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.

In 4th, the only templates that scatter are Barrage templates and templates fired by Ordnance weapons.

Other templates (Heavy weapons, Assault weapons, whatever) just hit or miss on the firer's BS - which kinda makes sense. A Fire Prism's laser doesn't "scatter" - it just completely misses, whizzing off into the distance. It also reduces the amount of times the scatter dice and templates actually come into play - for big, important shots (barrage or ordnance).

The biggest thing I absolutely HATE about the new blast rules is how the administrative division of the enemy troops affects the power of your weapons.

30 Guardsmen on an objective? Well, easy pickings for all my mortars...

but wait! They're in 6 squads of 5! My explosive rounds landing in their packed masses are suddenly dramatically less effective!

In my old rework of 7th ed I've dealt with non-interactive nature of initiative (and resulting issue of there being no point for some charges of low I vs high I units) by an option to trade in attacks for added initiative, so every charging unit could try to bite a bit faster unit and dedicated melee units with multiple attacks could try to bite even better units, at the expense of biting a bit softer. It worked really well and was a meaningful decision to make.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In 4th, the only templates that scatter are Barrage templates and templates fired by Ordnance weapons.

Other templates (Heavy weapons, Assault weapons, whatever) just hit or miss on the firer's BS - which kinda makes sense. A Fire Prism's laser doesn't "scatter" - it just completely misses, whizzing off into the distance. It also reduces the amount of times the scatter dice and templates actually come into play - for big, important shots (barrage or ordnance).

The biggest thing I absolutely HATE about the new blast rules is how the administrative division of the enemy troops affects the power of your weapons.

30 Guardsmen on an objective? Well, easy pickings for all my mortars...

but wait! They're in 6 squads of 5! My explosive rounds landing in their packed masses are suddenly dramatically less effective!

Gaming the game comes to mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Small aside regarding templates - in ProHammer we have all template weapons pick a target and roll to hit as normal with the model's BS. If a miss occurs, then the template automatically scatters 2D6" (and the scatter distance is limited to a max of half of the original distance from shooting model to the target model).

Official rules even had maximum scatter limit and you would also incorporate BS in the calculation. Exception was indirect fire where you would scatter the whole 2D6 score on a miss.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Small aside regarding templates - in ProHammer we have all template weapons pick a target and roll to hit as normal with the model's BS. If a miss occurs, then the template automatically scatters 2D6" (and the scatter distance is limited to a max of half of the original distance from shooting model to the target model).

That's good - that should probably have been in the game to begin with. I distinctly recall shooting a Leman Russ Executioner point-blank at a big Tyranid beastie in 5e and two of the three blasts somehow ended up behind the tank. I can't say it specifically soured me on blasts, but it was very much a hard-stop "wait, WHAT" moment.

comparing the different Editons, 3rd was the most streamlined version of the game

4th had already issues because GW refused to clean up the game (there was a supplement to clarify weapon profiles in 4th, which was ignored because all changes made were seen as "typos" instead of finally giving all Marines the same weapons)

while 5th, with the community FAQ/Errata/Scenarios was the most balanced one (GK and Demons were a problem, but not that big with comps)

Tiberias wrote:
As the title suggests, I am kinda confused by how GW chose to streamline the rules when 8th was released.

Just to get this out of the way, I don't think the general idea of streamlining the rules to make the game more accessible is a bad idea, but I think GW actually made the rules about equally as confusing as they were before 8th all things considered.

A good example of this in my opinion is initiative: GW removed the initative stat from the unit datasheet to arguably make sequencing in the fight phase quicker and easier to understand...fair enough.
But then they also introduce rules like fight first/last and suddenly you have some, in my opinion, really counterintuitive interactions that actually require FAQs to make it clear who gets to fight first.
I would argue that initiative wouldn't be more confusing than what we have now...it might even be less confusing, but with the added benefit that it is another lever GW could have used to adjust the balance of some units...and one that can be more carefully adjusted than just slapping fight first/last onto something.

Don't get me wrong I actually like 9th quite a bit and I'm not saying the old editions were without problems. There was a bunch of clunky and arguably unnecessary/bad stuff (I think nobody really misses vehicle AV for example), but maybe some aspects deserved to survive the transition into 8th.

