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.

ccs wrote:


In all seriousness though? It's just someone complaining about how others build their armies. If it wasn't some named character they'd just be complaining about always seeing _____.

No, it's players who enjoyed a certain style of play who now had to pay a "GW tax" to keep the same style of play.

GW isn't "enticing" people, it's abusing its market position to squeeze out some extra sales.

"Gosh, I notice these particular traits are really popular."

"Splendid! Let's make players who like those traits have to buy a premium-priced figure to use them!"

I mean, credit where it is due. GW actually figured out how to monetize miniatures army selection. It's basically turning white metal castings into loot boxes.

Which was another reason why I stopped playing the "current edition."

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

ccs wrote:


In all seriousness though? It's just someone complaining about how others build their armies. If it wasn't some named character they'd just be complaining about always seeing _____.

No, it's players who enjoyed a certain style of play who now had to pay a "GW tax" to keep the same style of play.

GW isn't "enticing" people, it's abusing its market position to squeeze out some extra sales.

"Gosh, I notice these particular traits are really popular."

"Splendid! Let's make players who like those traits have to buy a premium-priced figure to use them!"

I mean, credit where it is due. GW actually figured out how to monetize miniatures army selection. It's basically turning white metal castings into loot boxes.

Which was another reason why I stopped playing the "current edition."

You'd have a point at all if it weren't for the fact many generic characters are better than the named counterparts and you weren't just cherrypicking the few that were amazing.

In a doomed attempt to steer us back to the point of the thread: waxing nostalgia

I miss the potential for chaos that blast templates brought to the table. It made for some interesting "you'll never believe this one time" story potential. I also miss the old moral failure where you'd run back towards your edge. I know there are ways to abuse both and that templates could lead to frustrating arguments, but these things just made the game feel a bit more physical for me...less abstracted...and I miss that.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
In a doomed attempt to steer us back to the point of the thread: waxing nostalgia

I miss the potential for chaos that blast templates brought to the table. It made for some interesting "you'll never believe this one time" story potential. I also miss the old moral failure where you'd run back towards your edge. I know there are ways to abuse both and that templates could lead to frustrating arguments, but these things just made the game feel a bit more physical for me...less abstracted...and I miss that.

Ah, so many stories.

My favorite is a lop-sided fight between Space Marines and Tyranids. It went totally sideways for the marines, and instead of fighting to win, the marine player was just hoping to avoid being completely wiped out.

On the last turn, his last terminator was surrounded by four genestealers. To ensure suitable overkill, the Tyranid player had his hive tyrant also fire the venom cannon into the melee.

It missed, scattering onto the genestealers, and the linked template described a perfect circle, wiping out all four genestealers leaving the marine unscathed. The look on the Tyranid player's face....priceless.

 oni wrote:
I could wax nostalgia for hours about flamer templates, blast markers, scatter dice, armour facings, etc., but in the end, the game is better without them.

I still think flamer templates were fun...

If anything, I'll argue for flamer templates. They are my favorite part about Infinity, and old 40k.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You'd have a point at all if it weren't for the fact many generic characters are better than the named counterparts and you weren't just cherrypicking the few that were amazing.

You're missing the point. There was a very specific period in which your army was determined by the special character leading it. Marines were the worst hit. Surprisingly, the paradigm shifted before it hit Chaos, so we never needed Lucius to play Emperor's Children or Ahriman to play 1kSons, but for a time the only way to play Salamanders with Salamander rules was with Vulkan, ditto for Raven Guard and Shrike, Imp Fists and Lysander, Crim Fists and Kantor, and so on.

It was a really gakky, however brief, part of 40k's design.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
If anything, I'll argue for flamer templates. They are my favorite part about Infinity, and old 40k.

The templates were useful because they allowed troops to flush out enemies in heavy cover that otherwise couldn't be engaged as point targets.

The IG in particular had issues hitting models in hard cover. The solution? Equip a command squad with flamers and use them to flush out the bunker/position. You know, like in real life.

Obviously, I still play 2nd and even when it was current, we never had much of a problem with templates. In my posts on 2nd ed. (which sadly you can't see because the site has crashed I note that a careful reading of 2nd rules kept template abuse to a minimum. Basically, the center of the template isn't placed on a unit, but on a model. All shooting in 2nd was about individual models (closest or easiest target). Thus, templates (like all other shooting) flowed from front to back.

