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.

Well haven't really experienced most of the new rules and armies yet. Building an AdMech army. I liked the models and after reading rules/strategies decided I wanted to be the one that knocks.. for once.

Before I mostly played Chaos Marines Undevided/Wordbearers all fluffy and boy being slapped around by all the bandwagoner tryhards is fun... A lot of them around here. Got me to the point I only play them against my best friend who has CSM to.

It's mostly depending who you play with and against. Mostly why I skip tournaments to... toxic waste pools they are.

I see kburn doesn't like 6th edition, but i have to respectfully disagree and state my opinion that 6th is the best edition we have had so far - the BRB is incredibly well compiled.

Pet irritation: GW didn't even finish doing all the codex's during 6th! (watch them do the same again with 7th edition)

IMO the biggest problems of 7th ed are formations and the socially inept (of which there are many in this hobby...)
Formations give you great buffs just for owning models - as if there weren't enough situations where a model has great rules in order to sell well. At least in apocalypse you had to pay some points for it.
The socially inept of this game seem to think that because you can take it, you need to take it.
Even worse; they are legion. they will make playing a game a chore, they will guilt trip and tease you for not 'wanting' to take on thier synergised power-list and they WILL turn up with thier uber-list to a 'casual' game.

Why are people taking blood angel detachments of drop pods and librarians with that new mecanicus formation? I don't remember seeing that in the fluff - maybe allied to necrons it would be....


Sorry, it's just that (to me at least) 7th is a completely different game to 6th edition - 7th is to 6th what apocalypse was to 40k in my mind.

To be fair, 6th was where they introduced Formations, allies shennanigans, and the Escalation expansion that brought in Superheavies and the like. 7E just compiled it into a single book.

The December to remember was the final straw for me during 6th edition. I just did not the direction the games was going. Allies, SH, over watch, random warlord traits, and flyers. Where so poorly implemented in 6th it just drove me nuts. To make things worse I relied on pick up games which became a total nightmare after 5th edition. I hated 6th edition and when I read the 7th edition rules it seemed like GW double downed on the things I hated.

I like quite a few of them. Some have left me with a sour taste in my mouth (the latest play to win formation).

DarknessEternal wrote:

 grrrfranky wrote:
I'm just not really interested in a rules set where I have to negotiate pre-game so ensure that both my opponent and I get what we want out of it.

Isn't that how all games of all types occur? You have to agree with your opponent on what type of experience you both want to have? I'm pretty sure it's the foundation of "games".

40k simply has a variable enough paradigm that you can have different experiences within the same game instead of playing either chess or checkers.

I guess if you count picking a point total or picking red or black. Then sure we negotiate, but I don't know anybody that would count some thing that takes 2 words to do, negotiating.

Chute82 wrote:The December to remember was the final straw for me during 6th edition. I just did not the direction the games was going. Allies, SH, over watch, random warlord traits, and flyers. Where so poorly implemented in 6th it just drove me nuts. To make things worse I relied on pick up games which became a total nightmare after 5th edition. I hated 6th edition and when I read the 7th edition rules it seemed like GW double downed on the things I hated.

This, so this, instead of fixing the massive amount of bad in 6th with the quickly followed 7th. The just added the extra crap and called it a day, ohh wait the did change a few lines so everybody has to by the BRB again so they aren't using outdated rules (thats a 4+ now, get a new book now) instead of a 5 page pdf to show the few changes (notice they aren't fixes).

 SirDonlad wrote:
I see kburn doesn't like 6th edition, but i have to respectfully disagree and state my opinion that 6th is the best edition we have had so far - the BRB is incredibly well compiled.

I don't dislike the BRB per-se. I dislike the cruddex that was released during 6th. I throught the game was most balanced at 5th. 3rd, 4th and 5th seems to be the most natural progression, with 6th throwing it off, and 7th heading in almost a completely different direction.

I "try" to play World Eaters in a fluffy way...

...feth me Right?!...

My biggest issue with 40k is Flickerjump. It is the worst rule the way it's laid out as it only serves to infuriate and slow down games.

Supers in normal games? Fine with me. Free points for taking super restricted detachments? Totally fine. Things models don't need that only serve to slow down the game? I'll have none of that thanks.

 SirDonlad wrote:
Pet irritation: GW didn't even finish doing all the codex's during 6th! (watch them do the same again with 7th edition)

GW haven't released every codex during an edition since 3rd.