I really disagree with the OP. I played during 2nd edition, 5th edition and 6th edition. 8th and 9th.

The step for streamlining in 8th edition was just much better. So much better. Iid not have to read so many pages of confusing rules. The worst part was universal rules that said 'look at universal rule x'. Now I just need to read up on my rules, and the rules in the book. Easy (er). In 9th edition the streamline has helped a lot. Beeing more consekvent in using the same wording for all the strike last abilatien is a good example.

I will now talk a bit about 5th edition:

Regarding removal of inisiativ, it was a very silly rule for tyranids. One of the most iconic units in tyranids is/was the Genestealer. A real killer. I6! Jikes! But nothing in that codex had frag /assault grenades and if the opponent where in cover I fought at I1. This was the story of the tyranid people. Just stand in cover. I was shot up or cut down before I killed anything.

One version of the rules that I am happy to see go where tanks rules. The 4 section armour line firing arch thing very rarely came up. (Units on many army where not designed to 'slip around' and shoot them in the behind. The computergame company of heroes implemented this mechanic in a good 2ay, although that game was more skirmish focused.) And the fact that you rolled on that damned vehicle table meant after armour save they had vehicle save, essentially.

It is hard to keep the rules sepperat from the game. The fact that all tyranid monster where priced 30 points hiegher then they where worth was frustrating. The fact that parking lots was the best army was bad design. Combined with only 3 missions made the games quite bland.

6th edition helped a bit. The introduction to hull points where a good step in game balance. But was it good rule design? No. Smash attacks on monsters where great! But more rules. (Essentially the same as wound pools on vehicles and the scything/power attacks on split weapon profiles.) 6th edition also just slapped the word 'aiecraft' on all the IG airplanes. The undercosted and much spammed 3 lascannon aircraft suddenly could only be hit on 6s. The vulture gunship with 40 S5 hitting on 2+ was also undercosted. During the entire edition airplane rules where just bad.

9th edition stil has ways to go. The 'rare rules section' is a step in the right edition. But all of the FAQ stuf should have been caught before and be implemented there. (Transport confusion could have been premtivly seen.)

The fact that secondaries and missions keep getting balanced when needed, along with point updates, all that is very good. And makes the game more enjoyable for me personally.

To the point of 6th and aircrafts yeah that was a really poorly implemented rules, especially when you consider the only thing that could hit them was other aircraft, and the flakk missile launcher that literally did not have points for until 7th x.x
6th was good but just aircraft caused problems

 Niiai wrote:
The worst part was universal rules that said 'look at universal rule x'.

Wasn't that just a 6th/7th thing? 3rd/4th/5th had only a handful of USRs, not the recursive bundles of USRs that 7th wound up with.

Edit: I'll echo an earlier comment in saying that streamlining is good, but the rules reflect a hodgepodge of different design goals by different people that change over time and don't mesh well. On top of that, there's lots of institutional momentum, so what design goals are in place are constrained by the baggage of prior editions. Few modern games aiming for speed of play and accessibility would have you make 3-6 separate rolls comparing 10+ different attributes to determine the outcome of a basic shooting attack, for example.

I'd really love to see an edition of the game that starts with a coherent design ethos, implements it in a from-scratch redesign of the core rules, and follows through with all the codices, but GW's never done that and likely never will.

Yes it started with 7th be to be god honest. I really think people blew the whole "usr got outta hand" way outta proportion. Was there a lot? Yes, but it was not like every army/game used them all.

You had USR that were just super easy to remember, like shooting a heavy weapon after moving was a snapshot, the. Vehicles had a USR that let them shoot heavy with out issue.
So a lot of those USR applied to everyone.

Then there were a handful of USR that were army unique and that was cleared up at the start of the game by just asking why what's your armies special rules?

7th did totally have rule bloat. I'm looking at you slow and purposeful, but honestly people made it out WAY worse then it really was

the Special rules of 6th/7th were not USRs as there was nothing universal on special rules that were used by 1 unit only and being a combination of different core rules

You want to know what USRs are, look at 3rd Edition

The lack of USRs and morale rules are the only things I find were solved better in earlier editions. In 8th I would have added terrain rules which were barely existent.