Things like flamers had more latitude, but also less room for abuse. Basically, they were fun and they worked.

Flamer templates had the major advantage over blasts by not needing to worry/argue about scatter. Place the narrow end next to the guy with gun and sweep it around to see how many guys you could hit. Quick, simple, and fun.

 Nevelon wrote:
Flamer templates had the major advantage over blasts by not needing to worry/argue about scatter. Place the narrow end next to the guy with gun and sweep it around to see how many guys you could hit. Quick, simple, and fun.

Plus, they did extra damage when hitting models in confined spaces.

Yeah and the d3 or d6 auto hits they went to in 8th+ really did not represent how many models you could possibly hit. last week a friend wanted to see how many models you could hit with a large blast if they were all grouped up and he had over 20 models on standard bases touching the template.

I remember the flamer template hitting something like 13 in one game because they were grouped up in cover.

I wasn't playing at the start of 8th, but weren't flamers also excellent anti-aircraft weapons because GW didn't think through the whole "auto-hit" thing?

Still are. -1 to hit? Don't care.

Compared to 7th ed where they couldn't hit period(or other blast/large weapons)

On Flamers?

Original 2nd Ed Hellhound or GTFO.

Place the Heavy Flamer Template as normal (pointy end in touch with the Barrel). Then roll an Artillery Dice, moving the template forward according to the result. Everything the template touches is hit.

Any unit hit, regardless of casualties, had to take a Break Test because Super Burny. And every vehicle suffered some damage as the sheer heat cooked the crew.

A bloody nasty weapon!

tneva82 wrote:
Still are. -1 to hit? Don't care.

Compared to 7th ed where they couldn't hit period(or other blast/large weapons)

You mean as compared to back in the day when you

A. told you opponent ahead of time you were bringing flyers and got their agreement
b. You brought along one of the many AA units available in the game
. IG hydra, ork flak gunz, eldar firestorm, tau skyray etc....

Keep in mind before 6th ed almost all flyers were AV 10, including superheavies, and all pintle mounted weapons also counted as AA mounts.

Kind of feel the flamers into flyers was akin to the panic over lasguns killing Land Raiders.

I mean sure, D6 auto hits ignores the -1 to hit. But then you are wounding on 5s and the flyer probably has a 3+ save, so on average you are doing a wound. Its not really the stuff metas are made of.

 aphyon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Still are. -1 to hit? Don't care.

Compared to 7th ed where they couldn't hit period(or other blast/large weapons)

You mean as compared to back in the day when you

A. told you opponent ahead of time you were bringing flyers and got their agreement
b. You brought along one of the many AA units available in the game
. IG hydra, ork flak gunz, eldar firestorm, tau skyray etc....

Keep in mind before 6th ed almost all flyers were AV 10, including superheavies, and all pintle mounted weapons also counted as AA mounts.

Well if you told ahead of time...

Are you surprised if opponent brings up anti horde weapons if you tell you'll bring 300 gaunt list?

Duh. Look at the mirror

I never tell my lists in advance unless I know opponent isn't list tailoring jerk.

Just FYI flyers weren't opponent approval requirement in 7th. So that's squarely on you.

Tyel wrote:
Kind of feel the flamers into flyers was akin to the panic over lasguns killing Land Raiders.

I mean sure, D6 auto hits ignores the -1 to hit. But then you are wounding on 5s and the flyer probably has a 3+ save, so on average you are doing a wound. Its not really the stuff metas are made of.

As in many cases, it's edge cases being blown out of proportion for the most part. Sure, you could land some autohits on a flyer with a flamer, but as you said, actually killing something with it is another story. Stuff like Hellhounds, or titan inferno cannos are another story, but then superheavy main guns should be a threat to almost everything. You'd still need to get the flyer in range anyways, and if you park your flyer right on top of a flamer squad you deserve some retaliation. The way a lot of the flyers in 40k behave, i.e. more like modern helicopter gunships or assault landers in e.g. star wars, them being threatened by close-range support stuff is not that extremely unrealistic. It's a bit silly when you hit a Thunderbolt or a Dakkajet like that, but Stormravens? Valkyries? Sure, why not.

tneva82 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Still are. -1 to hit? Don't care.

