PDA

View Full Version : Templates. Good or Bad?



xxRavenxx
15-05-2011, 07:59
So. Firstly, did anyone notice that I didn't state my opinion as a "question" in the title? Impressive lack of goading isn't it?


Anyway, having played numerous games of 8th, the thing that comes up time and again is how powerful some of the artillery is. Namely the str 4/5 ones which devour 17ish guys per turn on small based men.

My opinion, is that to hit so many men at once is not only rather silly, but also awkward to work out in game terms. Once you've scattered your template, you need to count models, and this is even more awkward if you're using weird things like feet templates, or giants.

I also dislike templates because models are ranked up in warhammer at all times. Why bother using a template when models will be in rigid base to base contact?

This led me to thinking about the doom diver, the most inelegant of warmachines, with what I think is the most elegant rule for firing.

It occurred to me, that more simplistic rules could work much better. Something like:

"Nominate a point, scatter it. If it contacts a model. Inflict a strength 8 hit on it. If the model is in a unit, inflict 2d6 strength 4 hits to the unit. Monstrous units and skirmishers only take 1d6 hits."

(Numbers chosen at random).

Obviously the numbers could be tweaked to find the right powerlevel, or to represent bigger templates, etc.


So what are other peoples opinions? Do you feel that this would be a good improvement to warhammer, or do you think that the game works fine with templates? Are there different changes you'd make in this regard?

gogs78
15-05-2011, 08:08
Having been on the receiving end of my mates empire barrage of doom more times than i care to mention i believe they are to powerful. Especially when its nice and easy to combine them with a shadow mage.
On several occasions ive almost completely lost two whole units of thirty before im off the start line.
Your idea sounds quite good to me but to be honest i didnt really see what was wrong with the "partial hits" last ed.
Guess we are stuck with it for now.
Empire, brets and dwarfs will love it. Most other people will hate it i guess.

magicmonkey
15-05-2011, 08:11
salamanders love new template rules. the problem is, 8th was more encouraging to large ranked units (extra support attacks, steadfast, hoard) but also improved templates with lack of partial. a 75 point salamander will remove 50 points of models a turn. at least.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
15-05-2011, 09:41
Just exercise a bit of moderation.

As magicmonkey says, the reason for templates being so powerful is the number of huge units in 8th, a counter to this is templates and the #6 spells.

The disappearance of partial hits is a good thing in my book, removing unnecessary dice rolls speeds the game up. One thing to remember is that all the S5 hits belong to armies designed for an earlier edition - indeed there are only 3 armies designed for 8th, so you really should limit your Warhammer games to those armies for 'balance' :p

Of course running towards a gunline throwing large high strength templates can be a bit discouraging - but honestly gunlines have never been that fun to play (against). So a bit of moderation - or comp rules for tournaments - is the best way to ensure good games.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
15-05-2011, 09:47
I don't mind the idea, and it might well speed up the game and remove the whole "Well it looks like 10" "No I think it's more 9" etc.

Just thinking on the idea of Template Warmachines, I'd say simply move them all to Rare so you can't have too many. 2 at under 3000pts isn't so bad, still nasty but liveable.

tmarichards
15-05-2011, 10:16
They're not too big of a problem in my experience really. Armies that have a lot of templates tend to not have a lot of combat, and in most circumstances I've found deploying my units 20 wide and getting into combat ASAP is more effective than 2-3 pie-plates.

Having said that, if you do deploy in a square and then get hit by a stone thrower (or heaven forbid, a trebuchet....), you've only got yourself to blame.

freddieyu
15-05-2011, 10:29
I don't mind the idea, and it might well speed up the game and remove the whole "Well it looks like 10" "No I think it's more 9" etc.

Just thinking on the idea of Template Warmachines, I'd say simply move them all to Rare so you can't have too many. 2 at under 3000pts isn't so bad, still nasty but liveable.

It's not difficult to determine it actually, especially if you are used to 40k.

And as an empire and lizards player? hell yeah I love the template rules...although I have been on receiving end of it as well...fair enough...

NixonAsADaemonPrince
15-05-2011, 10:34
It's not difficult to determine it actually, especially if you are used to 40k.

I am used to 40k and I still find it difficult to determine, as when a unit is in the middle of the board, it's rather difficult to get a top down view.

theunwantedbeing
15-05-2011, 10:52
Bad,
bring back partials as that'll solve the issues.

Djekar
15-05-2011, 11:15
I like the proposed solution Raven. Not sure about the numbers, but the idea seems spot on.

The bearded one
15-05-2011, 11:33
Bad,
bring back partials as that'll solve the issues.

Partials are bad.. M'kay..?

It could take ages to find out which models are fully covered and which only partially, especially if you can't get a good top view of the unit, or if the template slightly scattered so it's not in a position where we already know the max number of models hit. It's hard work to have to seperate all of those into fully hit and partial as well.

A better, more streamlined, solution would be that no hits are automatic except for the one under the hole. All other hits hit on a 3+ ( thereby you roughly combine the 4+ partials and fully hit models into a decent average ).

