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.

I never saw an argument about scatter or number of models hit that lasted longer than a few sentences - or if I did, I can't remember it, which means it wasn't serious.

Furthermore, as a 30k player, that spacing out 2" thing? That's... actually significant. I don't get why people think it's "just a waste of time."

Spacing out 2" increases your units size and frontage and makes it easier to catch you in assault (and lock you up, because you couldn't easily fall back in those days) with multiple units, which made those units immune to shooting as well as exposing your units to multiple attacks. Furthermore, it made it possible for a charging unit / piling in unit to infiltrate your lines (by slipping between models) to grab objectives and stuff.

I always ally some blasts with my Daemons in 30k because it makes my foes spread out, and that's a mistake against Daemons because of how easy it is to swarm a spread out unit with multiple attackers. The local meta is going back to people closing ranks again, actually, to shrink the amount of frontage available to hit in CC. That means that, against my CC army, they'd rather tank blasts to the face than expose their units to the merciless CC capabilities of my units that expanding out to 2" does.

TLDR: position matters on the tabletop, templates caused a specific type of position change, and that had in-game effects. It wasn't a "chore", it was a significant tactical decision that has impacts for how your opponent could punish it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I never saw an argument about scatter or number of models hit that lasted longer than a few sentences - or if I did, I can't remember it, which means it wasn't serious.

Furthermore, as a 30k player, that spacing out 2" thing? That's... actually significant. I don't get why people think it's "just a waste of time."

Spacing out 2" increases your units size and frontage and makes it easier to catch you in assault (and lock you up, because you couldn't easily fall back in those days) with multiple units, which made those units immune to shooting as well as exposing your units to multiple attacks. Furthermore, it made it possible for a charging unit / piling in unit to infiltrate your lines (by slipping between models) to grab objectives and stuff.

I always ally some blasts with my Daemons in 30k because it makes my foes spread out, and that's a mistake against Daemons because of how easy it is to swarm a spread out unit with multiple attackers. The local meta is going back to people closing ranks again, actually, to shrink the amount of frontage available to hit in CC. That means that, against my CC army, they'd rather tank blasts to the face than expose their units to the merciless CC capabilities of my units that expanding out to 2" does.

TLDR: position matters on the tabletop, templates caused a specific type of position change, and that had in-game effects. It wasn't a "chore", it was a significant tactical decision that has impacts for how your opponent could punish it.

I saw many nasty arguments about it. Also, it can be both a chore and a significant decision.

SecondTime wrote:
I saw many nasty arguments about it. Also, it can be both a chore and a significant decision.

Fair enough at the nastiness part. Both of us only have anecdotes.

And no, not really, it can't. Wargames are based on decision making. You shouldn't delete significant decisions from the game that have impacts on the outcome of the battle just because "it's too hard". Instead, you streamline the process. For example, instead of making "unit coherency 2 inches", just say "nominate a model to be the units leader when making your list. If a unit has a sergeant or other clear leader, it must be that. All models must end within 6" of the units leader anywhere they want, if the unit moves. If it's 10-20 models, this distance is 9" instead. If it's 20+ models, this distance is 12") or something like that. Then you have to measure once, sweeping your tape measure around the unit leader, instead of measuring individually for each pair of models.

But hey, instead of making positioning important to a wargame, let's just delete it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
I saw many nasty arguments about it. Also, it can be both a chore and a significant decision.

Fair enough at the nastiness part. Both of us only have anecdotes.

And no, not really, it can't. Wargames are based on decision making. You shouldn't delete significant decisions from the game that have impacts on the outcome of the battle just because "it's too hard". Instead, you streamline the process. For example, instead of making "unit coherency 2 inches", just say "nominate a model to be the units leader when making your list. If a unit has a sergeant or other clear leader, it must be that. All models must end within 6" of the units leader anywhere they want, if the unit moves. If it's 10-20 models, this distance is 9" instead. If it's 20+ models, this distance is 12") or something like that. Then you have to measure once, sweeping your tape measure around the unit leader, instead of measuring individually for each pair of models.

But hey, instead of making positioning important to a wargame, let's just delete it.

So it's not a chore but you recommend a change to make it not a chore?

I understand what you're saying spacing can be important but in reality for most people it boiled down to compact or minimise blasts if it was the former all is good and well, the latter was indeed a chore of minute nudging and shuffling to maintain that 2" gap, primarily to minimise incoming damage. It wasn't a skill, it wasn't some revelation it was a tedious mathematical exercise in measuring.

