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.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 kodos wrote:

so most of your 8th/9th Edi games are faster than most of your 5th Edi games now?

Misleading question. You have to ask yourself: Would 9th edition games be quicker under the old template system? Sorry, but there is only one true answer to this. No, they would not be faster.

they would not be slower either

templates needed to be removed to make the game faster: yet games take more time than they did

but games would be even slower with templates: why than not remove the stuff that makes the game slower in the first place?

GW haven't found a good replacement rule for templates yet but they needed to remove it for the speed of the game
I say, there should have been other things done to speed the game that do not have such a big impact to specific armies like "not thought thru template replacement rules"

so balance between Hordes and Elite was changed for the sake of no real benefit to the player because in addition to removing something that takes times, they added rules that even take more time
so a lose-lose situatiuon for the players and people still defend it because "GW can do nothing wrong"

With the major faction now having twice the wounds, all the D1 blast weapons now are basically useless. Flamers can be shrugged off, grenade launchers are a joke, mortars can be walked though, it doesn't matter which blast rules we use, the game has morphed into something different now with all Astartes running around with 2-3 wounds, and the Deathguard now with their crazyness, I expect the rest of Chaos will go to 2-3 wounds, and then who cares about blast unless you are shooting that squad of terminators with a Demo cannon.

EVERYONE seems to be so god damn horny for making the games as fast as possible instead of enjoying the game. Why not start removing more of time sinks? Why not remove meassuring? That takes quite a long time. Why not remove rolling for shooting, CC and saving? That would save A LOT of time. Just compare statistics.Why have random attacks or wounds at all? Start making everything set in stone from the start. No more fun randomness. The goal of this game is to play as little as possible. Just like golf! Everyone knows that! I'm not playing this game to chill out with friends and have a good time. No no no. I spend hours of my time painting and converting models and making fun lists to play so I can play as little as possible when I play! Who would want to spend an extra 5 minutes in a game rolling FNP? Who wants to spend an extra 5 minutes spreading out their models to shield from templates? Who wants to have to make descicions on how to position their vehicles so their wepaons face the right way while at the same time not showing their weaker armour?

But to be more reasonable... Each game takes time. An extra total 10 minutes of strategy and dicerolling won't kill you. There's no real diff between 180 minutes and 190 minutes.Those 10 minutes aren't gonna spare your feet and back from hurting. Those extra 10 minutes won't make your game less fun. The "thing" that takes time is you and your opponent. If you're both fast and good at shortcuts, it's gonna be a shorter game. If you and/or your opponent is slow, then it's gonna be a slow long game. So if you're tired of long games, play less points, or learn to speed up the games.

Templates didn't slow down the game, their only downside was that people could open controversies as counting how many and which models have exactly been hit could have been controversial sometimes. Same issue that AV facings had.

 Blackie wrote:
Templates didn't slow down the game, their only downside was that people could open controversies as counting how many and which models have exactly been hit could have been controversial sometimes. Same issue that AV facings had.

Those were very few and far between. It was -and still is- way more common for arguments about LoS.

 kodos wrote:
...GW haven't found a good replacement rule for templates yet but they needed to remove it for the speed of the game...

Forge World found a great replacement for templates: 8e FW index conversion beamers. One to-hit roll at a high profile, then if that kills a model do a random number of extra hits to their squad at a lower profile. It doesn't become an incredibly effective AT weapon by having effectively a massive rate of fire, giving the main profile a high enough power to do something to tanks doesn't also make it disintegrate heavy infantry because they get to be hit a bunch at an AT profile, and you can fine-tune the performance of the weapon against a variety of targets way better than you can with the current implementation.

But of course since it's Forge World the GW studio regards it as incompetent and pointless, and the playerbase doesn't care.

