To Template or Not

To Template or Not?
 

"But my model was less than half under the template!"

Most beer-and-pretzel wargames make some use of templates for explosions and the like. But are they necessary?

As I see it, templates offer two really powerful advantages.  First, they are visually evocative. 
A rigid, transparent template makes it easy to determine an area of effect on the model battlefield. When you lay down a template, it's easy to imagine the explosion, the flames, and the smoke.  Steve even has some little blast clouds to enhance the effect.  Anything that is visual like this, simple, and fun, should be encouraged. 

Second, the presence of template weapons encourages players to spread their models to the maximum coherency distance.  You want as few models under that template as possible. Narrow spaces or choke points become death-traps.

On the other hand templates lead to arguments.  When you hold a template at any distance above the table surface, visual parallax means that two different players will see slightly different models under it. Partial models are an even bigger problem, since you're now disputing whether a millimeter of hand or base is in or out of bounds.  I've seen disputes over templates get quite acrimonious -- and, often, no player is clearly right.



Why not just replace explosion templates with a high rate of fire?  Templates and rate of fire are pretty much the same - they determine how many models can be hit.  Many modern direct-fire guns are spray weapons, not carefully aimed, yet they typically use a rate of fire, not a template. Just assume that an explosive weapon can hit a whole squad and give it a fixed RoF.  (10 for example.)

Overall, I am cautiously pro-template. So my next few posts will propose some rules, sizes, and weapons for templates.