But really, whoever thought abilities that allow a unit to be placed 9" away from an opponent should be named... "abilities that allow a unit to be placed 9" away from an opponent" instead of, I don't know, "Deepstrike" or something like that, should rethink what he's done.

I'll take USRs instead of dozens different names for FNP or Deepstrike, or Scout etc any day. I think people would remember USRs differently, if previous editions had unit profiles presented in the same way 8th and 9th do - everything in a single place, but with common special rules having common names.

Love USRs. That doesn't mean I love every implementation of them. Warhammer has never exploited that rules space to the best extent possible, to see how that kind of system can be applied smoothly you would have to look to other games.

Certainly anywhere but 6th-7th.

IMO one of GWs biggest issues is they really do a bad job at presenting their rules, as mentioned if we had data cards like 8th and 9th in 7th, i would wage a lot of issues would be cleared up.

true, and also GW likes to use exiting terms for their rules that mean the opposite and than people get upset about those in general

people don't like USRs because of 7th Edi, but those are not universal special rules as everyone else uses it (not USRs are bad, 7th Edi Special rules were)

people don't like IGoUGo, but 40k is not as it uses an Action-Reaction System that interrupts the "I do something and the opponent has to wait until I am finished" system (most Alternate Activation games are IGoUGo)

 kodos wrote:
(most Alternate Activation games are IGoUGo)

Those are mutually exclusive terms by common convention.

'IGOUGO' classically means what 40K does: each impulse gives you the opportunity to perform a complete set of actions independent of those that came before. In some games this would mean you have a certain number of models that can activate; in most IGOUGO games everything can activate.

'Alternating activation' means players taking turns to activate units one at a time, with units typically unable to activate more than once in a round, and typically ending the round when all units have activated.

40K's system is nearly straight IGOUGO. It's also quite dated given the length of turns, the amount of activity that happens on a given turn, and the scale of the game. GW doesn't describe the game as IGOUGO, that's just the label that fits.

IGoUGo means: I do something, you do something

It does not matter if those are single model activations, unit activations, alternating phases or alternating player turns, I finish what I started doing, than you can do something

40K is: I start doing something, the opponent has the possibility to interrupt it, do something and than I finish what I started doing

40k is a mix of several different mechanics that don't work together which causes those troubles and extended play times with the opponent doing nothing for a long time in some situations while in other situations is more active than the actual active player

 kodos wrote:
IGoUGo means: I do something, you do something

Traditionally, when people say IGOUGO it means that I do "everything" that's available to me within the confines of my turn, and then it becomes your turn, and you get to do "everything" that's available to you.

You seem to be interpreting IGOUGO too literally. By your definition, every game that isn't based on simultaneous real-time action would be IGOUGO, which is not how the term is used.

While 40K uses an IGOUGO structure, different editions feature different ways of breaking that structure down a little. Activated overwatch (e.g. 2nd edition) is one. Another are the newer (6th edition on) overwatch actions, which are effective "reactions" to being charged. The fight phase has been a "We Go" system for a long time, either based on initiative order or based on players alternating units to fight with during the phase.

But I agree with you that turns are often too long in 40K and breaking up more (i.e. with an alternating activation system) or having a more robust reaction system would be nice to explore.

I started playing OnePageRules as my "40k" and it so refreshing to not have to remember an encyclopedia of stratagems/warlord traits/ relics and special army rules.

And the games are much quicker, like i'm able to fit in a 2k game in about an hour , with my GF that isnt as well versed as me in wargaming and with the both of us learning the game. When the local stores open up again, i will try and get more people to try it out

 kodos wrote:
IGoUGo means: I do something, you do something

It does not matter if those are single model activations, unit activations, alternating phases or alternating player turns, I finish what I started doing, than you can do something

That is not how the term is used in the industry, so no. Your definitions are perfectly fine for discussing the mechanics, but in the context of saying that people wrongly describe 40K as IGOUGO because according to your definition it isn't, well, that's just not a valid argument.