 Kall3m0n wrote:
EVERYONE seems to be so god damn horny for making the games as fast as possible instead of enjoying the game.

well, the days were I have time to play for 6 hours and call it a draw as we did not manage to finish the game are long gone

playing in a store or club also means a limited time for the main reason that you have to drive there, play, and drive back home as well
not talking about that others might want to play as well

so having a game that you can enjoy but lasts for 4-5 hours, if both people know the rules and know how to speed up movement and dice rolling is a lot
a game that lasts 2 hours and I can play 2 games with different people on a gaming night in the club

and standing around and doing nothing for a long time is hard to enjoy as well

 kodos wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
EVERYONE seems to be so god damn horny for making the games as fast as possible instead of enjoying the game.

well, the days were I have time to play for 6 hours and call it a draw as we did not manage to finish the game are long gone

playing in a store or club also means a limited time for the main reason that you have to drive there, play, and drive back home as well
not talking about that others might want to play as well

so having a game that you can enjoy but lasts for 4-5 hours, if both people know the rules and know how to speed up movement and dice rolling is a lot
a game that lasts 2 hours and I can play 2 games with different people on a gaming night in the club

and standing around and doing nothing for a long time is hard to enjoy as well

If your games went on for 6 hours, you did something wrong,. Trust me. Or you had a lot of fun off to the side of the game. No game in 5th ´(1850p) took more than 2.5 hours for me. I regurarly played against sisters, horde orks, BT, Necrons and IG. I played Tau.

Are the stores you play at only open for 2-3 hours? o0 I thought most stores opened at around 8.00-10.00 and were open until 18.00. You guys have weird store hours.

So you're saying you'd rather have two "meh" games than one awesome game? Quantity over quality? o0

If you're standing around doing nothing for THAT long, it's your opponent's fault, not the game.

 Blackie wrote:
Templates didn't slow down the game, their only downside was that people could open controversies as counting how many and which models have exactly been hit could have been controversial sometimes. Same issue that AV facings had.

This is simply not true.

Grab one of your troop choices and move them 6" in one direction under the current rules.

Grab them again and now move them 6" under the current rules knowing that every model should be 2" away from each other or otherwise your opponent gets extra hits on them for free.

Not a single player back then was like "you know what, I don't care" and just bunch their models together. That is the difference between getting 3-4 hits or most of the squad. Try for yourself how many small bases you can get under a 5" circle.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
EVERYONE seems to be so god damn horny for making the games as fast as possible instead of enjoying the game.

well, the days were I have time to play for 6 hours and call it a draw as we did not manage to finish the game are long gone

playing in a store or club also means a limited time for the main reason that you have to drive there, play, and drive back home as well
not talking about that others might want to play as well

so having a game that you can enjoy but lasts for 4-5 hours, if both people know the rules and know how to speed up movement and dice rolling is a lot
a game that lasts 2 hours and I can play 2 games with different people on a gaming night in the club

and standing around and doing nothing for a long time is hard to enjoy as well

If your games went on for 6 hours, you did something wrong,. Trust me. Or you had a lot of fun off to the side of the game. No game in 5th ´(1850p) took more than 2.5 hours for me.

games in 5th were not the problem, although everyone claims that all those game meachanics that were removed for 8th took a lot of time
it is 8th and 9th that take as long, with those time consuming rules removed

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Templates didn't slow down the game, their only downside was that people could open controversies as counting how many and which models have exactly been hit could have been controversial sometimes. Same issue that AV facings had.

This is simply not true.

Grab one of your troop choices and move them 6" in one direction under the current rules.

Grab them again and now move them 6" under the current rules knowing that every model should be 2" away from each other or otherwise your opponent gets extra hits on them for free.

Not a single player back then was like "you know what, I don't care" and just bunch their models together. That is the difference between getting 3-4 hits or most of the squad. Try for yourself how many small bases you can get under a 5" circle.

For me, "template movement" is 5% slower at max, no matter how many models in a unit. That is something you learn to gauge after just a few games.

