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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think blasts and templates were worth it. There is always something to argue over in 40K. Don't run from it.

Purposefully keeping a mechanic that slows the game down and promotes arguments is bad design. Deciding it's a good thing because rules arguements will always exist, is an even worse take.

I've been playing this game long enough to be nostalgic for old editions, sure, but I'm not blinded by it.

Bringing back something that discourages blobbing up would be most welcome. But the actual process of scattering accurately, counting up how many models are under a disc with the accompanying coherency movement slow down does not need to return.

Something like pick a point. Every unit within X is hit Y times

 Insectum7 wrote:
Blast templates were fine, and they served a very important role in making opponents think twice before bunching all their models up. Opponents who caused a fuss playing with them werent opponents worth playing against.

No, all it did was forced players to max 2" apart which slowed the game down for no reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think blasts and templates were worth it. There is always something to argue over in 40K. Don't run from it.

Purposefully keeping a mechanic that slows the game down and promotes arguments is bad design. Deciding it's a good thing because rules arguements will always exist, is an even worse take.

I've been playing this game long enough to be nostalgic for old editions, sure, but I'm not blinded by it.

Bringing back something that discourages blobbing up would be most welcome. But the actual process of scattering accurately, counting up how many models are under a disc with the accompanying coherency movement slow down does not need to return.

Something like pick a point. Every unit within X is hit Y times

Who cares if they "blob up" vs being 2" apart? Why is "Blobing up" a bad thing to you? All you are doing is slowing the game down. Blast as a rule being something like +1 hits per every 5 models is just fine and works better/faster.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think blasts and templates were worth it. There is always something to argue over in 40K. Don't run from it.

Purposefully keeping a mechanic that slows the game down and promotes arguments is bad design. Deciding it's a good thing because rules arguements will always exist, is an even worse take.

I've been playing this game long enough to be nostalgic for old editions, sure, but I'm not blinded by it.

We need a hedge against bunching up.

Why? It never stopped Castling in 5th, 6th or 7th. All they did was hide inside of vehicles and shoot out of fireports instead.

And even if they did go all infantry, every game took way too damn long with anyone who played hordes needing to carefully space all their models everytime they moved them.

Like I said, 40k is not, and should never be, a simulation. Let the rules be abstract so games can be faster and more interesting to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think blasts and templates were worth it. There is always something to argue over in 40K. Don't run from it.

Purposefully keeping a mechanic that slows the game down and promotes arguments is bad design. Deciding it's a good thing because rules arguements will always exist, is an even worse take.

I've been playing this game long enough to be nostalgic for old editions, sure, but I'm not blinded by it.

Bringing back something that discourages blobbing up would be most welcome. But the actual process of scattering accurately, counting up how many models are under a disc with the accompanying coherency movement slow down does not need to return.

Something like pick a point. Every unit within X is hit Y times

You mean like the Inquisition and Space Marine strats that let you drop an orbital strike which hits things inside of a radius around a point on the table?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Blast templates were fine, and they served a very important role in making opponents think twice before bunching all their models up. Opponents who caused a fuss playing with them werent opponents worth playing against.

No, all it did was forced players to max 2" apart which slowed the game down for no reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think blasts and templates were worth it. There is always something to argue over in 40K. Don't run from it.

Purposefully keeping a mechanic that slows the game down and promotes arguments is bad design. Deciding it's a good thing because rules arguements will always exist, is an even worse take.

I've been playing this game long enough to be nostalgic for old editions, sure, but I'm not blinded by it.

Bringing back something that discourages blobbing up would be most welcome. But the actual process of scattering accurately, counting up how many models are under a disc with the accompanying coherency movement slow down does not need to return.

Something like pick a point. Every unit within X is hit Y times

Who cares if they "blob up" vs being 2" apart? Why is "Blobing up" a bad thing to you? All you are doing is slowing the game down. Blast as a rule being something like +1 hits per every 5 models is just fine and works better/faster.

Blob up as in multiple units clumped nearby usually imparting overlapping auras. Make it more challenging/risky to clump everything together for the incredible damage output possible currently. I like your last suggestion there. I thought the FW weapons that scaled with their targets model count were a good approach.

@Clockwork Yes.

 Eldarain wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Blast templates were fine, and they served a very important role in making opponents think twice before bunching all their models up. Opponents who caused a fuss playing with them werent opponents worth playing against.

No, all it did was forced players to max 2" apart which slowed the game down for no reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think blasts and templates were worth it. There is always something to argue over in 40K. Don't run from it.

Purposefully keeping a mechanic that slows the game down and promotes arguments is bad design. Deciding it's a good thing because rules arguements will always exist, is an even worse take.

