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.

I think if your removing a casuality its for the precise reason that he can no longer wield and axe or shot a bolt, thus he is dead. However, I feel over the years (since i began with 2nd ed) the game has evolved in a remarkably realistic way. The characters hardly resemble anything on a toy shelf (the way they used to), paint schemes, even suggested by GW are more menacing, dark and brooding. I specifically got back into the game because of how GW has transformed the image of their models. The fluff/rules might be toned down, but I think the models themselves epitimize the bold gothic environment of the game.

Element206 wrote:I think if your removing a casuality its for the precise reason that he can no longer wield and axe or shot a bolt, thus he is dead.

But people stop wielding weapons for reasons other than death, most hits will take a guy out of the combat, but not that many are instantly lethal. Historically, they'd likely die at some point down the track, but with today's medical technology they'll likely live - a few thousand years of tech progress it's likely we won't just be able to keep more of the wounded alive, but be able to put them back into service.

I would say there are a few occasions when one can assume that the model is indeed thoroughly dead- Necron weapons, death spinners, lascannon blast to the face..... but not all wounds would be fatal. Falling off a jetbike, for example, might lead to unconciousness and broken legs, but there's nothing to say the rider might not recover after the battle.

I generally think wounds that come from things like lasguns end up putting holes into armor and knocking one over with a neat hole through them that, while painful, can be taken care of in the surgeons tent.

Most things I imagine aren't so nice. When things die to bolter fire I tend to imagine the bolt going through, shortly followed by a muffled thump and organs and blood leaking out of the various orifices. Chainswords is kinda similar, getting eviscerated going down in a mass pile of your own innards and that innards of your comrades.

Let's not go into how I think about the DE.

PG? o_O

I think it is pretty simple. GW needs money, the only truly open market is kids. BUT kids have no money, so parents have to buy everything. Thus, parents have to accept. Makes sense. But I still don't see how the old daemonettes are better then the current. Just because they lack nipples, I think the sculpts are of better quality.

On the subject of casualties...

I don't think pointing out that units "aren't necessarily dead" was done to save people's fragile ikkle fweelings about death. It also isn't a new idea. The notion that casualties survive to fight another day is as old as the games themselves.

I remember reading campaign rules for 40k back in the 90s where you rolled a dice for each casualty after the game, and it was only on a low score that a model didn't recover from his wounds in time for the next game.

Necromunda had a whole serious injury table which outlined exactly what happened to models after the game. Frequently they lost eyes and legs, or suffered terrible scars, but it was quite rare for them to be killed outright.

When I read now that models "aren't necessaries dead, but play no further part in the game" I don't see it as sugar coating the truth, I just see it as a matter of fact. Especially when you consider that a number of weapons and psychic/magic attacks clearly state that they send the target insane, or some other none lethal effect. The target is removed as a casualty, but clearly not dead.

Luco wrote:I generally think wounds that come from things like lasguns end up putting holes into armor and knocking one over with a neat hole through them that, while painful, can be taken care of in the surgeons tent.

Most things I imagine aren't so nice. When things die to bolter fire I tend to imagine the bolt going through, shortly followed by a muffled thump and organs and blood leaking out of the various orifices. Chainswords is kinda similar, getting eviscerated going down in a mass pile of your own innards and that innards of your comrades.

Except that bolt rounds probably score a lot of their kills through indirect kills - rounds detonating near the target. Otherwise you're looking at a sub-sonic weapon that needs to score direct hits to kill - and that's a bad weapon even if it inflicts ridiculous overkill. Similarly chainswords would probably gain a lot of their effectiveness from glancing blows across the arm or leg, where a regular sword might only wound, the chainsword would cripple an opponent, but possibly not kill him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mewiththeface wrote:I think it is pretty simple. GW needs money, the only truly open market is kids. BUT kids have no money, so parents have to buy everything. Thus, parents have to accept. Makes sense. But I still don't see how the old daemonettes are better then the current. Just because they lack nipples, I think the sculpts are of better quality.

Yeah, but as has been pointed out there really hasn't been any kiddification of the game. The narrative, it feeds itself.

I would love to see more of the Libre Chaotica type thing in 40K and fantasy. I think GW is toning down the violence over time, as more younger players are joining.

Freaky stuff is cool, especially nightmarish sort of stuff. Everyone's seen nipples, and they aren't really that bad, not like the other naughty bits.

Hello,
Just think of this, a swift kick in the jibblies will make you want to be dead (especially from a Ork warboss), so you are not capable of fighting while blood comes out of the jibblies, however will you live to fight another day sure, a little wiser maybe, and now you got upgraded to SGT .

