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.

Lanrak wrote:
@Jewelfox.
What previous editions of 40k are you comparing the current game to.(3rd to 6th?).

I can understand some people seeing a 'progression' of sorts if they selectively view previous editions from a particular stand point.

However, compared to other games 40k has always had over complicated rules .
And as the editions have progressed the level of complication has increased , I believe to try to make up for the ever decreasing level of tactical game complexity.

There is a definite progression. 3rd reset the whole game and 4th and 5th were refinements on that same core gameplay idea that while never perfect were logical. 6th, while it didn't reset/invalidate everything before it, was a much bigger change than the previous two with game design based on sales instead of the actual game. It became even more random and started the DLC microtransaction trend (which has admittedly simmered down in 7th) and paved the way for the almost complete abandonment of the army organization and balance in the premature 7th that the three previous editions stressed. 7th just completely jumped the shark and was a pure early cash in to make short term sales (much like the early codex rehashes) at the expense of long term ones. All the crap about opening up the game for fans to use all their minis is just spin; the real reason is so that you can theoretically buy all the minis but it doesn't seem to have worked out that way. Fans seem to be reacting predictably to the complete abandonment of any semblance of reason and balance in the game. It certainly was never perfect (3.5 chaos codex, 5th GK, etc) but at least there was an effort put forth overall to keeping it sane that is gone now. It's no longer a unit or two in a codex or a rogue writer that made his pet army too powerful but everything that is screwed up. With how "open" the game is, everyone can spam a particularly broken unit now. It used to be you had to worry about uber broken chaos daemon princes in 3.5 only in chaos marine armies; now you have to worry about eldar D-spam allies in every army potentially because greed.

I can't say I'm surprised hard No's have over doubled hard Yes's. Others definitely feel the same way I do. GW ruined my favorite game.

@warboss.
I sort of agree with you assessment of 3rd to 7th ed 40k.

3rd ed was originally developed as a cleaned up large skirmish game, eg a progression of 2nd ed.
But was changed to a larger battle game format at the 11th hour by corporate management.

The devs really tried to get a reasonably balanced battle game with the 3rd ed reset.But ended up with 'Blandhammer.'
So they added more diversity with 3.5 .

After the 40k overfiend Andy Chambers realized some core flaws with using stripped down WHFB rules with a sci fi battle game.He pitched a completely new rule set for the new game size.But this was rejected by the corporate management , as they just lost lots of customers with the way they had changed the game size against the wishes of the dev team. (We ignored you and lost customers ,so we are not in a position to risk loosing any more customers by listening to you now. )

4th and 5th ed the devs really tried to make' WHFB in space with lots of special rules we can not explain that well, or really understand how they impact the game,'
work.(Limited play testing and resources hindered the process though,)

But then realized they had a system that was broken at the core rules level.(Like several game developers had said previously, before they left GW.)
They then leaked the '6th ed play test rules' .
I think this was a serious attempt to try to look for fixes in the core rules.But again the corporate management simply made them push more sales of more new kits and not address real game play issues.

The only restrictions they manage to get in 6th ed to try to curb excesses and maintain any sense of background,, were finally removed in 7th ed .
'Buy what every you like and you can play a game of 40k with it because we have officially given up on game play considerations 'edition.

Ignoring the background to push sales short term , is the act of a desperate company IMO.

Compared to other rule sets, (by ex GW game developers,) 40k rules and game play are a diffuse over complicated mess.
IMO, its the interference of GW corporate managers that has messed up 40k game play.

No.

I didnt play 7th as it's not a very tactical ruleset tbh but I looked at it with sympathy, go bonkers edition. Not anymore though, paid formations and cartoonish deviantartey freelance artwork killed it for me.

5th was best edition so far imo and Allesio should have been allowed to write 6th. I hated how you could shoot 19 termagants hidden in the basement because you saw half the arse of the 20th one because ricochets but look out sir is equaly ridiculous. I hate more things now anyway, randumb forge the narrative etc.

No, the game is a mess and is not worth the premium price it asks. The rules alone are overpriced drivel that is rushed out at too fast a pace with little to no regard for game balance. Random is seen as a good mechanic for a strategic/tactical game, which it is not. The models are insanely priced for the quantity required to play a standard sized game for minimal quality in comparison to leading model shop competitors.

Better minis, I'd play Malifaux or Infinity. For better rules, I play Warmachine. Warhammer 40k is a trainwreck and I am tired of having to play "the way we play it" everywhere I traveled. So I sold 90% of it off before 7E hit.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:


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.