I've been playing this game long enough to be nostalgic for old editions, sure, but I'm not blinded by it.

Bringing back something that discourages blobbing up would be most welcome. But the actual process of scattering accurately, counting up how many models are under a disc with the accompanying coherency movement slow down does not need to return.

Something like pick a point. Every unit within X is hit Y times

Who cares if they "blob up" vs being 2" apart? Why is "Blobing up" a bad thing to you? All you are doing is slowing the game down. Blast as a rule being something like +1 hits per every 5 models is just fine and works better/faster.

Blob up as in multiple units clumped nearby usually imparting overlapping auras. Make it more challenging/risky to clump everything together for the incredible damage output possible currently. I like your last suggestion there. I thought the FW weapons that scaled with their targets model count were a good approach.

@Clockwork Yes.

All that happens is you end up back in older editions where all that happens is people daisy chain units across the table back to the characters.

I'm over abstract because GW can't get it right. Blasts and templates should never have been removed.

If those chains all converge back to the same area the weapons I'm advocating for (which already kind of exist in limited strategem form) would be an effective counter as you'd place the shell in that area where they meet up.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Blast templates were fine, and they served a very important role in making opponents think twice before bunching all their models up. Opponents who caused a fuss playing with them werent opponents worth playing against.

I'm so torn on this topic.

On one hand, I liked blast markers, 'cause explosions are cool! On the other hand, I've played against those obsessives that measure out 2" between every miniature at every step of the game (deployment, movement, assault, etc.) and it's exhausting. I also hated that GW made you scatter everything. Talk about adding steps to a process that just involved more dice and more wasted time.

So perhaps blast markers belong in smaller skirmish style games (like Necromunda) where there aren't enough of them to waste everyone's time with pointless dice rolling, and forces aren't so large that the obsessives aren't spending half the game time making sure that only 1.5 models can be hit by any blast marker at any given time.

I do lament the loss of flamer templates though. Those were really fun...

Dudeface 788961 10822578 wrote:

All that happens is you end up back in older editions where all that happens is people daisy chain units across the table back to the characters.

And that is somehow worse then a solid blobs of 30-50 models moving as one unit across the tables?

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 788961 10822578 wrote:

All that happens is you end up back in older editions where all that happens is people daisy chain units across the table back to the characters.

And that is somehow worse then a solid blobs of 30-50 models moving as one unit across the tables?

Yes b.c daisy chain means they are taking their time messaging every model to be 2" apart and taking twice if not 3x longer to do literally the same thing they are now. Blast didn't stop castling, it just made it play longer.

If you want to stop castling, then don't make stupid powerful auras on every freaking character. Make all characters pick 1 unit instead of effecting everything, or triple the range of the aura and just say F'it the whole table gets it.

IG don't have auras and they still castle constantly.

Martel732 wrote:
IG don't have auras and they still castle constantly.

They still have to be close enough to issue orders, which adds up to pretty much the same thing on a per-point basis.

The Newman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG don't have auras and they still castle constantly.

They still have to be close enough to issue orders, which adds up to pretty much the same thing on a per-point basis.

I think its more that Guard need to bubble wrap their tanks. Otherwise its incredibly easy to charge one, eat some overwatch, consolidate into a few more so they all can't shoot, repeat as necessary if they fall back until the game is comfortably won.

If tanks can shoot into combat it may not be as essential (although you may still not want to be spending turns shooting Wave Serpents, Repulsors, big mobs of Orks etc).

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 788961 10822578 wrote:

All that happens is you end up back in older editions where all that happens is people daisy chain units across the table back to the characters.

And that is somehow worse then a solid blobs of 30-50 models moving as one unit across the tables?

Yes b.c daisy chain means they are taking their time messaging every model to be 2" apart and taking twice if not 3x longer to do literally the same thing they are now. Blast didn't stop castling, it just made it play longer.

If you want to stop castling, then don't make stupid powerful auras on every freaking character. Make all characters pick 1 unit instead of effecting everything, or triple the range of the aura and just say F'it the whole table gets it.

yeah good luck with that, because both in AoS and w40k GW seems to be crazy about auras. And I don't get the 2" spread part. Since when is playing the game and proper spacing considered something bad to the game. Movment is practicaly a large chunk of what people do with their armies, specialy the the armies are less shooty and more melee. And with spacing beign 3xtimes as long, why don't people just use a spacer, here practicly ever measuring tape had it 8" long 2" wide on the side, with clear break at the 1". if it fits between models then they are 2" away between each other. Takes as much time to spread a unit as stabbing frogs.