That is simple false. I regurarly played against a horde ork opponent. And he often just raked his dudes forward. He did not care.
And if you're talking about taournaments, many people nowadays plays with movement trays. How hard do you think it would be to use movement trays that has a 1.9" gap between each model?

a_typical_hero wrote:
...Grab one of your troop choices and move them 6" in one direction under the current rules.

Grab them again and now move them 6" under the current rules knowing that every model should be 2" away from each other or otherwise your opponent gets extra hits on them for free...

Trying to keep your models 2" apart doesn't seem that different to me from making sure your screens are just far enough apart to prevent chargers from consolidating 3" into the next unit, or having to check your army's 9" zone of reserves control to avoid leaving holes for deep strikers, or maximizing the number of units that are toe-in your buff auras, or needing to be anal about antenna-to-antenna LOS. The game's slowed down a lot because GW's taken one thing that punished incautious positioning out, and then put a whole pile of other things that punish incautious positioning in. All in the name of "speeding up the game".

 Kall3m0n wrote:
For me, "template movement" is 5% slower at max, no matter how many models in a unit. That is something you learn to gauge after just a few games.

That is simple false. I regurarly played against a horde ork opponent. And he often just raked his dudes forward. He did not care.

Unless he would gain something from yeeting them together (maybe to have more in range for a charge), that is just an unsound tactic, which he should have changed after seeing his Boy mobs getting evaporated by some pie plates.
It's like saying the old SM Aggressors shooting twice while being under re-roll aura effects was not a time waster, because my Marine opponent never shot twice and never used the re-rolls, he didn't care. I believe that your Ork friend didn't do it, but that is not how somebody with an understanding of the tactical implications should play the game. As I said, unless you would gain something out of it OR the other side did not bring threatening template weapons.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

And if you're talking about taournaments, many people nowadays plays with movement trays. How hard do you think it would be to use movement trays that has a 1.9" gap between each model?

Do you think the technology for movement trays did not exist in older editions?
Unless you are playing on planet bowling ball, movement trays will come to their limits very quickly. I'm not talking about your 3 guys Custodes units or the average 5 guy Marine pick.

Ork Boyz, Gaunts, Conscripts, Daemons, Poxwalkers and other units like them. Templates were a time waster and it is good that they are gone.

Wether their replacement is in its best iteration already, that is another discussion.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ehhh... I think the morale change did as much to help hordes as blast did to hurt them. Besides with vehicles firing into melee but not with blast it gives hordes an inherent counter play to blaster masters.

I think those core rules are fine as a concept. Where it falls apart is what GW classifies as a 'horde' for coherency and blast weapons.

6 models? Seriously? I take 5 Harli Jetbikes and I can stretch them out, but I take a 6th and suddenly blast weapons affect them more and I have to squish them all together to not have one die instantly (even putting their bases touching, in a straight line, doesn't satisfy the coherency rules).

I fully acknowledge that choosing any number as the threshold for hoard/not-hoard is going to be arbitrary, but they didn't even get to double digits before deciding something counts as a 'horde' for these rules.

No, they started at six models, exactly one more than the typical loyalist "Combat Squad". Odd coincidence, isn't it?

Given that 90% of all units in the game have a minimum unit size of 5 or less, not really.

I don’t think many horde players miss templates. When I heard they were gone during 8th release I could believe it at first. I hated them with such a passion...

a_typical_hero wrote:
...Unless he would gain something from yeeting them together (maybe to have more in range for a charge), that is just an unsound tactic...

Casualties were taken from the front in 7th. If you didn't have a densely packed front rank you lost more movement from casualties.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Templates didn't slow down the game, their only downside was that people could open controversies as counting how many and which models have exactly been hit could have been controversial sometimes. Same issue that AV facings had.

This is simply not true.

Grab one of your troop choices and move them 6" in one direction under the current rules.

Grab them again and now move them 6" under the current rules knowing that every model should be 2" away from each other or otherwise your opponent gets extra hits on them for free.

