realised that not everyone plays, or wants the game to be played, so loosely?

But tournament players act as if tournaments are the only way people play the game so it's all equal really.

Fair enough, but Everyone's style of play being equal is exactly why it's great that the rules now work at every level without hitch and not just casual ones.

 Formosa wrote:

If you hit you place the template, if you miss then you just miss, no template, it was mega simple, but given the Ed it was very very powerful, 17pt space marines and 10pt guard, these days it would just be a flash in the pan.

That certainly sounds preferable to the scatter mechanic.

SemperMortis wrote:

Overall:
Blast weapons were completely OP against hordes and border line useless against small units if your opponent spaced them correctly. I didn't like the blast weapon rules overall, to one sided against my faction.

One thing I'll say about blast weapons is that they basically made my infantry IG army unplayable in 7th (they weren't the only problem, but they were still a big one). By the end of 7th, there were just so many units throwing around large blasts, they would basically delete whole platoons each turn.

SemperMortis wrote:

Just to touch on terrain again for 8th edition though. Who came up with the genius idea of +1 to armor instead of 4+ cover saves? And then they teamed it with a new rule that the entire unit has to be in cover to benefit from it? Why not just blatantly tell orkz and other horde armies not to use cover? As bad as 7th was with the plethora of ignores cover weapons, at least I had a chance of utilizing cover. It is somehow even more glaringly bad for my expensive ranged units like Lootas/Tankbustas and the lot who can't camp in cover anymore and get a decent save, now they have to rely on a 5+ in cover...

It's certainly weird that the units with the worst armour saves are the ones that gain the least benefit from being in cover, when one would think the opposite would be true. I mean, if you're already wearing half a tank, there's only so much a brick wall is going to do. But if all you've got is some cardboard with 'Armor' written on it, then that brick wall is going to be a significant improvement.

What if different terrain pieces were given armour saves? So a ruin might have a 4+ save, a forest might have a 5+ save, something like that. If you're shot at, any model in cover can choose to use the armour save of the cover in place of its own. Would that help at all?

Backfire wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I believe you can try to create no go zones against deep strike for any edition, just deny the interesting positions.

Randomness in deep strikes was IMO good thing as defender could choose to have 100% coverage, or risk it and deploy army more efficiently but potentially leave room for dangerous (but risky) deep strike.
That said, I think deep strike was bit too random and dangerous in old editions which often made it tactically useless unless you had Drop pods or some no-scatter rule.

I wonder how it'd had been with a 1d6 scatter. Mybe to powerful this time, but also more reliable. We'll never know.

I didn't like when they added no-scatter to some units in 7th edition (for example Belial), they made Deep Strikes too point & click. IMO the problem was Mishap table which was just too ruthless, particularly in 5th edition where there was 1/3 chance to lose the unit right away.
Ask any Chaos Daemon player how they felt about it. Here comes my Bloodthirster!!...and lands into sharp rock head-first. Oh ffffu...

Very few units had that ability, and to actually complain about Belial is literally the silliest thing I've seen since I've been on this forum.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I believe you can try to create no go zones against deep strike for any edition, just deny the interesting positions.

Randomness in deep strikes was IMO good thing as defender could choose to have 100% coverage, or risk it and deploy army more efficiently but potentially leave room for dangerous (but risky) deep strike.
That said, I think deep strike was bit too random and dangerous in old editions which often made it tactically useless unless you had Drop pods or some no-scatter rule.

I wonder how it'd had been with a 1d6 scatter. Mybe to powerful this time, but also more reliable. We'll never know.

I didn't like when they added no-scatter to some units in 7th edition (for example Belial), they made Deep Strikes too point & click. IMO the problem was Mishap table which was just too ruthless, particularly in 5th edition where there was 1/3 chance to lose the unit right away.
Ask any Chaos Daemon player how they felt about it. Here comes my Bloodthirster!!...and lands into sharp rock head-first. Oh ffffu...

Very few units had that ability, and to actually complain about Belial is literally the silliest thing I've seen since I've been on this forum.

No-scatter deep-strike might have been rare, but you also had stuff like Drop Pods - which corrected any scatter that would result in a mishap (save for going off the table IIRC).