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.

It is perfectly possible to deeply hate the current state of the game but still have fun playing it.

Personally I play with a close group of friends. We talk about our lists beforehand so we get fun games, and we get the funds to constantly update our armies with new units/allies in order to stay competitive.

This doesn't mean I don't completely loathe the state of the game that forces me to do all that abd don't wish I could lay down my Iyanden wraith army while my friend is unpacking his Deathwing across the table and have a fun game from the get go.

LordBlades wrote:
It is perfectly possible to deeply hate the current state of the game but still have fun playing it.

I think the more accurate way of describing that is that you have fun DESPITE the current state of the game. That sounds like a soft no above in the poll IMO. YMMV.

I have already bellyached on the subject enough. I am waiting to see what 8th edition will have to offer.

The one thing I will add is: more than any other factor, what turned me off was the release of 7th so shortly after 6th. I spent a lot on all the collector's editions rulebooks and codexes and expected them to stay useful for a while.

I could deal with bad rules as long as they stay that way for a while.

The statement that makes me most concerned so far in this thread was''..there has never been as much freedom in the game as now..''

So in the last 20 years NO ONE ever just made up cool stuff with their friends at their club/gaming group?

The narrative players NEVER EVER wrote scenarios and campaigns at any point in the last 20 years?

It is only when GW officially give you permission to buy what you like and put your random collection on the games table and play against any other random collection of models and roll some dice to see what happens.That people actually use their imaginations and make up stuff?

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN OPTION TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF COOL!!!!!!
(If you agree with your opponent before hand,and if you can not negotiate with your opponent , you can not play 7th ed 40k any way!)

All GW plc have done is throw away any link from the deep and inspiring background , to the actions on the 40k game table.
JUST to try to boost short term sales, and in the process remove any sort of enjoyment from random pick up games.

The people who suffer the most are those who are more dependent on random pick up games.Eg most new players.
They have to spend ages trying to get a game because their random collection of minatures is not the ''right'' collection of random minatures according to many different groups of players...

IF GW plc were writing for 'relaxed narrative games' they would NOT use point values or any form of F.O.C .They would release scenario and campaign generation guide books.

THE ONLY VALID REASON to include point values and F.O.C is to achieve enough balance for enjoyable random pick up games.GW plc just use them to try to manipulate sales ...

I like the intended game play of 40k.But the awful implementation by GW plc mutated by sales greed leaves me very cold...(Ill continue to play Epic , the best battle game rule set for 40k !)

 techsoldaten wrote:
I have already bellyached on the subject enough. I am waiting to see what 8th edition will have to offer.

The one thing I will add is: more than any other factor, what turned me off was the release of 7th so shortly after 6th. I spent a lot on all the collector's editions rulebooks and codexes and expected them to stay useful for a while.

I could deal with bad rules as long as they stay that way for a while.

Good thing you're a chaos player then... *zing*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
The statement that makes me most concerned so far in this thread was''..there has never been as much freedom in the game as now..''

Total anarchy is a sort of freedom. Of course, just like with unbound and the current "bound" state of multiple sources/detachements/factions/free models/free upgrades, that "freedom" isn't as idyllic of a state as originally advertised by those who seek to profit most from it.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
Most wound allocation occurs from the front, and during these times it is faster and makes more sense then allowing a player to decide, as he may take time to debate which casualty is less critical between two vital models.

This isn't really true. The "closest first" system is much slower than simply choosing your casualties if you actually play it RAW, since you have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which model is closest. It's only faster if you decide to change the rules and just approximate it, which is a concession that the original system doesn't work.

You say that this doesn't add a real layer of tactics, but in reality it made gameplay massively more tactical due to positioning being a viable tactic. "Ensuring your important dudes are safely hidden within the larger squad" is a tactic, isn't it?

It's a tactic, but not a very interesting one. It's just tedious execution of the obvious, and you're punished if you don't spend the extra time to do it. Positioning models within a unit rarely adds any interesting choices, and when it does it's usually because of something stupid like deliberately using a vehicle to block LOS to most of a squad so that the melta gunner is the closest visible model.

And how is wound allocation "tedious" when 95% of the time you literally pull the closest models with not even the slightest hesitation?

Because 95% of the time you can't do that, you have to carefully measure and argue over which model is 0.1" closer.