GodlessM
15-05-2011, 11:38
Considering basic counting is something we should all be apt at by now, and considering even wth scatter the template often still has a model directly under the hole (thus we don't need to count and can just use the diagrams), it's not such a big deal. Flame templates on the other hand are a pain when they come in diagonally.

Walgis
15-05-2011, 14:14
Well templates are way too big imo (exept flame template, no im not talking like this because i play lizards).
for egs dwarf thrower throws rocks! that is quite smaller than one 20x20 base so how in the world could it hit that many people... just crazy. the template should be max ~1.5" not 3". not even talking about large template...
imo going to no templeta but just hits is better.
Fire template is imo good because its fire it spreads out and it hits a lot, but S should be smaller (wel meiby people that was in fire could tell if fire was strong or not :D ).
IMO 7ed warmachines is quite too good. and S9 hit from a small rock? for a monster like stegadon shouldnt be something like S6 at most...

The bearded one
15-05-2011, 14:41
A direct hit from a stonethrower is quite devastating ( think back to 'return of the king' when they start firing the trebuchets ) so str 9 doesn't suprise me, and rocks break up and scatter on impact, just like mortar shells do.


Well templates are way too big imo (exept flame template, no im not talking like this because i play lizards).

hehe.. my 2500pts lizardmen army has 4....

I had some points left so I just thought "what the heck".

yabbadabba
15-05-2011, 15:14
The templates are there as a part of the overall balance. Until some armies get a rewrite we are not going to have a full and better idea of their impact, as GW does not change points on FAQs due to changed ability on the battlefield.

However for those of you who want to house rule it I would suggest Open Order as a formation. Units in open order can only be hit on a 3+ by template weapons, even if under the hole. However they can only claim +2 Rank bonus and must take a panic test when charged. In subsequent rounds of combat the unit reverts to its normal, combat status.

Boreas_NL
15-05-2011, 15:17
This made me a little giggly inside...

Just a quick heads up: Yes, I play Empire. Yes, I do have four Mortars (though only for big games, but I never leave home without one, preferably two). Yes, I do use the Helstorm (but only one :D). And hell yes, I like the new template rules! If you would ask me, I think even Cannon should use a template...

With the new edition War Machines have become even better then they used to be and template based War Machines (like the Mortar and Helstorm)improved even more. No more partials? Yes please!

To be honest, I have been on the receiving end of quite a few templates. They tend to decimate units (or even whole armies) quite fast. But so does magic and big scary (and seriously overpowered, underpriced) monsters (yes, HPA, I'm looking at you!)... As battles have become increasingly bigger, at least around here, it's not such a big deal.

I kind of lost my point here, but to stay on topic: Yes, templates are good:D

GodlessM
15-05-2011, 15:35
Well templates are way too big imo (exept flame template, no im not talking like this because i play lizards).
for egs dwarf thrower throws rocks! that is quite smaller than one 20x20 base so how in the world could it hit that many people... just crazy. the template should be max ~1.5" not 3". not even talking about large template...
imo going to no templeta but just hits is better.
Fire template is imo good because its fire it spreads out and it hits a lot, but S should be smaller (wel meiby people that was in fire could tell if fire was strong or not :D ).
IMO 7ed warmachines is quite too good. and S9 hit from a small rock? for a monster like stegadon shouldnt be something like S6 at most...

Good thing you aren't the general of an army in the olden days. Stone throwers don't fire small rocks, they fire large boulders that shatter on impact. The Grudge Thrower model is out of scale to infantry as are many older Warhammer models. Do you think Stegadons are only twice the height of a man?

theunwantedbeing
15-05-2011, 18:03
It could take ages to find out which models are fully covered and which only partially, especially if you can't get a good top view of the unit,

Move it to where you can see it.
Being short is no excuse, ask for help if you need it.



or if the template slightly scattered so it's not in a position where we already know the max number of models hit.

Again, move it to where you can see it.



It's hard work to have to seperate all of those into fully hit and partial as well.

Yeah, much like it's hard to roll a heap of attacks for a unit that aren't the same,
and it's hard to roll to hit, wound and for saves as thats super tricky to keep track of.
:rolleyes:

The bearded one
15-05-2011, 18:29
Move it to where you can see it.
Being short is no excuse, ask for help if you need it.

is this some kind of dwarf joke..?

It's easy to work with templates if the units are reasonably near the edge of the table, but it's a lot harder if they're all in the middle. I might play dwarfs, but I'm not short. You can't just "move it to where you can see it" because then you'd have to move to a different location where you can get a good top-view, and moving a unit from it's original location causes a lot of inaccuracy, especially when it's about time to start charging or when considering line of sight arcs.


Again, move it to where you can see it.


whats this about? I am referring to an instance where for example you land a small template in the middle of a unit and then it scatters 2 or 4 inches in some random direction, in a position where it is not centered over a model, but rather on the side of a model, slightly next to a unit or whatever. You can't "move it to where you can see it".. the template has to stay in the same spot. Picking up the unit and putting it closer to you to check the number of hits will still be a pretty inaccurate job regardless of how good you can see it, and it get's worse with flametemplates.



