Bring back the weapon TEMPLATES (ok maybe not, but?)

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Always a good time versus a horde army spending the time each turn to apace out every model .

[Warhead01]

Always a good time versus a horde army spending the time each turn to apace out every model .

I'm sure some people did but I found it wasn't all that critical after turn 2ish. It's just those first turn blasts. 

Prepping for bombardment isn't much deferent than prepping for being on the wrong end of a first turn assault in editions past. Besides there were lots of moment tools available over they year and many of them had a 2" wide part on one end. You probably own one. lol. 

Old blast weapons help me streamline my horde lists. Less buckets of dice were traded for a few reliable blast weapons so I could spend more time getting my Orks across the table an into combat. And this is before the cries for chess clocks a few years ago. 

 

I do like not having to micro manage my high model count armies as much in recent years.  

Missing with all of a blast weapons shots reminds me of that meme about game developers and shot guns, with the 5 foot kill range and anything after being confetti.  

 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The great thing is now you don’t have to spend time spreading them out and you can’t daisy chain anymore either.

[Warhead01]

The great thing is now you don’t have to spend time spreading them out and you can’t daisy chain anymore either.

Days chain was for chumps. "BuT Muh aUra buFFs"   

This would be a whole other topic. 

[Jings]

I kinda prefer the lack of templates for a game perspective, if not for a thematic one. I agree with OP big time on the issue with Blast - namely that they don't really represent blasts, with them coming across as variable fire weapons more than anything. I had an idea for it a few years back (similar to OP's) to make them feel more like a blast. 

 

The idea would be: 

 

Roll to hit as normal (i.e. a 1D6 Blast would make 1 roll, a 2D3 roll 2 etc.)

On a successful hit roll, roll a D3/6 - the unit takes that number of hits with the weapon with two caveats: 

- On a natural 6, the shot hits dead center and the receiving unit takes the full number of hits (D6 = 6, D3 = 3). 

- On a natural 1, the attack instead hits the nearest non-Character unit within 3/6" (D3 = 3", D6 = 6"). Resolve the attack, halving the number of hits rolled (rounding up), to a minimum of 1 hits. 

 

In addition, for every 10 models in the targeted unit at the start of the attack, add +1 to the number of hits delivered per blast. This also applies to Flamers, which would remain unchanged (apart from negating all effects of Cover). 

 

A nice middle ground between the swinginess and the "f u for playing hordes" that Blasts are just now while mechanically feeling as close to a blast as you can get without bringing back Templates. I'm not a fan of the "if you play hordes we hittin u 6 times) that it is just now despite not being a Horde player. 

[Snazzy]

Flamer templates are most sorely missed by me.  There is an undercurrent of spamming MSU or 10 strong units that is not mitigated by the decreasingly relevant Morale Phase.  Flamer templates used to hit multiple units, and unlike their current iteration, did their job of clearing out weenie infantry.  Right now hordes are in a "who dares wins" state, because everyone is spooked by Blast weapons and the average 3 ppm increase on ObSec units.  But, look at GT results.  Those who dare to horde win.  GW may have intended hordes to be balanced against elites, but they made capturing Primaries based on model count and Morale an ineffective chore.

[Volt]

Templates are easy to work with, the answer is to simply remove scattering and impose rules that punish players who attempt to contest them in a WAAC fashion, or simply add rules for timed movements similar to professional chess. Just roll to hit, if it hits place a blast template at the chosen point with no scattering, everything under the template takes a hit or perhaps gets some kind of dodge save. Besides if somebody wastes time being anal about the spacing of models... just refuse games against them until they get the memo.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I doubt any templates are coming back.

[War Angel]

A more simple method is to devolop rules which do not require the use of a template, then cost it to reflect how good it is as opposed to how it would be if it was a template.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

A lot of mechanics in game have drastically changed, e.g.

 

no initiative

hit on BS & WS

wound table

cover

psychic powers and casting

inclusion of stratagems

etc.

