Prediction Time

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.

**Dysartes**

So, for some reason the placings for the "Clutch City GT" are currently hidden on BCP, at least from me, so I can't finish looking at that event today. I'll keep checking throughout the week, though. Instead, I'll give the data for the other 12 events I've taken a look at since Daedalus' post a couple of days ago.

Key:
Dropped after 1 round - Dropped after 2 rounds - Dropped after 3 rounds - Dropped after 4 rounds - Dropped after 5 rounds - Dropped after 6 rounds

Game of Westeros XIV. Vastmanlands, Sweden 86, 5R (GH)

Spoiler:

Dicehammer Open. Irvine, CA 75, 5R (GH)

Spoiler:

Midtcon GT. Viborg, Denmark 74, 5R (GH)

Spoiler:

9th Barrie Bash. Barrie, Canada 66, 5R (GH)

Spoiler:

CAGBASH XVI. Hamilton, OH 67, 5R (BCP)

Spoiler:

Corsair Open GT. Munchen, Germany 43, 5R (GH)

Spoiler:

Winter Ruin GT. Coplay, PA 43, 5R (BCP) - Event ran on 25/02

Spoiler:

...I didn't think the Guard had sub-factions these days. Well, maybe Storm Troopers, but that's about it.

Norsehammer Open 2023. Bjodnabeen, Norway 38, 5R (GH)

Spoiler:

Iberian Ham Tournament. Sant Joan Despi, Spain 36, 5R (GH)

Spoiler:

For events below 33 players, I'll look at top 4 rather than top 8
Drop Assault On Coast Con. Biloxi, MS 22, 5R (BCP)

Spoiler:

Scottish Take Over GT. Scotland 21, 5R (BCP)

Spoiler:

Talvisota- Winter Assualt. Hesinki, Finland 21, 5R (BCP)

Spoiler:

Participation vs. top 8 slots for the 9 events with a top 8

Spoiler:

Participation vs. top 4 slots for the 3 events with a top 4

Spoiler:

Codex: Space Marines Sub-Factions

Spoiler:

SM Win Records (5 Swiss Rounds, W/L/Blue) (12 events)

Spoiler:

Other Sub-Factions

Spoiler:

Is any of the sub-faction usage particularly surprising?

Anyway, if anyone is still reading by this point, I hope you get something useful out of the above.

**Insectum7**

Tyran wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
You don't have to measure it. Measuring every move is your choice.

Do you measure specifically each models move already? If you do, you're already doing the work. If you don't, then eyeballing your squads dispersion should come easy.

No it doesn't. To some it may come ease, but it never came ease to me. And because I would be punished by it, I prefer to not have to deal with that.

I genuinely can't see how eyeballing movement distances is a struggle.

You mean like proposals as have been presented in this very thread?

The "new vs. Old" framing is yours.

"Bring back templates" is not what I would call a new proposal.

Moreover I wasn't the one that made a comparison argument with 9th ed.

"Bring back Templates but not necessarily use the exact same mechanics." is not the same as "Bring back templates exactly how they were implemented in old editions."

**a_typical_hero**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Alternatively make Blast a new weapon type

Blast X : the attacks characteristic of this weapon is equal to X but cannot exceed the number of models in the target unit.

I actually use something similar.
Blast/Large blast: Make one to hit roll for the weapon. A successful hit causes up to 4/6 wound rolls on the target, if there are enough models in the unit.

If you miss, roll again. If you hit with the reroll, a successful hit causes up to 2/3 wound rolls, if there are enough models in the unit.

This is supposed to act as a full hit with no scatter and a little bit of scatter but still hitting something, respectively.

**vict0988**

Dystartes I'm not seeing anything to get mad over, which is surprising given how often GW does something maddening and how easily I get mad. Maybe I'm being blind but this looks great.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is a meaningful mechanical difference at the tactical level on the tabletop in 40k between a Slaanesh army that bum-rushes enemy units with 48 daemons in 4 groups of 12, and one that bum-rushes enemy units with 48 daemons in 8 groups of 6.