Especially with 120 ork boys doing it.

Dudeface wrote:
I understand what you're saying spacing can be important but in reality for most people it boiled down to compact or minimise blasts if it was the former all is good and well, the latter was indeed a chore of minute nudging and shuffling to maintain that 2" gap, primarily to minimise incoming damage. It wasn't a skill, it wasn't some revelation it was a tedious mathematical exercise in measuring.

Especially with 120 ork boys doing it.

But it was a choice they made, that's the point. they can make their army more vulnerable to CC or less vulnerable to blasts, or more vulnerable to blasts but less vulnerable to CC. The fact that removing templates removed this fundamental choice is a bad thing. The fact that the choice was also a chore is a bad thing, but I don't think that "remove player choice, it's fine now" was the correct way to fix it.

They threw the baby (i.e. player choice and tabletop interaction between armies) out with the gross bathwater (i.e. "measuring 2" is time consuming")

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I understand what you're saying spacing can be important but in reality for most people it boiled down to compact or minimise blasts if it was the former all is good and well, the latter was indeed a chore of minute nudging and shuffling to maintain that 2" gap, primarily to minimise incoming damage. It wasn't a skill, it wasn't some revelation it was a tedious mathematical exercise in measuring.

Especially with 120 ork boys doing it.

But it was a choice they made, that's the point. they can make their army more vulnerable to CC or less vulnerable to blasts, or more vulnerable to blasts but less vulnerable to CC. The fact that removing templates removed this fundamental choice is a bad thing. The fact that the choice was also a chore is a bad thing, but I don't think that "remove player choice, it's fine now" was the correct way to fix it.

Agreed, there does need to be a mid ground, I'm not convinced on the templates as the solution, a little more control over the casualty removal could give the same effect.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I understand what you're saying spacing can be important but in reality for most people it boiled down to compact or minimise blasts if it was the former all is good and well, the latter was indeed a chore of minute nudging and shuffling to maintain that 2" gap, primarily to minimise incoming damage. It wasn't a skill, it wasn't some revelation it was a tedious mathematical exercise in measuring.

Especially with 120 ork boys doing it.

But it was a choice they made, that's the point. they can make their army more vulnerable to CC or less vulnerable to blasts, or more vulnerable to blasts but less vulnerable to CC. The fact that removing templates removed this fundamental choice is a bad thing. The fact that the choice was also a chore is a bad thing, but I don't think that "remove player choice, it's fine now" was the correct way to fix it.

They threw the baby (i.e. player choice and tabletop interaction between armies) out with the gross bathwater (i.e. "measuring 2" is time consuming")

This works in computer games where the formation of your unit is just a click away from changing from one to the other. But in 40k you need to individually move each model. Thats a chore.

Blasts worked in Fantasy because there was no problem. In 40k they never worked properly outside the firsts editions when warhammer 40k was a skirmish game. I'm not saying the system we have now is better or even good enough. But I , and nobody I know, misses blasts.

ITT: Miniatures gamers who think position of the model shouldn't matter.

I think perhaps the problem is the scale of games. GW's scale is more like Apocalypse (which, coincidentally, does not require you to change formations much if at all), while the rules for blasts and templates fit a smaller type of game more.

If moving the "individual guy" is too hard, then the game should not be concerning itself with the positions of "individual guys" and, in that case, there's no reason for "individual guy" to even be a miniature on his own - he should just be based with a few other guys, like Flames of War.

But in a game where a miniature is a guy, then you can't just ignore his position, however precisely you have to measure it and however much of a chore moving him is. That's like, fundamental to minis wargaming.

I love blast templates, flamer templates, and scatter dice... So fluffy

However, I also understand why they were removed from the game... definitely more streamlined, definitely less arguments, definitely less need for "my intent was" and definitely less variables to keep track of in terms of exact placement.

If i wana play a game that cares about exact placement, there are other games that honestly do it better.

So, for this game, good call on taking it out, though I do miss it from a fluffy kind of perspective.

 Type40 wrote:
If i wana play a game that cares about exact placement, there are other games that honestly do it better.

I agree.

I also think GW could do it better with 40k, and that's what I would like to see, instead of just accepting the game does it badly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT: Miniatures gamers who think position of the model shouldn't matter.

I think perhaps the problem is the scale of games. GW's scale is more like Apocalypse (which, coincidentally, does not require you to change formations much if at all), while the rules for blasts and templates fit a smaller type of game more.