 Mulletdude wrote:
Free points for taking super restricted detachments?

They're hardly restrictive when you can take as many detachments as you want, and take your Tanks+ with your Infantry+ and Psykers+ in the same army, just in different detachments, sometimes you don't even need different detachments

My interest in the game pretty much started to fall off with the introduction of Newcrons at the tail ends of 5th. I have bought one model 4 years because I just do not see the value of their models to price ratio.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
I think the game is the best it's been in years, but lately I fear I am very alone in this feeling.

I recently saw a user on this forum who is a regular at the club I run, and I checked the post history. It's almost 100% complaining, discussing things that need to change, making excuses for tough matchups, that sort of thing.

That seems to be more the norm...sadly.

As an example of what I was talking about...since I posted this, the thread has doubled in size, all with people saying the game is irreparable gak. So I guess my feelings weren't far from reality, unfortunately.

There isn't anything wrong with liking something that most others don't as they're both simply a preference rather than an absolute fact. I think the first AVP movie is actually pretty good but that certainly isn't a majority opinion. The only time it is wrong is when folks try to demean the other opinions that differ or try to make their own more important or widespread when they know it isn't the case. Your club frenemy has just as valid an opinion as you do that simply differs and apparently matches the overall feel here on dakka so far in the poll. YMMV.

I was pretty happy with 40K, the codecies were looking good, updates were happening...
Then the most recent Necron codex came out. It was a punch to the gut, cause I thought that now after Eldar gets toned down we'll have to wait years for crons to get fixed, as the one blight on an otherwise decently balanced game
Admech was an awesome release, and then Eldar came out. The rumors were bad, and final product not much better. So much wrong with that release, I barely decided in favor of buying the new IK codex.
Then followed some disturbing formations for admech, and now a new space marine codex that further proliferates the abomination that is grav while adding over-the-top formations. 40K is on the path to destruction.

Until all armies get updated to this new power standard, older codices are going to get crushed regularly, and if they don't have that special something they'll still get crushed. But even if all the codices get updated to Eldar power levels, the game won't be worth playing anymore. There is way, way too much offensive power in the game now without corresponding defense, and if it goes on then the game will revolve around who can go first, steal the initiative, or null deploy with massive reserve firepower to table or significantly cripple the other side before they even fire a shot. Objectives, terrain, and movement won't matter, and we will joke about the old days when we had to roll a dice to see if we had a turn 6, because we used to have models on the table at that point.

To be honest, i've been mostly fine with the game until eldar arrived. However, it only affects the ammount of money i spend on the hobby. It's been reduced to 0. So, i just play with what i got cause there's no real purpose of engaging in an arms race that's so progressive when i can simply have fun with likeminded pals and wait till all calms down. Or in case it doesn't we'll simply homerule the game to be more acceptable.

I was somewhat interested in tourneys before but now i don't see much purpose in them with the raging power creep cycle still progressing.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Yes, this is a golden age.

It's like Rogue Trader without miles of obstructive, tedious, and obscure rules.

PS - don't try saying the rules are just as bad now. No, no they are not. You would be objectively wrong, so don't even start.

I would agree that in many ways 40k today has improved from previous editions. That said, its ruleset & lack of balance is probably some of the worst in all of tabletop gaming. Take the objective/mission cards for example. What you draw is entirely based on luck. What your roll for points is entirely based on luck. So while you may have executed everything in your power perfectly but had abysmal luck, your opponent played like sh*t & won the game due to good objective draws & rolls. Horrible game design.

Power creep. At any given time 1/3 or more of the codex's are not viable in a tournament setting. Even outside of the tournament setting in pickup games it has become an increasing trend for players to bring the most absurd broken lists possible just to feed their ego. What other tabletop games require you to negotiate for 15+ minutes beforehand on what you can/can not use in the game due to imbalance? None that I have played.

It's hard for me to judge as I haven't really been playing 40k for the past year or two due to being at University. From what I have seen, 40k doesn't look too bad, barring the OP codexes such as Eldar. I think that 40k currently looks a lot more interesting than it did in 5th ed, with new units coming out every week or so, instead of every couple of months and tonnes of supplements to really increase the scope when it comes to army building.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm playing X Wing at my next club night, the extent of our negotiation? "Game of X Wing next week?" "Ok."