Regards,
Carl

sebster wrote:

Luco wrote:I generally think wounds that come from things like lasguns end up putting holes into armor and knocking one over with a neat hole through them that, while painful, can be taken care of in the surgeons tent.

Most things I imagine aren't so nice. When things die to bolter fire I tend to imagine the bolt going through, shortly followed by a muffled thump and organs and blood leaking out of the various orifices. Chainswords is kinda similar, getting eviscerated going down in a mass pile of your own innards and that innards of your comrades.

Except that bolt rounds probably score a lot of their kills through indirect kills - rounds detonating near the target. Otherwise you're looking at a sub-sonic weapon that needs to score direct hits to kill - and that's a bad weapon even if it inflicts ridiculous overkill. Similarly chainswords would probably gain a lot of their effectiveness from glancing blows across the arm or leg, where a regular sword might only wound, the chainsword would cripple an opponent, but possibly not kill him.

No offenses or anything, but I like the one in my head better.

Luco wrote:No offenses or anything, but I like the one in my head better.

Fair enough. Good answer

From the (1993) 2nd Edition Rules, p.32:

"Casualties are not necessarily dead, they may be hurt or merely knocked unconscious or incapacitated in some way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

Hmm, a wargame company playing down death...

Next thing you know they'll stop selling undead models!?

They're not undead anymore, they're "Life Challenged".

Heh.

Except they are not necessarily dead
As already pointed out that has been in the rulebook a while.

cf He's not dead he's just sleeping.
p5 in the BRB

malfred wrote:At least it's not like Pokemon:

"When you fail your save, your Space Marine passes out!"

IMO the world of Pokémon could do with more visceral combat

Luco wrote:I generally think wounds that come from things like lasguns end up putting holes into armor and knocking one over with a neat hole through them that, while painful, can be taken care of in the surgeons tent.

Lasguns are slightly more vicious than that. Because of the energy levels involved it will actually cook the organs around the shot site and cause a lot of internal damage. Also the heat will cauterise the wound so to repair the damage you would have to reopen it to gain access. Lasguns cause a lot more damage than you would think but it is only because they are commonly compared to bolters that they seem weak. You get shot with a bolter and you explode from the inside Get shot in the arm or leg and its not just a minor wound like a bullet or laser, your limb disappears in a red cloud.

Trickstick wrote:Lasguns are slightly more vicious than that. Because of the energy levels involved it will actually cook the organs around the shot site and cause a lot of internal damage. Also the heat will cauterise the wound so to repair the damage you would have to reopen it to gain access. Lasguns cause a lot more damage than you would think but it is only because they are commonly compared to bolters that they seem weak. You get shot with a bolter and you explode from the inside Get shot in the arm or leg and its not just a minor wound like a bullet or laser, your limb disappears in a red cloud.

Lasguns seem weak because no modern combat rifle sees half it's hits shrugged off by the target, as you'd see in the game. Some people then make the conclusion that at some point in the future the human race chose to equip its troops with a rifle considerably less powerful than those used today... other folk decided that the whole 'to wound' thing is entirely arbitrary, and doesn't really represent the number of hits made, and the number of wounds suffered.

Trickstick wrote:

Luco wrote:I generally think wounds that come from things like lasguns end up putting holes into armor and knocking one over with a neat hole through them that, while painful, can be taken care of in the surgeons tent.

Lasguns are slightly more vicious than that. Because of the energy levels involved it will actually cook the organs around the shot site and cause a lot of internal damage. Also the heat will cauterise the wound so to repair the damage you would have to reopen it to gain access. Lasguns cause a lot more damage than you would think but it is only because they are commonly compared to bolters that they seem weak. You get shot with a bolter and you explode from the inside Get shot in the arm or leg and its not just a minor wound like a bullet or laser, your limb disappears in a red cloud.

Interesting... thanks for the input.

filbert wrote:To the OP: it makes a sense in a warfare perspective. It's one of the reasons the British army switched from 7.62 to 5.56 mm calibre rounds; because of the statistics on causing the maximum amount of damage to an opposing force.

British army went to a smaller caliber round for logistical and stanardization reasons, not for maximum damage.

One man killed = one man out of the fight.
One man shot in the arm = One man + 2 or 3 others to carry him off the field.

Reality doesn't work that way, One man killed is not ever going to come back. one man wounded is still a combat threat in the fight, if he gets away, he'll just get better and he's back in the fight later.

It is more effective to wound rather than to kill outright.

If this was true, expanding (hollowpoint) and explosive small arm ammunition would be legal for military use.

Rubberanvil wrote:

filbert wrote:To the OP: it makes a sense in a warfare perspective. It's one of the reasons the British army switched from 7.62 to 5.56 mm calibre rounds; because of the statistics on causing the maximum amount of damage to an opposing force.