Yeah, much like it's hard to roll a heap of attacks for a unit that aren't the same,
and it's hard to roll to hit, wound and for saves as thats super tricky to keep track of.
:rolleyes:

That's quite a ridiclous comparison. :wtf: Templates is inaccurate observation. Keeping track of dice is just remembering how many dice you have. "look, I've got some dice. I roll them and then I roll all the 3+'s again. etc. Some people can be quite anal about template hits and because you have to keep the template hovering above the unit it's inaccurate by it's very nature. "Is the corner of this model hit? - I think I've hit these models here - no way, the template is nowhere near them. Look, let me hold the template. You're scattering the template too far, you're not scattering it far enough etc." It's not the simplest observation. In fact it even depends on how far above the models you hold the template. The higher you hold it, the more models it will seem to cover and with some units ( spears in particular ) you can't put the template close enough. Look for example in the BRB at page 9, the upper picture. Can you see at first glance the exact number of hits and partials, or do you need a moment to count them one by one. It's 3 full hits and 11 partials btw

GodlessM
15-05-2011, 18:30
There's no such thing as partials.

The bearded one
15-05-2011, 18:31
There's no such thing as partials.

Read the gyrocopter entry.




Theunwantedbeing was advocating the return of partials.

GodlessM
15-05-2011, 18:32
Gyrocopter entry doesn't matter; there are no partials, end of story.

The bearded one
15-05-2011, 18:34
Gyrocopter entry doesn't matter; there are no partials, end of story.

Why does it not matter?

It still has partials, because they were never removed. ;)

theunwantedbeing
15-05-2011, 18:49
Theunwantedbeing was advocating the return of partials.

Yup, partials rock.
No more suffering 21 guaranteed hits from a direct shot from even the small template....or even more from the larger one.

Way better than the auto-hitting nonsense we have now.
Sure there are big hoardes, big deal....we got loads more attacks and shooting to deal with them. Removing partials was completely unnecessary and made template weapons much too powerful.

Gazak Blacktoof
15-05-2011, 19:04
We've been using a house rule that the model under the centre is hit automatically, all other models are hit on a 3+ if touched by the template. The highest strength templates are still a little OP but it makes all templates more acceptable.

The bearded one
15-05-2011, 19:12
Yup, partials rock.
No more suffering 21 guaranteed hits from a direct shot from even the small template....or even more from the larger one.

Way better than the auto-hitting nonsense we have now.
Sure there are big hoardes, big deal....we got loads more attacks and shooting to deal with them. Removing partials was completely unnecessary and made template weapons much too powerful.


We've been using a house rule that the model under the centre is hit automatically, all other models are hit on a 3+ if touched by the template. The highest strength templates are still a little OP but it makes all templates more acceptable.

hey, that's funny, that's exactly what I suggested on the previous page :D

I can agree auto-hitting is too powerful; not really the idea of autohits in itself, but in combination with the high strenght templates left over from 7th edition * cough * skaven * cough * . Newer books have attempted to stick to the 'small template, strenght 3 (9)' rule of BRB stonethrowers but the accuracy of 8th edition template weapons is abused by those large and high strenght ones like the hellcannon, hellstorm, grudgethrowers, mortars etc.

However rather than bringing partials back, which adds some unnecessary complexity, one could instead of autohits go for a 3+ on all hits, even those fully covered by the template. Easy streamlining. With partials a mortarhit will still hit all models in a small unit: It would fully cover 20 or so models, just like now.

theunwantedbeing
15-05-2011, 19:16
However rather than bringing partials back, which adds some unnecessary complexity, one could instead of autohits go for a 3+ on all hits, even those fully covered by the template. Easy streamlining.

I agree, turn those hits into partials.

That's the best way to not bring partials back!:rolleyes:

NixonAsADaemonPrince
15-05-2011, 19:18
I agree, turn those hits into partials.

That's the best way to not bring partials back!:rolleyes:

But those are completely different rules to Partials, as they don't require any differentiation between partial and full hits. Also, as already stated, bring back Partials wouldn't help with Large Template weapons such as Mortars.

yabbadabba
15-05-2011, 20:13
Mortars are not high strength. The are S3(6) with a -1 sv mod. Sorry, that doesn't break the bank at all.

Avian
15-05-2011, 20:16
Mortars are not high strength. The are S3(6) with a -1 sv mod. Sorry, that doesn't break the bank at all.
Other than the central hit, that is MORE damage with MORE hits than with a stone thrower (small template, also S3, no armour save modifier).
For less points.

The bearded one
15-05-2011, 20:19
Mortars are not high strength. The are S3(6) with a -1 sv mod. Sorry, that doesn't break the bank at all.

It can actually be spectacularly devastating because it's such a large number of hits, and armourpiercing on top of that and they are cheap as dirt. You will usually find a pair of them. And indeed like Avian said it's more damaging than a regular stone thrower because it has -1 to saves, let alone a lot of hits. These things absolutely massacre T3 infantry.

But how about helstorms, doomrockets and plagueclaw catapults ( no save )?

