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.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
What they should have done is restat blast weapons to separate number of shots and size of blast. So like a Heavy 2 Blast(D6) weapon would get 2 Blast(D6) shots. You roll to hit for each Blast and then inflict D6 hits per Blast BUT the number of hits per Blast is capped at the number of models in the target unit (a bigger blast isn't going to cause a model to get hit more than once per blast). So a Str 3 Heavy 1 weapon with an enormous 10D6 Blast is going to wreck a 30-strong cultist horde, but it isn't going to scratch a knight. It'll tickle a 5-man intercessor squad like 5 lasgun shots.

The rule we got is just hideous. A kludge to end all kludges. Who writes this stuff?

This is another easy option. I don't like it as much because it still punishes large unit sizes for no real reason while letting multiple clumped MSUs off the hook, but at least it does so rationally.

The point being: there are multiple easy ways to simulate the effects of a blast template without the clunkiness involved. That they didn't choose one of these methods and instead chose to simply punish large unit sizes shows they weren't actually interested in simulating blast templates, they just wanted to screw big units.

 jeff white wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Bullcrap on your claim about tables and mats. MINIMUM size to make the game easier for new players to come into using Kill Team sets.

The only reason you could claim it's incompatible is because the third party tournament organizers adopted it as their table size so they could sell more tickets.

Who has four killteam sets, let alone new players?

4 people playing doubles.

 addnid wrote:

 Leth wrote:
So back to 1/3 of the game spent properly spacing units. Got it. I don’t miss blast templates because I remember one of the. First questions asked was “how many blast weapons”, slowed the game down a lot.

The only people missing scattering templates are people who played max 1000 point games. I remember the 10 minutes required to shoot a few wyverns (they were the worst of all).
I would mind as much having the flamer blast back though (or the light flamer blast from even more years ago), but at the end of the day looking at who was under was just too cluncky stuff really

On the topic of flamer type weapons, I wonder if they fixed them being able to target supersonic Fliers haha! Im gonna guess no

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
What they should have done is restat blast weapons to separate number of shots and size of blast. So like a Heavy 2 Blast(D6) weapon would get 2 Blast(D6) shots. You roll to hit for each Blast and then inflict D6 hits per Blast BUT the number of hits per Blast is capped at the number of models in the target unit (a bigger blast isn't going to cause a model to get hit more than once per blast). So a Str 3 Heavy 1 weapon with an enormous 10D6 Blast is going to wreck a 30-strong cultist horde, but it isn't going to scratch a knight. It'll tickle a 5-man intercessor squad like 5 lasgun shots.

The rule we got is just hideous. A kludge to end all kludges. Who writes this stuff?

This is another easy option. I don't like it as much because it still punishes large unit sizes for no real reason while letting multiple clumped MSUs off the hook, but at least it does so rationally.

The point being: there are multiple easy ways to simulate the effects of a blast template without the clunkiness involved. That they didn't choose one of these methods and instead chose to simply punish large unit sizes shows they weren't actually interested in simulating blast templates, they just wanted to screw big units.

The sad part is that the method I outlined is literally the way it worked in 7th except instead of measuring hits with a blast marker you just roll some D6s - the bigger the blast the more D6s. They could have done this in 8th when they got rid of templates, but no that was too complicated.

And now look at what we got instead. I don't think I could design a rule as klunky, uninspired, inelegant and just plan ugly if I tried. Truly truly awful.

 Gnarlly wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Because sacrifices have to be made if you want to make a ruleset that is playable. Old blast rules punished large units, this is a simplified version of doing the same thing.

Old blast rules punished densely-packed units, not necessarily large units, and also punished densely-packed MSUs. Despite the arguments they could cause, the templates were really a more realistic way of handling blasts and flamers.

Yes. Templates were superior. Players must have been better too because the templates worked and I recall very few arguments... if any. But then again maybe competitive players argue more about things that make the game worth playing so now... it is like playing in a spoiled kid’s sandbox.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
What they should have done is restat blast weapons to separate number of shots and size of blast. So like a Heavy 2 Blast(D6) weapon would get 2 Blast(D6) shots. You roll to hit for each Blast and then inflict D6 hits per Blast BUT the number of hits per Blast is capped at the number of models in the target unit (a bigger blast isn't going to cause a model to get hit more than once per blast). So a Str 3 Heavy 1 weapon with an enormous 10D6 Blast is going to wreck a 30-strong cultist horde, but it isn't going to scratch a knight. It'll tickle a 5-man intercessor squad like 5 lasgun shots.