 

I pretty much like all of the changes now that 9th edition has addressed issues such as cover.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Black Blow Fly

[WrathOfTheLion]

I prefer templates at least for HH, but I agree that they are very unlikely to bring them back into warhammer 40,000.

 

I am a bit interested at the recent HH vehicles that have actually sort of combined the 8e/9e system with the template system. I don't think they succeeded with the arquitor bombard, but with some further refinement could have something interesting.

[mughi3]

A lot of mechanics in game have drastically changed, e.g.

 

no initiative

hit on BS & WS

wound table

cover

psychic powers and casting

inclusion of stratagems

etc.

 

I pretty much like all of the changes now that 9th edition has addressed issues such as cover.

 

I pretty much hate everything about 9th edition that you listed( i make exception for 8th since i use it to play epic scale minus all the strat spamming), it is not 40K to me anymore as the 2 styles of the game pre/post 8th play like entirely different games, but you are correct just like the change from the skirmish almost RPG system that was RT/2nd edition GW will not go back to 40K the way it was from 3rd-7th. in fact 6th and 7th were likely test beds for the changes to the all wound mechanic system via the hull point system. 

 

That's why i went back to playing 5th

 

A fellow player at my FLGS pointed this out last night

originally 40K from 3rd-7th was strategy in list building+ tactical combat on the table. 8th/9th have turned it into list building strategy+minor TT tactics (since unit role and terrain interaction have been greatly reduced even with the changes to 9th) and then added in another layer of strategy during TT play VIA cp/strats to make units do things they normally could not do in the core mechanics or had built in rules for previously. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Like I said good for you - good for you.

[DanPesci]

Blast for me is fine now that theyve started to make those d6 blasts D3+3 etc

 

Against larger units they now also have the 'causes max hits rule' which is great, and represents you firing into a horde better.

 

Sure, there used to be times where your ork opponent would be packing through a gap and you'd hit 12-15 at the same time with a vindicator and it was glorious.

 

But there were also times where that vindicator would miss THE ENTIRE HORDE or fire at a point blank target but somehow manage to scatter 90" left of your tank and hit your own lines.

 

Also, my deathwing playing mate used to have to deepstrike his deathwing squads so their bases all were touching. Which meant one squad of plasma cannon toting long fangs could put on average about 25-30 hits into them. With no armour save.

 

The one thing i do miss templates on is flamers - mainly because for me it seems stupid if your flamer can magically miss the 9 models in your own squad stood in front of the flamer.

But if they bring them to d3+3 it would be better  (and they should always ignore cover, and probably have a leadership modifier). Flamethrower weapons should be terrifying anti infantry weapons to anything not in power armour esque level armour, (make them the reverse of grav essentialy, but then be costed appropriately). Your mates getting instantaneously blown apart by a battle cannon is one thing. Your mates burning alive next to you is another one entirely 

 

The best thing I can think of is the gaunts ghosts books, where at the sheer mention of someone bringing flamer to bear (or hearing the 'whoosh' of an enemy starting one up) causes utter terror amongst hardened vets/instantly falling back from a position

Edited September 28, 2020 by DanPesci

[jaxom]

I think a more relevant question, one that isn't an exercise in futility for a rule that's not coming back, is, "how do I deal with castling in 9th edition?"
 

[MegaVolt87]

I think a more relevant question, one that isn't an exercise in futility for a rule that's not coming back, is, "how do I deal with castling in 9th edition?"

 

 

Auras and CORE keyword is supposed to be the answer, but we shall see. 

[Rik Lightstar]

I think a more relevant question, one that isn't an exercise in futility for a rule that's not coming back, is, "how do I deal with castling in 9th edition?"

 

 

By holding objective, playing the mission and winning on Victory Points.