Compared to 7th ed where they couldn't hit period(or other blast/large weapons)

You mean as compared to back in the day when you

A. told you opponent ahead of time you were bringing flyers and got their agreement
b. You brought along one of the many AA units available in the game
. IG hydra, ork flak gunz, eldar firestorm, tau skyray etc....

Keep in mind before 6th ed almost all flyers were AV 10, including superheavies, and all pintle mounted weapons also counted as AA mounts.

Well if you told ahead of time...

Are you surprised if opponent brings up anti horde weapons if you tell you'll bring 300 gaunt list?

Duh. Look at the mirror

I never tell my lists in advance unless I know opponent isn't list tailoring jerk.

Just FYI flyers weren't opponent approval requirement in 7th. So that's squarely on you.

Back in the day i was referring to, bringing flyers or superheavies was a very rare thing and officially it was suggested you give your opponent a heads up because you wanted the game to be fun for both players.
After 6th when they became a more normal part of the game it wasn't really an issue. they also added many more AA units and options to deal with them.

I do not list tailor either. i have a master list of units i own and i swap out here and there for variety. but most of my lists are pretty well set. so now in most armies i have some AA capable units/upgrades in the list as standard. since we play hybrid 5th ed rules aircraft are harder to deal with for non-AA units . i also play with a large group of veteran players who are not tournament minded. all of us are pretty much casual players who have been playing various games for more than 10 years together. when it comes to 40K we play for epic battles in the 40K setting using whichever codex we like from 3rd-7th that best fits the feel of our favored faction.

I know you like playing the current edition. most of the players in our group range from ambivalence to outright dislike of 9th ed because we like more 'WAR game' simulation in our war game. hence the heavy shift in the local scene to classic BattleTech and FOW.

Since this topic is about "back in the day" i have current experience with it because that is how we still play-

Aside from a few very obvious rules fixes (like 5th ed wound allocation shenanigans) i pretty well love everything about our oldhammer games-templates, armor value/facing, initiative, end of game scoring etc...

The games are interesting, often very close and also most importantly very fun.

Tyel wrote:
Kind of feel the flamers into flyers was akin to the panic over lasguns killing Land Raiders.

I mean sure, D6 auto hits ignores the -1 to hit. But then you are wounding on 5s and the flyer probably has a 3+ save, so on average you are doing a wound. Its not really the stuff metas are made of.

Tsagualsa wrote:
As in many cases, it's edge cases being blown out of proportion for the most part. Sure, you could land some autohits on a flyer with a flamer, but as you said, actually killing something with it is another story. Stuff like Hellhounds, or titan inferno cannos are another story, but then superheavy main guns should be a threat to almost everything. You'd still need to get the flyer in range anyways, and if you park your flyer right on top of a flamer squad you deserve some retaliation.

I feel that both of you have missed the point here - the issue wasn't that Flamers were killing aircraft left and right, it was the fact that the game rules enabled flamethrowers to hit aircraft because GW didn't have the basic foresight to spot that ridiculous interaction.

If aircraft are going to buzz around the battlefield like Helicopters in Rambo, I don't really see what's wrong with flamethrowers hitting them.

Tyel wrote:
If aircraft are going to buzz around the battlefield like Helicopters in Rambo, I don't really see what's wrong with flamethrowers hitting them.

You assume they would ever be close enough to the ground for that to happen.

take for example the US WWII flamer

Effective firing range 65+1⁄2 ft (20.0 m)
Maximum firing range 132 ft (40 m)

I do not expect a marauder destroyer being that close to the ground. and that isn't even taking into account how fast aircraft will be going to be able to even hit them with a weapon like that.

Nah man he's right. There's tons of historical examples of flamethrowers being used against low-lying aircraft, especially Helicopters.

32% of all Huey losses in Vietnam were due to flamethrower-related attacks.





Every word I wrote above this sentence is bull gak.

Tyel wrote:
If aircraft are going to buzz around the battlefield like Helicopters in Rambo, I don't really see what's wrong with flamethrowers hitting them.