Not a single player back then was like "you know what, I don't care" and just bunch their models together. That is the difference between getting 3-4 hits or most of the squad. Try for yourself how many small bases you can get under a 5" circle.

It's a *lot* harder to move a squad of 6+ models in 9th keeping them at max distance from one another than it was before 9th. The 2" of 2 models thing introduces a crazy amount of complexity into squad movement that just didn't need to be there. It's worse than blast templates ever were.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Templates didn't slow down the game, their only downside was that people could open controversies as counting how many and which models have exactly been hit could have been controversial sometimes. Same issue that AV facings had.

This is simply not true.

Grab one of your troop choices and move them 6" in one direction under the current rules.

Grab them again and now move them 6" under the current rules knowing that every model should be 2" away from each other or otherwise your opponent gets extra hits on them for free.

Not a single player back then was like "you know what, I don't care" and just bunch their models together. That is the difference between getting 3-4 hits or most of the squad. Try for yourself how many small bases you can get under a 5" circle.

In my experience it's the opposite: now I need to move every single dude in my troop units extremely carefully because if I don't I may lose countless models just by bad positioning one of them, thanks to the current crappy coeherency rules.

You may be right about 5 man squads, but units that size didn't slow down the game anyway.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
...Unless he would gain something from yeeting them together (maybe to have more in range for a charge), that is just an unsound tactic...

Casualties were taken from the front in 7th. If you didn't have a densely packed front rank you lost more movement from casualties.

And if you lumped 30 ork boyz together into a big blob to get that good frontage your opponent would laugh with glee as he dropped a single pie plate onto them and wiped the mob. But hey, you had a chance at a good charge right?

 Blackie wrote:
In my experience it's the opposite: now I need to move every single dude in my troop units extremely carefully because if I don't I may lose countless models just by bad positioning one of them, thanks to the current crappy coeherency rules.

You may be right about 5 man squads, but units that size didn't slow down the game anyway.

yukishiro1 wrote:

It's a *lot* harder to move a squad of 6+ models in 9th keeping them at max distance from one another than it was before 9th. The 2" of 2 models thing introduces a crazy amount of complexity into squad movement that just didn't need to be there. It's worse than blast templates ever were.

That there are now different rules in place which drag down the movement phase is not a counter argument to the old template rules wasting time. Notice I'm not arguing that the movement phase now is quicker overall.

Well but yes, actually in this case it is a counter. Because we already have a new-in-9th-edition rule that slows down movement in precisely the same way that blast templates did, but worse. This means that if you brought back blast templates into 9th not much would really change, because people are *already* taking all that time to optimize the movement of their units *anyway* (or else paying the price for it).

It's like saying "I'm opposed to putting in coin-operated washing machines because people will have to carry around change!" when you just put in coin-operated drying machines in the same place.

Yeah im baffled by the amount of rules that have " Imagine this centre point. Now imagine a 3" from that centre point. Stuff within this imaginary *cough* template * cough* takes damage"

I mean its like templates but not..

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well but yes, actually in this case it is a counter. Because we already have a new-in-9th-edition rule that slows down movement in precisely the same way that blast templates did, but worse. This means that if you brought back blast templates into 9th not much would really change, because people are *already* taking all that time to optimize the movement of their units *anyway* (or else paying the price for it).

The coherency rules are worst that than the physical implementation of using templates?

How many times have you had a problem keeping a unit of 10 models in coherency halfway across the table?

How much harder was that than placing a template halfway across the table, then scattering it in a random direction a random number of inches, getting your opponent to agree on the placement, determining how many enemy models were underneath it, and getting your opponent to agree to that? And I forgot flopping the template for your multiple barrage attacks.

The thing people were complaining about was waiting for somebody to move all their models while keeping them at max spread for max advantage. My point was that 9th already introduces a very badly designed rule that slows everything down by making it very complicated to move squads of more than 5 models if you are trying to maximize your advantage, because it's almost always better to take up more space.