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

Voted no opinion. I don't actually play, just collect and paint the models. The models are awesome and keep getting better, no complaints here.

I cannot wait to see what 40K looks like when Hasbro takes over.

 dracpanzer wrote:


Would a better system be to take casualties from the front and replace the look out sir rule with a "pick up his kit" rule where a special, heavy, power sword etc, could be picked up on a 3+ by survivors in the gory aftermath?

That's actually a pretty cool idea. If you fail the roll, doesn't mean you didn't pick up the weapon, just means it was destroyed and couldn't be used anymore.

I've always taken my casualties from the front anyway, when I played (back then they had the "pile in" rule for CC which auto moved models into base contact if another model died. Not sure if they still have that rule)

 TheKbob wrote:
No, the game is a mess and is not worth the premium price it asks. The rules alone are overpriced drivel that is rushed out at too fast a pace with little to no regard for game balance. Random is seen as a good mechanic for a strategic/tactical game, which it is not. The models are insanely priced for the quantity required to play a standard sized game for minimal quality in comparison to leading model shop competitors.

I agree wholeheartedly. Collected around 9 full armies, painted, played etc over a period of 6 years. I had hoped that the rapid pace of new codexes coming out were going to fix glaring problems with the game: they didn't. Worse, it appears that they didn't even try. I'll wait another year or two, then check back. If it's still in a sorry state then I'll sell everything off.

You do realize that leading from the front with the 6/7ed targeting rules is actually far more heroic? Hiding your hero in the back to avoid taking the hit, or running them in front when you know they can't be hit (with the old method) isn't playing the hero.

Talk the talk, walk the walk and all that.

Yes of course. There is nothing more heroic and cinematic then setting your Ork Nob in the front of a mob, then pulling him right back off the table as he jumps in front of every single shot pointed toward the unit.

Im going to say it. It has the worst rules of any popular miniature game out there and the highest price to play.

kaotkbliss wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Would a better system be to take casualties from the front and replace the look out sir rule with a "pick up his kit" rule where a special, heavy, power sword etc, could be picked up on a 3+ by survivors in the gory aftermath?

That's actually a pretty cool idea. If you fail the roll, doesn't mean you didn't pick up the weapon, just means it was destroyed and couldn't be used anymore.

No, it's a terrible idea because it adds even more pointless dice rolling. Why is it so important to have a chance of failure? Just let the owning player choose their casualties and significantly reduce the complexity of the wound allocation process.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, it's a terrible idea because it adds even more pointless dice rolling. Why is it so important to have a chance of failure? Just let the owning player choose their casualties and significantly reduce the complexity of the wound allocation process.

This.

Woohoo! 500 votes. I was only expecting about a hundred or so initially. That margin of error is creeping down!

 dracpanzer wrote:


You do realize that leading from the front with the 6/7ed targeting rules is actually far more heroic? Hiding your hero in the back to avoid taking the hit, or running them in front when you know they can't be hit (with the old method) isn't playing the hero.

Talk the talk, walk the walk and all that.

Would a better system be to take casualties from the front and replace the look out sir rule with a "pick up his kit" rule where a special, heavy, power sword etc, could be picked up on a 3+ by survivors in the gory aftermath?

It might go a long way towards quickening things up. Tanking IC's can be painfully slow sometimes.

You do realize my main gripe is with the visual appeal of having your ICs at the front without suffering from the 'tactical' idea of managing your models in the current system, right? My choices now are either to hide my characters for maximum in game effectiveness, or look cool while losing expensive and important characters to keep my blobs around.

And no, that idea would only slow things down even more and once more put the narrative out of the player's control and into the hands of the dice. In other words, randomness for the sake of being random.

Here's an idea, why not put control back into the player's hand with the simplest possible resolution method that both makes as much sense fluff wise as it does make sense crunch wise for smooth gameplay.

I've nearly completely stopped playing, I hate the direction the game is going. GW seems so obstinate when it comes to game balance and general rules writing. All it would take is the regular release of FAQ's to tweak game balance, and they just refuse to do it.... I just don't understand the logic. To really compound the insult they now take crappy units and force them down players throats with formations and detachments...

 Blacksails wrote:

You do realize my main gripe is with the visual appeal of having your ICs at the front without suffering from the 'tactical' idea of managing your models in the current system, right? My choices now are either to hide my characters for maximum in game effectiveness, or look cool while losing expensive and important characters to keep my blobs around.

