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.

 Hairesy wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
A lot of complaints about templates bogging the game down. Hard to see how hitting more models at once was slowing things down, but alright.

You don't see how placing a template, scattering the template, then arguing with your opponent about how many models are under said template is slower than counting to 14?

Fair. I sometimes forget that I have much less patience for baloney than most people. If an opponent doesn't want to call it the way it ought to be called in a game, then I have no further interest in wasting my time. I'm here to enjoy rolly-dicey games and if people can't be good sports then that's their problem. I think if more game shops adopted this attitude, you'd have a lot less rules lawyers. Besides, we have all these 3d printers now, I want some cool looking templates!

Way easier to change game mechanics than it is to try to change people.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
A lot of complaints about templates bogging the game down. Hard to see how hitting more models at once was slowing things down, but alright.

You don't see how placing a template, scattering the template, then arguing with your opponent about how many models are under said template is slower than counting to 14?

Yes, its technically faster. That doesn't mean its better.

You're right that it doesn't automatically mean its better... but it *IS* better.

Out of all the reasons 40k games took so long, templates were really the least contributing factor. They could have done so many things instead of just getting rid of something that added a lot of flavor to the game instead of just further reducing it to chucking buckets of dice around.

I don't particularly consider holding a disc of clear plastic 6" over the table surface and craning my neck to try to get a birds eye view of whats underneath it to be adding any amount of flavor.

They could have made it a rule that if a model isn't fully under a template or there is otherwise disagreement you roll a dice to determine if they get hit or not. They could have made blast template weapons not scatter at all kinda like 4th edition, place template, roll to hit like normal, if you hit you get those hits. If you miss you hit nothing. That would have been a nice compromise instead of just getting rid of them completely.

Pretty sure that was already a rule. Coulda sworn in 4th edition at least that models partially under the template were hit on 4+. Note that this doesn't actually fix anything or prevent any arguments, instead it creates new ones because now not only do you have "that mini isn't under the template" vs "that mini is under the template", but you also now have "that mini is partially covered by the template" vs "that mini is fully covered by the template".

 carldooley wrote:
As there seems to be an escalation in everything else, how would people feel about the option of using blast templates instead of rolling d3s or d6s?

I'd love to see a return of templates - I found them it more fun and immersive using a big blast marker instead of throwing dice for a change. But like armour facing values (another loss I mourn), templates are unlikely to return in the near future asGeeDubs are probably quite commited to the overhaul they've made. I know they needed to streamline the game for 8th, but I feel they emptied out the baby with the bathwater.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Toofast wrote:
I have seen people try to throw down in the parking lot over how many models were under a template so I doubt that mechanic is coming back. I find it far more fiddly than simply counting the amount of guys left in a squad, which doesn't leave any room for interpretation or arguments and speeds up gameplay.

That is a problem with the players, not the game mechanics.

Correct.

Started playing in 2nd with a ton of different templates. Never had a serious argument with my buddies back then and we weren´t even mature people in those days. Fast forward to today players have fist fights about template placement. Seems like lack of social skills to me.

Templates add flavour to the game. Period. I won´t touch 40K without templates with a ten foot pole. Even Necromunda brought them back. Abolishing templates in order to "speed up play" for tournament people is the wrong way to go. If you want to go to a tournament play chess instead with a chess clock. 40K is about fun and not watching a clock in a tournament.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
A lot of complaints about templates bogging the game down. Hard to see how hitting more models at once was slowing things down, but alright.

You don't see how placing a template, scattering the template, then arguing with your opponent about how many models are under said template is slower than counting to 14?

Fair. I sometimes forget that I have much less patience for baloney than most people. If an opponent doesn't want to call it the way it ought to be called in a game, then I have no further interest in wasting my time. I'm here to enjoy rolly-dicey games and if people can't be good sports then that's their problem. I think if more game shops adopted this attitude, you'd have a lot less rules lawyers. Besides, we have all these 3d printers now, I want some cool looking templates!

Way easier to change game mechanics than it is to try to change people.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
A lot of complaints about templates bogging the game down. Hard to see how hitting more models at once was slowing things down, but alright.

You don't see how placing a template, scattering the template, then arguing with your opponent about how many models are under said template is slower than counting to 14?

Yes, its technically faster. That doesn't mean its better.

You're right that it doesn't automatically mean its better... but it *IS* better.

Out of all the reasons 40k games took so long, templates were really the least contributing factor. They could have done so many things instead of just getting rid of something that added a lot of flavor to the game instead of just further reducing it to chucking buckets of dice around.