The most negotiation I've ever encountered outside of 40K is a little clarification as to whether it was a balls out competitive game (eg when one or other player was prepping for a tourney) or something a little more chilled.

Exactly. I'm sure there are other games that share 40k's need to negotiate every detail of how you're going to fix the broken rules before you start playing, but good games don't have that problem.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
As an example of what I was talking about...since I posted this, the thread has doubled in size, all with people saying the game is irreparable gak. So I guess my feelings weren't far from reality, unfortunately.

Very few people in this thread have claimed that the game is irreparable gak.

Frankly, the fact that so many of the game's problems could be so easily fixed is one of my bigger frustrations with GW right now .

When 7th ed released. I bought the rules, psychic powers and maelstrom cards. About 6ix weeks later I dump everything except 1 army (CSM who suck), my terrain and gaming map. So glad I did, GW = $$$ grab. I used to love this game, but greed of the manufacturer, WAACAH players that can afford to buy the latest auto kill and have time to keep up on all the rules just made me hate playing.

So I wait for 8th Ed and play a new game I picked up = DzC.

 warboss wrote:
There isn't anything wrong with liking something that most others don't as they're both simply a preference rather than an absolute fact. I think the first AVP movie is actually pretty good but that certainly isn't a majority opinion. The only time it is wrong is when folks try to demean the other opinions that differ or try to make their own more important or widespread when they know it isn't the case. Your club frenemy has just as valid an opinion as you do that simply differs and apparently matches the overall feel here on dakka so far in the poll. YMMV.

This is what dudes who hate the game do, though. There are people all over every website for this game who casually say they don't even play anymore because it's "gotten so bad"...take a look at the thread list of any 40k forum and it's stuff like "Has [new thing] ruined the game?"

It seems like literally every interaction I have with the greater community leads only to overwhelming hate. Even seemingly innocuous discussions still have disses sprinkled throughout. And though I built a community against this, it sometimes seeps in.

Sometimes I feel like I am playing the wrong game, and that there is an entirely different game everybody loves instead -- where they armchair general-ize everything, talk about the most extreme cases as a way to prove their own imagined scenarios. Pushing around models and rolling dice seems to be an exercise engaged in once or twice a month to check their math and give them new material to crap on the game balance/company practices.

We had a guy not too long ago on my forum literally step through a whole game with another player, using math and "his own experience" to explain how the game would go. It had no basis in reality whatsoever. The whole thing was written in a cavalier attempt to just demonstrate one guy's superior knowledge of the game and the math involved. In this external game of talking about 40k like you know everything that happens on every table, the way to get the most points is to gak all over the game, and you get bonus VP if you parrot the latest [thing is OP] sentiments (right now, the Decurion...I hear about it EVERY DAY in relation to our club...we don't even have any Necron regulars...but to hear some tell it, their are Wraith Wings everywhere, and by God, you might as well not even play when you find one).

I built a bulwark against hate and lately I have just been overwhelmed by how much of it has found it's way in. I've opted for more severe efforts to preserve the integrity of our club but I am sure I will only be grilled when that lands this month. I will do whatever I have to. It's just disheartening. Doesn't anybody just play the damn game anymore?

Love the game of 40k, its fluff and models etc. GW as a company, I've got mixed opinions about them. On one hand they produce all the good stuff that I love, but on the other they annoy me by making it increasingly difficult for the consumer with their limited editions, raising prices, web exclusive (GW website only) products and moving more of their stuff away from independents, ridiculous legal bullsh*t towards the fans and community, crap and overpriced White Dwarf and a few other things that I can't be bothered to list, but you get the picture.

I will remain a 40k fan, but would prefer GW to stop this ongoing spiral of closing doors and not involving the community.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

 warboss wrote:
There isn't anything wrong with liking something that most others don't as they're both simply a preference rather than an absolute fact. I think the first AVP movie is actually pretty good but that certainly isn't a majority opinion. The only time it is wrong is when folks try to demean the other opinions that differ or try to make their own more important or widespread when they know it isn't the case. Your club frenemy has just as valid an opinion as you do that simply differs and apparently matches the overall feel here on dakka so far in the poll. YMMV.

This is what dudes who hate the game do, though.

There are people all over every website for this game who casually say they don't even play anymore because it's "gotten so bad"...take a look at the thread list of any 40k forum and it's stuff like "Has [new thing] ruined the game?"