Ultimately these complaints, while written and reasoned well enough, exist because you just find these rules annoying. You can break down virtually every dig at the game in this way, and ultimately, it is formulaic and not really relevant.

I don't really see your point. The rules are badly written in ways that other games aren't. You can drag the criticism out into an extended argument, but the defense of GW's rules is rarely more than "I like it this way" and stubborn refusal to acknowledge the game's flaws. Any attempt to defend GW's rules as good game design is almost inevitably going to fail.

The gun swapping thing always seemed silly to me, too. From an aesthetic standpoint, it'd be just as silly to say the melta gun guy's weapon always survives whatever killed him in a game like this (D weapons, orbital bombardments, artillery shells, grav weapons, plasma, getting run over by a tank...what, is he tossing it to the next guy before he dies?). Some of the weapons in this game are literally attached to the model's body, man...what, does the next guy take off all his power armor and jump into the grav gunner's?

Sigh. It's called abstraction. Most of the time another member of the squad would be able to pick up a weapon, and it's much simpler to assume that this happens all of the time instead of screwing around with complex wound allocation systems that add tons of complexity without really adding any depth. And it's certainly more plausible that the gun usually survives than trained soldiers being completely unable to shoot a specific member of a squad because someone else is 0.1" closer. No wound allocation system in a game like 40k is ever going to be a perfect simulation of reality, so the goal is to balance simulation and ease of use. And the current system fails horribly at both of those things.

It just seems like a lot of people do it just for the sake of seeming smarter than GW.

Which isn't very difficult. GW's incompetence and stupidity is almost unbelievable, and even random newbies could probably do a better job of game design and balance.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fenris Frost wrote:
Most wound allocation occurs from the front, and during these times it is faster and makes more sense then allowing a player to decide, as he may take time to debate which casualty is less critical between two vital models.

This isn't really true. The "closest first" system is much slower than simply choosing your casualties if you actually play it RAW, since you have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which model is closest. It's only faster if you decide to change the rules and just approximate it, which is a concession that the original system doesn't work.

I've found that alot of the slowdown regarding that one rule is from an experienced and knowledgeable player trying to account for that "closest" factor when moving his or her own troops rather than during the subsequent enemy shooting phase. Trying to get the angles right and making sure you don't put your valuable short ranged meltas TOO close to the front line yet getting them close ENOUGH to be useful is time consuming compared to just moving the squad of 5-50 models forward (I play both marines and IG), putting the specials in the front, and taking off casualties from the middle or rear. The end result is almost always the same for an experienced player (the melta survives or the squad is decimeated and it doesn't matter) but the road to get there is alot longer with 7th. YMMV.

I've played some Rogue Trader, got distracted, played some 6th, now playing 7th. I like building and painting models, and the game gives me that. I play in a friendly club. Some guys want to do competitions, some guys don't. We set up the games in advance and check that we're both looking for the same sort of thing. It works. So I have fun.

Game is worthless now. Sold my stuff and I haven't looked back. Two fingers way, way up to GW for the abomination they call 7th.

40k is awesome right now!

Love it. Formations, super heavies, maelstrom, rapid releases etc.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
40k is awesome right now!

Love it. Formations, super heavies, maelstrom, rapid releases etc.

It's the end of the world, every game! Apocalypse for everyone regardless of desire, point total, model collection, rules, or release schedule! There is no stopping the end of the world every game! *in lego voice* Everything is awesome! I can't wait for 8th edition where you can play a BFG battleship and just lay down 10" str D blasts barrages every turn.. of course balanced because of only BS3 (but if you field two Nova Class cruisers then you get BS4 twin linked for free in the Admiral of the Fleet web exclusive formation because balance!).

 Blacksails wrote:


Remember we still have the random wound allocation mechanic, which universally slows things down and also removes player decisions, both of which are bad for game play.

As for closest model dying being faster...I'm not buying it. In general, I'm sure most players will have some sort of general idea which models are going to die first and die last if they had the choice. Player's choice is almost universally faster as you don't have to check which one is closer or even have to think about discussing with your opponent in case they intended to charge said unit and the difference could cost them the charge. Player's choice just lets you remove whichever one you so chooce without having to check LoS, range, or worry about micro-management in the prior movement phase.