If moving the "individual guy" is too hard, then the game should not be concerning itself with the positions of "individual guys" and, in that case, there's no reason for "individual guy" to even be a miniature on his own - he should just be based with a few other guys, like Flames of War.

But in a game where a miniature is a guy, then you can't just ignore his position, however precisely you have to measure it and however much of a chore moving him is. That's like, fundamental to minis wargaming.

I believe theres a big difference from "I don't believe that Blasts templates are fit for the scale 40k is played and they were never rigthly implemented" and "I don't care about positioning in my wargames". But maybe I'm just a strange fella.

tbf i believe GW has a scale problem...

After all what did Rousseau say about durability of a system? Something something as small as possible the spread of equality something something don^t tolerate the extreme...?

Might well be worth a go and start a propper scale / gameformat. Personally i'd really like to see let's say FOC slots dependant upon pts size of the game played...

Not Online!!! wrote:
tbf i believe GW has a scale problem...

After all what did Rousseau say about durability of a system? Something something as small as possible the spread of equality something something don^t tolerate the extreme...?

Might well be worth a go and start a propper scale / gameformat. Personally i'd really like to see let's say FOC slots dependant upon pts size of the game played...

Isn't it in the 3ed book of "Social Contract" he wrote about goverment systems, where he writes that democracy of the real kind, never existed and probably never will, but if it did it would have to work on a very small scale, but as it wouldn't work even on a one family level, he himself doesn't see it work anytime in the future. And he knew something about families not working being a real bastard to humans both within and outside his family.

 Galas wrote:
I believe theres a big difference from "I don't believe that Blasts templates are fit for the scale 40k is played and they were never rigthly implemented" and "I don't care about positioning in my wargames". But maybe I'm just a strange fella.

Well, the reason blasts and templates exist is to affect positioning in the wargame, and that's it.

The fact that said effect on positioning was a chore rather than, say, part of wargaming leads me to believe that people didn't like it.

"Here, players, is a tool that only affects positioning and nothing else."
"Oh, well, I don't like this tool. It makes me POSITION things, and there's too many things to position! The game is better off without it."

You see why I might draw the conclusion I have.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
tbf i believe GW has a scale problem...

After all what did Rousseau say about durability of a system? Something something as small as possible the spread of equality something something don^t tolerate the extreme...?

Might well be worth a go and start a propper scale / gameformat. Personally i'd really like to see let's say FOC slots dependant upon pts size of the game played...

Isn't it in the 3ed book of "Social Contract" he wrote about goverment systems, where he writes that democracy of the real kind, never existed and probably never will, but if it did it would have to work on a very small scale, but as it wouldn't work even on a one family level, he himself doesn't see it work anytime in the future. And he knew something about families not working being a real bastard to humans both within and outside his family.

Nope, second book chapter 11 including bookmark, and in general not just democracy. Btw he has an interesting view on Landsgemeinden or basic democracy as practiced in switzerland at the time, rather idealistic allbeit his idealistic perception did later on get influential as an goal that got atleast partially achieved.
he prefaces this by a statement that he doesn't mean ultimate equality but as close as possible, tolerate neither the overrich nor the beggars, for it is this two classes that are damaging the volonté general, one of which sells the freedom and becomes the helpershelper of tyranny the other class grants the tyrants.

Same could be said about game systems or any systems of interaction between multiple parties, if one undertands unit types as such.

Frankly Rousseau might be a genius in regards to statesphilosophy but as genius as he was there as lackluster was his pedagogic skillset or capability for social structures in regards to familial systems.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe theres a big difference from "I don't believe that Blasts templates are fit for the scale 40k is played and they were never rigthly implemented" and "I don't care about positioning in my wargames". But maybe I'm just a strange fella.

Well, the reason blasts and templates exist is to affect positioning in the wargame, and that's it.

The fact that said effect on positioning was a chore rather than, say, part of wargaming leads me to believe that people didn't like it.

"Here, players, is a tool that only affects positioning and nothing else."
"Oh, well, I don't like this tool. It makes me POSITION things, and there's too many things to position! The game is better off without it."

You see why I might draw the conclusion I have.

"

The play group I was in at the time of 5th/6th allowed the handwaive of "all these models are 2" " apart. I was outvoted, and so there's that problem too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe theres a big difference from "I don't believe that Blasts templates are fit for the scale 40k is played and they were never rigthly implemented" and "I don't care about positioning in my wargames". But maybe I'm just a strange fella.

Well, the reason blasts and templates exist is to affect positioning in the wargame, and that's it.