I don't particularly consider holding a disc of clear plastic 6" over the table surface and craning my neck to try to get a birds eye view of whats underneath it to be adding any amount of flavor.

They could have made it a rule that if a model isn't fully under a template or there is otherwise disagreement you roll a dice to determine if they get hit or not. They could have made blast template weapons not scatter at all kinda like 4th edition, place template, roll to hit like normal, if you hit you get those hits. If you miss you hit nothing. That would have been a nice compromise instead of just getting rid of them completely.

Pretty sure that was already a rule. Coulda sworn in 4th edition at least that models partially under the template were hit on 4+. Note that this doesn't actually fix anything or prevent any arguments, instead it creates new ones because now not only do you have "that mini isn't under the template" vs "that mini is under the template", but you also now have "that mini is partially covered by the template" vs "that mini is fully covered by the template".

There is a lot to unpack here.

1: Why do I need to change the game instead of just not playing against idiots?

2: "Better" is subjective to the person.

3: How do you measure LoS if craning your neck is such a big deal that it's a reason to not have templates?

4: See point 1 as to why we don't need to argue as to what is partial or full coverage.

Templates make sense when it is a skirmish game with a dozen models per side. They don't make sense in a game with a hundred or more models.

 Tyran wrote:
Templates make sense when it is a skirmish game with a dozen models per side. They don't make sense in a game with a hundred or more models.

Why not?

 Hairesy wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Templates make sense when it is a skirmish game with a dozen models per side. They don't make sense in a game with a hundred or more models.

Why not?

Because checking 2" consistency of 200 models is unwieldy as hell. And to be honest it makes horde units simply look weird.

 Tyran wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Templates make sense when it is a skirmish game with a dozen models per side. They don't make sense in a game with a hundred or more models.

Why not?

Because checking 2" consistency of 200 models is unwieldy as hell. And to be honest it makes horde units simply look weird.

Sounds like the problem is with the 2" rule, not the templates.

If anything, templates make sense when there are more models on the table not less.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Sounds like the problem is with the 2" rule, not the templates.

I admit I didn't think about messing with the 2" rule, but also maybe you should explain your idea even more?

If anything, templates make sense when there are more models on the table not less.

Only if you are interested in punishing horde players.

So my concept would be more like how Warmachine does cohesion. In that game, units always have a Unit Leader model. Either a upgraded leader attachment or just a random dude. If that model is killed you nominate another model to be the new one. Models in the unit have to remain within a certain range in inches from the unit leader, based on its CMD stat, or they can't do anything besides move to get back in range. So there is basically a bubble around the unit leader and as long as your dudes are in that range they are good. It doesn't matter how far they are from other members as long as they are near the leader. So for 40k it would be something like "all models in a unit must remain within a number of inches equal to the leadership stat of the current unit leader model". If the leader model is killed nominate a new model within the unit to be the new unit leader.

And yes, the entire point of template weapons would be to counter horde players. Winging about that is like complaining that plasma kills terminators. Its supposed to do that.

So for Orks, taking a Nob would be a good idea because he has bigger leadership so his bubble is bigger. If and when he dies then the bubble gets smaller.

I'm unsure how well that would work with the bigger unit sizes of 40k horde units, and even thematically there are factions without unit leaders like Tyranids or Necrons.

Ld stats would need to be reevaluated of course. And in Warmachine the unit leader doesn't necessarily have different stats. Only if he's an upgrade usually. Otherwise he's just an arbitrary grunt like the rest of the unit.

But yeah, it might result in larger unit sizes being forced to clump more if you have 30 dudes but your ld stat is only 8. Though really it just means the leader would be in the middle instead of in the front.

 Tyran wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Sounds like the problem is with the 2" rule, not the templates.

I admit I didn't think about messing with the 2" rule, but also maybe you should explain your idea even more?

If anything, templates make sense when there are more models on the table not less.

Only if you are interested in punishing horde players.

Yes, taking flamers is definitely to punish horde players. That's what I intend to do with them!

Also, it would be cool if SM shotguns used a flamer template. Imagine a squad of shotgun Scouts in a LSS, throwing around flamer templates! Peak 40k, I tells ya!

IIRC they used to. I think in... 4th edition maybe they were str3 template weapons?

Don't think so. The Speeder had a flame or blast weapon though so maybe that's what you're thinking of?

The reason blast templates are more thematic than current is because they actually improved the damage of those weapons against massed/packed targets in a way that really felt like an explosion.

Vs the current implementation which really, really, doesn't.

I blast templates are something that I wouldn't miss if they were just replaced with a decent alternative.
One Page Rules has Blast(X) be a single shot that inflicts X hits if it hits. It somewhat has the theme but I think it's far too swingy, especially when you start getting into like 5+ to-hit Blast(6).