British army went to a smaller caliber round for logistical and stanardization reasons, not for maximum damage.

Read the post please. One of the reasons. Another reason is that a soldier can carry more rounds of 5.56 than 7.62

Rubberanvil wrote:

filbert wrote:One man killed = one man out of the fight.
One man shot in the arm = One man + 2 or 3 others to carry him off the field.

Reality doesn't work that way, One man killed is not ever going to come back. one man wounded is still a combat threat in the fight, if he gets away, he'll just get better and he's back in the fight later.

Are you really trying to claim that a wounded man is 'still in the fight' and that he 'might get better and come back'? I think you have been watching too many Rambo films. You take a round in the arm or leg and you aren't getting up any time soon and nor are you going to be of any combat use. In an engagement, if a wounded man plus a couple of others to triage and take that casualty to safety is more men out of a fight than one dead man. Simple as that - its all about the numbers as far as military hierarchy are concerned.

Rubberanvil wrote:

filbert wrote:It is more effective to wound rather than to kill outright.

If this was true, expanding (hollowpoint) and explosive small arm ammunition would be legal for military use.

There are lots of things that wound and that aren't used in warfare - anti personnel mines springs to mind as an example. Just because they aren't used or are banned doesn't invalidate my point.

And just for the record, this is information that I was taught as a UK soldier - so this is fact as far as I am concerned. Unless of course you wish to claim that my instructors were lying or misinformed

Hollow point bullets aren't used because they are inhumane. They probably do a hell of a lot more damage and kill more often than regular bullets. Its like being stabbed with a javelin or being shot by a cannon ball.

like mentioned above, casualty =/= dead

about the boobs:

miniature gaming was never as popular as today and with all the new hightech things they have for producing the minis the hobby spreads.

people introduced to the hobby are getting younger and younger and parents probably wont buy their 10 year olds demons with boobs XD


@Rubberanvil+filbert

you both are right somehow.

one day on the battlefield something you do can be the right thing but on the next day its not.

and yes,ive been in the army as well

Semi off topic but Id like to point out that Pokemon in Japan is super visceral and bloody, trust me Ive seen it there. It was toned down in americal to make it available to be played on saturday morning catroons.

On topic a casualty can occur from shock as well as physical trauma. Just because someone didnt get hit by the giant explosive shell that landed 30 feet from them does not mean that the concussion didnt knock them out. Or even just because someone didnt get shot, but did watch their best friends head blown off his shoulders does not mean that he wont be in the corner rocking himself back and forth rendering him just as useless.

Zonder wrote:Or even just because someone didnt get shot, but did watch their best friends head blown off his shoulders does not mean that he wont be in the corner rocking himself back and forth rendering him just as useless.

And then the ever so helpful commissar rectifies the situation.

Stormrider wrote:I'v ealways told people at my FLGS that casualties aren't neccessarily "deaths" (which all the younglings seem to think)

Obviously a Guardsmen hit by a meltagun is a goner, but one hit by Slugga might have a flesh wound.

A slugga shell is a high caliber exploding round. If a guardsmen gets hit he is is dead.

Zonder wrote:Semi off topic but Id like to point out that Pokemon in Japan is super visceral and bloody, trust me Ive seen it there. It was toned down in americal to make it available to be played on saturday morning catroons.

On topic a casualty can occur from shock as well as physical trauma. Just because someone didnt get hit by the giant explosive shell that landed 30 feet from them does not mean that the concussion didnt knock them out. Or even just because someone didnt get shot, but did watch their best friends head blown off his shoulders does not mean that he wont be in the corner rocking himself back and forth rendering him just as useless.

So-so there is an alternative for why the hell your trainer passes out when his pokemon all pass out? Thank goodness, that made no sense to me. Please share if you know the answers.


And GW hasn't toned anything down. They simply put an extra bit in to make the game "more realistic" for all the whiners & complainers on the internet.

I have an idea on for the next daemonettes:

Give them the rows of breasts, but do not have nipples on any of them. I think this works or everyone, and hell, how can you complain if barbie's have no nipples AND are sold to a young audience?

A Black Ram wrote:I have an idea on for the next daemonettes:

Give them the rows of breasts, but do not have nipples on any of them. I think this works or everyone, and hell, how can you complain if barbie's have no nipples AND are sold to a young audience?

yes but barbie isn't commercially sold without clothes on. The fact that the daemonettes are purposely walking around without anything to cover up gives it too large of a sexual connotation.

malfred wrote:At least it's not like Pokemon:

"When you fail your save, your Space Marine passes out!"

Wait, they dont pass out? THEY DIE! OMG! POKEMON! HOW COULD YOU!