It seems like literally every interaction I have with the greater community leads only to overwhelming hate. And though I built a community against this, it sometimes seeps in.

I would disagree with this. I think there is a big difference between those who frame their opinions around evidence they take from the state of the game and those who directly attack the person who they are arguing with. More often than not, I feel that posters who dislike the current state of 40k tend to put forth a number of reasons for why they are dissatisfied with the game. By contrast, I see a lot of posters who defend 40k personally attacking the persons they are arguing with, rather than engaging in the argument itself.

Of course, it's not all one-way or the other, but I've seen a lot of posting go this way.

That is true, but it is also somewhat the problem. I don't think defenders of the game don't realize the same things detractors do (like that it's too expensive), I think it is more that they don't mind or have mitigated these factors.

For example one of the reasons my club having hateposts and such bothers me is because I have removed a lot of the issues. We don't have tournaments 100% at all anymore, and have rarely had them before, but people still approach and advise all of our impressionable new folk as though they will fight nothing but Perfect Decurions and Wraithknight/Scatterbike spam in the top brackets of the biggest clashes in the world. Not that I want my people to be forever trapped in a bubble...but at the same time, building a list for Adepticon/LVO/BAO/ETC is not quite the same as just building an every day army. And we heavily favor new players, which makes it even worse, as they are highly impressionable.

I would also speak against the point that those who dislike the current game are objective. They may have reasons, but most often they are based on subjective opinions -- for example, saying the Decurion is very strong/popular/etc is one thing...saying you hate it and that everyone who uses it is a jerk is entirely another. And in either case, it's rarely relevant on my forum...like I said, we have almost no Necron presence. But it is okay to make a big deal about it because of "the meta"...the meta means nothing in a local shop where half the people are new players or the army at the top is barely present. That doesn't stop people from making a big production out of it (and speaking on behalf of ALL 40kdom while doing so...which is probably more the issue at my club).

 Fenris Frost wrote:

I would also speak against the point that those who dislike the current game are objective. They may have reasons, but most often they are based on subjective opinions -- for example, saying the Decurion is very strong/popular/etc is one thing...saying you hate it and that everyone who uses it is a jerk is entirely another. And in either case, it's rarely relevant on my forum...like I said, we have almost no Necron presence. But it is okay to make a big deal about it because of "the meta"...the meta means nothing in a local shop where half the people are new players or the army at the top is barely present. That doesn't stop people from making a big production out of it (and speaking on behalf of ALL 40kdom while doing so...which is probably more the issue at my club).

Well that's not a good representation or example of common criticisms of the game.

A common and objective generic complaint is the lack of balance, both externally and internally. The obvious examples are also pretty objective to state they're not balanced, but the subjectivity comes in for the solution (point change, wargear change, stat line change, force org change, so on).

Another one thrown around in more specific is wound allocation. It'd be objective to state that the current wound allocation is needlessly complex, time consuming, tedious, and isn't a particularly good abstraction. Between removal from the front and all the random allocation, you end up spending way more time than needed than if you could just decide which models ate it. It also means that once Joe the Melta gunner eats it, no one can ever pick it up ever again because he yelled dibs before the battle. Further, it doesn't even add a real layer of tactics, just micro management of measuring various distances and ensuring your important dudes are safely hidden within the larger squad.

Those would examples of objective criticisms of the game. Anybody's opinion worth listening to doesn't state things like all decurion users are jerks as an objective statement.

 warboss wrote:
I know this poll won't necessarily generalize to the overall gaming populace but I was curious to see at least on dakka what the overall opinion is of 40k as a whole at the moment and if it has actually affected how/what you play.

Don't need a poll for that on DakkaDakka. Then again, there's usually more practical reasons than just kneejerk quitting, but often people just won't admit it and prefer venting.

Well that's not a good representation or example of common criticisms of the game.

A common and objective generic complaint is the lack of balance, both externally and internally. The obvious examples are also pretty objective to state they're not balanced, but the subjectivity comes in for the solution (point change, wargear change, stat line change, force org change, so on).

Another one thrown around in more specific is wound allocation. It'd be objective to state that the current wound allocation is needlessly complex, time consuming, tedious, and isn't a particularly good abstraction. Between removal from the front and all the random allocation, you end up spending way more time than needed than if you could just decide which models ate it. It also means that once Joe the Melta gunner eats it, no one can ever pick it up ever again because he yelled dibs before the battle. Further, it doesn't even add a real layer of tactics, just micro management of measuring various distances and ensuring your important dudes are safely hidden within the larger squad.