 

Rik

[Ficinus]

I'll add to the chorus of voices saying that flamers need a revamp. Templates were amazing for flamers: even against a widely spaced unit of 5 models, if you place your flamer models correctly, you could reliably get 3 or 4 hits a model. Now you might be saying, that's average for the D6 system we have now, but the variance has skyrocketed. When I'm having a unit of Retributors with heavy flamers jump out of a rhino, I have no idea how many hits they'll get: maybe 8, maybe 20. And that is the problem with new flamers: you still have to get dangerously close to the enemy, but have no idea what their damage output will look like. The increase of the range to 12" helps, but you're still very close (the enemy can usually move 6", then would need a 5" charge) with no idea what the damage output of your unit will look like.

 

Also, the upper limit of hits is so low.

 

Maybe templates aren't the answer, but they need something and an extra 4" of range isn't it.

[Brother Casman]

I was of the opinion that Flamers (and associated weapons) should have just hit all enemy models in range (in the target unit, of course), with the trade-off being that their range was fairly short. Alas, GW seems to have decided otherwise.

[aknorthroader]

So after a little bit of gaming this weekend, I realized one of the things that was nagging me about blast weapons was the order of operations for determining number of hits.  

 

When you are talking about a blast weapon, it typically only has one shot, but can affect multiple models.  Under previous rules from times past, you would roll to hit and then move the marker, count the number of models that were hit, 4+ for partials and then roll to wound.  

 

Now the rules are roll for the number of shots, then roll to hit, then roll to wound.  I put forth that the first two are backwards.  The Earthshaker cannon, grenade launchers and plasma cannons didn't suddenly turn gatling, so why are we treating them as such?  It should still be a single roll to hit, then roll to see how many were affected, then roll to wound...  as flamers are auto-hit, you are only rolling to see how many were affected then rolling to wound.

 

This would make a lot of sense with the plasma cannon as it is shooting a big ball of plasma, not suddenly rapid firing.  There would only be a single chance of overheating versus 3 chances if shooting a large squad.  Yes, you are putting all your eggs into the hit or miss roll, but the odds are much better against you rolling the '1' and overheat.

 

Yes, for lower BS armies like the guard, they would have fewer dice to roll to hit and it might swing their numbers, but I think the outcome would be truer to templates then the rules we have for 9th.

[jaxom]

 

Now the rules are roll for the number of shots, then roll to hit, then roll to wound.  I put forth that the first two are backwards.  The Earthshaker cannon, grenade launchers and plasma cannons didn't suddenly turn gatling, so why are we treating them as such?  It should still be a single roll to hit, then roll to see how many were affected, then roll to wound...  as flamers are auto-hit, you are only rolling to see how many were affected then rolling to wound.

 

I think of it this way: the number of shots represents the number of models under the template and the to hit roll is to see if they are significantly hit and not just grazed or somehow hit the deck.

 

Edit: formatting

Edited October 12, 2020 by jaxom

[Cactus]

I agree that the method is unintuitive but I prefer the outcome it gives. With multiple to hit rolls it's likely a blast will hit something, rather than every off-target shot hitting nothing.

[Slasher956]

Ah the irony.. the game system  (40k) that removed templates has people wanting them back.  The game that added them (Bolt Action) for realism has people moaning that it slows the game down, leads to people gaming the movement & coherancy rules and just generally want them gone.

 

EDIT - so no matter which way you go you will find people who arent totally happy with a rule set but love the background to much to up stakes and leave the game system.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Slasher956

[bigtrouble]

aknorthroader, It’s good to stay consistent in order of operations with the other weapons, I agree with Cactus on the outcome being more realistic, too. But you make a decent point about plasma blast weapons. That may have been an unintended side effect. On a vehicle chassis where it doesn’t outright kill the model it’s not dire because you’re only likely to lose an extra wound or two. On an infantry model, it means shooting a cannon at a unit of 6 is 50% more deadly than shooting at a unit of 5, which makes no sense whatsoever.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

One thing I really love about no templates now is no sniping.