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.

 Stux wrote:
They still wouldn't be able to shoot from deep strike with 9" range. If you're within 9" then you were setup incorrectly. They need to be 10".

Good point, really they should just be 12" to cover Overwatch in general.

I don't mind flamers. They work fine for what they do. Would I prefer 2D3 over D6? Of course, everyone would. I think they should ignore cover (their real purpose in many instances), and could be 4-5 points instead of 6. Overall, I don't mind. They work with the units I have them on. A heavy flamer is absolutely not worth its cost though, I strongly believe it needs a couple more points reduction. I would have actually rather a heavy flamer be the same strength as a normal flamer - but give it a longer range...giving it an actually identity in the game.

I kinda think flamers should be completely redesigned to no longer auto hit. Instead roll one die per model in targeted unit or d6 dice to hit, flamer controlling player's choice. This would make it a decent anti-horde/line breaker weapon against factions that bring big squads. At least one down side being another nail in bringing anything but minimum sized squads.

I almost want to go as far as 1 die per model within 8" of the flamer model to really break up large clumps of horde infantry. Seems way too powerful though, even if it was just limited to heavy flamers. It would definitely put heavy flamers back on terminators though.

Bring back templates.

No scatter, just use ballistic skill to hit.

Add plus 1 to hit if there are more than 5 men in the unit.

Bring back "ignores cover"

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Bring back templates.

No scatter, just use ballistic skill to hit.

Add plus 1 to hit if there are more than 5 men in the unit.

Bring back "ignores cover"

Ehh. I'm not fond of spending time spacing out my models.

I dont think it would get a reasonable benefit as you'd need to be much closer to get a few models under the template.

Agree to disagree I guess.

I mean, I feel like the only real way of making flamers and blasts worth it is if you changed them to:

2d3 for blasts

3d3 for flamers

4d3 for Ordinance

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ehh. I'm not fond of spending time spacing out my models.

I dont think it would get a reasonable benefit as you'd need to be much closer to get a few models under the template.

Agreed, no templates. The spacing game is dumb and tedious.

Scaling shots based on unit size would probably work well and provide a reasonable facsimile of what templates provided.

For example, weapons considered under the old rules to be Large Blast could scale D6 per 10 in the unit. Small Blast could just be D6. Flamers could probably work on the same scale as Large Blast or go D3 per 5.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ehh. I'm not fond of spending time spacing out my models.

I dont think it would get a reasonable benefit as you'd need to be much closer to get a few models under the template.

Agreed, no templates. The spacing game is dumb and tedious.

Scaling shots based on unit size would probably work well and provide a reasonable facsimile of what templates provided.

For example, weapons considered under the old rules to be Large Blast could scale D6 per 10 in the unit. Small Blast could just be D6. Flamers could probably work on the same scale as Large Blast or go D3 per 5.

I see this all the time and kind of disagree. Scaling per unit won't help when most units are 5-10 models, and rarely go over except in specific cases. Even guard, whos the horde Boogeyman, doesn't go past 10 models per unit.

Flamers worked because they only cared about models under the template -- if it was different units, so be it, it was different units. Which meant a couple of Flamers by a choke point we're absolutely no joke vs hordes, where d6 per 10 models will be identical in most cases to what we have now, and will help clear fretchin and/or cultists, who no one should be having trouble clearing anyway!

Pleasestop wrote:
Flamers worked because they only cared about models under the template -- if it was different units, so be it, it was different units. Which meant a couple of Flamers by a choke point we're absolutely no joke vs hordes, where d6 per 10 models will be identical in most cases to what we have now, and will help clear fretchin and/or cultists, who no one should be having trouble clearing anyway!

Yes, but templates are dumb and tedious, lead to arguments, and drag the game out, so, we'll have to agree to disagree. You may now rant about how they aren't dumb and tedious, how they make the game faster because, well, reasons and have never caused an argument.

How does lack of template make the game faster, if the result of having no real anti horde options, other then being horde yourself, makes armies huge? Plus you still play spread units to have a large footprint, push MW away, stop deep strikers from reaching important stuff etc.

Karol wrote:
How does lack of template make the game faster, if the result of having no real anti horde options, other then being horde yourself, makes armies huge? Plus you still play spread units to have a large footprint, push MW away, stop deep strikers from reaching important stuff etc.

Yes, but I don't spend a bunch of time making sure my squads are spread to the limit of unit coherency, I'm not holding a tape measure between every member of the unit I put down on the table.

Also, seriously, you haven't had the in/out argument on templates? I'm pretty sure I've had all 5,326,459 versions of that argument.

Karol wrote:
How does lack of template make the game faster, if the result of having no real anti horde options, other then being horde yourself, makes armies huge? Plus you still play spread units to have a large footprint, push MW away, stop deep strikers from reaching important stuff etc.