Other games just have explosives roll a lot of attacks. Similar to 40k, I don't like how blasts are equally as powerful against small units as large. Although it can still work if they have some other mechanical benefit - such as ignores cover, scattering units, or similar.
Although it's not my favourite, I think it'd be a strong contender for 40k.

My favourite for implementing into 40k though is roll a number of attacks equal to the number of models in the target unit, up to X.
So Blast (6) would get one attack for every model in the target unit, up to 6.
It's quick, it's simple, and it captures the idea.

Just a note on possible solution to tedious spacing out hordes. Grimdark Future requires models to be both 2” from eachother AND that the maximum distance between any two models in a squad is 6”. And before someone cries about „being punished” by such rule, you then can account for this „punishment” by balancing the consequences out. And if you want the game to accomodate squads large enough to have problem fitting in a 6” circle, then you can either tweak this number or make it parametric on squad size. Done.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
A lot of complaints about templates bogging the game down. Hard to see how hitting more models at once was slowing things down, but alright.

You don't see how placing a template, scattering the template, then arguing with your opponent about how many models are under said template is slower than counting to 14?

Yes, its technically faster. That doesn't mean its better.

Out of all the reasons 40k games took so long, templates were really the least contributing factor. They could have done so many things instead of just getting rid of something that added a lot of flavor to the game instead of just further reducing it to chucking buckets of dice around.

They could have made it a rule that if a model isn't fully under a template or there is otherwise disagreement you roll a dice to determine if they get hit or not. They could have made blast template weapons not scatter at all kinda like 4th edition, place template, roll to hit like normal, if you hit you get those hits. If you miss you hit nothing. That would have been a nice compromise instead of just getting rid of them completely.

I have to say, blast weapons not being able to hit 2 different units standing right next to each other is the dumbest thing in the game. That was the whole point of blast weapons for the entire history of their existence. Now you have things like the redemptor plasma cannon that usually end up being anti armor when they're supposed to be anti horde.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reason blast templates are more thematic than current is because they actually improved the damage of those weapons against massed/packed targets in a way that really felt like an explosion.

Only vs players that never spaced anything out because they were admittedly too lazy.

As for unit coherency, I don't like the 2" chain thing. It can result in abuse as you daisy chain huge squads and you either need to tediously measure everything or just accept that you're worse off for not bothering.

I much prefer the system where it's within 4" of the leader, or 6" for large squads, or whatever.
It's much quicker and easier that way and it really functions better than the alternative anyways.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
As for unit coherency, I don't like the 2" chain thing. It can result in abuse as you daisy chain huge squads and you either need to tediously measure everything or just accept that you're worse off for not bothering.

I much prefer the system where it's within 4" of the leader, or 6" for large squads, or whatever.
It's much quicker and easier that way and it really functions better than the alternative anyways.

I rather enjoyed hitting the middle of those conga lines with a flamer.
'What's the point of that? I'll take a couple from the end.'
'Nope.'
'What do you mean, 'nope'?'
'Casualties are determined from the range of the weapon.'
'Yeah, so?'
'You get to waste a turn of movement getting the bisected unit back into coherency.'

Even 6" would be to small for 30 model units, we would need around 8" from leader to keep similar densities to the current 2” rule.

kirotheavenger wrote:The reason blast templates are more thematic than current is because they actually improved the damage of those weapons against massed/packed targets in a way that really felt like an explosion.

Vs the current implementation which really, really, doesn't.
...
Other games just have explosives roll a lot of attacks. Similar to 40k, I don't like how blasts are equally as powerful against small units as large...

My favourite for implementing into 40k though is roll a number of attacks equal to the number of models in the target unit, up to X.
So Blast (6) would get one attack for every model in the target unit, up to 6.
It's quick, it's simple, and it captures the idea.

Not a bad way to go, although I still think there's merit to doing X attacks per Y models in the target unit. So something like a frag missile can be more effective against larger units, but you aren't getting 5 attacks every time you shoot at a small squad of aspects or marines or whatever. X per Y just gives you a little more control over how good the weapon is without requiring any more counting than 1 shot per model.

nou wrote:Just a note on possible solution to tedious spacing out hordes. Grimdark Future requires models to be both 2” from eachother AND that the maximum distance between any two models in a squad is 6”. And before someone cries about „being punished” by such rule, you then can account for this „punishment” by balancing the consequences out. And if you want the game to accomodate squads large enough to have problem fitting in a 6” circle, then you can either tweak this number or make it parametric on squad size. Done.