The fact that said effect on positioning was a chore rather than, say, part of wargaming leads me to believe that people didn't like it.

"Here, players, is a tool that only affects positioning and nothing else."
"Oh, well, I don't like this tool. It makes me POSITION things, and there's too many things to position! The game is better off without it."

You see why I might draw the conclusion I have.

You know whats also tactical and makes positioning matter in your wargame? Counting the ammunition of each individual model and having units that carry amunition to resuply them on the fly.

Ask me to do that for 10 models, I will do it. Ask me to do it for 70 with 5 tanks and I'll say you have no idea what kind of game you are trying to do.

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe theres a big difference from "I don't believe that Blasts templates are fit for the scale 40k is played and they were never rigthly implemented" and "I don't care about positioning in my wargames". But maybe I'm just a strange fella.

Well, the reason blasts and templates exist is to affect positioning in the wargame, and that's it.

The fact that said effect on positioning was a chore rather than, say, part of wargaming leads me to believe that people didn't like it.

"Here, players, is a tool that only affects positioning and nothing else."
"Oh, well, I don't like this tool. It makes me POSITION things, and there's too many things to position! The game is better off without it."

You see why I might draw the conclusion I have.

You know whats also tactical and makes positioning matter in your wargame? Counting the ammunition of each individual model and having units that carry amunition to resuply them on the fly.

Ask me to do that for 10 models, I will do it. Ask me to do it for 70 with 5 tanks and I'll say you have no idea what kind of game you are trying to do.

And that's why I said GW's scale is off. At the scale where an entire company of men and tanks is fighting, then just have units be abstract blobs. It doesn't matter where Lieutenant Dan is positioned relative to Forrest Gump - though it does matter where the command element is positioned relative to the whole squad.

The fact that it's sometimes okay to measure given a single model (woo conga-lines to give conscripts the commissar buff because Conscript Eddie happened to be within 6" while the other 29 were off locked in combat with a Wraithknight or whatever) leads me to believe that people like controlling single models instead of unitary, er, units. But then you give them a tool like the template that makes single model position important and everyone's like "WHAT?!"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe theres a big difference from "I don't believe that Blasts templates are fit for the scale 40k is played and they were never rigthly implemented" and "I don't care about positioning in my wargames". But maybe I'm just a strange fella.

Well, the reason blasts and templates exist is to affect positioning in the wargame, and that's it.

The fact that said effect on positioning was a chore rather than, say, part of wargaming leads me to believe that people didn't like it.

"Here, players, is a tool that only affects positioning and nothing else."
"Oh, well, I don't like this tool. It makes me POSITION things, and there's too many things to position! The game is better off without it."

You see why I might draw the conclusion I have.

They also may have been there to facilitate other mechanics such as randomising amount of wounds/damage done. Admittedly as a result of positioning.

If I can ignore damage through intelligent positioning etc, thats great, leveraging ranges and los etc. But minimising the number of hits from a template simply isn't a tactical decision or move, it's max coherency for everyone all day every day which is a faffy measurement game.

Personally I used to just approximate it by eye and not care, because I'd rather get my game finished than lose the extra time to the measuring. The 1 hit extra I likely took a turn tops probably made little difference by being somewhere between 1-2" coherency.

Dudeface wrote:
If I can ignore damage through intelligent positioning etc, thats great, leveraging ranges and los etc. But minimising the number of hits from a template simply isn't a tactical decision or move, it's max coherency for everyone all day every day which is a faffy measurement game.

No, it isn't.

People assert this without realizing that spreading out 2" max for every model has 3 serious consequences:
1) Increased frontage vs. close combat units. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE spread out against my Slaanesh Daemons in 30k, so I can lock you in combat with 5 or 6 units instead of 1, you can't run away, then I H&R out on your turn (after savaging your unit) and go kill something valuable. Thanks for the free shield against your shooting, probably shouldn't've spread out as much.

2) Space on the table and your own damage output. It's harder to get all your models in rapid-fire range (or with shorter range guns in general) into range of my units while being spread across half of creation. Conversely, if I'm comfortable concentrating (because I am not afraid of your blasts or you don't have any) then I will be able to bring greater force to bear against a single point of your dramatically extended perimeter, and wiping out a whole unit will open a gaping hole rather than a small one.

3) Terrain - spreading out to a huge amount means some models will inevitably encounter terrain during their move, which has a chance to slow them down (or even kill the model if it's dangerous), or make them out of LOS for shooting, etc.

