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.

Functionally, 7th Shooting was summed up as:
-One unit shoots at one unit. (Barring Superheavies, Split Fire, etc)
-You fire batches of weapons. "All Meltaguns", then "all Bolters."
-Casualties are "starting from the closest model, in range and in line of sight.

By contrast, 8th is:
-One unit can shoot multiple units, but must allocate models before rolls.
-All weapons shooting at one unit are resolved as a single batch. Unlike 5th, you do not have "Torrent of Fire".
-The defender picks all casualties, and casualties can be chosen from out of range or LOS, unless the rolls were not resolved as a "fast roll."

The main issues with the 7th are:
-Time taken arguing over which model is the "closest."
-Arguably too harsh versus assault armies.
-Led to shenanigans with LOS-sniping, versus small squads where one "Heavy" carries most the actual firepower.

By contrast, the issues with 8th are:
-Cover becomes less relevant. If so much as a single model is poking behind a wall, every model in the squad is at risk. In the Grim Darkness of 8th, there are only Virus Rounds.
-Shooting at a multiwound unit will slow the game down *fast*. Shoot an Obliterator with a Multimelta, do two wounds. Shoot a Boltgun individually, trying to see if you force an unsaved wound. Keep doing this, one model until a time until that Obliterator is dead, then use the Multimelta.
-Flanking arguably matters less. When the defender allocates all casualties, it becomes easy to ensure that you preserve the models you want in the right place (say, on top of an objective).

Proposed Compromise:
-A unit may split-fire by weapon type. For example: "All Multimeltas to that Obliterator unit, all Boltguns to that Cultist unit."
-Weapons are fired "by batch", at the appropriate units.
-The defender picks casualties, provided two (optionally three) conditions are met: The model is in range, the model is in line of sight, and optionally you cannot "cross a T" with bases.

The third one is probably the kookiest, but the idea is: If you can draw a line against the base edges of two models eligible to be removed as casualties, then models from that unit which are wholly behind that line cannot be removed as casualties by attacks originating from the other side, until at least one model forming that line is removed. The rationale being placing a straight edge against the bases of a unit should take less time than tape-measuring between two staggered units to determine which model is in fact the "closest casualty," while still allowing some flanking to determine casualties. LOS matters again, "mixed weapons vs multiwounds" is a nonissue, and this system is slightly more forgiving for protecting assault hordes/small squads versus losing distance/critical models.

Seems like the easier answer is to just include cover as you allocate wounds the way you do any other variance in armor saves.

Way we play is that units partitially in cover allocates wounds to visible models first. Any wounds left in the pool carries over to models in cover, with +1 to saves.

 LunarSol wrote:
Seems like the easier answer is to just include cover as you allocate wounds the way you do any other variance in armor saves.

This has been FAQed as being how you should play.

If you have a unit of 30 ork boyz and 20 are in cover, you should roll for the first 10 that are out of cover (If you want, obviously). Once all they die, the rest have cover.

What about models that are out of range?

@MajicJuggler.
I prefer you proposed rules.
The first two restrictions on casualty removal are sensible.
The only thing I would add is models in the open, are removed before models in cover.(Instead of your third restriction.)