The rule we got is just hideous. A kludge to end all kludges. Who writes this stuff?

This is another easy option. I don't like it as much because it still punishes large unit sizes for no real reason while letting multiple clumped MSUs off the hook, but at least it does so rationally.

The point being: there are multiple easy ways to simulate the effects of a blast template without the clunkiness involved. That they didn't choose one of these methods and instead chose to simply punish large unit sizes shows they weren't actually interested in simulating blast templates, they just wanted to screw big units.

Unlikely, given they like selling lots of models. Attributing to malice rather than oversight is just applying your own opinion, it’s not a fact.

And for those arguing about templates... they’re over three years gone now. Let it go!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Bullcrap on your claim about tables and mats. MINIMUM size to make the game easier for new players to come into using Kill Team sets.

The only reason you could claim it's incompatible is because the third party tournament organizers adopted it as their table size so they could sell more tickets.

Who has four killteam sets, let alone new players?

4 people playing doubles.

Lots of new players gonna throw down that way, huh... seems unlikely but sure. Ok. Now instead of one friend to game a noob should find three with KT sets. Ok...

It doesn't take a great jump of logic from that to say that a change that does nothing but screw large units is intended to screw large units.

Especially when they have specifically said that they want to make elite, lower model count armies more viable in 9th.

The other possibility is that these people are so clueless that they don't realize their blast rule hurts big units...despite that literally being the whole thrust of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


And for those arguing about templates... they’re over three years gone now. Let it go!

Tell that to GW, they're the ones who tried to revive blast in 9th but did it in a way that actually does the opposite of what it used to do.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't see how this rule makes the game better. They wanted to reduce arbitrary results - this only increases it. Shoot at 10 boyz with 2d6 weapon? Get 2 shots if you roll badly. Shoot at 11? 12 shots every time! That makes sense!

Also, shoot at 20 models in a unit spread over 40 inches of board space? Max shots every time! Shoot at 60 models all packed within a 6 inch castle? Don't get any bonus at all, as long as they're all MSU units of 5 or less.

I don't get how this benefits the immersion factor, or how it leads to better balanced gameplay.

This is the issue. It doesn’t make the game better. It makes it easier for people who can’t use a template civilly. No need for civility. But of course without civility, people will simply min max their way to other arguments... maybe 11th edition will be better, after competitive gamers move to esports with TTS or similar GW sanctioned software and we can have realism and immersion and civil discourse again... and templates.

 jeff white wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Bullcrap on your claim about tables and mats. MINIMUM size to make the game easier for new players to come into using Kill Team sets.

The only reason you could claim it's incompatible is because the third party tournament organizers adopted it as their table size so they could sell more tickets.

Who has four killteam sets, let alone new players?

4 people playing doubles.

Lots of new players gonna throw down that way, huh... seems unlikely but sure. Ok. Now instead of one friend to game a noob should find three with KT sets. Ok...

New players being coached by more experianced players is one good use of doubles.

Plus it lets people with smaller collections jump into larger games.

Templates were horrible. They slowed the game both when people weren't arguing and when they were arguing. Because even when people were being polite they were asking:
"I think I can hit 4 with the template. Check it out to see if I am correct. I don't want to be a cheater."
Then the next person comes over to check it out, even if they trust their friend, because it was just etiquette. A social contract of sort.
"Yes, I think you are right. It's a bit reaching on that Ork toe, but I don't mind."
"So four hits?"
"Four hits it is."
"Okay, let's roll."

Then you had people spacing their models just to minimize the amount of models getting hit in a blast. It was a very bad mechanic for a game that had outgrown its original size considerably. 2nd Edition blast weapon templates I could get behind, as well as in smaller games like Necromunda, but in the huge game that 40k has become they were just cumbersome and problematic at the end of the day, because it took until the end of the day to play game.

Of course, if you play very casual they can maybe work faster. Don't worry too much about spacing and just have some beer, pretzel, and fun, then there is nothing problematic with blasts. However, considering that GW seems to be aiming at the tourney crowd templates are very unlikely to have a comeback in the foreseeable future.

Personally I am glad that they are gone. Games have been much smoother with both friends and pugs after their removal.

No matter what we think about templates, there are multiple easy ways to simulate what a template does - punish model density - without the clunkiness, if that's what they wanted to do.