A horde army is faster to move in 8th than an average size army in 7th, I would wager.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Karol wrote:
How does lack of template make the game faster, if the result of having no real anti horde options, other then being horde yourself, makes armies huge? Plus you still play spread units to have a large footprint, push MW away, stop deep strikers from reaching important stuff etc.

Yes, but I don't spend a bunch of time making sure my squads are spread to the limit of unit coherency, I'm not holding a tape measure between every member of the unit I put down on the table.

Also, seriously, you haven't had the in/out argument on templates? I'm pretty sure I've had all 5,326,459 versions of that argument.

I only played in 8th, so no I did not have any expiriance with templates, but I have seen them. Unless someone didn't use huge scenic bases it wasn't much of a problem if you spread the models. And horde players are spreading anyway, so I don't see where the problem is. I mean I get that if someone plays a horde army, and its hard counter gets more or less removed from the game it is good for them. But I don't see how it makes the game faster. Besides why wouldn't the horde players just aknowladge that flamers just kill their models in times when templates existed. It seems like a dick move on their side just to gain time, when they are already playing the clock by spreading 100 models. Although I must say don't know what model count horde armies had in prior editions. Maybe horde wasn't much a problem back then.

A horde army is faster to move in 8th than an average size army in 7th, I would wager.

how long were the games in 7th then 1,5 hour? Because I have seen both tyranids and IG spend above 30 min spreading turn 1&2. It would still mean an improvment over 7th then.

As already said, just bring back templates.

And as already said we have the theoretical "spacing" arguments the moment it was suggested by someone. Guess what guys? It NEVER works like that in practicality. Ever. I've been playing this game for over 2 decades and there is never ever a time when you can always space out your models at max coherency all the time, every time. Terrain and other factors kinda scupper that plan.

And it is those opportune moments template weapons are made for.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:
Flamers worked because they only cared about models under the template -- if it was different units, so be it, it was different units. Which meant a couple of Flamers by a choke point we're absolutely no joke vs hordes, where d6 per 10 models will be identical in most cases to what we have now, and will help clear fretchin and/or cultists, who no one should be having trouble clearing anyway!

Yes, but templates are dumb and tedious, lead to arguments, and drag the game out, so, we'll have to agree to disagree. You may now rant about how they aren't dumb and tedious, how they make the game faster because, well, reasons and have never caused an argument.

Not disagreeing with the reasons for your solution, just saying that your solution isn't really a solution to the problem. If.anything it will just push flamer cost up and not hurt any of the hordes that people are worried about.

 Grimtuff wrote:
As already said, just bring back templates.

As already said, don't.

Whether you can move them to max coherency isn't the point. The point is people try to, and that is just as time consuming.

 Stux wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
As already said, just bring back templates.

As already said, don't.

Whether you can move them to max coherency isn't the point. The point is people try to, and that is just as time consuming.

And the sooner they realise that 40k is not played on planet bowling ball and/or Vassal then we can move on with our lives and understand in the real world you simply cannot do this all the time. This is a player problem, not a template problem. Other games get just along fine with templates yet 40k can't for some reason.

flamers just need to be reworked so badly. There's a number of ways to do this that don't involve templates, either.

They need to make flamers more consistent with # of shots and base it off of distance IMO. Make it a degrading profile something like 1-4" is 3D3, 4-8" is 2d3, and 8-12" is D3 auto hits (and yes I know that extends the range--to account for deep strike attacks). Or instead of extending the range, just let them attack any charging units, with units charging from outside 8" simply get the the 4-8" profile and maybe subtract one hit.

 Grimtuff wrote:
And the sooner they realise that 40k is not played on planet bowling ball and/or Vassal then we can move on with our lives and understand in the real world you simply cannot do this all the time. This is a player problem, not a template problem. Other games get just along fine with templates yet 40k can't for some reason.

Super, do you come from the planet where logic is heavily involved in people's decision making processes? How do I get there? I certainly haven't been to any tournaments played there, how's the 40k scene?

Bottom line is that the current system is faster than templates, leads to less arguments, and is less ambiguous than templates. If you want to get into the number of shots and how that mechanic can be massaged to be more representative, sure, but I am about as interested in templates as I am in going back to armor values and hit locations on vehicles. The fewer times I have to get my opponent's input, the better, whether that entails in/out template, in/out firing arc, front/rear/side discussions, all of that trash.

Pleasestop wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:
Flamers worked because they only cared about models under the template -- if it was different units, so be it, it was different units. Which meant a couple of Flamers by a choke point we're absolutely no joke vs hordes, where d6 per 10 models will be identical in most cases to what we have now, and will help clear fretchin and/or cultists, who no one should be having trouble clearing anyway!

Yes, but templates are dumb and tedious, lead to arguments, and drag the game out, so, we'll have to agree to disagree. You may now rant about how they aren't dumb and tedious, how they make the game faster because, well, reasons and have never caused an argument.