Gazak Blacktoof
15-05-2011, 20:21
hey, that's funny, that's exactly what I suggested on the previous page :D


Ah, but have you used it? We started using it after just a couple of games of 8th. I'd recommend giving it a go, if your group is amenable.

The bearded one
15-05-2011, 20:27
Ah, but have you used it? We started using it after just a couple of games of 8th. I'd recommend giving it a go, if your group is amenable.

Luckily we're not very templaty here and personally I always use protection..

that came out wrong..

Personally I use things such as the ironcurse Icon and the master rune of grungni to protect me. Damage is usually minimal.
We're going to set up a little club ( building our own desert table for fantasy and 40K use, with forests that can be used for both, and 40K buildings and TK ruins we can use depending on what game ) so we might try out some more houseruling from then on, like disruption from a flank/rearcharge cancelling steadfast.

xxRavenxx
15-05-2011, 20:30
To those who missed it. The suggestion I made was not designed to strictly nerf templates (though I'd like to). It was to remove the template part, so that no time is spent trying to count and argue over models clipped. Simply hit, then roll D6 to cause collateral.

yabbadabba
15-05-2011, 20:35
It can actually be spectacularly devastating because it's such a large number of hits, and armourpiercing on top of that and they are cheap as dirt. You will usually find a pair of them. And indeed like Avian said it's more damaging than a regular stone thrower because it has -1 to saves, let alone a lot of hits. These things absolutely massacre T3 infantry.

But how about helstorms, doomrockets and plagueclaw catapults ( no save )?

So, lets get this right. Its not high strength is it, like you claimed? No, good.

I run 2 mortars must of the time and they do not "absolutely massacre" T3 troops. When they hit, they do OK, but you are not backing that up with incredible infantry or cavalry. The Helstorm scatters twice so can be very inaccurate, and is S5, -2. When you look at an Empire army you get lots of middling mediocrity made up with a few bits of easily countered good bits.

On the whole I expect the cost of both the Helstorm and the Mortar to go up in the next Empire book, but for Empire and Bretonnians they don't have much to break up those big horde units so need a bit of support - which by the way disappears in a single round of combat with even the most basic of Fast Cavalry or Flyers.

GodlessM
15-05-2011, 20:38
Why does it not matter?

It still has partials, because they were never removed. ;)

FAQs and BRB say otherwise.

theunwantedbeing
15-05-2011, 20:46
To those who missed it. The suggestion I made was not designed to strictly nerf templates (though I'd like to). It was to remove the template part, so that no time is spent trying to count and argue over models clipped. Simply hit, then roll D6 to cause collateral.

I dont like the random nature of D6 or 2D6.
That said, having all those in base contact with the guy hit, be auto or hit on a D6 roll would be fairly simple(and less abstract).

Gazak Blacktoof
15-05-2011, 21:06
To those who missed it. The suggestion I made was not designed to strictly nerf templates (though I'd like to). It was to remove the template part, so that no time is spent trying to count and argue over models clipped. Simply hit, then roll D6 to cause collateral.

Personally I like those rules, it's what we're implementing in our 40K rules. The City Fight supplement for 40K used random hits instead of templates to help prevent awkward balancing of models, and it was a perfectly acceptable alternative.

In warhammer you'd need to incorporate a rule to reduce the number of hits to skirmishers (which you did), I'd also limit the number of hits to the number of models in the unit (something we've done in our 40K rules).

The bearded one
15-05-2011, 22:22
So, lets get this right. Its not high strength is it, like you claimed? No, good.

Woops, sorry. It wasn't my intention to claim that a mortar is high strenght, therefore turn 'and' into 'and/or'. That was my intention: high strenght and/or large templates ( mortar, hellcannon, grudge thrower, plagueclaw catapult ).
Point still stands; The stonethrower rules from the BRB are fine. Accuracy (premeasuring and placing the template where wanted) was balanced with reduced killingpower ( str 4, no armoursaves allowed was changed into str 3, armoursaves allowed ). The problem lies with armybook specific stonethrowers that have either high strenght, or larger templates, or some specific rules. For those reasons many complain about template weaponry in 8th although I haven't seen any rants about stonethrowers that follow all the BRB rules on stonethrowers. I see complaints about mortars quite often. They don't bug me because I've got T4 armies with good armour and my trusty master rune of grungni or at least the ironcurse icon. :cool:

If dropping a mortar hit on a unit of T3 troops and you manage a relatively large number of hits ( when dropping 2 templates a turn and with a 1/3 chance of hitting dead on, and some chance to scatter only little, this should not be a complete oddity ), you should be causing a considerable number of casualties. For example if you hit a unit of elves like swordmasters or even spearelves the mortar very, very easily makes back it's points. A mortar hits a unit of 20 spearelves; that's 20 hits, 10 wounds and roughly 8 kills: points earned back. Out of a potential 12 shots in the game you only need 2 direct hits like this to earn their points back. Let's say you only manage 6 mortar shots: That's still 2 hits on average.
By the way, are you using a master engineer? The pidgeon bomb is gold, gold tell ya!


FAQs and BRB say otherwise.