That's like saying "well the big flaw in the Russian battleplan in Ukraine is squad size. Having an 8 man rifle squad makes them far more vulnerable to Ukrainian artillery and tanks than the little five man motorized Rifle squads of the Ukrainians"

And then being okay with that abstraction/analysis.

A horde of 30 football hooligans is different from 3 squads of 10 cops trying to control that horde and preventing them from entering 3 different streets. If the hooligans split up into 3 groups of 10 and worked towards different objectives, like 10 of them taking a leak, 10 of them getting beer and 10 having a fight with fans of the other soccer team then that'd also be a meaningful difference from a horde of 30.

Then there is also the argument that units that are generally considered hordes, like Boys and Termagants can have bigger units than Tactical Marines or Tau Fire Warriors. The opposite might be true for Necron Warriors and Imperial Guardsmen though. I like being able to stretch my units, it increases player agency, I don't want the game to play itself as it simulates a battle in the 40k universe. I liked the old blasts as well though.

Blasts could also hit the nearest unit within 3" of the target with an equal number of shots and all the shots targeting the same unit instead if the target includes more than x models or if you're able to fit x models under a large template. I think not having templates is the right decision for 9th. Having templates was the right choice for 7th because the issues that 7th had with templates causing arguments was repeated so many times because of unclear writing anyway and the problem of the game being slowed down was repeated by having a lot of rules that weren't easy to remember and required you look them up.

Insectum7 wrote:
I'd take them over the implementation of Strats any day.

I think I've seen one or two Dakka posters that like the current implementation of Strats, I think a lot of people would prefer 7th edition's broken formations to 9th's broken Stratagems because of the gotchas and anti-flavour of losing melta bombs and various other problems people have with the implementation.

**Unit1126PLL**

The "blasts hit models rather than units" (i.e. spreads their hits out across all the units in a radius) is how other games like Chain of Command handle fire in general. But it would require a rethinking of 40k because units are so huge.

Doing hits to all units within 3" of 30 orks is different to doing hits to all units within 3" of a Cyclops demolition vehicle.

**Insectum7**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
The "blasts hit models rather than units" (i.e. spreads their hits out across all the units in a radius) is how other games like Chain of Command handle fire in general. But it would require a rethinking of 40k because units are so huge.

Doing hits to all units within 3" of 30 orks is different to doing hits to all units within 3" of a Cyclops demolition vehicle.

If you're measuring out a radius from a model . . . that's suspiciously similar to using a blast template.

**EviscerationPlague**

1. Thanks for doing that, Dystartes.
2. Who TF is bringing the Raptors Chapter for any reason anywhere?

**Canadian 5th**

Dudeface wrote:
Or the template simply scatters and misses in all your scenarios,

Flamers don't scatter and don't roll to hit so...

barrage weapons ignored cover iirc

That doesn't change that a unit may clump up to take advantage of cover that's too small for them to spread out fully behind/within it.

6/7th didn't have any wholly within specific auras

This edition does so if we brought back templates it would be a factor.

if I remember either and tank shock was rarely used

There used to be a combo where a battlewagon with a deffrolla tank shocked did some hits with their deffrolla and clumped the enemy up so that the unit of burnas carried within could melt the unit that is now clumped up.

I mean you'd need 2 vehicles to smush them tightly,

Not especially. You tank shock along one edge of the unit such that the minimum move clumps the displaced units up with the ones that weren't forced to move.

That you are a crap enough player to be unable to use templates isn't a rules issue. It's a skill issue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the whole 2" spread issue, just make the templates where this might cause issues either fractionally smaller or fractionally larger to make the issue moot.

For scatter, there are myriad ways to handle it. Everything from a miss simply doesn't place a template to a miss reduces the strength of the template by an amount equal to what it missed by.