Not disagreeing with the reasons for your solution, just saying that your solution isn't really a solution to the problem. If.anything it will just push flamer cost up and not hurt any of the hordes that people are worried about.

A much better way to turn flamers back into the abti horde weapon supreme is to go to a roll a unmodifiable to hit roll for all models with x inches of the bearer.
Unfortunately it's leaning into the volumes and volumes of die rolling, but it makes flamers scale way better against problem units.

Or maybe make the number of hits based on a D3, but have the number of dice increase with closer range. Like:

>9-12" 1D3
>5-9" 2D3
1-5" 3D3

Ice_can wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:
Flamers worked because they only cared about models under the template -- if it was different units, so be it, it was different units. Which meant a couple of Flamers by a choke point we're absolutely no joke vs hordes, where d6 per 10 models will be identical in most cases to what we have now, and will help clear fretchin and/or cultists, who no one should be having trouble clearing anyway!

Yes, but templates are dumb and tedious, lead to arguments, and drag the game out, so, we'll have to agree to disagree. You may now rant about how they aren't dumb and tedious, how they make the game faster because, well, reasons and have never caused an argument.

Not disagreeing with the reasons for your solution, just saying that your solution isn't really a solution to the problem. If.anything it will just push flamer cost up and not hurt any of the hordes that people are worried about.

A much better way to turn flamers back into the abti horde weapon supreme is to go to a roll a unmodifiable to hit roll for all models with x inches of the bearer.
Unfortunately it's leaning into the volumes and volumes of die rolling, but it makes flamers scale way better against problem units.

This would also lead to the same arguments that came about with templates in the first place.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Karol wrote:
How does lack of template make the game faster, if the result of having no real anti horde options, other then being horde yourself, makes armies huge? Plus you still play spread units to have a large footprint, push MW away, stop deep strikers from reaching important stuff etc.

Yes, but I don't spend a bunch of time making sure my squads are spread to the limit of unit coherency, I'm not holding a tape measure between every member of the unit I put down on the table.

Also, seriously, you haven't had the in/out argument on templates? I'm pretty sure I've had all 5,326,459 versions of that argument.

You don't need a tape measure for every individual model, you can just eyeball it. Measure out 2" and visually apply that distance between each model. Much faster than having to measure it. Its the same as making sure that your units are in coherency.
In prior editions being able to judge distances before measuring was a skill. Doesn't exist anymore, which I think is a bit of a pity.

Yeah, the in/out arguments did happen, but they weren't that common and could be easily solved by placing a stick on the side of the template. Or just count every model not under the template and subtract that from the total unit size.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:


Bottom line is that the current system is faster than templates, leads to less arguments, and is less ambiguous than templates. If you want to get into the number of shots and how that mechanic can be massaged to be more representative, sure, but I am about as interested in templates as I am in going back to armor values and hit locations on vehicles.

At the cost of explosives and flame based weapons being less effective at killing models en masse, which also makes the game slower, as there are more models on the table to move. Not to mention that randomly determining shots, followed by hits, wounds, saves and damage is also slow and clunky.

Armor Values and arcs on vehicles was what made vehicles vehicles. What distinction do they have now? A keyword that only comes into play once in a blue moon? How is that good unit design? Might as well make everything infantry.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
The fewer times I have to get my opponent's input, the better, whether that entails in/out template, in/out firing arc, front/rear/side discussions, all of that trash.

Having to communicate with your opponent like people sure is horrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Bring back templates.

No scatter, just use ballistic skill to hit.

Add plus 1 to hit if there are more than 5 men in the unit.

Bring back "ignores cover"

Scatter was fun though. Nothing was more hilarious and embarrassing than firing at a unit with a large blast, then watching it scatter back on your own men
Small blasts should just be D6 scatter though. At 2D6 they were pretty much useless.

Darsath wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:
Flamers worked because they only cared about models under the template -- if it was different units, so be it, it was different units. Which meant a couple of Flamers by a choke point we're absolutely no joke vs hordes, where d6 per 10 models will be identical in most cases to what we have now, and will help clear fretchin and/or cultists, who no one should be having trouble clearing anyway!

Yes, but templates are dumb and tedious, lead to arguments, and drag the game out, so, we'll have to agree to disagree. You may now rant about how they aren't dumb and tedious, how they make the game faster because, well, reasons and have never caused an argument.

Not disagreeing with the reasons for your solution, just saying that your solution isn't really a solution to the problem. If.anything it will just push flamer cost up and not hurt any of the hordes that people are worried about.

A much better way to turn flamers back into the abti horde weapon supreme is to go to a roll a unmodifiable to hit roll for all models with x inches of the bearer.
Unfortunately it's leaning into the volumes and volumes of die rolling, but it makes flamers scale way better against problem units.