They didn't do that. Instead they nerfed big units, while doing nothing to what blast templates actually countered, which was castles. In fact, the new rules if anything reward model density, while punishing model numbers per unit, not per board space.

Measures should be forbidden except after shots are declared a la epic imho. Not for use during movement. Templates drove units out of cover because they ignored it. This was a tool for units of all sizes... context dependent, added to realism. Superior in every way.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Bullcrap on your claim about tables and mats. MINIMUM size to make the game easier for new players to come into using Kill Team sets.

The only reason you could claim it's incompatible is because the third party tournament organizers adopted it as their table size so they could sell more tickets.

Who has four killteam sets, let alone new players?

4 people playing doubles.

Lots of new players gonna throw down that way, huh... seems unlikely but sure. Ok. Now instead of one friend to game a noob should find three with KT sets. Ok...

New players being coached by more experianced players is one good use of doubles.

Plus it lets people with smaller collections jump into larger games.

As long as those smaller collections include four KT mats...

 addnid wrote:
I am picturing Red Corsair leaving his 4 kids in a GW store and telling to take good care of them, and saying “don’t feth that up like your rules for 9th edition !!”.
The you see three GW employees feeding each one of Red Corsair’s kids, and a fourth... I don’t want to see this...

I quoted him three posts down, hah hah !

yukishiro1 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

torblind wrote:
Fine, so instead make rules stepwise increasing buff at 6+, 8+, 11+, 15+? And we all go around making regrssion analysis on hand held calculators or memorize pages of hit tables?

having a cut off *somewhere* isn't bad in itself. its just a lesser evil.

Well no, I'd argue that this hows why keying the amount of shots you get against the amount of models in the unit is just not a good mechanic in the first place. Why is this a good mechanic? I still haven't seen anyone actually explain why it's good specifically to increase the amount of shots a gun gets based on the number of models in the unit being shot.

Arbitrary results are fine if you get something greater from the rule than you lose due to the arbitrary nature. The problem here isn't that 11+ is an arbitrary cutoff, it's that there's no real gain from the rule in the first place to overcome the loss caused by the arbitrary cutoff.

Does it have to be good? Can't it just not be bad?


From the sound things this dead horse has been kicked, shot, reanimated, killed again and cut to pieces and thrown to sea over and over again, but here goes:

Big explosion hits more people in a crowded place, than in a less crowded place.

*mic drop*


There you go. it mimics that. nice, huh? Thanks for making me do that pointless stupid dance. As if you didnt know this was the poing all along.

Is it "good"? I dunno. It's an abstraction that mimics real life evens. Good enough for me I guess. I work with numbers on a daily basis, I wouldn't personally mind a nice y=f(x) formula for every value of x from 1 to 20, but I can see how that won't work.

Or are you troubled by the fact that its "Hits", as in this has to mean more bullets passing through a barrel when shooting at larger units? There's really no need for that.

yukishiro1 wrote:
No matter what we think about templates, there are multiple easy ways to simulate what a template does without the clunkiness, if that's what they wanted to do.

They didn't do that. Instead they nerfed big units, while doing nothing to what blast templates actually countered, which was castles.

In my experience arguing the game could use more reasons to discourage units from standing in a blob benefiting from overlapping auras just leads to people arguing about coherency and templates. Despite that not being what you're advocating.

 Eldarain wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
No matter what we think about templates, there are multiple easy ways to simulate what a template does without the clunkiness, if that's what they wanted to do.

They didn't do that. Instead they nerfed big units, while doing nothing to what blast templates actually countered, which was castles.

In my experience arguing the game could use more reasons to discourage units from standing in a blob benefiting from overlapping auras just leads to people arguing about coherency and templates. Despite that not being what you're advocating.

Really... I don’t spend time with people like that... why do you? And why is this game written with them in mind?

torblind wrote:

Does it have to be good? Can't it just not be bad?

From the sound things this dead horse has been kicked, shot, reanimated, killed again and cut to pieces and thrown to sea over and over again, but here goes:

Big explosion hits more people in a crowded place, than in a less crowded place.

*mic drop*


There you go. it mimics that. nice, huh?

No, it doesn't mimic that. That's the whole point. It doesn't mimic that at all.

If that's what it did, it would undoubtedly have a reason for existing. But it doesn't do that. It doesn't do that at all.

What this rule does is do more damage against big units, which tend to be spread out, then against a cluster of small MSUs packed base to base around an aura.