**vict0988**

A centred 1,5" radius template won't hit a model 1,3" away, a centred 2,5" radius template will hit a model within 2" of a model with a 1" base and won't hit a model that is 3,6" or more away. GW's small blast and large blast templates were already a size at which theoretically it shouldn't matter whether you were 1,3" away or 2" away. Eyeballing somewhere between 1,3" and 2" should be possible with extra allowances given with playing by intent. At this moment I am not remembering spending a lot of time on spreading out models to avoid small blast and large blast templates, less than I remember spreading out models in 8th and 9th for various shenanigans at least, you can blame that on bad design in 8th/9th or poor memory if you believe spacing took more time in previous editions.

It should be either 3 models hit with a large blast if the unit is lined up with a bit of space between them, 5 models if they're in a grid with a bit of space between them, 1 model hit with a small blast if the models have a bit of space between them. The issue from my memory were scenarios where spacing models apart was not an option, so seeing how many a non-scattering small blast would hit in a 10-man unit that got out from a transport or seeing how many got hit after a scatter in an odd direction or getting a good angle on a template in the middle of the table as previously mentioned in the thread.

**ccs**

Tyran wrote:
ccs wrote:
Tyran wrote:
Templates aren't coming back, not at the current scale the game is played.

And yet they exist in current 30k/HH. A game played at the exact same (or greater) scale as 9e 40k....

And HH is more of a simulationist pseudo-historical game of Space Marines vs Space Marines. And yes it technically has non-Space Marine factions, but it is obvious just by looking at the promotional material and website that it is not build with non-Space Marines in mind, because the Heresy was all about Marine vs Marine.

40k isn't that, and shouldn't be trying to be that.

LOL. HH.20 is a slight refinement of HH.1. Wich was essentially 7e. So what you're saying is that 7e (and the earlier 4 editions it was built on) isn't 40k.
And neither the strength &/or AP of the template spawning effect nor wich factions are playable has anything to do with peoples ability* (or lack of) to count # of models underneath a clear plastic template.

* actual ability, not their feigned ignorance that only appears when they're trying to. cheat

**Dudeface**

Canadian 5th wrote:

Flamers don't scatter and don't roll to hit so...

Well done. There are 4 other templates that cover more weapons which aren't Flamers and are more likely to see frequesnt use.

That doesn't change that a unit may clump up to take advantage of cover that's too small for them to spread out fully behind/within it.

That's a reasonable point, I do refer back to the old area terrain rules where a model simply needed a toe in to have it apply.

This edition does so if we brought back templates it would be a factor.

Good thing they aren't, it's also largely a moot point.

There used to be a combo where a battlewagon with a deffrolla tank shocked did some hits with their deffrolla and clumped the enemy up so that the unit of burnas carried within could melt the unit that is now clumped up.

Oddly that's about the only example I could recall as well, which means it largely wasn't relevant.

Not especially. You tank shock along one edge of the unit such that the minimum move clumps the displaced units up with the ones that weren't forced to move

Assuming they were 2" spread you're not moving that many unless you were going along a unit front, but you've also then left yourself in blast range, charge range and everything else.

That you are a crap enough player to be unable to use templates isn't a rules issue. It's a skill issue.

If in doubt your tenuous stance is looking a touch weak, throw insults.

As for the whole 2" spread issue, just make the templates where this might cause issues either fractionally smaller or fractionally larger to make the issue moot.

For scatter, there are myriad ways to handle it. Everything from a miss simply doesn't place a template to a miss reduces the strength of the template by an amount equal to what it missed by.

"I love templates, but have to now admit they were implemented poorly, encourage poor mechanics/play and require a change for ease of use."

**Canadian 5th**

Dudeface wrote:
Well done. There are 4 other templates that cover more weapons which aren't Flamers and are more likely to see frequesnt use.

Okay, so they miss sometimes. That's part of the game.

That's a reasonable point, I do refer back to the old area terrain rules where a model simply needed a toe in to have it apply.

Why are you assuming every rule is written in to make templates as useless as possible?

Good thing they aren't, it's also largely a moot point.

We're talking about a hypothetical where they do, you can't just dismiss the point because you have no argument.

Oddly that's about the only example I could recall as well, which means it largely wasn't relevant.

We have had a lot of new units since the last time it was relevant. It could be that Dark Eldar like the idea of tank shocking in and then dropping their carried units into the enemy or possibly even tank shock into liquefier spam.