I would set my expectation very low when it came to attempting to set a helicopter on fire with a flam thrower. There's this thing called rotor-wash And then there's the whole other end where the "aircraft' is flying fast enough to simply put out the fire just by moving through the air. Unless there's some other flammable material leading to an internal fire, electrical or engine, I can't see it as a thing irl.
As far as game mechanics I'm fine with it because as far as I know ever faction has the possibility as long as they have a flamer type weapon. Should it work that way/ Probably not but maybe auto hit weapons or mortal wound powers like spells/psyker powers, should also miss.

 warhead01 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
If aircraft are going to buzz around the battlefield like Helicopters in Rambo, I don't really see what's wrong with flamethrowers hitting them.

As far as game mechanics I'm fine with it because as far as I know ever faction has the possibility as long as they have a flamer type weapon. Should it work that way/ Probably not but maybe auto hit weapons or mortal wound powers like spells/psyker powers, should also miss.

Well if nothing else it's quite easy to houserule away. You could do what earlier editions did and just add 12'' to the distance when shooting at flyers, which would solve most of the problem.

Ah the old Heldrake with unit deleting Baleflamer, 360 turret, and Vector Strike kills just for flying over units. It was the one and only time in my Warhammer career where I had an OP unit.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
GW didn't have the basic foresight to spot that ridiculous interaction.

I feel like this just sums up every edition of 40K for me.

 aphyon wrote:
Yeah and the d3 or d6 auto hits they went to in 8th+ really did not represent how many models you could possibly hit. last week a friend wanted to see how many models you could hit with a large blast if they were all grouped up and he had over 20 models on standard bases touching the template.

Templates and blasts in oldhammer were the 'risk' that countered the reward of grouping up models.

Most other aspects of the game, particularly with slower movement and shorter ranged shooting gave benefits to units that were packed in base to base as they could hide more easily and weren't losing half a squad of firepower due to being spread out of range. You would deploy completely differently against something like sisters (no blast weapons) than against guard.

Quite a change from 4e to 5e though and a lot of added opportunity for disagreement on the outcome.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nah man he's right. There's tons of historical examples of flamethrowers being used against low-lying aircraft, especially Helicopters.

Who knew that the ultimate air superiority fighter was a 2nd ed Space Marine landspeeder with the flamer/meltagun loadout?

I mean, why bother with rockets or machineguns, just get on their tail and use the auto-hitting flamethrower!

I think they had a very popular Spitfire fitted with those. It was called the Spitflamer.

Silliness aside, yes, template weapons were there to enforce a semblance of reality. I remember a game where a guy had one marine peering around the edge of a building, and the rest were stacked up right behind him. I think he was planning on running the next turn or something.

Anyway, I unloaded the Cyclone for the full pie plate of death, centering it on the one visible target and wiped out the squad. Beautiful.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Kind of feel the flamers into flyers was akin to the panic over lasguns killing Land Raiders.

I mean sure, D6 auto hits ignores the -1 to hit. But then you are wounding on 5s and the flyer probably has a 3+ save, so on average you are doing a wound. Its not really the stuff metas are made of.

Tsagualsa wrote:
As in many cases, it's edge cases being blown out of proportion for the most part. Sure, you could land some autohits on a flyer with a flamer, but as you said, actually killing something with it is another story. Stuff like Hellhounds, or titan inferno cannos are another story, but then superheavy main guns should be a threat to almost everything. You'd still need to get the flyer in range anyways, and if you park your flyer right on top of a flamer squad you deserve some retaliation.

I feel that both of you have missed the point here - the issue wasn't that Flamers were killing aircraft left and right, it was the fact that the game rules enabled flamethrowers to hit aircraft because GW didn't have the basic foresight to spot that ridiculous interaction.

Plus you had certain flamer weapons (or weapons that would have traditionally been flamers weapons had they existed prior to 8th...) that whilst they are conceptually meant to be something for dealing with hordes tended to be really really good at just deleted single high wound targets. Most prominent example was the 8th ed Foul Blightspawn, who could cause up to 18 wounds on a target in a single hit (2D6 strength, D6 shots that auto hit, rerolling 1 to wounds -2 save then 3 damage each), yet was armed with a weapon that in any other edition of the game would use a flamer template, yet was in an edition where the rules enabled him to be used that way.