Actually they do not: Armybook trumps BRB, and the gyrocopters' partials were not removed in any of the dwarven FAQ's so far while other very specific gyrocopter things were FAQ'ed. Believe me, if the gyro didn't have partials anymore all dwarf players would be very, very happy. :cries: The gyro entry specifically tells how partials are done.

Aluinn
16-05-2011, 13:33
It occurred to me, that more simplistic rules could work much better. Something like:

"Nominate a point, scatter it. If it contacts a model. Inflict a strength 8 hit on it. If the model is in a unit, inflict 2d6 strength 4 hits to the unit. Monstrous units and skirmishers only take 1d6 hits."

(Numbers chosen at random).

Obviously the numbers could be tweaked to find the right powerlevel, or to represent bigger templates, etc.


So what are other peoples opinions? Do you feel that this would be a good improvement to warhammer, or do you think that the game works fine with templates? Are there different changes you'd make in this regard?

I actually think that's a really good idea. I like it very much and would like to subscribe to your newsletter :).

The reason I like it is that although it adds an additional dice roll, it's probably much faster and easier than situating the template over the unit and deciding who is covered (unless it is the entire unit, in which case that's faster :)), as well as far less likely to lead to disputes. It also creates a uniform effect for "blast" weapons hitting models on either 20mm or 25mm bases, which IMO is desirable: The slightly larger bases have the (I think) unintended effect of making models on them more resilient to shooting (of the deadliest sort, though not all), which is odd. They are not necessarily tougher, though it's often true--but in that case, their profile provides the distinction, so none by base size is needed--and their formation is not imagined to be more dispersed, so the difference in damage should be very little, yet winds up being significant.

The advantage of the template, though, is that it accounts for any minor oddities in basing, or uncoventional units being affected, with an acceptable degree of verisimilitude, even if less perfect in the majority of situations. In other words, if Sepulchral Stalkers are Monstrous Infantry, but are on a chariot base, whereas an Ogre-sized base is much, much smaller, your suggested rules would affect both Stalkers and Ogres equally, and in this case that shouldn't happen because one model actually takes up a ton more space, much more than the difference between, say, a Marauder and a Halberdier. And, of course, it also allows for units that were not originally targeted to be hit on a scatter in an appropriate way (i.e. it isn't all-or-nothing, as your proposal would make it; the template may "graze" a unit). I'm not sure how much that adds to the game, really, but there it is.

So there are good reasons to use a template, but overall I like the Doom Diver model a bit more. I'm generally all for abstraction and streamlining, to a point, though, and always for less additional equipment needed to play a game.

popisdead
17-05-2011, 21:11
Anyway, having played numerous games of 8th, the thing that comes up time and again is how powerful some of the artillery is.

The counter to this is to take smaller units as well as finding ways to mitigate the threat of the warmachine you are worried about.

It is a good game mechanic to deal with masses of infantry.

The bearded one
17-05-2011, 21:16
I think the problem with that would be that a small templat will hit about 20 models, regardless of wether the unit is 20 or 40 models large. Using small units ( 20 or below ) hampers your CC abilities.

Havock
17-05-2011, 22:49
place magic phase after shooting phase, this way there will be some planning involed in what you want to kill with your shooting next turn (ie. debuffs)

xxRavenxx
18-05-2011, 09:14
I think the problem with that would be that a small templat will hit about 20 models, regardless of wether the unit is 20 or 40 models large. Using small units ( 20 or below ) hampers your CC abilities.

This.

Also, we still havn't touched on how much of a bugger feet or fetal giant shaped templates are... I still think Xd6 hits is the way forward.

hlaine larkin
18-05-2011, 09:22
It is absolutely foul, no longer needing to guess has made artillery worth 1,000 times it's cost.

hlaine larkin
18-05-2011, 09:30
but i do and don't like your idea (the foul part was refferring to new fantasy rules)

for example, a cannon that hits my unit will hit 3-4 guys if it's lucky, so perhaps it would have to be say d3+1 or something? here are some ideas...

Cannon
D3+1 str 8 (10 for great cannon)

Mortar
2d6 Str 4

Trebuchet
d6, str 6


these seem workable rules off the top of my head- the cannon will still do d6 wounds to the models it hits

The bearded one
18-05-2011, 10:12
The only problem with templates that do D6 hits is that even if they merely graze a unit they can do full damage. A large template could hit a piece of nothing, but graze several units and inflict a massive number of hits where now it just hits 3-4 models in that case. Also things like single models or small units, or units like missiletroops spread out in a thin line will be hit several times more than now. A character or monster now gets 1 hit, with D6 hits templates he will be hit multiple times.

hlaine larkin
18-05-2011, 10:15
this is true :/

The bearded one
18-05-2011, 10:19
this is true :/

A dwarf never lies :)

hlaine larkin
18-05-2011, 10:24
Maybe we should do it by unit strength, so a unit strength 20takes 2d6 5 target takes d6 wounds, US 3 d3, US >3 1 hit.
and then cannons d6 for Us5+, d3 for US 3 and 1 for US1, like a lone character.

then the cannons wouldn't do d6 wounds any more, the idea of you being bigger, say on a dragon than on a horse, you take more wounds- as there is more to damage.

wow that works quite well.