I don't know. I see the appeal, but at that point we're talking about making a bunch of changes to accomodate the change to unit coherency. And I'm not sure we'd end up with something sufficiently better to warrant the effort (and the possible problem injection).

kirotheavenger wrote:As for unit coherency, I don't like the 2" chain thing. It can result in abuse as you daisy chain huge squads and you either need to tediously measure everything or just accept that you're worse off for not bothering.

Your experience may differ from mine, but I can't say that conga lines have really been an issue for me this edition. If your unit is large enough to stretch out to multiple objectives (and not get disintegrated by a few casualties causing you to lose coherency), then it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that such a unit could control those objectives. After all, if two groups of 10 guardsmen can hold two objectives while fist bumping, then surely one group of 20 guardsmen can do the same.

carldooley wrote:
'Casualties are determined from the range of the weapon.'
'Yeah, so?'
'You get to waste a turn of movement getting the bisected unit back into coherency.'

Is that how it works in 9th? It hasn't come up for me, but I thought the "casualties are determined from the range of the weapon" thing got dropped after 7th edition.

Yeah, but then you get some sillyness where if you have 30 orks in a perfectly straight line 2" apart it doesn't make sense for a frag missile to potentially be able to kill 10 of them.

Tbf, a frag missile isn't very likely to kill 10 ork boyz even if you did allow it to make up to 10 to-hit rolls. You'd need what? 30 successful hits to average 10 successful wounds (before saves). So I feel like killing 10 orks with one shot would be unlikely enough to not actually be a huge deal. (And that's assuming you don't cap a frag missile's number of shots at less than 10.) If you roll hot enough to pull off 10 kills with one frag, I think that falls into the "unlikely, but not impossible" category. Shrapnel, abstractions, ricochets, etc.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but then you get some sillyness where if you have 30 orks in a perfectly straight line 2" apart it doesn't make sense for a frag missile to potentially be able to kill 10 of them.

It's a trade off between abstraction and speed of gameplay.
Templates are a faff at the best of times, and a ready source of argument at the worst.
I never really found it an issue as I was happy to let one or two hits slide either way for speed of gameplay, but when we're talking Demolisher Cannon hits on my elite infantry I can't deny the desire to argue the point grows...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

kirotheavenger wrote:As for unit coherency, I don't like the 2" chain thing. It can result in abuse as you daisy chain huge squads and you either need to tediously measure everything or just accept that you're worse off for not bothering.

Your experience may differ from mine, but I can't say that conga lines have really been an issue for me this edition. If your unit is large enough to stretch out to multiple objectives (and not get disintegrated by a few casualties causing you to lose coherency), then it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that such a unit could control those objectives. After all, if two groups of 10 guardsmen can hold two objectives while fist bumping, then surely one group of 20 guardsmen can do the same.

I consider objectives generally kinda of "meta" and gameplay-isms anyways. Especially when you're talking about "~5 arbitrary points on the battlefield" type you're normally using.
I also really like to imagine that a squad is a collective working together naturally. Stringing out in lines doesn't evoke that for me honestly.
The unit centering around the leader does in a much better way.

Plus speed of resolution is something I really appreciate in gaming. I've made my decision "I want to space these guys out as much as possible" the faster you can resolve the busy-work of implementing that and moving on to the next squad the better. Measuring 2" all the way down a chain is just a PITA.
Measuring 6" one way, then 6" the other, then being able to haphazardly throw the rest in the middle is great, imo.

In fact, I'd like to go one step further. Don't even measure movement for the grunts - just measure for the leader then place the grunts anywhere you like in coherency.
To stop you abusing it for extra range all ranges are measured from your leader but to any enemy grunt. That means if you throw guys forwards they're closer to being in range for the enemy but no closer to being in range themselves.
It's how Star Wars Legion does it, and I love how I only have to measure movement once and then can just sprinkle the scrubs around.

TBH it's kinda how most people do it in 40k anyway - measure the front 1-2 guys then sprinkle the rest around. Except now it's actually legit in the rules and not just laziness everyone overlooks because the actual difference is negligible. If it's negligible, I say formally remove it!

Absolutely we should. It was a much better way to balance and represent blasts, and was not nearly as punishing as current system. Where now you have to roll for number of hits, roll to hit, then roll damage. With a tempalte you just roll to scatter, and hit the number under the template, then roll to wound.


The idea that "Oh it caused less arguments" or "It sped up the game" is a disingenuous argument.
It did not make the game go faster. I rolled a single scatter, and moved it, now the time i spend moving a scatter i just spend rolling to hit die with rerolls and crap.