This would also lead to the same arguments that came about with templates in the first place.

At a certain point that sort of mentality will find something to have an argument over, like your genuinely telling me that you haven't seen people try and pull the everyone's with RF range when they measured the closest to closest etc.
I can't say that it was the how many models under the template that tended to cause me most arguments it was scatter die being rolled like the opposite corrner of the table.
8th edition has dumbed the game down more than enough, at a certain point simplifying things to the point that they just plane don't work aka current templates and blast weapons then they need to be more complicated.

Yeah, the scatter die caused more arguments than the template, as it was hard to determine which direction it was going at times. You pretty much had to roll it right next to the target.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I kinda think flamers should be completely redesigned to no longer auto hit. Instead roll one die per model in targeted unit or d6 dice to hit, flamer controlling player's choice. This would make it a decent anti-horde/line breaker weapon against factions that bring big squads. At least one down side being another nail in bringing anything but minimum sized squads.

I almost want to go as far as 1 die per model within 8" of the flamer model to really break up large clumps of horde infantry. Seems way too powerful though, even if it was just limited to heavy flamers. It would definitely put heavy flamers back on terminators though.

That would be awesome / overpowered on Kataphron Destroyers though - every single model can take a flamer as a side arm (in addition to a plasma cannon) on a unit of up to 12...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You don't need a tape measure for every individual model, you can just eyeball it. Measure out 2" and visually apply that distance between each model. Much faster than having to measure it. Its the same as making sure that your units are in coherency.
In prior editions being able to judge distances before measuring was a skill. Doesn't exist anymore, which I think is a bit of a pity.

Of course I could eyeball it, but strangely if people saw your list had a bunch of AOE in it, they suddenly became very concerned about spacing and you'd lose a bunch of time at the beginning of a match while your opponent agonized over spacing, placement, blah, blah, blah.

No, it wasn't a skill. It was stupid. You made a 6" grid using Pythagorean theorem on a separate piece of paper and you had any location on the board within 6", it was the same as measuring. It was called being prepared to properly use your guess weapons.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
At the cost of explosives and flame based weapons being less effective at killing models en masse, which also makes the game slower, as there are more models on the table to move. Not to mention that randomly determining shots, followed by hits, wounds, saves and damage is also slow and clunky.

You just described what you have to do when firing pretty much any weapon in the game, brilliant.

Most of us on this thread agree that aoe weapons need some improvements. Going back to templates is stupid and tedious.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Armor Values and arcs on vehicles was what made vehicles vehicles. What distinction do they have now? A keyword that only comes into play once in a blue moon? How is that good unit design? Might as well make everything infantry.

Seriously, your entire post boils down to being frustrated at your inability to get lost in esoteric, inconsistent rules that just led to arguments? Do you like driving nails into your toes also?

It's a hell of a lot better than some vehicles having armor values and firing arcs and some not, with no particular rationale either way. I tend to think what constitutes a vehicle goes a bit beyond AV and arcs, might have a bit to do with capabilities, could also have something to do with model footprint, and yes, keywords, but I get it, everyone prefers simple answers that don't involve too much thinking.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Having to communicate with your opponent like people sure is horrible.

Oh god, you're right, I'm missing out on the endless conversations of pedantry, what was I thinking?! So many life-changing quality conversations have been born from this mechanic, how did I not understand the richness of life I was missing?!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Scatter was fun though. Nothing was more hilarious and embarrassing than firing at a unit with a large blast, then watching it scatter back on your own men
Small blasts should just be D6 scatter though. At 2D6 they were pretty much useless.

Again, another esoteric piece of the rules better consigned to the trash heap. You know what dice I have to bring to a game right now? D6s, that's it.

I liked scatter templates in Fantasy because they were more rare and less numerous when you had units using them. And as everything was packed in units, nobody had problems with the spacing betwen models.

Yeah you had the "This is touching my hero a little, so it hits on 4+!" arguments, but as was something more rare it wasn't a big of a problem.

The problem was how in 40k you had single units putting out 4 templates per shooting. Playing agaisnt a mortar and manticore list of imperial guard was just insuferable. But just a TON of weapons used templates.

I think a middle ground of flamer templates and d6+X for blasts would work.

Of course I could eyeball it, but strangely if people saw your list had a bunch of AOE in it, they suddenly became very concerned about spacing and you'd lose a bunch of time at the beginning of a match while your opponent agonized over spacing, placement, blah, blah, blah.

why not use something like an infinity tape measure, everyone uses them here and they have all the range you may want to need 2", 1" , 6"between models. cover all the ranges you need to know.

But again I have not played when templates were a thing, maybe they were a big problem and righfuly removed. It does still leaves us with the fact that the changes in 8th made horde even better and weapons that suppose to counter them much worse.