The slight tactical upside of having to plan your moves so that you keep a meatshield in front your valuable models is overshadowed by its tediousness and minor impact once you've played a handful of times. Instead, player's choice lets you make the same tactical choice at time of model removal without the details of ensuring ranges from various enemy threats are managed.

As for the weapon thing, you're right, the weapon could very well be destroyed. It could also not be destroyed. Bullets may very well kill the closest model, and they also may very well kill the furthest model. The fact is there must be some concessions for gameplay, and between the two options, it makes nearly equal sense (I'm more in the camp the weapon would often survive), but is much quicker and puts control in the player's hand at all times.

Whenever you look at a mechanic, consider its ease, time, tactical aspect, player control, and compare that to alternatives. The only real downside to player's choice removal is that you'll nearly always end up with your special weapons, sergeants, and other important wargear being last, which to some may seem not fluffy/narrative enough. For others, its perfectly fluffy. However, casualties from the front also doesn't make sense in that many people from secondary ranks or who happen to be half a body width behind would still die as easily and readily. It takes more work in measuring distances depending on the unit size of the target and the firer, and creates more time wastage in the prior movement phase micro managing model positions, especially in larger squads.

On a more minor note, as an ex foot power blob player from 5th, I remember how cool it looked to have all my sarges and commissars leading the charge from the front of the platoon. Now, I have to hide them with a wrap of 2 guardsmen thick to ensure casualties don't leak in to them. Casualty removal in 5th took far less time than it has in 6th and 7th with that single change, plus the time I now have to spend ensuring my bubble wrap is properly done.

Now, you're right in that not all of that is absolutely objective, but its pretty damn close, and I'd argue that saying the current system is more time consuming, offers very little tactical depth for the time given, isn't any better of an abstraction than the previous system, and removes player control (in the case of random wound allocation) are pretty objective statements. Whether or not you enjoy them or have preferences is a different topic altogether.

Regardless, discussions are better served by properly explained posts anyways, and my original sentiment should have simply been to explain to you that the people doing the criticizing worth listening to will make it abundantly clear by their reasonsed posts. You may disagree with them, and it may be technically negative in that its not praise for GW and 40k, but its a valid post worth considering and thinking about.

I don't write these posts because I enjoy hating on GW and 40k.

I write these posts because I fething care about this game. I want 40k to succeed.

I want to feel my money is well spent on this game, but I just can't when GW can't even bother to FAQ or write clear rules in the first place.

I agree whole-heartedly with this entire post, but most fervantly with the highlighted portion. I hate how unheroic units look now.

 warboss wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
40k is awesome right now!

Love it. Formations, super heavies, maelstrom, rapid releases etc.

It's the end of the world, every game! Apocalypse for everyone regardless of desire, point total, model collection, rules, or release schedule! There is no stopping the end of the world every game! *in lego voice* Everything is awesome! I can't wait for 8th edition where you can play a BFG battleship and just lay down 10" str D blasts barrages every turn.. of course balanced because of only BS3 (but if you field two Nova Class cruisers then you get BS4 twin linked for free in the Admiral of the Fleet web exclusive formation because balance!).

To do this you have to buy the new 1:35 scale BFG ship models as they release rules banning proxies. The game becomes balanced again when no one can afford to field an army!

I honestly like this edition, despite its less than perfect rules. Some things (invisibility, wound allocation) do not make a lot of sense and slow down the game while power creep is hitting my poor orks really hard, but I enjoy the game and have gotten in a lot of games over the past few months.

 warboss wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fenris Frost wrote:
Most wound allocation occurs from the front, and during these times it is faster and makes more sense then allowing a player to decide, as he may take time to debate which casualty is less critical between two vital models.

This isn't really true. The "closest first" system is much slower than simply choosing your casualties if you actually play it RAW, since you have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which model is closest. It's only faster if you decide to change the rules and just approximate it, which is a concession that the original system doesn't work.

I've found that alot of the slowdown regarding that one rule is from an experienced and knowledgeable player trying to account for that "closest" factor when moving his or her own troops rather than during the subsequent enemy shooting phase. Trying to get the angles right and making sure you don't put your valuable short ranged meltas TOO close to the front line yet getting them close ENOUGH to be useful is time consuming compared to just moving the squad of 5-50 models forward (I play both marines and IG), putting the specials in the front, and taking off casualties from the middle or rear. The end result is almost always the same for an experienced player (the melta survives or the squad is decimeated and it doesn't matter) but the road to get there is alot longer with 7th. YMMV.