Common convention is that IGOUGO describes a player being able to perform all their actions for the turn at once, while AA has players going back-and-forth. A game can be IGOUGO and still have interrupts or reactions, like Starship Troopers or Infinity. A game can be AA and still have multiple units activate together, like Bolt Action.

The reason people complain about 40K as an IGOUGO system is that the possibility of activating a stratagem in response- which is, for the most part, the extent of your player agency outside of your turn- does not provide for much interactivity, and in large part limits the game to five interaction points (turn changeovers). Modern games typically have a greater level of interactivity than this.

Make turn 1 of any 40k game be AA for movement, psyker, and shooting, then charging goes to the player that won the roll off.
Turns 2 onward then becomes IGOUGO.

This way you eliminate the very real alpha strike problem that still exists.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Traditionally

yeah, when people come from "GW told me 40k is IGoUGo"

than you talk to boardgame people and they will say games like One Page Rules are IGoUGo, while 40k is something new that breaks with the traditional IGoUGo for something different

I do "everything" that's available to me within the confines of my turn, and then it becomes your turn, and you get to do "everything" that's available to you.

Yes, but it does not say how long your turn is or what actions are available

Kings of War is IGoUGo, I have my turn, consisting of different phases, were I can activate each unit in each phase, than there is your turn
Chess is IGoUGo as well, I have my turn, consisting of a single activation, than there is your turn

you have no possibility to interrupt my turn, no matter how long that turn is

40k has Stratagems that interrupt my action as well as Overwatch, hence it is not fully IGoUGo, because you do something during my action
Magic the Gathering is also not IGoUGo, because you have the possibilities to interrupt my actions

But I agree with you that turns are often too long in 40K and breaking up more (i.e. with an alternating activation system) or having a more robust reaction system would be nice to explore.

which is a problem because of the different structures mixed together
Alternating Activations or Phases instead of Alternating Turns won't change a lot if the rest stays the same

another point that takes time is how often you "touch" a model, moving outside the movement phase, shooting outside the shooting phase, etc. The more often the same unit does something the longer it takes (doing all movements in the same phase is quicker than moving in the movement phase, than after all other units, move again in the shooting phase, and after all other units, move again in the charge phase)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Common convention is that IGOUGO describes a player being able to perform all their actions for the turn at once, while AA has players going back-and-forth. A game can be IGOUGO and still have interrupts or reactions, like Starship Troopers or Infinity. A game can be AA and still have multiple units activate together, like Bolt Action.

because AA is not the opposite of IGoUGo.
a system that allows interruptions, and no SST did not do this because the reaction happens after you finished your action, is not IGoUGo

SST is a good example, it is Alternating Turns, with Action-Reaction it is still IGoUGo

Alternating Activations does not describe how many activations you have or what your units do, it just means I activate, than you do, Bolt Action is not AA because it uses Random Activations, not alternating ones


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
The reason people complain about 40K as an IGOUGO system is that the possibility of activating a stratagem in response- which is, for the most part, the extent of your player agency outside of your turn- does not provide for much interactivity, and in large part limits the game to five interaction points (turn changeovers). Modern games typically have a greater level of interactivity than this.

but this is not the problem of IGoUGo, but that 40k uses alternating player turns with limited options to interact in between and because of some time consuming mechanic those turns take too much time

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
They still have templates anyways. The game is rife with "pick a point/model/whatever. Everything within X" of that model gets [hit/buff/curse/whatever]"

That's literally just a blast template. All templates in the game from 4th can be reworded to "all units within x" of a point are hit" or whatever.

The only difference is the scatter, which really isn't that hard if people understand how parallel lines work and everyone brought a tape measure.

