|
Post by sand20go on Oct 14, 2017 0:58:05 GMT
So one of the more fiddly bits of all fiddly bits is the entire blast damage crap. I can't tell you how much time gets spent trying to get it JUST right. Today my blast markers from broken egg came in so I can determine within 1/16 of an inch whether some does or doesn't get clipped. Honestly, it is one of the parts of the game I dislike the most. Plus it is subject to "gaming" as people can get fiddly with it on YOUR clock. Hell, I have watched someone take at LEAST 90 seconds to figure ONE drift out - remeasuring to get the direction "just right" and then just right for drift, and then JUST right to see if it clips.
New idea. Just say that if you directly hit you clip everyting within 1 inch (or 1.5 for more powerful) with blast. On missed, either 1.5 inches from the point of impact or 2 (for more powerful blast). Done. Over. Easy. Yeah - better to shoot at huge, large, medium and then small bases in that order. Great. We are simulating the fact that the shot is sending off shrapnel and people will adjust and spread out. Good.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Oct 14, 2017 1:55:46 GMT
Mark 3.5?
|
|
|
Post by galrohir on Oct 14, 2017 2:39:35 GMT
As in, a small evolution of Mark 3, but not quite enough for a Mark 4, I'd imagine. Like DnD 3.0 -> 3.5 ->4.0
As for the idea, you'd need to rework other systems, I'd imagine (Stealth being the primary one), but it would speed up things. You could also do it like WH 40k 8th Edition does it, where you no longer have templates, weapons that used templates just have a higher number of attacks (Frag Grenades get d6 "shots" for example). But it would again require a complete rework. And I don't think anyone at PP is willing to do it (or even if they should really).
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Oct 14, 2017 3:35:16 GMT
As in, a small evolution of Mark 3, but not quite enough for a Mark 4, I'd imagine. Like DnD 3.0 -> 3.5 ->4.0 As for the idea, you'd need to rework other systems, I'd imagine (Stealth being the primary one), but it would speed up things. You could also do it like WH 40k 8th Edition does it, where you no longer have templates, weapons that used templates just have a higher number of attacks (Frag Grenades get d6 "shots" for example). But it would again require a complete rework. And I don't think anyone at PP is willing to do it (or even if they should really). Why stealth rework? Auto misses Measure deviation from the model to a spot on the table. Measure X inches from it. Done. Now one CAN do that as well now....but it requires even ANOTHER widget (1.5 inches for a 3 inch radius blast.)
|
|
SeBM
Junior Strategist
Posts: 102
|
Post by SeBM on Oct 14, 2017 4:06:18 GMT
Meeh, blast is fine. I always do it, ask my opponent if his models are in or not then move along. Never had a real issue. I always tell them it's their call and I put my trust in them.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Oct 14, 2017 4:09:45 GMT
Blasts are fine. Widgets make it easy to deal with direct hits, and drifts are easy enough to deal with since they drift in fixed directions.
|
|
Fire Step
Junior Strategist
Everyday I'm Wrastlin'
Posts: 334
|
Post by Fire Step on Oct 14, 2017 7:06:06 GMT
Meeh, blast is fine. I always do it, ask my opponent if his models are in or not then move along. Never had a real issue. I always tell them it's their call and I put my trust in them. I do the same. I find when I ask an opponent's eye to confirm, they often do so much more honestly and it helps to develop rapport for the game and keeps things ticking along. I'm not sure why it should be taking any more than 20-30 seconds to resolve the full effects of a blast anyway, unless the active player or inactive player keep changing their minds on the direction of the blast. The widgets I have from ttcombat has all the blast effect distances included, which can also be handily used when positioning models on your turn if you're expecting blasts to come your way. Again, it shouldn't take up huge amounts of time, that's why we have widgets after all.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Oct 14, 2017 7:36:39 GMT
This does not seem like it would actually make things faster. blast widget vs. having to break out a 1.5 measuring device seems like a wash.
The problem with blasts, inasmuch as there IS a problem, is that sometimes they end up in weird locations that make it hard to tell what they do/don't hit. This proposed change does nothing to alleviate that.
|
|
|
Post by droopingpuppy on Oct 14, 2017 9:01:19 GMT
So one of the more fiddly bits of all fiddly bits is the entire blast damage crap. I can't tell you how much time gets spent trying to get it JUST right. Today my blast markers from broken egg came in so I can determine within 1/16 of an inch whether some does or doesn't get clipped. Honestly, it is one of the parts of the game I dislike the most. Plus it is subject to "gaming" as people can get fiddly with it on YOUR clock. Hell, I have watched someone take at LEAST 90 seconds to figure ONE drift out - remeasuring to get the direction "just right" and then just right for drift, and then JUST right to see if it clips. New idea. Just say that if you directly hit you clip everyting within 1 inch (or 1.5 for more powerful) with blast. On missed, either 1.5 inches from the point of impact or 2 (for more powerful blast). Done. Over. Easy. Yeah - better to shoot at huge, large, medium and then small bases in that order. Great. We are simulating the fact that the shot is sending off shrapnel and people will adjust and spread out. Good. It is much more compliated. Do you really think that measure every single model within 1" of a model individually would be easier than simply put an AOE marker and see if the models are within or not? I don't think so. Put the blast marker only happens once, but measure the distance requires you to measure all the distances individually. Also, it means that the larger target makes the bigger blast radius.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Oct 14, 2017 9:25:05 GMT
I think you just have to accept that there's a level of imprecision with deviations and blasts (blasts that hit are not a problem, there are widgets for that). The perception here changes a lot with the point of view and moving the marker is prettyimprecise by definition. Sometimes you'll just not get perfect information with this part of the game. It's still a million times better than the random d6 solution in new wh40k which removes all player agency from the equation (choosing bunched up enemies or more important targets, deciding whether it's better to stay close together behind cover or spread out in the open etc).
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Oct 14, 2017 12:31:30 GMT
Blasts are a not a problem for me. As has been pointed out, they deviate in one of six fixed directions from one to six inches. Play with them enough and you can eyeball it very quickly.
At least it's better than using a die with an arrow on it that's often rolled at the other side of the table from the target.
|
|
Luebbi
BattleBox Champ
Posts: 54
|
Post by Luebbi on Oct 16, 2017 4:59:24 GMT
I for one agree with the OP, in a game where people try to be as precise as possible, especially multiple drifts like Chain Blast are a pain.
And regarding the snide remark about using a die with an arrow, 8th edition 40k got completely rid of blast and spray templates, instead opting for d3 or so hits depending on the weapon.
I can imagine a similar rule for blast weapons, for example: blast and spray weapons ignore stealth, on a direct hit the X (2-4 depending on weapon) nearest models suffer blast damage. On miss, the model originally aimed at and x-1 nearest models suffer blast damage.
|
|
|
Post by copperflame on Oct 16, 2017 13:46:02 GMT
I don't want to get rid of templates - I like them. Yes, I understand that scatter is a little clunky but that's part of the game and only really gets bad when in excess. Don't take away my spray templates. I love sprays. Sprays for days...
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Oct 16, 2017 14:04:30 GMT
I actually find scatters are much easier to do when you have AoE templates of the proper size rather than the all-in-one that PP sells. It's easier to put them down, or at least closer down to the models that are potentially hit by it and it's much less ambiguous to see if it is or isn't under the template than trying to gauge if it's within the line that's drawn on something larger.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Oct 16, 2017 14:36:57 GMT
Blast templates are fine, I can't imagine using an arbitrary dX roll instead of an actual AOE. The crowd that already hates random ROF with have a fit, plus it completely removes the bed to watch your spacing against blast damage lists.
|
|