Those would examples of objective criticisms of the game. Anybody's opinion worth listening to doesn't state things like all decurion users are jerks as an objective statement.

See, I would argue these are not objective descriptions of the game.

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 change also adds value to gameplay by making where you move and how you compose your unit matter a great deal -- both in terms of defense and offense.

Random allocation slows things down but it is also considerably rarer. And your mention of being able to pick up the melta gun isn't objective either; it is your opinion that the weapon should last forever, but from a gameplay perspective it raises the value of units which can carry multiple weapons, or which can have higher numbers of models.

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

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.

"[Thing that annoys me personally but doesn't actually hurt the game] is bad" doesn't change, to me...even if people are polite enough to bolt on an "it'd be better if it was [Way I want it to be so it wouldn't annoy me anymore]" at the end.

It is true my representation of the complaints was hyperbolic, but here with your actual remarks, it doesn't seem any different to me once distilled...it is still something you personally dislike, that has not had an objectively measurable adverse effect on the game at large (i.e., there is no data to indicate that games take significantly longer because of random allocation, or that the current wound allocation is complex...in fact when I teach someone, I literally say the sentence "the closest guys take the hits first" and it is sufficient almost completely for a new person). And even if there was data, it would be anecdotal, since we aren't involved in every 40k game ever played.

I agree that random allocation is time-consuming and not a good abstraction, but to me it would be compared to the ease of the usual "closest die first" method, not because it personally bothers me. Also, from a game design standpoint...it is because something bad happened to you and your opportunity to lessen or avoid it failed. You shouldn't have control over how bad it is at this point, but neither should the other guy.

For some time, this was one of the chief complaints about 40k -- that bad things on a battlefield were actually good for you in mechanical practice. Now, it is not so, and it's still complaint worthy?

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?

I dunno. I guess ultimately it is not whether a complaint is even valid or not, for me. It just seems like a lot of people do it just for the sake of seeming smarter than GW. This, to me, is the real difference between blanket statements and remarks like yours -- they make more sense in terms of your experiences with the game, instead of being a vicarious out-of-context surmisal based on third-hand accounts from others.

Wow, such long answers. For a change, I'll be short-winded!

Me: "Yes. I have fun with 7e!"

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Spoiler:

See, I would argue these are not objective descriptions of the game.

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 change also adds value to gameplay by making where you move and how you compose your unit matter a great deal -- both in terms of defense and offense.

Random allocation slows things down but it is also considerably rarer. And your mention of being able to pick up the melta gun isn't objective either; it is your opinion that the weapon should last forever, but from a gameplay perspective it raises the value of units which can carry multiple weapons, or which can have higher numbers of models.

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

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.

"[Thing that annoys me personally but doesn't actually hurt the game] is bad" doesn't change, to me...even if people are polite enough to bolt on an "it'd be better if it was [Way I want it to be so it wouldn't annoy me anymore]" at the end.

It is true my representation of the complaints was hyperbolic, but here with your actual remarks, it doesn't seem any different to me once distilled...it is still something you personally dislike, that has not had an objectively measurable adverse effect on the game at large (i.e., there is no data to indicate that games take significantly longer because of random allocation, or that the current wound allocation is complex...in fact when I teach someone, I literally say the sentence "the closest guys take the hits first" and it is sufficient almost completely for a new person). And even if there was data, it would be anecdotal, since we aren't involved in every 40k game ever played.

I agree that random allocation is time-consuming and not a good abstraction, but to me it would be compared to the ease of the usual "closest die first" method, not because it personally bothers me. Also, from a game design standpoint...it is because something bad happened to you and your opportunity to lessen or avoid it failed. You shouldn't have control over how bad it is at this point, but neither should the other guy.

For some time, this was one of the chief complaints about 40k -- that bad things on a battlefield were actually good for you in mechanical practice. Now, it is not so, and it's still complaint worthy?

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?

I dunno. I guess ultimately it is not whether a complaint is even valid or not, for me. It just seems like a lot of people do it just for the sake of seeming smarter than GW. This, to me, is the real difference between blanket statements and remarks like yours -- they make more sense in terms of your experiences with the game, instead of being a vicarious out-of-context surmisal based on third-hand accounts from others.

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.