Assuming they were 2" spread you're not moving that many unless you were going along a unit front, but you've also then left yourself in blast range, charge range and everything else.

Units are very rarely spread in perfect 2" spacing even in editions where templates are a thing. There are simply too many cases where movement forces them to bunch up.

"I love templates, but have to now admit they were implemented poorly, encourage poor mechanics/play and require a change for ease of use."

I never had any issues with templates when I played with them. This suggestion is to show that they could be brought back with changes that solve perceived issues with their previous implementations.

**Dudeface**

In an attempt to stop derailing and a debate: templates had some good and bad points, there isn't an oldhammer player out there that hasn't had that fun instance of an ordnance blast scattering back onto the tank firing it, or the pain of a chained wyvern firing round.

The game as it is now could not tolerate a deepstriking unit whoopsing into death by total RNG, it doesn't play in a way that will reward people lobbing vehicles into harms way needlessly, it has enough bloat without adding in layers of rules for templates on top of what there is already.

- People are less tolerant of random now than they ever have been, they would be unwelcome.
- Base sizes are universally larger, so the templates arguably are already less effective than they used to be (for example the 3" template will hit 1-3 32mm bases at most in almost all circumstances for units below 6 man, which is essentially the same as a d3 blast weapon is now).
- Templates have 0 options for interacting with larger targets. i.e. why does a demolisher cannon cap out at 1 hits worth of damage against something the size of a super heavy
- Working around any of these involves more rules than used to be there for templates AND more rules than exist now for blast
- Does nothing to avoid the arguments, the potential damage to models from people dropping stuff, the time spent working stuff out
- Only real reward to blast templates from a narrative perspective are the random bs moments you remember that shouldn't happen (see templates blowing up the unit that fired it)
- Only real benefit game design wise is... a stick to beat people who don't max unit coherency

**Not Online!!!**

Dudeface wrote:
In an attempt to stop derailing and a debate: templates had some good and bad points, there isn't an oldhammer player out there that hasn't had that fun instance of an ordnance blast scattering back onto the tank firing it, or the pain of a chained wyvern firing round.

The game as it is now could not tolerate a deepstriking unit whoopsing into death by total RNG, it doesn't play in a way that will reward people lobbing vehicles into harms way needlessly, it has enough bloat without adding in layers of rules for templates on top of what there is already.

- People are less tolerant of random now than they ever have been, they would be unwelcome.
- Base sizes are universally larger, so the templates arguably are already less effective than they used to be (for example the 3" template will hit 1-3 32mm bases at most in almost all circumstances for units below 6 man, which is essentially the same as a d3 blast weapon is now).
- Templates have 0 options for interacting with larger targets. i.e. why does a demolisher cannon cap out at 1 hits worth of damage against something the size of a super heavy
- Working around any of these involves more rules than used to be there for templates AND more rules than exist now for blast
- Does nothing to avoid the arguments, the potential damage to models from people dropping stuff, the time spent working stuff out
- Only real reward to blast templates from a narrative perspective are the random bs moments you remember that shouldn't happen (see templates blowing up the unit that fired it)
- Only real benefit game design wise is... a stick to beat people who don't max unit coherency

I don't think you describe accurate what people want. Afterall as a dice game it is still random as all. The problem with randomness was when it was used especially on orks and chaos as "lol get fethed- mechanic". This is highly diffrent from making a deciscion for a dangerous drop.
Base size increase has to do with GW sizecreep. Gotta make new models to sell you your army again afterall.
Demolishers were ordinance which had better penetration rules.
there is a difference in rules beeing bloat (e.g. equipment stratagems f.e. ) and mechanics represented through rules (AV values and templates) one is mechanically intersting if done well. The other is modern GW and as such atleast 75% of the time willfully lobotomised.
Mechanically and Melee wise templates reacted indirectly. Beeing closer together was beneficial for a melee unit since it would very well lead to more fighters. Spreading out was a decision therefore and i am sick and tired of people claiming that it just lead to 1.999999 " cohesion spreading when it infact did not.