That is literally the opposite of mimicking a big explosion in crowded space.

yukishiro1 wrote:

torblind wrote:

Does it have to be good? Can't it just not be bad?

From the sound things this dead horse has been kicked, shot, reanimated, killed again and cut to pieces and thrown to sea over and over again, but here goes:

Big explosion hits more people in a crowded place, than in a less crowded place.

*mic drop*


There you go. it mimics that. nice, huh?

No, it doesn't mimic that. That's the whole point. It doesn't mimic that at all.

If that's what it did, it would undoubtedly have a reason for existing. But it doesn't do that. It doesn't do that at all.

What this rule does is do more damage against big units, which tend to be spread out, then against a cluster of small MSUs packed base to base around an aura.

That is literally the opposite of mimicking a big explosion in crowded space.

Sure it does.

2 guys lurk around on the battlefield, shell explodes over their heads, 1 die.

10 guys lurk around on the battlefield, shell explodes over their heads... 4 die.

20 guys etc...

etc..

why would this be a definite NO?

What is the incentive to take big units that start at 10 at anything other than 10 now?

torblind wrote:

Sure it does.

2 guys lurk around on the battlefield, shell explodes over their heads, 1 die.

10 guys lurk around on the battlefield, shell explodes over their heads... 4 die.

20 guys etc...

etc..

why would this be a definite NO?

Do you not understand how this rule works?

Shoot at unit of 11 ork boyz spread over 30 inches of board space each 2" from the other: max shots.

Shoot at 60 models all camped within a 6" aura bubble, but each unit is no more than 5 each: no extra shots.

How does this simulate the effect of a big explosion in a crowded space?

You are far more likely to see the castle of MSU in 40k than a tightly packed large unit, BTW. So this isn't even a weird marginal case. This is literally in *most* cases, a rule that rewards shooting at a dispersed unit more than a cluster of tightly packed bodies.

Because there is no spatiality... it is all number no matter where those models are... it doesn’t do what blasts do. It is simple physical fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

torblind wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

torblind wrote:

Does it have to be good? Can't it just not be bad?

From the sound things this dead horse has been kicked, shot, reanimated, killed again and cut to pieces and thrown to sea over and over again, but here goes:

Big explosion hits more people in a crowded place, than in a less crowded place.

*mic drop*


There you go. it mimics that. nice, huh?

No, it doesn't mimic that. That's the whole point. It doesn't mimic that at all.

If that's what it did, it would undoubtedly have a reason for existing. But it doesn't do that. It doesn't do that at all.

What this rule does is do more damage against big units, which tend to be spread out, then against a cluster of small MSUs packed base to base around an aura.

That is literally the opposite of mimicking a big explosion in crowded space.

Sure it does.

2 guys lurk around on the battlefield, shell explodes over their heads, 1 die.

10 guys lurk around on the battlefield, shell explodes over their heads... 4 die.

20 guys etc...

etc..

why would this be a definite NO?

My reply above concerns this post...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What is the incentive to take big units that start at 10 at anything other than 10 now?

Yes. And bunch them all up together under one aura multiplying min max bubble. Just like in real life!

yukishiro1 wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

There are 174 weapons being changed. You could focus on the 5 examples shown in the article or just wait and see the full list.
I would like to ask how is improving the D-Canon this way, moving away from designing a weapon better suited to take out a higher number of bodies ? And can't we have exceptions, particularly in other mildly elite armies (eldars aren't that much elite anymore sadly) where a weapon is designed to be highly effective against everything ? It's not because the basic intent is to have weapons effective against large count of bodies and less against more modest unit sizes that they can't ever be allowed to also be good at getting rid of smaller squads.

Examples are there to provide examples. It's pretty easy to tell what weapons are going to get blast, based on the historical list and the examples provided. It literally can only be things with variable shots, so that narrows it down tremendously.

I just don't see that it's a great idea to implement a rule that doesn't really do anything except punish large unit sizes by making them vulnerable both to high volume of fire weapons AND elite-killing weapons. Large unit sizes in 8th had a good balance - there were substantial advantages, but also substantial disadvantages. The 9th rules seem to remove most of these advantages, without compensating.

If anything, this dilutes weapon diversity. Previously volume of fire was good against everything, but big guns were only good against big targets. Now it seems we're going to a place where volume of fire is good against everything, big guns are good against big targets and also decent against large units, removing what used to be a useful distinguishing factor, and MSU units get all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. This doesn't seem like a positive development to me.