Oh wait they abolished US...

Gazak Blacktoof
18-05-2011, 11:48
The only problem with templates that do D6 hits is that even if they merely graze a unit they can do full damage. A large template could hit a piece of nothing, but graze several units and inflict a massive number of hits where now it just hits 3-4 models in that case. Also things like single models or small units, or units like missiletroops spread out in a thin line will be hit several times more than now. A character or monster now gets 1 hit, with D6 hits templates he will be hit multiple times.

You'd need to switch the template for a pin point / 1" template that can only hit a single unit. The blast is represented by the random factor instead of how much of the unit is covered.

Scythe
18-05-2011, 12:08
To those who missed it. The suggestion I made was not designed to strictly nerf templates (though I'd like to). It was to remove the template part, so that no time is spent trying to count and argue over models clipped. Simply hit, then roll D6 to cause collateral.

My main problem with this solution would be that it would generally make smaller units a lot more vulnerable, and further push hordes / huge units even more. A couple of d6 hits on a 50 strong unit will hardly leave the impression a full mortar hit would do now, while small units would be devastated (while they have a decent chance of surviving with a few models currently).

I don't think the current template rules need much changing. As army books get updated, they'll remove strange outliers like S5 trebuchets/ grudge throwers/ hellcannons/ hellstorms, and return closer to the S3 basic stone thrower as defined in the rulebook.

Holy_Combat
18-05-2011, 12:09
If anything, the O&G book has the rock lobba placed in the rare slot. Standard stone thrower, nothing special, got a point increase as well. I will not be surprised if all pie template weapons are moved to rare, and see a point increase.

decker_cky
18-05-2011, 17:22
There are problems with templates, but only those with an artificial strength increase. Trebuchets, rocket batteries, mortars and salamanders would all balance out with -1 S.

H33D
18-05-2011, 20:24
Using a template to dictate the number of models hit is far simpler than trying to find and balance a randomized number of hits. To be fair you would have to factor in the units base sizes, the number of models in the unit, etc.

The closest idea I have to balance such a thing would be D3 hits per rank similar to the Goblin Hewer of the Dwarves of old. Perhaps Stone Thrower type of war machines would be D3+1 while flame cannon types would be D3+1 with the modifier dropping by 1 per rank it penetrates. For example, you would roll for the first rank (D3+1), the second rank (D3), the third rank (D3-1) etc.

The problem with this is the simplest task in math is counting, not adding, not subtracting, and not adding a modifier to a variable. Any changes in the area of determining the number of hits would be slowing down the game, and invariably breaking it.

And why are we talking about templates? Why aren't we talking about uber spells? Templates are not broken. My grudge thrower is only on target roughly 50% of the time, I can't just throw 6 dice at it and laugh like a mad scientist. On top of that, I have to roll to wound against a max of 21 models, not the entire unit such as with Dweller's Below (though that one is a characteristic test, not a to-wound roll). Other war machines are usually on target 33% of the time and blow up once out of eighteen times which is far less than a wizard 'blows up'. And I can't just stick my war machine in a unit and sneer 'Neener neener neener!', I have to be cautious about fast cavalry, scouts (chameleons/gutter runners esp.) and counter-battery fire. Wizards just have to fear rolling a 1 when a war machine shoots at it.

RanaldLoec
18-05-2011, 20:32
When your facing off against between 100 to 200 clan rats in a unit.

2 mortars and 2 helstorms is like pissing into a hurricane.

In my local area I see allot if BIG units. My Empire army struggles to fight though a wet paper bag.

So we have artillery to put big holes in said bag, magic to wet it then its safe for my little state troopers to play with.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
18-05-2011, 20:38
'Neener neener neener!'

What, your Wizard's in a fire truck?

The bearded one
18-05-2011, 21:39
What, your Wizard's in a fire truck?

Only when deployed in a khorne unit.

you know.. red, noisy, and will run you over if you jump in it's path.

xxRavenxx
18-05-2011, 21:55
Our local firetruck is covered in trophies. Every time the firemen put out a fire, they take the skull of the homeowner and impale it on the sharpened ladder rungs... True story.

Frankly
18-05-2011, 21:58
salamanders love new template rules. the problem is ....

awwww ... I still love my Southlands and their pet salamanders.

Dragoon999
19-05-2011, 05:24
Do you think Stegadons are only twice the height of a man?

Ummm actually yes they are twice the height of a man.....ever been to a museum. Sorry I love dinos had to poke at you.:p:D

Scythe
19-05-2011, 05:25
The closest idea I have to balance such a thing would be D3 hits per rank similar to the Goblin Hewer of the Dwarves of old. Perhaps Stone Thrower type of war machines would be D3+1 while flame cannon types would be D3+1 with the modifier dropping by 1 per rank it penetrates. For example, you would roll for the first rank (D3+1), the second rank (D3), the third rank (D3-1) etc.

Which would punish 'deep' units and favor wide horde formation units, which is a bit strange. It makes sense for war machines which go through ranks, like bolt throwers and the mentioned goblin hewer, but not much for a stone thrower or other template weapon.