This.

When you are a skilled player and you are doing everything in your power and within the rules to win, model placement especially with complex squads becomes a night mare of time consumption. Not to mention each model gaining individual saves and how difficult it is to make sure you are maximizing your position to its fullest.

Actually removing from the front isn't terribly time consuming, still more so that choose a model, but it is position knowing they are taken from the front which is the real problem.

This stuff about the casualty removal is just mind blowing to me.

I observe ~10 games a week, our club has a super strict time frame, and I am the only person consulted where there is any need for judging or rules questions...and nobody there does this at all. In fact if anything it is usually the oppositie problem; the casualty removal is so natural people forget to check at all, and only put on the breaks to check when they are removing the last couple of models as they go to grab the closest and stop for a sec because they aren't sure which of the ones they are about to grab is the closest.

If I do 10 wounds to a unit, and the first ~9 guys are all closer than the 10th, there is no reason to even check until the last model. Otherwise it would be a pointless exercise in seeing which of two models I pick up who are dead anyway.

Also, no one cares unless it is an important model. If you are checking every single model that is hyperbolic bs that no one who actually plays the game ever actually does. I do 15 wounds to that guard blob, as long as a unique is 16 models away, there is no need to measure a damn thing. And even when there is, it is a split-second sweep of the table.

Don't blame min-maxing donkey-caves taking a 45-minute movement phase to make sure the least amount of 4-point models can be hurt, as a rule being bad.

This is literally EXACTLY what I was talking about. To hear you guys tell it, the game is in this grievous borderline unplayable state from this one, extremely simple, super-easy-to-teach, easy-to-understand mechanic.

And what's the solution? No one ever has a solution, and when they do it's always niche, always to the abusable benefit of the guy making the complaint (like the fellow here lamenting that his guard blob can lose it's five commissars if they are at the front...the solution proposed is to allow self casualty selection which would render that blob completely irremovable due to Commissar buffs and he Commissars never being in danger. How do you explain that in fluff terms? The Guardsmen just keep stripping the Commissar and taking his uniform?). I can tell what armies people play by their complaints and suggestions about the game at this point. The static gunline armies say Maelstrom isn't fair, dudes with Invis say Stomp is OP, grav is OP to all the power armies, etc. etc.

It is a ceaseless parade of mechanical gripes that mean absolutely, absolutely nothing to someone like me. Why? Well, one of the replies earlier said that he wanted 40k to be a success, and that he makes such complaints because he cares. Well, I have brought countless new people to the game, revitalized a struggling local store in doing so, and do what I can to mitigate price and power level problems when they come up. I encourage my people to embrace the game and grow with the change, adjust their tactics, and understand that the occasional mismatch is nothing but a good learning experience to facilitate that growth. I've been doing it for seven years now, across three editions...

So knowing that...you will understand why I find it completely preposterous that spreading disdain for the game all over the internet is somehow supposed to help this, the literal biggest worldwide juggernaut of a wargame that has been in business and thriving for over a quarter century, "succeed." The very notion is a complete joke, especially when half the detractors have admitted to ragequitting the game.

Even the brief responses to my points have led to yet another page full of just straight up mockery of the game. That is what these kinds of discussions bring up. Drudgery, loathing, mockery. This is success? Thank goodness this game has such noble heroes to help it limp along in its unplayable, unintelligible state...

YMMV indeed.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
the casualty removal is so natural people forget to check at all, and only put on the breaks to check when they are removing the last couple of models as they go to grab the closest and stop for a sec because they aren't sure which of the ones they are about to grab is the closest.

IOW, you concede that the rule as published by GW sucks and to make the game playable you have to modify the system. If you're constantly forgetting to use the rules correctly then it's a pretty clear sign that something is wrong with those rules.

Also, no one cares unless it is an important model. If you are checking every single model that is hyperbolic bs that no one who actually plays the game ever actually does.

IOW, "the rules are so bad that nobody ever uses them".