It feels like there is kind of a lot to unpack.
About the examples, you focus on them to say "see, it's bad !", when you know there are 169 other weapons impacted. You could have talked about how it improves shadow weavers instead. Sure, that's what GW has used, it's also a bunch of iconic weapons nobody uses anymore.
About a weapon being able to be effective against hordes AND elites at the same time, you don't think it should exist ? A deathstrike missile shouldn't be (roughly) just as bad for a horde or a few dudes ? Afaik dedicated anti elite weapons more often than not have a fixed number of shots (those I know of at least).
I would agree that maybe not all random weapons needed to be updated to blast and could have been adjusted to a fixed number of shots but for now that's the way they are taking. Maybe these weapons will change with a new codex. Who knows.
I don't agree that we lost diversity. Fixed high numbers of shots won't change at all and still be decent in most situations (vehicles, hordes, elites), the performance of blast weapons against elites will stay mostly as it was before as it will skew the rolls towards a bit better than average rather than the average (for the squads between 6 and 10 models), super elites won't be affected at all (under 6 models squads) and weapons which were supposed to be good at dealing with huge number of light infantry, might actually be. So imho we gained new toys.
I'm also not entirely sure hordes were perfectly fine. Sure one squad of 30 is fine, you're not limited to just one though.
And finally, MSU might (hard to tell right now, depends of which army we're talking about, how points costs changes, how the detachment choices are setup, etc) have a disadvantage as you might need to spend CPs to get all the slot you need for it.
Also, "blast" is just a name, it doesn't mean the intent was to do something the rule clearly isn't doing, which you seem a bit focused on. They could have labelled it "kaboom", guess they would have had another set of complaints though

The rule could be more elegant (clearly) but I don't think it misses it's point.

 Leth wrote:
So back to 1/3 of the game spent properly spacing units. Got it. I don’t miss blast templates because I remember one of the. First questions asked was “how many blast weapons”, slowed the game down a lot.

Not really. Only because your using other editions method to bias your understanding of what I posted.

A. there would be no scatter to fiddle with
B. You can literally pick any size for the radius, not whatever stupid limitation the manufacturing process dictates.

So sure units can space out to get hit less, but rather then max spacing equating to a single centered model hit by a small blast, you could make a small blast 5" a large 7" 12" whatever.

I don't buy the notion that spacing models was a bad idea, or a time sink. Heck, moving your models is a time sink so why not rank everything up and abstract terrain that gets in the way and takes time with bits of felt? Nah, I'd rather blasts work like they should work.

The main gripe I have with blasts and flamers in 8th is the lack of immersion. There is currently, and so far in 9th, no splash damage. A rapid fire battle canon can target a single devastator marine surrounded by 10 other models form other units within an inch and only he will take the 2d6 hits. Yet 10 guys daisy chained out to 30" being hit by a blast and murdering all of them. Or a daisy chain of 12 guys with only one guy in range of an 8" flamer will potentially murder all 6 guys.

Blasts should have a radius for splash damage and flamers should hit a set number of models within their short range. It's not a hard fix, yet somehow the excuse is time? It's not a fast paced game lol. Overwatch is fine, multiple overwatch at that with random charges. But somehow measuring out a radius is a bridge too far? I don't by it. Want fast and simple, play checkers. Don't spend months assembling the pieces and learning the rules to cry when resolving blasts in a radius takes 30 more seconds.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What is the incentive to take big units that start at 10 at anything other than 10 now?

No idea, they haven't covered hordes yet. Maybe a Ld buff for every 10 models?

dhallnet wrote:

The rule could be more elegant (clearly) but I don't think it misses it's point.

I agree it doesn't miss it's point, assuming the point was to screw over 11+ man units. I just don't think that's a very good point to have.

But they called it blast for a reason. They're making reference to a historical rule that behaved completely different from this one, a rule that punished model density, not unit size. These are completely different mechanics. The only reason they borrowed that terminology from the past is to try to lend a veneer of respectability to what is actually just a rule designed to screw 11+ man units.

And it's not just the terminology. They specifically referenced the idea of big explosions in crowded spaces. Now the rule doesn't actually do that at all, and I have to assume they are competent enough to realize that, and therefore that there is some element of bait and switch at work. But we can't ignore what they called the rule and the supposed justification they made for it.