They're only exactly the same if you're playing in a virtual, assisted environment (eg. TTS)

The problem with physical templates is that in order to assess them accurately you need to complete one of these checklists without allowing any errors:

a) player 1 places the template in desired location
WHILST HOLDING THE TEMPLATE PERFECTLY STEADY, player 1 and/or player 2 must
b) measure to see if the template is in range
c) gauge how many models are touched (regardless of how deep into the tablespace the template is placed, the players' heights, the acuity of their vision, etc.), taking turns hovering over it if necessary
d) player 1 must roll scatter dice close enough to the location of the template to get a physically-reproducible scatter direction
e) player 1 must scatter the template accurately, if necessary, and then one or both players must perform c) anew

or

<as above, but instead of trying to hold the template steady the players can attempt to come to a verbal agreement describing the exact placement of the template, by using references to the physical area of the playspace, and then move the template into and out of position as required for each step>

Both of those are sloppy s---show carnivals. Physical 2D templates are a deeply stupid game mechanic/measurement tool. We're talking about a wargame that is often played in cramped/physically-restrictive environments, on high tables, by players of varying heights/physical capacities. A 1D measurement is always going to produce better results than a physical 2D template.

So I agree with you that templates still effectively exist in the form of "all units within X" " effects, but these effects are a superior way of representing AoE weapons/abilities. Any ruleset that regresses to physical 2D templates that must be held in place by a human is (brain)dead on arrival and nostalgia-poisoned/ossified in the name of tradition.

 Altruizine wrote:
The problem with physical templates is that in order to assess them accurately you need to complete one of these checklists without allowing any errors:

a) player 1 places the template in desired location
WHILST HOLDING THE TEMPLATE PERFECTLY STEADY, player 1 and/or player 2 must
b) measure to see if the template is in range
c) gauge how many models are touched (regardless of how deep into the tablespace the template is placed, the players' heights, the acuity of their vision, etc.), taking turns hovering over it if necessary
d) player 1 must roll scatter dice close enough to the location of the template to get a physically-reproducible scatter direction
e) player 1 must scatter the template accurately, if necessary, and then one or both players must perform c) anew

Those problems all remain (or become worse) if you're defining an arbitrary, fixed point and measuring to see what's in range of it. The argument over whether a model is under the template is exactly the same as the argument over whether a model is under the tape measure. If you're using a token to provide a static reference for your arbitrary point, you can use the same token to anchor the template.

Plus D and E are only relevant to scatter, and aren't a necessary element of using templates at all.

You can play any existing edition of 40K without blast templates at all; they were there because they were easier to use in practice than measuring out 'all models within X inches'.

 catbarf wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:
The problem with physical templates is that in order to assess them accurately you need to complete one of these checklists without allowing any errors:

a) player 1 places the template in desired location
WHILST HOLDING THE TEMPLATE PERFECTLY STEADY, player 1 and/or player 2 must
b) measure to see if the template is in range
c) gauge how many models are touched (regardless of how deep into the tablespace the template is placed, the players' heights, the acuity of their vision, etc.), taking turns hovering over it if necessary
d) player 1 must roll scatter dice close enough to the location of the template to get a physically-reproducible scatter direction
e) player 1 must scatter the template accurately, if necessary, and then one or both players must perform c) anew

Those problems all remain (or become worse) if you're defining an arbitrary, fixed point and measuring to see what's in range of it. The argument over whether a model is under the template is exactly the same as the argument over whether a model is under the tape measure. If you're using a token to provide a static reference for your arbitrary point, you can use the same token to anchor the template.

Plus D and E are only relevant to scatter, and aren't a necessary element of using templates at all.

You can play any existing edition of 40K without blast templates at all; they were there because they were easier to use in practice than measuring out 'all models within X inches'.

No, it's not exactly the same. Because the physical difficulty of holding something steady in one dimension is lower than it is for holding something steady in two dimensions.

Or, if it isn't, 3D print yourself a 48" circumference disc and replace your tape measure with it.

Please attempt to describe a problem that "becomes worse" measuring from a fixed point. I'm curious if you can even come up with something, or if you just wanted to go with the boilerplate rhetorical construction of "remain (or become worse".

The removal of Initiative and the change to how Weapon Skill interacts completely gutted the concept of "nimble fighters" in the game.

Why do Marines hit an Eldar Autarch on the same roll as it does a Gretchin?

Invulnerable saves are now used to represent agility which just exacerbates the lethality vs defense layers issues the current edition has.

If adopting the flat hit roll of AoS when they shifted to 8th, they should have adopted the flat wound roll as well.