Don't blame min-maxing donkey-caves taking a 45-minute movement phase to make sure the least amount of 4-point models can be hurt, as a rule being bad.

If playing a rule correctly and using the ideal strategy makes you a "min-maxing donkey-cave" then the rule is broken.

And what's the solution? No one ever has a solution

And this is just plain dishonest. We've given you solutions in this thread (mine being "just let people choose their casualties"), so don't complain that nobody has a solution.

I can tell what armies people play by their complaints and suggestions about the game at this point. The static gunline armies say Maelstrom isn't fair, dudes with Invis say Stomp is OP, grav is OP to all the power armies, etc. etc.

I guess it's a lot easier to dismiss legitimate concerns about the game when you can stereotype everyone as the worst kind of TFG? Maelstrom is bad design regardless of what kind of army you play, stomp is an awkward mess, grav spam is too effective and never should have existed, etc. And no, I don't fit your convenient stereotypes.

Even the brief responses to my points have led to yet another page full of just straight up mockery of the game. That is what these kinds of discussions bring up. Drudgery, loathing, mockery. This is success? Thank goodness this game has such noble heroes to help it limp along in its unplayable, unintelligible state...

If every discussion of "are the rules good" turns into mockery, loathing, etc, then it's probably a sign that the rules are broken. Do you actually have any constructive discussion to offer, or are you just going to keep saying "STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE!" in the grand tradition of GW defenders before you?

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This stuff about the casualty removal is just mind blowing to me.

I observe ~10 games a week, our club has a super strict time frame, and I am the only person consulted where there is any need for judging or rules questions...and nobody there does this at all. In fact if anything it is usually the oppositie problem; the casualty removal is so natural people forget to check at all, and only put on the breaks to check when they are removing the last couple of models as they go to grab the closest and stop for a sec because they aren't sure which of the ones they are about to grab is the closest.

While I appreciate the more detailed answer, you kind of solved your own conundrum without knowing it. Your club has "a super strict time frame" for games so you've effectively house ruled away the issue by simply not allowing folks to do so with as much forethought as possible. There are things that you do in a tourney or "super strict time frame" game that you wouldn't simply because you might have more important things at the end of a turn or game to finish. That's not any more fair or fluffy but rather just simple prioritization.

Sadly, I have played this game competitively (and Dark Eldar almost exclusively) for well over 16 years.

I am now selling off all my models. I have a few more tournament obligations to meet, then I am done and will not look back.

It is a combination of being unable to keep up with all the new rules, formations and combos as well as my favorite army being stabbed in the back, kicked into a ditch and laughed at while every codex since has been given the red carpet treatment.

Screw you GW. 1 guy leaving may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but this 1 mans money will be spent elsewhere, and not with your company.

I don't like the current edition, how it heavily relies on allies, and the shortcomings of my army of choice - the dark eldars.
I like unbound and the potential it has to make cool army lists without going through contortions or houserules.
Both are personal preferences.

Just because the gripes mean nothing to you doesn't make them less valid.

And seriously, there is no way that casualty from the front is as fast and simple as player's choice. There's also no real advantage to casualties from the front, so why bother with the extra hassle when there's a simpler method?

But if the gripes don't matter to you, there's no real sense in discussing this any further than you.

*Edit* Not worth it.

I like the current edition, love the new releases, enjoy the new direction of the game, and total detest the release schedule.

SJ

 Anglacon wrote:
Sadly, I have played this game competitively (and Dark Eldar almost exclusively) for well over 16 years.

I am now selling off all my models. I have a few more tournament obligations to meet, then I am done and will not look back.

It is a combination of being unable to keep up with all the new rules, formations and combos as well as my favorite army being stabbed in the back, kicked into a ditch and laughed at while every codex since has been given the red carpet treatment.

Screw you GW. 1 guy leaving may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but this 1 mans money will be spent elsewhere, and not with your company.

The new Dark Eldar book is great and I've placed priZe at several events since. The real space raiders detachment is VERY strong.

The whole point of casualties from the front is that positioning of models matters, something never previously true in the game at all. Without it, so much makes no sense. Your unit gets shot to pieces, why would the most important guys to you survive every time? It is to make the game fairer and to make your positioning matter.