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 788961 10822578 wrote:

All that happens is you end up back in older editions where all that happens is people daisy chain units across the table back to the characters.

And that is somehow worse then a solid blobs of 30-50 models moving as one unit across the tables?

Yes b.c daisy chain means they are taking their time messaging every model to be 2" apart and taking twice if not 3x longer to do literally the same thing they are now. Blast didn't stop castling, it just made it play longer.

If you want to stop castling, then don't make stupid powerful auras on every freaking character. Make all characters pick 1 unit instead of effecting everything, or triple the range of the aura and just say F'it the whole table gets it.

yeah good luck with that, because both in AoS and w40k GW seems to be crazy about auras. And I don't get the 2" spread part. Since when is playing the game and proper spacing considered something bad to the game. Movment is practicaly a large chunk of what people do with their armies, specialy the the armies are less shooty and more melee. And with spacing beign 3xtimes as long, why don't people just use a spacer, here practicly ever measuring tape had it 8" long 2" wide on the side, with clear break at the 1". if it fits between models then they are 2" away between each other. Takes as much time to spread a unit as stabbing frogs.

Sense when is staying max distance "proper"? why would Nids or Orks care about spacing between them? And no, most don't use movement trays. They actually get in the way most of the time. I have 50+ movement trays and i never use them (I have horde armies in AoS), with terrain, other models, pile ins, combat, etc.. in both 40k and AoS its to hard to use them effectively. And even if you had a 2" measuring stick, you still are measuring every movement twice which makes all movements 2x longer.

As someone that plays with 160-200 models weekly from 5th till now, not forcing that 2" is a huge deal and it really does make the game go faster.

Tyel wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG don't have auras and they still castle constantly.

They still have to be close enough to issue orders, which adds up to pretty much the same thing on a per-point basis.

I think its more that Guard need to bubble wrap their tanks. Otherwise its incredibly easy to charge one, eat some overwatch, consolidate into a few more so they all can't shoot, repeat as necessary if they fall back until the game is comfortably won.

The bubblewrap is definitely a big part, but issuing Orders is as well.
Orders are a 6 inch radius(Creed has 12 inch radius instead), with "Bellowing Voice" Warlord trait improving that by 3 inches.
To improve the range with a Vox-Caster, the officer must be within 3" of the unit with the Vox-Caster...and the target unit must have a Vox-Caster.
What this means is that the only units that can benefit from an Officer getting a Vox-Caster nearby are Veteran, Command, and Infantry Squads. Every other <Regiment> Infantry keyworded(read: Conscripts[who shouldn't be able to benefit and should be classified as Militarum Auxilia], Special Weapons Squads, and Heavy Weapons Squads) unit needs to be within 6" of the Officer to receive Orders.

If tanks can shoot into combat it may not be as essential (although you may still not want to be spending turns shooting Wave Serpents, Repulsors, big mobs of Orks etc).

The wording that's been used in the streams suggest that it is not "tanks can shoot into combat". The comparisons specifically used were the Baneblade chassis' "Steel Behemoth" rule-all of which are able to still fire while enemy units are within 1" of them, with certain weapons(the sponson guns) having to target units that are in melee range.

That's what I'm kind of expecting to happen. Turret weapons/blast weapons will be able to fire at other targets while 'close in' weapons have to target anything threatening them in melee.

I would love for NDK GM to be able to blast with hvy incinertors and heavy psycannons at short ranges. Or gattling psylancers.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Blast templates were fine, and they served a very important role in making opponents think twice before bunching all their models up. Opponents who caused a fuss playing with them werent opponents worth playing against.

No, all it did was forced players to max 2" apart which slowed the game down for no reason.

Not "no reason" then. Forcing the opponent to disperse formations can deny them the advantages of cover, therefore forcing a decision between bunched up in cover and hoping the blast scatters off it, or dispersing their squads and being out of cover. Couple that with rules where indirect fire is limited to the floor of the building it hits from the overhead view and you get some interesting choices.

Having hard downsides to blobbing is good. And having auras that work more per model than unit is good, because then you're really forcing hard choices. Do I blob up for the offensive bluff or do I disperse for the defensive protection.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Blast templates were fine, and they served a very important role in making opponents think twice before bunching all their models up. Opponents who caused a fuss playing with them werent opponents worth playing against.

No, all it did was forced players to max 2" apart which slowed the game down for no reason.

Not "no reason" then. Forcing the opponent to disperse formations can deny them the advantages of cover, therefore forcing a decision between bunched up in cover and hoping the blast scatters off it, or dispersing their squads and being out of cover. Couple that with rules where indirect fire is limited to the floor of the building it hits from the overhead view and you get some interesting choices.