So no. There are more than enough reasons that you are reaching here.

**Insectum7**

@Dudeface: So make templates bigger and less random. Omgwow that was so hard.

**Dudeface**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
In an attempt to stop derailing and a debate: templates had some good and bad points, there isn't an oldhammer player out there that hasn't had that fun instance of an ordnance blast scattering back onto the tank firing it, or the pain of a chained wyvern firing round.

The game as it is now could not tolerate a deepstriking unit whoopsing into death by total RNG, it doesn't play in a way that will reward people lobbing vehicles into harms way needlessly, it has enough bloat without adding in layers of rules for templates on top of what there is already.

- People are less tolerant of random now than they ever have been, they would be unwelcome.
- Base sizes are universally larger, so the templates arguably are already less effective than they used to be (for example the 3" template will hit 1-3 32mm bases at most in almost all circumstances for units below 6 man, which is essentially the same as a d3 blast weapon is now).
- Templates have 0 options for interacting with larger targets. i.e. why does a demolisher cannon cap out at 1 hits worth of damage against something the size of a super heavy
- Working around any of these involves more rules than used to be there for templates AND more rules than exist now for blast
- Does nothing to avoid the arguments, the potential damage to models from people dropping stuff, the time spent working stuff out
- Only real reward to blast templates from a narrative perspective are the random bs moments you remember that shouldn't happen (see templates blowing up the unit that fired it)
- Only real benefit game design wise is... a stick to beat people who don't max unit coherency

I don't think you describe accurate what people want. Afterall as a dice game it is still random as all. The problem with randomness was when it was used especially on orks and chaos as "lol get fethed- mechanic". This is highly diffrent from making a deciscion for a dangerous drop.
Base size increase has to do with GW sizecreep. Gotta make new models to sell you your army again afterall.
Demolishers were ordinance which had better penetration rules.
there is a difference in rules beeing bloat (e.g. equipment stratagems f.e. ) and mechanics represented through rules (AV values and templates) one is mechanically intersting if done well. The other is modern GW and as such atleast 75% of the time willfully lobotomised.
Mechanically and Melee wise templates reacted indirectly. Beeing closer together was beneficial for a melee unit since it would very well lead to more fighters. Spreading out was a decision therefore and i am sick and tired of people claiming that it just lead to 1.999999 " cohesion spreading when it infact did not.

So no. There are more than enough reasons that you are reaching here.

There is far less random elements not and people look to minimise them at every turn. Demolishers didn't do any more than 1 wound to a MC at any point which is why they were universally better rules wise. Being closer was beneficial for melee, where you moved closer together on the movement phase and on the charge, then in pile in and consolidate. You had no reason to group up prior to being in melee. Spreading was a decision but there was a right and wrong choice every time. It 100% did lead to people making sure models were spaced correctly.

Insectum7 wrote:@Dudeface: So make templates bigger and less random. Omgwow that was so hard.

So old version:
- I fire my frag missile at this model, hold that template there
- I roll to hit and miss
- I roll the scatter dice and distance
- We debate the precise angle as it does matter
- Arm goes dead
- Move template, which because it's covering in the air is inaccurate
- Debate which models are clipped by it by fractions of inches because it's impossible to tell exactly and nobody can get directly above it + the persons arm isn't entirely steady
- Roll off to decide on the maybes
- Put template down
- Frag missile has hit 2-3 models
- Roll to wound
- Roll to save

New version:
- I fire my frag missile at a target
- I roll a d6 for shots
- It'll be 3-4
- I hit 2-3 models
- Roll to wound
- Roll to save

Both have the same outcome here and there's notably less hassle. They already fixed the problem, the only one I'd make an argument for is flamer templates potentially having value.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's a thread in proposed rules for it if you guys wish to continue. I'll shush now otherwise.

**Karol**

Just call a judge if someone starts debates every time a template is used. If they do it in 2-3 game they will get removed from the event and if they do it in enough events they will be banned from events. And in store games, where there are no judges or higher entity that can decide, just don't play people that argue everytime a flamer is being used on them.