It enables much of the best parts of the current game:
- Weapon power levels are able to grow because the model carrying them can be lost over the course of the game.
- It also indirectly allows more weapon options for the same reason.
- In turn, it gives extra value to the "scrub" models, who can actually have a use in the game besides being wound counters for their Sergeants.
- It allows you a defense against faster assaulting units when a few casualties can make or break a long charge.
- It gives you an incentive to use a bigger unit rather than several small ones.
- It allows you to actually remove scoring models from an objective, as opposed to having to kill the entire unit.
- Without it, Strength D becomes completely foolish, since it will only ever kill the worst guys in a unit.
- It introduces at least some degree of realism.
- It is SUPER easy to teach and explain. Why does this not matter to anyone?!
- It introduces an entire universe of tactics the game didn't have before (like flanking a blob to kill it's heavy weapons, or taking out a special weapon trooper before he can bring his unique powerful weapon to bear).

Even if it did take longer (which the majority of the time, it absolutely doesn't), is is easily worth the time due to how it affects all these (and more) aspects of the game, giving it much needed depth.

I would like to see actual recordings of people playing in a way that makes this take a long time, that is how unfathomable it is to me that it is complicated and arduous. I consider it LITERALLY the easiest rule I've had to learn in my entire decade playing this (and numerous other) games.

There are a number of advantages to the rule in this form -- the only way you can blanket say it has nothing but disadvantages is if you completely do not understand how these effects ripple through the game. People took my quotes out of context and say that people I game with forget the rule because it's crap...no, they forget the rule because in almost every situation it is intuitive and there is no need to even use a measuring tape. It is clear who is closer almost all the time, and even when it doesn't the models will often be identical when there is a close call between two.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
The whole point of casualties from the front is that positioning of models matters, something never previously true in the game at all. Without it, so much makes no sense. Your unit gets shot to pieces, why would the most important guys to you survive every time? It is to make the game fairer and to make your positioning matter.

Model position used to matter too. The assault phase was still dependent on getting as many models in to B2B as possible, especially your heavy hitters, and you'd have to position your short ranged weapons to maximize potential damage.

- Weapon power levels are able to grow because the model carrying them can be lost over the course of the game.

Sorry, that's a good thing? Weapon power levels shouldn't be growing, and having them get lost randomly because you didn't micro manage sufficiently is a pretty poor method of balance, if it can be called that.

- It allows you a defense against faster assaulting units when a few casualties can make or break a long charge.

You can do the same thing with player's choice removal. You know, by removing the front models if you want.

- It allows you to actually remove scoring models from an objective, as opposed to having to kill the entire unit.

Yeah, sorry, but that's not really tactical or an advantage. Once more, that would just bog down them game by having to measure the new unit's footprint to check if it's still within range of the objective. Plus, more often than not, it won't have any impact, which kind of reduces that to being almost meaningless.

Winning a game because you happened to kill the right amount of models to move a unit just outside of scoring range hardly strikes me as anything nearing tactics.

- Without it, Strength D becomes completely foolish, since it will only ever kill the worst guys in a unit.

That's a bad thing? Maybe, just maybe, D weapons shouldn't be in the game, and if they must remain, they should be oriented towards taking out high durability targets. Frankly, D-weapons are already ridiculous, so I don't think you'll find a whole lot of sympathy for them being 'weaker' if I could choose my own casualties.

Frankly, all that point does is illustrate how far off the deep end this game has gone.

- It introduces at least some degree of realism.

It introduces the exact same or less amount of realism. Once again, bullets do not discriminate by who's standing closer. Further, weapons don't magically vanish most of the time. Thirdly, nearly every military organization I can dream of, fictional or otherwise, has some sort of chain of command within even a squad should the sergeant die. Master Corporal Bob steps up to the plate after Sergeant Smith valiantly dies, representing the continued existence of a sergeant type model to boost morale.

- It is SUPER easy to teach and explain. Why does this not matter to anyone?!

You know what's even simpler?

Removing the modes you want!

- It introduces an entire universe of tactics the game didn't have before.

An entire universe? Tactics? Really?

Micro management of models in a squad based game is not tactical. Keeping a two guardsmen thick fence around my sergeants and melta guns is not tactical. Not even a little.

Even if it did take longer (which the majority of the time, it absolutely doesn't), is is easily worth the time due to how it affects all these (and more) aspects of the game, giving it much needed depth.