Having hard downsides to blobbing is good. And having auras that work more per model than unit is good, because then you're really forcing hard choices. Do I blob up for the offensive bluff or do I disperse for the defensive protection.

He's completely correct about this. And we don't agree often. I think we agreed about marine saturation, too. Once more agreement will summon the meteor.

So, to anyone who thinks this stratagem is going to be reliably good, what situation will it be good in?

Please be specific.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, to anyone who thinks this stratagem is going to be reliably good, what situation will it be good in?

Please be specific.

Fly units falling back. Because its something that can be done that can't be done now. I'm not even sure that's good, though.

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, to anyone who thinks this stratagem is going to be reliably good, what situation will it be good in?

Please be specific.

Fly units falling back. Because its something that can be done that can't be done now. I'm not even sure that's good, though.

Well, what unit is charging a unit with Fly that meets the following categories?

1) Can make it into combat with a large number of models close enough to be in combat
2) Does not do enough damage to cripple or kill the unit you're attacking
3) Can survive the counterattack enough to have large numbers of models still left in your foe's movement phase

It's a little hard to "be specific" when talking about a rule in an unreleased game. Anyone who is "sure" that this will be good or bad is just making noise at this point.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, to anyone who thinks this stratagem is going to be reliably good, what situation will it be good in?

Please be specific.

Fly units falling back. Because its something that can be done that can't be done now. I'm not even sure that's good, though.

Well, what unit is charging a unit with Fly that meets the following categories?

1) Can make it into combat with a large number of models close enough to be in combat
2) Does not do enough damage to cripple or kill the unit you're attacking
3) Can survive the counterattack enough to have large numbers of models still left in your foe's movement phase

Probably none. It's all I could think of.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, to anyone who thinks this stratagem is going to be reliably good, what situation will it be good in?

Please be specific.

Fly units falling back. Because its something that can be done that can't be done now. I'm not even sure that's good, though.

Well, what unit is charging a unit with Fly that meets the following categories?

1) Can make it into combat with a large number of models close enough to be in combat
2) Does not do enough damage to cripple or kill the unit you're attacking
3) Can survive the counterattack enough to have large numbers of models still left in your foe's movement phase

Off the top of my head the purest damage-sponge unit that can't do enough damage to vehicles to matter but can still sit there and trap units in combat would be Plaguebearers.

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, to anyone who thinks this stratagem is going to be reliably good, what situation will it be good in?

Please be specific.

Fly units falling back. Because its something that can be done that can't be done now. I'm not even sure that's good, though.

Well, what unit is charging a unit with Fly that meets the following categories?

1) Can make it into combat with a large number of models close enough to be in combat
2) Does not do enough damage to cripple or kill the unit you're attacking
3) Can survive the counterattack enough to have large numbers of models still left in your foe's movement phase

Probably none. It's all I could think of.

I've seen clashes between my brothers boyz and necron wraiths where the qraiths weren't wiped but the boyz weren't massively reduced, 3-4 MW on the way out might have swung it.

Hormagant blobs many times make it to a vehicle, just to scratch its paint. Obviously they are all 100% alive by the time you use the stratagem.

Spoletta wrote:
Hormagant blobs many times make it to a vehicle, just to scratch its paint. Obviously they are all 100% alive by the time you use the stratagem.

Hormagaunts and Termagants later in the game. I find Termagants wind up in combats alongside Carnifexes and stuff. The counter attacks are often against the Carnifex because its more threatening, leaving the gants alive.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Blast templates were fine, and they served a very important role in making opponents think twice before bunching all their models up. Opponents who caused a fuss playing with them werent opponents worth playing against.

I'm so torn on this topic.

On one hand, I liked blast markers, 'cause explosions are cool! On the other hand, I've played against those obsessives that measure out 2" between every miniature at every step of the game (deployment, movement, assault, etc.) and it's exhausting. I also hated that GW made you scatter everything. Talk about adding steps to a process that just involved more dice and more wasted time.

So perhaps blast markers belong in smaller skirmish style games (like Necromunda) where there aren't enough of them to waste everyone's time with pointless dice rolling, and forces aren't so large that the obsessives aren't spending half the game time making sure that only 1.5 models can be hit by any blast marker at any given time.

I do lament the loss of flamer templates though. Those were really fun...

Could be done without scatter. Measuring during movement between models could be discouraged in lots of ways too... Tech might offer solutions, e.g. an augmented reality blast template is feasible in a game app.

Can an arbitrary number for hordes be a solution that is half the fun? I think no...

Keywords not numbers probably.
But arbitrary it will be quite likely.