But the idea that "Oh it removed arguments" is 100% BS, because there was nothing to argue over with the rule, it was very clear and easy to understand, the problem was, you had crappy players who would want to argue over things. You had crappy players that would roll the scatter die away from the hit location to skew how the scatter actually was. You would then have people argue over if something was under it rather then just rolling a die for it.
The same people that would argue over scatter just found new things to argue over. Every game of 6th and 7th i played, the same people would always argue over templates, when 8th came out, they just found new things to argue over.

Blast templates were fine, in fact they were great, they should be brought back.

I think that is why Warmachine had fixed directions the blasts could scatter. You rolled a D6 and the blast template was marked with arrows so it could only go in fixed directions relative to the shooter. No worry about angling the blast off in an incorrect direction.

kirotheavenger wrote:
In fact, I'd like to go one step further. Don't even measure movement for the grunts - just measure for the leader then place the grunts anywhere you like in coherency.
To stop you abusing it for extra range all ranges are measured from your leader but to any enemy grunt. That means if you throw guys forwards they're closer to being in range for the enemy but no closer to being in range themselves.
It's how Star Wars Legion does it, and I love how I only have to measure movement once and then can just sprinkle the scrubs around.

I kind of like that. Generally, I don't actually find there's much in the way of interesting decision making when it comes to the exact positioning of models in a unit. Sure, I can potentially movement block or tri-point the enemy, but that's a bit too gamey and feels like more of an exploit than a tactical decision. So with that in mind, sure. Positioning around the squad leader seems like a solid way to do things. Especially if we don't bring back templates.

Backspacehacker wrote:Absolutely we should. It was a much better way to balance and represent blasts, and was not nearly as punishing as current system. Where now you have to roll for number of hits, roll to hit, then roll damage. With a tempalte you just roll to scatter, and hit the number under the template, then roll to wound.

Politely disagree with most of that. You don't "just roll to scatter" and suddenly have an exact number of models under the template; you hold up the template and try to center it over your target as best you reasonably can while reaching halfway across the table. Maybe you coordinate with your opponent to hold the template in position. Then you collect the special scatter die along with a couple normal dice. Then you do your best to roll the scatter die such that it will land near the template without bowling over models or seeming like a "fake" roll because the further the position of the scatter die from the template, the harder it is to guestimate what direction the template will end up moving (even though you're still going to end up with a mildly ambiguous direction in the end.) Then you place your tape measure in a way that reaches consensus between yourself and your opponent about the proper direction. Once the template moves, you bob your head forward and back while squinting, trying to honestly determine whether those two extra ork boyz are under the template or if it just seems that way because you're looking at it from a slight angle (standing on the gaming table is discouraged at your store). Then you run your count of models hit by your opponent and ask for consensus from him; this step may or may not involve your opponent secretly disagreeing or being dubious of your count but not wanting to argue about it out of politeness.

In the current edition all those steps are replaced with rolling some d6 to determine number of shots and and then making a normal to-hit roll.

But the idea that "Oh it removed arguments" is 100% BS, because there was nothing to argue over with the rule, it was very clear and easy to understand, the problem was, you had crappy players who would want to argue over things. You had crappy players that would roll the scatter die away from the hit location to skew how the scatter actually was. You would then have people argue over if something was under it rather then just rolling a die for it.
The same people that would argue over scatter just found new things to argue over. Every game of 6th and 7th i played, the same people would always argue over templates, when 8th came out, they just found new things to argue over.

Nah. That just wasn't my experience. Jerks are few and far between in my gaming area. People generally do their best to not bicker and to err in favor of their opponents for the sake of good sportsmanship. But even under those circumstances, a very slight difference in the angle or distance of scatter could be the difference between whether you lose a full squad or just half of one. Even without "arguing," it can be difficult to tell whether a base is actually partially under a template or not when you're on your tip toes, leaning forward, and trying not to accidentally shove terrain around. And having to roll off to settle whether or not a model is under the template, though quick and sporting, is essentially a failure of the mechanic that should be handling it. Like, you shouldn't need to resort to a coin toss because a game mechanic that involves custom templates and special dice still can't manage to generate unambiguous results.

Blast templates had a lot of up-sides, but they were not without their own problems.

Grey Templar wrote:I think that is why Warmachine had fixed directions the blasts could scatter. You rolled a D6 and the blast template was marked with arrows so it could only go in fixed directions relative to the shooter. No worry about angling the blast off in an incorrect direction.

That's a neat way to do it. Does that mean that I could theoretically game the scatter by moving my shooter such that there are secondary targets in the path of possible scatters? Like, could I scoot to the side before shooting so that there's a secondary target immediately left and right of my primary target?