The bearded one
19-05-2011, 20:46
A mechanism such as a D3 for every 5 models might work, though I think it's better to stick with current template shapes. I think automatic hits is a tad over the top, and having the 4+ partials of old slows down the game. The best solution to me seems that every hit model ( both partially and fully hit ) is hit on a 3+, no need to seperate between full and partial hits.

"Look, there are 20 models under the template. They're all hit on 3+. Easy.

Except the model underneath the center, he is hit immediately

theunwantedbeing
19-05-2011, 21:04
"Look, there are 20 models under the template. They're all hit on 3+. Easy.

The tricky bit has never been deciding what a model is hit on, or rolling for it.

It has always been deciding which models are hit by the template that has caused the issues, nothing else.

A better solution to the issue of "which models are hit" would be one that doesn't use a template but a point. With adjacent models to the one initially hit also suffering hits but at the lowered strength.
Possibly with the addition of a rule where suitably small models adjacent to those hit are hit on a D6 roll. This means large infantry units can suffer a lot of damage on direct hits, but cannot be guaranteed a large number of hits.
Only upto 9.

Doesn't adress the issue of irregular flame and falling giant templates of course, but a similar rule can be generated for them if needs be.

xxRavenxx
19-05-2011, 21:39
It has always been deciding which models are hit by the template that has caused the issues, nothing else.

This.

And what causes more confusion than these blasted things? (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1550059a_OG_Templates_P1Mb1.jpg)


Yes... I'm sticking with the hating them shtick.

Rikkjourd
19-05-2011, 21:43
A better solution to the issue of "which models are hit" would be one that doesn't use a template but a point.


This. I've been thinking about this and it would speed up the game ALOT and make it alot simpler if we just decided the number of hits with a simpler technique.

It has been mentioned before in the thread, but for example something like 2D6 hits up to a maximum equal to the the number of models in the unit would be good. Then you could throw in some arbitrary rule that horde units suffer 2D6+2 because they are so densely packed or whatever, so that they stay good at shooting big blocks. Units with big bases (40mm and up) tend to be fewer so they naturally suffer less hits.

A flame cannon could work like this: Roll exactly like a cannon (art dice twice), measuring from the base. For each rank (or file if flank) under the line it inflicts D6 hits up to maximum equal the number of models in each rank. So doing a perfect shot into a 5x5 unit would be 5D6 hits with sixes turned to fives. Simple as hell.

Malorian
19-05-2011, 21:49
I like templates.

It really doesn't take long to count up the models hit and is much more realistic then making it a simple XD6 models hit. This is because a unit of 2 and a unit of 200 could take the same number of hits.

If anything GW needs to sell clear templates for those not available.

Scythe
20-05-2011, 05:29
A mechanism such as a D3 for every 5 models might work, though I think it's better to stick with current template shapes. I think automatic hits is a tad over the top, and having the 4+ partials of old slows down the game. The best solution to me seems that every hit model ( both partially and fully hit ) is hit on a 3+, no need to seperate between full and partial hits.

"Look, there are 20 models under the template. They're all hit on 3+. Easy.

Except the model underneath the center, he is hit immediately

The autohit thing isn't over the top as long as the strength of the templates is set properly, as it is in the new army books. Adding an extra roll on 3+ is a needless compensation to get the bite out of strong templates which might just as easily be achieved by reducing the S of the given template.


This.

And what causes more confusion than these blasted things? (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1550059a_OG_Templates_P1Mb1.jpg)


Yes... I'm sticking with the hating them shtick.

I agree that the fallen giant and foot of gork templates are abominations. Not only irregular as hell, but also difficult to get a clear transparent version of. Swapping those templates with the small blast template solves those issues though.


A flame cannon could work like this: Roll exactly like a cannon (art dice twice), measuring from the base. For each rank (or file if flank) under the line it inflicts D6 hits up to maximum equal the number of models in each rank. So doing a perfect shot into a 5x5 unit would be 5D6 hits with sixes turned to fives. Simple as hell.

I don't find that simple as hell, honestly. It requires some bookkeeping, and is rather counter intuitive. And a unit of 6 wide ogres suffers as many hits as a unit of 6 wide infantry?


I like templates.

It really doesn't take long to count up the models hit and is much more realistic then making it a simple XD6 models hit. This is because a unit of 2 and a unit of 200 could take the same number of hits.

If anything GW needs to sell clear templates for those not available.

I agree. Any form of d6 multiplication tends to screw over small units, which is directly opposite of the effect templates should have.

Rikkjourd
20-05-2011, 07:23
I don't find that simple as hell, honestly. It requires some bookkeeping, and is rather counter intuitive. And a unit of 6 wide ogres suffers as many hits as a unit of 6 wide infantry?

I agree. Any form of d6 multiplication tends to screw over small units, which is directly opposite of the effect templates should have.