I'm not saying blast templates are great or anything, BTW. I don't think there's any real reason to bring them back. I just think it's funny to hear people say "they had to go because it slowed down movement too much!" when 9th made the awful decision to change coherency to measure to 2 models, something that slows down movement far more than blast templates ever did.

Very complicated? You're just building triangles, and most of the time taking up more space doesn't matter a lot, since deep strike is a lot less prevalent on the smaller tables. If you want to shield an objective you often even want to do the opposite so the opponent can't charge into objective range.

Well it did make daisy-chains half length.

It's not that simple when you actually get to real game conditions, not an empty planet bowling ball. And especially when you get into combat and then have to measure coherency to 2 models AND figure with a pile in that has to go closer to the closest enemy model. That's a genuine geometric nightmare to actually maximize when you have two lumpy squads going into one another, a whole magnitude greater than anything blast did.

It's just that most people don't care enough to actually determine the best placement, they just wing it and figure it's good enough. Just like they did when there were blast templates, incidentally.

If measuring coherency to 2 different models isn't a significant slow-down to movement in the game, blast templates weren't either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well it did make daisy-chains half length.

Hence why I said earlier that if that is what they wanted to do, they should have just reduced it to 1" like in AOS, possibly also getting rid of the stupid rule that friendly models (at least when it comes to infantry, beasts, swarms, etc) can't move over one another at the same time, thereby avoiding any blocking problems a 1" coherency could cause. It's always been extraordinarily stupid that you can't simulate your cultists taking a step to their left and right to allow your chaos lord through. The nine foot tall lord of chaos who's killed a thousand men and lived 10,000 years can't even shoulder barge one scrawny cultist out the way and has to just stand there doing nothing until they see fit to move out of his way. Very impressive, that...

 Argive wrote:
Yeah im baffled by the amount of rules that have " Imagine this centre point. Now imagine a 3" from that centre point. Stuff within this imaginary *cough* template * cough* takes damage"

I mean its like templates but not..

The difference is that such rules target units, not models. Such rules punish MSU clusters, but are mostly worthless against hordes. I don't really care if my 30 gaunt unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's not that simple when you actually get to real game conditions, not an empty planet bowling ball. And especially when you get into combat and then have to measure coherency to 2 models AND figure with a pile in that has to go closer to the closest enemy model. That's a genuine geometric nightmare to actually maximize when you have two lumpy squads going into one another, a whole magnitude greater than anything blast did.

It's just that most people don't care enough to actually determine the best placement, they just wing it and figure it's good enough. Just like they did when there were blast templates, incidentally.

If measuring coherency to 2 different models isn't a significant slow-down to movement in the game, blast templates weren't either.

Sorry, but that is just not true, and as an ork player, I have vastly more models caring about placement than your average army. The time it takes to properly place a Thrakka tide in 9th edition (90 boyz) is almost trivial compared to playing kan wall in 5th (80 boyz).
The only time it gets fiddly is when you get high charge rolls and start to donut an enemy near non-breachable terrain, but as long as you keep the triangles intact, you don't even have to break out a measuring tool - unlike when the blast rules were a thing and not perfectly spacing out every model 2" was the same as throwing away models. In most situations, perfectly spacing out your models is completely irrelevant.

To me this just sounds like you haven't understood the odds and ends of the new rules yet and are struggling with them for that reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Yeah im baffled by the amount of rules that have " Imagine this centre point. Now imagine a 3" from that centre point. Stuff within this imaginary *cough* template * cough* takes damage"

I mean its like templates but not..

The difference is that such rules target units, not models. Such rules punish MSU clusters, but are mostly worthless against hordes. I don't really care if my 30 gaunt unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.

I guess he does have a point though - you could just use templates/blast markers to determine which units were hit by those rules.

so the reason why you are faster in 9th is that you don't measure the distance between models anymore and your opponents are fine with it that, while in 5th they were not