And templates could be made even simpler all "template" weapons become fixed. Flamers hit X number of models in a unit depending on the flamer size. So had would be unit size/2, flamer would be unit size number of hits, and heavy flamer could be 1.5xunit size number of hits and some really gigantic could be what ever GW wants, everything else could have fixed number of wounds on hit, with some big template guns having splash damage. Most on chance and the gigantic guns of titan class would have higher splash range and more hits splashed.
So a battle canon could be X hits. Roll hit, roll X wounds, roll save. Random numbers of shots, just like random number of wounds caused on an anti tank, is always bad.

**Apple fox**

I have rarely seen issues with templates and play games using them.

Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.
I feel this comes a lot from GW rules writing causing so much friction.
Half the fun of templates is watching them go wide into a big horde. No aim, just explosions !

**Tittliewinks22**

Apple fox wrote:
Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.

The issue has always been the players. GW games were never designed as competitive tests of wits. But much like many of my other hobbies, GW games have devolved into metagaming and eeking out every ounce of value from each move. It's a symptom of the internet accessibility and unfortunately it's never going to go back to the old days of casual beer+pretzle play what's coolest rules be damned.

I don't know why GW puts in the "player code" or whatever they call it each edition to emphasize the fact that fun is the primary goal when they know full well the community will optimize the fun out of their systems.

**Apple fox**

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.

The issue has always been the players. GW games were never designed as competitive tests of wits. But much like many of my other hobbies, GW games have devolved into metagaming and eeking out every ounce of value from each move. It's a symptom of the internet accessibility and unfortunately it's never going to go back to the old days of casual beer+pretzle play what's coolest rules be damned.

I don't know why GW puts in the "player code" or whatever they call it each edition to emphasize the fact that fun is the primary goal when they know full well the community will optimize the fun out of their systems.

Honest, I think it was that we are a bear and pretzels attitude that made it such a issue.
Since they didn’t do much for narrative or casual play ether for years.

Bad rules can also be awquard and difficult to use in gameplay, or just unfun and bad for narrative. We play lots here for other games, and narrative in those games.
So I think GW has the players they have now, since that’s the players willing to put up with them.

For me, No 40k is better than Bad 40k and I roll with it now.
I can even play several games by myself with cool scenarios and a less sticky game rules.
Just my thoughts nowadays on the game.

Bad players just make it worse.

**EviscerationPlague**

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.

The issue has always been the players.

Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.

How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?

**Karol**

Of course, because as we all know it is the players responsible for what ever the game is good or bad. Army doing bad can be explained with noobs playing it. Another faction doing super good is caused by veterans playing it. Even when a faction goes from one to other in a matter of a week or two of events. And if you know that your Wraight Knights are 200pts undercosted then you should just take 600 points in deep striking units and never deploy them, for fairness sake.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 808330 11502031 wrote:

The issue has always been the players. GW games were never designed as competitive tests of wits. But much like many of my other hobbies, GW games have devolved into metagaming and eeking out every ounce of value from each move. It's a symptom of the internet accessibility and unfortunately it's never going to go back to the old days of casual beer+pretzle play what's coolest rules be damned.

I don't know why GW puts in the "player code" or whatever they call it each edition to emphasize the fact that fun is the primary goal when they know full well the community will optimize the fun out of their systems.

Spiting and hat throw, are competitive games here. If something has a clear winner and loser at the end of it, it will turn in to a competition. And the idea that somehow winning is bad is a really laughable one. I want to see those world class rankers who are winning, because biology grace them with a genetical cheat code, cry that they got first place, when of course in order to make it "fun" for everyone they should have handicaped themselfs or let others win.

The goal of a company, just like the goal of any sports organisation is to notice something that can affect the game to much and fix it before it happens. At worse after it happens. You don't make the people participating in the activity do it on their own, because then you have no common rule set, no clear data what and how to fix, what is and isn't a problem in the game etc.

**Dysartes**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.

The issue has always been the players.

Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.

How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?

Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?

**EviscerationPlague**

Dysartes wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.

The issue has always been the players.

Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.

How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?

Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?