Bookkeeping? Please explain what kind of bookkeeping you would do when rolling some D6 equal to your ranks. In terms of difficulty it is about the same as rolling PD for a spell and adding your wizard level. I hope you don't mean that this is more hassle than the flame template. Also don't focus too much on the specific amount of hits that people post as examples, obviously this would have to be balanced. For example, to fix the ogre problem you mention, just add: "monsters, monstrous inf etc only get D3 hits per rank". Simple as hell.

I already mentioned how to fix the screwing of small units... Number of hits are up to a maximum of the amount of models in the unit. I don't see the difference between a grudge thrower hitting an ogre unit of 6 models and hitting all of them with the template, and rolling 6+ hits and also hitting all of them once...

Scythe
20-05-2011, 09:00
Bookkeeping? Please explain what kind of bookkeeping you would do when rolling some D6 equal to your ranks. In terms of difficulty it is about the same as rolling PD for a spell and adding your wizard level. I hope you don't mean that this is more hassle than the flame template. Also don't focus too much on the specific amount of hits that people post as examples, obviously this would have to be balanced. For example, to fix the ogre problem you mention, just add: "monsters, monstrous inf etc only get D3 hits per rank". Simple as hell.

I already mentioned how to fix the screwing of small units... Number of hits are up to a maximum of the amount of models in the unit. I don't see the difference between a grudge thrower hitting an ogre unit of 6 models and hitting all of them with the template, and rolling 6+ hits and also hitting all of them once...

So, let's recap. We have:

- a dice per rank of the target unit hit (which screws over deep units in favor of wide units, for some reason)
- a special rule covering monstrous infantry and other non-standard troop types
- a special rule limiting the amount of max hits you can cause per rank (eg, not more than there are models in the rank)
- some extra rule which will need to deal with oddities in ranks. What about the last, incomplete rank, for example? It can suffer less hits, so I have to throw a separate dice? What about different base sizes of models within units, like Slann, Screaming Bells, Dwarf shieldbearers, or 25mm characters joining 20mm units?

Please explain to me why this is any more 'simple as hell' as:

- anything wholly or partially under the template is hit.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-05-2011, 09:19
That's probably still only about the same amount of effort as working out exact scatter, holding the template over the middle of the board above a rank of spears and trying to count the number of models under the template.

Templates really aren't easy things to use. More often than not we have to go back to the rulebook and use the diagrams there because using the template in real life is actually surprisingly difficult.

Scythe
20-05-2011, 09:46
Exact scatter doesn't go away unless you change the to hit rules as well (which is a different topic). And honestly, I and anyone in my gaming group have never had any trouble determining how many models are hit by a clear template. It is nothing more than counting a few models.

For me, the KISS principle applies here. No need to clog up the rules any more with a page of explanation and exceptions when you can cover it in a single sentence.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-05-2011, 09:59
I think the simplicity should be in the game play, not in the rules. I think that in general, adding dice is easier than counting models under a shaky template.

Templates are certainly easier now that all units, including skirmishers, are regularly shaped. So although I think that using dice instead of a template would be of great benefit in a game like 40K, I agree it would require me work and be less beneficial in fantasy.

theunwantedbeing
20-05-2011, 10:01
Please explain to me why this is any more 'simple as hell' as:

- anything wholly or partially under the template is hit.

My solution was simpler.
As there is no template so there is no confusion as to what is or isnt hit.

None of the other things were "simpler".
They were just more arbitrary.

LordoftheBrassThrone
20-05-2011, 10:28
The great thing about the game at the moment is that it flows. If you start to introduce things like 2D6 hits or whatever, it slows it down. Templates are working OK (as long as you don't get one of those argumentative as hell opponents). If you hit a unit with 20mm bases, look in the rulebook. There's a picture, so you will just hit as many as in the BRB picture.

Scythe
20-05-2011, 11:20
I think the simplicity should be in the game play, not in the rules. I think that in general, adding dice is easier than counting models under a shaky template.


I think the two often go together; at least in this case. But is is an opinion, I admit. It is not so much the adding dice which does it for me, but more finding out what to roll.


My solution was simpler.
As there is no template so there is no confusion as to what is or isnt hit.

None of the other things were "simpler".
They were just more arbitrary.

True, the base contact solution is simpler (and better, imho, than the dice based numbers). Still leaves a few odd counter intuitive cases with models with larger base sizes though, who often have more models 'adjacent' to them. Aim for the Screaming Bell or Slann for maximal damage is a bit weird.

theunwantedbeing
20-05-2011, 11:28
True, the base contact solution is simpler (and better, imho, than the dice based numbers). Still leaves a few odd counter intuitive cases with models with larger base sizes though, who often have more models 'adjacent' to them. Aim for the Screaming Bell or Slann for maximal damage is a bit weird.

Yeah sadly it doesn't seem to be without its niggles.

LordoftheBrassThrone
20-05-2011, 21:23
Ummm actually yes they are twice the height of a man.....ever been to a museum. Sorry I love dinos had to poke at you.:p:D

You are assuming that the world of warhammer is even slightly realistic. For one thing the skeleton may well be, add the flesh and bony armour, and you'll find it was closer to three ti es as high. Also from some of the background pics I've seen, they have been 5 or 6 times as big. I've also seen some slightly smaller ones, so maybe they get bigger with age or something.