It is a tactical choice you make, not an automatic thing.

I'll also add the use of blast templates as sniping weapons for characters. Extremely fluffy , of course. Much tactical.

Two days ago I saw a """narrative""" 2nd edition game. The first thing they did when they started moving...

 Galas wrote:
I'll also add the use of blast templates as sniping weapons for characters. Extremely fluffy , of course. Much tactical.

That only happened with Barrage, not all templates in general, and that's only because the Barrage rules were terribly written. Ironically, it didn't happen in 4th, for example, because the rules weren't as terribly written. Oh, GW.

Blasts were kinda cool but I think they should work somewhere in-between then and now.

It should work like -
Large blast template - you place it to try to touch as many units as you can. Every unit under the marker takes d3 auto hits. If the center hole hits it takes d3+3 auto hits. This way you have the cool random mechanics of blast markers scattering.

For small blas just make it 1 hit and d3 for direct hit.

to make bs relevant - make a to hit roll after you place your blast marker. If you score a hit only roll 1 d6 to determine scatter distance. For aircraft - only direct center hole hits count. For abilities that proc on hit rolls and generate additional hits - additional hits just ad +1 to the hit total.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
If I can ignore damage through intelligent positioning etc, thats great, leveraging ranges and los etc. But minimising the number of hits from a template simply isn't a tactical decision or move, it's max coherency for everyone all day every day which is a faffy measurement game.

No, it isn't.

People assert this without realizing that spreading out 2" max for every model has 3 serious consequences:
1) Increased frontage vs. close combat units. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE spread out against my Slaanesh Daemons in 30k, so I can lock you in combat with 5 or 6 units instead of 1, you can't run away, then I H&R out on your turn (after savaging your unit) and go kill something valuable. Thanks for the free shield against your shooting, probably shouldn't've spread out as much.

2) Space on the table and your own damage output. It's harder to get all your models in rapid-fire range (or with shorter range guns in general) into range of my units while being spread across half of creation. Conversely, if I'm comfortable concentrating (because I am not afraid of your blasts or you don't have any) then I will be able to bring greater force to bear against a single point of your dramatically extended perimeter, and wiping out a whole unit will open a gaping hole rather than a small one.

3) Terrain - spreading out to a huge amount means some models will inevitably encounter terrain during their move, which has a chance to slow them down (or even kill the model if it's dangerous), or make them out of LOS for shooting, etc.

It is a tactical choice you make, not an automatic thing.

Those are all tactical choices, very welcome ones, but none necessitate being at max coherency the same way blasts do. In fact all those are perfectly viable things now. The only stand out in this is blasts which you're forced into going max coherency or not bothering caring at all.

Blast templates are the issue here.

Dudeface wrote:
[Those are all tactical choices, very welcome ones, but none necessitate being at max coherency the same way blasts do. In fact all those are perfectly viable things now. The only stand out in this is blasts which you're forced into going max coherency or not bothering caring at all.

Blast templates are the issue here.

I think you missed my point. All of those are drawbacks caused by being at max coherency. They're reasons not to do it. If blasts force you to do it, then you suffer those drawbacks.

Right now, in 40k, what rules force you to spread out and present a greater frontage to the enemy as a unit? (which has all 3 of those drawbacks)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
[Those are all tactical choices, very welcome ones, but none necessitate being at max coherency the same way blasts do. In fact all those are perfectly viable things now. The only stand out in this is blasts which you're forced into going max coherency or not bothering caring at all.

Blast templates are the issue here.

I think you missed my point. All of those are drawbacks caused by being at max coherency. They're reasons not to do it. If blasts force you to do it, then you suffer those drawbacks.

Right now, in 40k, what rules force you to spread out and present a greater frontage to the enemy as a unit? (which has all 3 of those drawbacks)

Spanning to reach objectives, board quarters, auras and screen. They changed coherency to prevent people spanning the board at max coherency in 9th because units having a huge frontage was happening too regularly in 8th without blasts.

If anything that shows that blasts aren't needed to make people incentivised to have a large frontage, so much so it needed a nerf. There should be and imo, are enough reasons to either compact or expand a unit frontage - as you listed - without an arbitrary mechanic that punishes anything other than max coherency.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
[Those are all tactical choices, very welcome ones, but none necessitate being at max coherency the same way blasts do. In fact all those are perfectly viable things now. The only stand out in this is blasts which you're forced into going max coherency or not bothering caring at all.

Blast templates are the issue here.