It doesn't affect anything than having one more tedious bit of micro management. There is no conceivable universe where this system is faster than plucking up the models you like, which means it must be slower for the majority of players in most situations over the course of the game.

The tactical elements people like to point out consist of simply looking at your unit and their unit and thinking "Gee, I should probably make sure that there's some expendable minion between my enemy and my special/heavy weapons." And then having to fiddle with it. That's it. There's nothing tactical about it. Nothing someone wouldn't figure out after a game or two, but otherwise punishes people who either forget or just don't care enough to have to move 30+ models in such a way to game the system, and eats up time better spent playing the game than having to worry about LoS and ranges from multiple units.

Its not tactical, its just gaming the rules.

I would like to see actual recordings of people playing in a way that makes this take a long time, that is how unfathomable it is to me that it is complicated and arduous. I consider it LITERALLY the easiest rule I've had to learn in my entire decade playing this (and numerous other) games.

I'm not saying its hard. I'm saying its unnecessary when the alternative is even simpler and faster.

The results of this poll are quite telling. It's times like these I'm reminded of why 40k is my favourite internet drama.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
"Ensuring your important dudes are safely hidden within the larger squad" is a tactic, isn't it?

Sure. Not a particularly viable one when you're using template weapons, though.

The gun swapping thing always seemed silly to me, too. From an aesthetic standpoint, it'd be just as silly to say the melta gun guy's weapon always survives whatever killed him in a game like this (D weapons, orbital bombardments, artillery shells, grav weapons, plasma, getting run over by a tank...what, is he tossing it to the next guy before he dies?).

Which is why the game used to have a rule to take that into consideration, allowing the shooter to choose one of the casualties in certain situations. (commonly referred to as 'Torrent of Fire')

And what's the solution? No one ever has a solution, and when they do it's always niche, always to the abusable benefit of the guy making the complaint

That's quite the generalisation.

People quite often have solutions. For me personally, the solution to the current casualty removal system is to return to the 5th edition system with some minor changes to allocation in units with mixed gear. Not because it benefits my armies (I have 9 of them, so no specific fix is going to benefit all of them equally) but because I found the 5th edition system more fun.


The thing is, the problems with the current game aren't just down to opinions on specific mechanics. We have other silliness like the psychic phase completely breaking down the moment you attach an IC psyker to another unit. Or space marine vehicles not being able to be taken in a detachment. Or Shrike not being able to infiltrate with a unit. Stuff that should have been caught during the design phase, that players catch within 3 minutes of the book being released... and that GW don't bother fixing, because reasons.

The attitude you see on the forums towards the game hasn't come from nowhere. This has been building up for years, but has accelerated considerably with the release of 7th edition. I find the result on the poll here quite telling... Given that this is the 40k board, the overall result on polls like this is still generally positive. The fact that the biggest response now is distinctly negative is a very strong message about how the community is seeing the current state of the game.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
The whole point of casualties from the front is that positioning of models matters, something never previously true in the game at all. Without it, so much makes no sense. Your unit gets shot to pieces, why would the most important guys to you survive every time? It is to make the game fairer and to make your positioning matter.

It enables much of the best parts of the current game:
- Weapon power levels are able to grow because the model carrying them can be lost over the course of the game.
- It also indirectly allows more weapon options for the same reason.
- In turn, it gives extra value to the "scrub" models, who can actually have a use in the game besides being wound counters for their Sergeants.
- It allows you a defense against faster assaulting units when a few casualties can make or break a long charge.
- It gives you an incentive to use a bigger unit rather than several small ones.
- It allows you to actually remove scoring models from an objective, as opposed to having to kill the entire unit.
- Without it, Strength D becomes completely foolish, since it will only ever kill the worst guys in a unit.
- It introduces at least some degree of realism.
- It is SUPER easy to teach and explain. Why does this not matter to anyone?!
- It introduces an entire universe of tactics the game didn't have before (like flanking a blob to kill it's heavy weapons, or taking out a special weapon trooper before he can bring his unique powerful weapon to bear).

Even if it did take longer (which the majority of the time, it absolutely doesn't), is is easily worth the time due to how it affects all these (and more) aspects of the game, giving it much needed depth.