There are two possibilities:

1. Either they wanted to simulate a large explosion in a crowded area, i.e. a blast template, but without templates, and failed miserably, which shows a startling level of incompetence.

or.

2. They told us they wanted to mimic a large explosion in a crowded area, but in fact used the opportunity to sneak in a completely new mechanic designed to discourage taking units of more than 10 models.

I think the latter is far more likely; it seems you do too. I just don't see how this positively impacts the game.

Spacing affecting blast weapons could have been handled in other ways too. If any one model in the unit is within x" of x other models in the unit, then the blast weapon could hit more or something like that.

jeff white and yukishiro1

Failing to cover other relevant examples doesn't mean it doesn't still do what it does. Getting around it in more or less weird ways doesnt still mean that it doesn't do what it does.

This is an abstraction.

Why on earth would you go through a game of 40k looking for logical fallacies? There are too many to count. You go MSU to be better off wrt moral? Bigger squads is the answer to that. You pick casualties in the back, from out of sight of the firing gun? Come on! You target a unit indistinguishibly mixed in with models from another unit and miraculously manage to only hit the unit you were aiming for? ...

The blast rule should not be what keeps you from sleeping at night.

EDIT: With the intention being obviously what it is. That 11+ cut off surely is as good as any. Should it have been 12? 9? more steps? 11 seems like a perfectly ordinary number for that.

yukishiro1 wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

The rule could be more elegant (clearly) but I don't think it misses it's point.

I agree it doesn't miss it's point, assuming the point was to screw over 11+ man units. I just don't think that's a very good point to have.

But they called it blast for a reason. They're making reference to a historical rule that behaved completely different from this one, a rule that punished model density, not unit size. These are completely different mechanics. The only reason they borrowed that terminology from the past is to try to lend a veneer of respectability to what is actually just a rule designed to screw 11+ man units.

And it's not just the terminology. They specifically referenced the idea of big explosions in crowded spaces. Now the rule doesn't actually do that at all, and I have to assume they are competent enough to realize that, and therefore that there is some element of bait and switch at work. But we can't ignore what they called the rule and the supposed justification they made for it.

There are two possibilities:

1. Either they wanted to simulate a large explosion in a crowded area, i.e. a blast template, but without templates, and failed miserably, which shows a startling level of incompetence.

or.

2. They told us they wanted to mimic a large explosion in a crowded area, but in fact used the opportunity to sneak in a completely new mechanic designed to discourage taking units of more than 10 models.

I think the latter is far more likely; it seems you do too. I just don't see how this positively impacts the game.

I used to think this way. Now I honestly think that the people who are responsible are both arrogant and untalented. Not evil. But bad at their jobs.

torblind wrote:

jeff white and yukishiro1

Failing to cover other relevant examples doesn't mean it doesn't still do what it does. Getting around it in more or less weird ways doesnt still mean that it doesn't do what it does.

This is an abstraction.

Why on earth would you go through a game of 40k looking for logical fallacies? There are too many to count. You go MSU to be better off wrt moral? Bigger squads is the answer to that. You pick casualties in the back, from out of sight of the firing gun? Come on! You target a unit indistinguishibly mixed in with models from another unit and miraculously manage to only hit the unit you were aiming for? ...

The blast rule should not be what keeps you from sleeping at night.

But the point is that this is an abstraction so abstract it actually does the opposite of what it's supposed to approximate. If you have a rule that is supposed to approximate a big explosion in a crowded space, and instead it usually encourages you to shoot at a spread-out unit instead of shooting at a bunch of tightly packed models in a crowded space, this is not good abstraction. It's an abstraction that literally results in the opposite of what you are trying to simulate.

40k is full of abstractions that sometimes result in strange scenarios. But I cannot think of another rule like this that more often than not results in the exact opposite of what it is supposed to approximate.

Moreover, a big focus of 9th edition has been removing nonsensical results that existed in 8th edition. They have talked multiple times about taking out the "really?" moments in the game, like flyers move-blocking infantry, or grots tying up tanks, or a single infantry model on a crate laughing at a bloodthirster that can't hit it.

This rule is the guy on the crate laughing at the bloodthirster, more often than it isn't. For no apparent reason, because it's not even like the gain - screwing over 11+ man units - is anything the game was desperately calling out for. It seems like tossing in a nonsensical approximation that encourages the opposite of what they stated it is supposed to encourage, for absolutely no reason. I cannot for the life of me fathom why they thought this was a good thing to do.