I think you missed my point. All of those are drawbacks caused by being at max coherency. They're reasons not to do it. If blasts force you to do it, then you suffer those drawbacks.

Right now, in 40k, what rules force you to spread out and present a greater frontage to the enemy as a unit? (which has all 3 of those drawbacks)

Spanning to reach objectives, board quarters, auras and screen. They changed coherency to prevent people spanning the board at max coherency in 9th because units having a huge frontage was happening too regularly in 8th without blasts.

If anything that shows that blasts aren't needed to make people incentivised to have a large frontage, so much so it needed a nerf. There should be and imo, are enough reasons to either compact or expand a unit frontage - as you listed - without an arbitrary mechanic that punishes anything other than max coherency.

So the only reason is to screen, which is much less useful before units could just willy nilly fall back (since your screen essentially provided a shooting shield to the enemy).

Spanning to reach objectives is fair, too, but not possible in HH or earlier editions (typically, it was FAQ'd that the same unit could not hold multiple objectives, though GW routinely forgot to add it to the next edition and it had to be FAQ'd again).

Board quarters isn't, because the unit has to be wholly within the quarter (so stretching between 2 doesn't work) to get the points.

Auras didn't exist in 7th.

So yes, using a ruleset that doesn't have auras (which should be wholly within imho, I hate conga-line for buffs mechanic and feel and look) and where you can't just hurtlessly walk out of combat, blasts were necessary to spread out units. But your point is taken, there's still a couple reasons here.

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT: Miniatures gamers who think position of the model shouldn't matter.

I think perhaps the problem is the scale of games. GW's scale is more like Apocalypse (which, coincidentally, does not require you to change formations much if at all), while the rules for blasts and templates fit a smaller type of game more.

If moving the "individual guy" is too hard, then the game should not be concerning itself with the positions of "individual guys" and, in that case, there's no reason for "individual guy" to even be a miniature on his own - he should just be based with a few other guys, like Flames of War.

But in a game where a miniature is a guy, then you can't just ignore his position, however precisely you have to measure it and however much of a chore moving him is. That's like, fundamental to minis wargaming.

I believe theres a big difference from "I don't believe that Blasts templates are fit for the scale 40k is played and they were never rigthly implemented" and "I don't care about positioning in my wargames". But maybe I'm just a strange fella.

He's got a point, though. If we don't want the individual positioning of individual models to actually matter, they might as well be on stands a la Apocalypse. If we do want the positioning to matter, then having area-effect weapons not affect troops in close order any differently from those in skirmish lines seems like a glaring omission.

Like, it seems very odd to me that we measure range and check LOS from minis individually, but when it comes to receiving fire it doesn't matter if they're all bunched up in a blob in the open, in a conga line extending well beyond the shooter's maximum range, or all stuffed into a bunker with somebody's pinky extending out- they all take casualties exactly the same way.

As far as play experience I'll say one thing- even if I don't need to worry about templates anymore, picking up and moving a horde of 30 Gaunts at a time, positioning them to properly be out of LOS or in cover or within Synapse or outside charge range, is a lot more tedious and time-consuming than just shifting a couple of movement trays. I'm fine with either simulationist or abstract, just pick one and stick with it.

I think the datasheets and such SHOULD move towards apocalypse. It's a massive waste of time to count and measure individual models to calculate how many dice are being rolled in a combat when you are dealing with units that can comprise 30 models with 3 attacks each. Especially when the idea that they are constantly moving around is abstracted to begin with.

The unit to unit interaction of apoc is WAY more appropriate for 40k then the model to unit interaction we play with.

Not Online!!! 792731 10970216 wrote:


Nope, second book chapter 11 including bookmark,

Frankly Rousseau might be a genius in regards to statesphilosophy but as genius as he was there as lackluster was his pedagogic skillset or capability for social structures in regards to familial systems.

Thanks, thought it was the part from B3 chapt 5-7. He really is not liked around here, because of the hired work he did for Prussia and Russia in the 70s and 80s. Plus he was an atheist.

As far as play experience I'll say one thing- even if I don't need to worry about templates anymore, picking up and moving a horde of 30 Gaunts at a time, positioning them to properly be out of LOS or in cover or within Synapse or outside charge range, is a lot more tedious and time-consuming than just shifting a couple of movement trays. I'm fine with either simulationist or abstract, just pick one and stick with it.

But isn't it part of the price for paying a horde army. In 8th the anti horde options like flamers were laughably weak vs horde. While from what I was told, with good placing flamers in prior editions were rather deadly.