I would like to see actual recordings of people playing in a way that makes this take a long time, that is how unfathomable it is to me that it is complicated and arduous. I consider it LITERALLY the easiest rule I've had to learn in my entire decade playing this (and numerous other) games.

There are a number of advantages to the rule in this form -- the only way you can blanket say it has nothing but disadvantages is if you completely do not understand how these effects ripple through the game. People took my quotes out of context and say that people I game with forget the rule because it's crap...no, they forget the rule because in almost every situation it is intuitive and there is no need to even use a measuring tape. It is clear who is closer almost all the time, and even when it doesn't the models will often be identical when there is a close call between two.

Micromanaging model position does slow the game down, significantly especially when trying to gain the greatest advantage from a situation ie competetivie games. Removing from the front is slower by default than choice as you always have the choice to remove from the front as well.

The tactics you are talking about are fairly limited and often exploitable in a much slower fashion, ie tanking with my Buffcommander and making sure all of my LoS from most directions will go to drones as well as maximizing models in cover from a particular direction while minimizing dangerous terrain tests. I can tell you this is very time consuming even for an experience player than makes that doesn't slow down for decision making. Sure, I've stolen objectives my carefully maeuvering to guarantee the models I needed to kill were the ones on the objective, then carefully choosing my shooting order and then explaining by the rules how I exploited the per model cover rules and closest first rules to steal the objective etc. Sure, there is some degree of tactics, but they aren't the kind we should have in a squad based game, skirmish based game, sure, but squad is another story.

It removes the cinematic hero leading from the front, without a ridiculous amount of LoS rolls. And that is extremely tedious, rolling look out sirs then rolling save for the closest model, rinse wash repeat for each wound, and deciding to take those wounds. This is very slow and time consuming.

About your random allocation, tell that to an Ork player who has to roll leadership, when failed has to roll on the Mob Rule Table.... then roll again if they have a Boss Pole.... then usually roll a d6 hits.... roll to wound... roll random allocation... wow isn't that difficult if you have odd number of models and is almost impossible to do truly randomly. Yeah, that is really great. Oh, then they get to roll their armor save. Or when a Flyer/FMC Vector Strikes and you have to randomly allocate. Or any of the huge number of things in the game that require random allocation RAW.

The current scale of 40k is all wrong, its large and played ata squad based level with a plethora of skirmish level rules mixed in. Those rules have a very big slowing effect for the game.


Things may work well in your little corner of 40k, where you admittedly glance over some of the rules and push that kind of relaxed approach. And that is fine, but when pushed to use RAW it is a nightmare ie in a competetive setting. Or for pick up games. You've also handwaved balance concerns because most don't seem to be trying to push the boundaries of the game, that is great, its an amazing feat, but it is not reflective of what most of us experience when looking for Pick UP games or looking to play tournaments. Because it is true in your little corner of 40k does not make it reflective of the game as a whole. Almost my entire local scene has been killed by 6th/7th edition... well it started with the first "6th" ed codices ie GK and Necron. Now, I had to schedule and drive 30-90min for game, Pick Up games are non existent locally, and tournaments were my main form of 40k, and now those have been destroyed by GW. That is what has happened in basically my entire state.

With regards to wound allocation: Closest models makes most sense to me and I don't see much of an issue with this. It's quick and easy to work out. (Excepting the times some people decide that their special weapon guy with a lascannon isn't closer than the useless guy with a bolter, when they obviously are.)

However the fact that another guy in the squad should be able to and would pick up this expensive special weapon makes sense.

Give all models Look Out Sir, the idea being that the weapon is not destroyed and another member of the team picks up the weapon? Just an idea that will never happen.

The closest model is no more "realistic" than any other wound allocation system (random would be the most realistic, but a total frakin pain).

Closest being realistic quickly breaks down when a 2+ save model stands in the front and plays goalie against every shot coming toward the unit. Jumping heroically in front of every single bullet that comes their way.

Given that neither system is particularly realistic, I enjoy the simplicity and cinematic fun factor of owning player removes models.

4E's wound allocation probably functioned best and gave units the most utility out of their upgrade parts. The only downside was that mixed saves didn't work terribly well

The current system deals with mixed saves better, but also allows for more abuse of those saves, and makes multi-wound models often painfully hard to clear.