Nothing within the post is valid the moment you blame the players for the gak rules

**Dudeface**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Seems to be a GW issue honestly, if units could be out a little wider it’s less a issue probably as well.

The issue has always been the players.

Yes it's the players' fault that Scatterbikes was a thing, and not the fact GW threw Scatterlasers in for each bike in the kit and said all three could take it. It's also the players' fault GW doesn't point things correctly.

How do you beer and pretzels a situation where GW makes Cultists 10 points a model?

Did you read the rest of Tittliewinks' post, or just fly off the handle at the first sentence?

Nothing within the post is valid the moment you blame the players for the gak rules

As much as I agree the template rules were a bit gak, you're actually picking a fight with someone that agreed with you. They said the rules weren't great and the only thing that made it work were people agreeing to not take it seriously.

Out of interest where do you fall on the shopping cart/trolley spectrum? Do you always take it back and get annoyed at people that don't or do you just dump it there, as there's no rules so can't be blamed, or somewhere in the middle?

**vict0988**

You're not at fault for things you don't cause or things you don't prevent from happening, you're at fault for things you cause. Playing a game by the rules should be the standard way to enjoy a game. If GW wanted people to play soft lists then they should make that the rules.

"If you find that a unit is undercosted leave a unit or two in reserves the entire game to balance our mistake, thanks and have fun". Instead white knights come up with house rules and get mad when people think the game is bad because they haven't played with the right house rules to fix it.

**Insectum7**

Dudeface wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:@Dudeface: So made templates bigger and less random. Omgwow that was so hard.

So old version:
- I fire my frag missile at this model, hold that template there
- I roll to hit and miss
- I roll the scatter dice and distance
- We debate the precise angle as it does matter
- Arm goes dead
- Move template, which because it's covering in the air is inaccurate
- Debate which models are clipped by it by fractions of inches because it's impossible to tell exactly and nobody can get directly above it + the persons arm isn't entirely steady
- Roll off to decide on the maybes
- Put template down
- Frag missile has hit 2-3 models
- Roll to wound
- Roll to save

New version:
- I fire my frag missile at a target
- I roll a d6 for shots
- It'll be 3-4
- I hit 2-3 models
- Roll to wound
- Roll to save

Both have the same outcome here and there's notably less hassle. They already fixed the problem, the only one I'd make an argument for is flamer templates potentially having value.

I feel like I just read the forum post version of a late night infomercial. Did you write the Old version in black and white, with poorly acted trembling and frustrated hands?

And why "Old" version anyways, since it's been established that we're not specifically asking for "old"? We're just asking for templates. Also, the two versions don't produce the same outcomes. The current version provides no incentives around clumping or not clumping models. In fact what it actually does is incentivize specific squad sizes because of how the "Blast-Hit-Number-Stepping" mechanics work.

Proposal:
- I fire my frag missile at target
- I place the blast marker and count the models touched
- I roll to hit that many times

I expect no response because I presume your mind is so totally blown at the fact that templates could be used with different mechanics than "old".

**Dudeface**

Insectum7 wrote:
I feel like I just read the forum post version of a late night infomercial. Did you write the Old version in black and white, with poorly acted trembling and frustrated hands?

And why "Old" version anyways, since it's been established that we're not specifically asking for "old"? We're just asking for templates. Also, the two versions don't produce the same outcomes. The current version provides no incentives around clumping or not clumping models. In fact what it actually does is incentivize specific squad sizes because of how the "Blast-Hit-Number-Stepping" mechanics work.

Proposal:
- I fire my frag missile at target
- I place the blast marker and count the models touched
- I roll to hit that many times

I expect no response because I presume your mind is so totally blown at the fact that templates could be used with different mechanics than "old".

Not really, you've gone back to the "old" problem immediately, but there is a proposed rules topic for it - take it there.

**Insectum7**

The "old problem" being you can't count models under a template? Is that what we're doing here?

**Dudeface**

Insectum7 wrote:
The "old problem" being you can't count models under a template? Is that what we're doing here?

To help with your counting I've suggested you take it to the other thread 3 times now.