3rd-7th VS 8th-9th stat functionality:
How to determine who strikes first in close combat
3rd-7th: Initiative
8th-9th: Who charged first then alternating (opponent first)

Fleeing from combat and escaping alive
3rd-7th: Initiative
8th-9th: Combat attrition test (does not disengage)

Representation of dodging attacks in combat
3rd-7th: WS
8th-9th: Invulnerable saves

Another large issue with correlating dodge with the Invul save is that it now takes place after the wound roll, and in all functionality is just a way to negate certain levels of AP.

What scares me is that some people absolutely love the current spreadsheet design of the game - and i suspect, the tournament crowd the most -, and enjoy being stuck 3+ hours around a table waiting for each others neverending blender-turn to be over.

The game needs a MASSIVE trimming of rules beyond 1000+ pts games, and interaction between armor and anti-infantry weapon must be entirely reworked.

And some form of alternative activation needs to be implemented to end the boredom that is the opponent's turn.

For all of the issues 7th edition had I cannot say that anyone was really that upset about the core stat lines, to-hit chart, to-wound chart, how AP works.

The primary issues 7th had were Specialist detachments/free stuff, and Invisibility.

The never-ending arms race of codex creep was prevalent in 8th and 9th just as it was in 7th.

Why do we have balance passes now that limit the number of specific units that can be taken in a detachment/army? Because the army comp is basically 7th unbound, but you get to keep your Objective Secured.

 Altruizine wrote:
Please attempt to describe a problem that "becomes worse" measuring from a fixed point.

...Checking if all of ten different models are within a set distance by swiveling a tape measure around a fixed point, or measuring independently from each one, rather than just holding a template above it and seeing which ones are under? Like, of your problems listed, A, B, D, and E are exactly the same between arbitrary points picked for tape measurement and arbitrary points picked for templates, it's just C gets more cumbersome with a tape measure.

Dunno what you mean about two dimensions versus one dimension. Your hand can wobble with a template, it can wobble with a tape measure, it's the same problem. Drawing a line on a template (to establish a one-dimensional measurement distance) doesn't make it more accurate. I see all the same 'is it in range' arguments with radii measured by tape measures that I did with templates.

And I don't really think I need to explain why a 48" template is not a total substitute for a tape measure, but if you insist: One's for measuring arbitrary distances between two points, and the other's for checking what lies within a specific radius from a single point. Different purposes, different tools.

I mean, it seems bizarre to me that you're describing templates as slower and less effective than the process that templates were created specifically to speed up. You could play any older edition by measuring out every single model in lieu of using blast templates, but you'd be a crazy person to do so. The things people grumbled about were either inherent to measuring short distances or had to do with scatter, which was a clunky system that I wouldn't like to see return. Using a tape measure in lieu of the 3" and 5" templates wouldn't improve things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My point is not that templates are fast and easy and great, it's that these mechanics are slow and clunky regardless of how you do the measurement. I'd rather move away from model-specific aura effects entirely.

 catbarf wrote:

I mean, it seems bizarre to me that you're describing templates as slower and less effective than the process that templates were created specifically to speed up. You could play any older edition by measuring out every single model in lieu of using blast templates, but you'd be a crazy person to do so. The things people grumbled about were either inherent to measuring short distances or had to do with scatter, which was a clunky system that I wouldn't like to see return. Using a tape measure in lieu of the 3" and 5" templates wouldn't improve things.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
My point is not that templates are fast and easy and great, it's that these mechanics are slow and clunky regardless of how you do the measurement. I'd rather move away from model-specific aura effects entirely.

Another aspect lost with the templates moving from 7th to 8th:
Blast, Large Blast, and Flamer templates all "auto-hit" after all scattering is resolved. So it combined hit rolls with determining # of hits.
In 8th only flamer weapons retain a semblance because they generate # of hits (being random d6 is another peev of mine but I digress) and auto hit. Why doesn't the Battle Cannon auto hit like it use to after it generated its number of shots?

All aura's should be reduced back to pick one unit within 2" of the HQ to apply the buff too. Akin to "joining a unit" of past editions.