I get it, I just don't have any sympathy for it. Its your choice to hide or be heroic, at least I don't have to suffer through watching all my shots only hit models in the rear rank of your unit while your super killy gits up front dodge every shot. Yes the thought that the casualties always coming from the closest models isn't as "realistic" as random targeting, I wouldn't want that either.

It does afford the shooting player to be able to have some control over what they are trying to assign target priority too with unit positioning. Are we just advocating for the player being shot at to have control of who dies first? Shouldn't the player who is targeting the unit have some control too? Or must we all be forced to whittle through 50 guardsmen to start getting a chance at the heroic commissar who knew he had 50 additional wounds if he was just smart enough to join up with first platoon?

And no, that idea would only slow things down even more and once more put the narrative out of the player's control and into the hands of the dice. In other words, randomness for the sake of being random.

I would like to see if removing look out sir entirely and resolving wounds closest model first, where surviving models in the unit could roll ONCE to see if one of them could pick up the squads meltagun, or sgt's power sword, would take less time to resolve than the current look out sir system.

Here's an idea, why not put control back into the player's hand with the simplest possible resolution method that both makes as much sense fluff wise as it does make sense crunch wise for smooth gameplay.

I'm all for it. But shouldn't it be putting the control back in both players hands? I like dice in a game, they keep it from turning into little kids knocking each others army men over as fast as they can then crying "nuh uh" when their favorite guy throwing a grenade gets his number called. Seems like your advocating for YOU to keep control of what models get hit.

You have the option to keep your "favorite" guys up front and think they are heroic or hide them in back like the cowards they truely are. I should have the option to deploy my troops so as to kill your little dandies first if I want or even last if I want to isolate them to pile on and ensure his fifteen friends are no help in the challenge my MoW card says I need to get busy with.

Throwing in one 3+ to succeed dice roll is a fair trade off IMO to see if your units remaining troops are smart enough to remember the meltagun kills stuff their bolter just won't. You still have control of who goes where in your unit. I still have control of which direction I want to shoot from first so as to get at my intended target with the most effective shots.

And there's still a chance your bolter marine will remember that plasma gun is better at killing terminators. A pretty good chance. Different doesn't always = Bad. I will talk to some friends about playtesting it a bit. We will see if 50+ wound commissars are better or worse than that 3+ pickup the special bits roll.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Are we just advocating for the player being shot at to have control of who dies first?

Personally, I'm advocating for a return to the 'owner chooses, coupled with Torrent of Fire' system used previously. So the owner generally chooses, but excessive firepower (and precision shots) would allow the shooter to choose the casualty.

Shouldn't the player who is targeting the unit have some control too?

He does. He gets to choose which unit he targets.


And that's the big issue - 5th edition saw 40K well on its way to becoming a unit-based game, which was needed to keep it playable at higher points levels. 6/7th edition has wound the clock back, by returning a whole bunch of fiddly individual-model mechanics that don't belong in a game of this size.

Or must we all be forced to whittle through 50 guardsmen to start getting a chance at the heroic commissar who knew he had 50 additional wounds if he was just smart enough to join up with first platoon?

Unless you overwhelm the unit with torrent of fire, or take him out with a sniper, yes.

I voted no. After the lousy and overpriced 6th ed nid dex, quickly followed by the money grabbing dataslates, and with 7th on the horizon I stopped playing 40k. The game is a mess with more random, less and less balance and just a 'throw whatever you want together attitude' [buy more expensive stuff] that turns me off.

The only hope is that GW sees the decline/dissatisfaction of their player base and turns things around with 8th ed (massive overhaul) or more likely continues in the same direction and if sales decline enough tank with the hope that a game company buys the IP and makes 40k into a decent game (maybe slim chance but that is all that is left at this stage).

I don't see the huge confusion over "models closest to shots" die first mentality. Why pick and choose models? It'd be a pretty faith based system on a game that has players trying to win.

If it wasn't overwhelming firepower, why would I choose my warboss to take the wounds over my boys?

If it was overwhelming firepower, why would my opponent not just throw them all on my warboss?

Why risk heroes or individual units at all?

Closest models taking hits first makes it more tactical than choosing anything. This means armies with drop pods or trying to move into position want to gain that angle where the juicy targets can take more hits than the bubble wrap around them.

Choosing casualties doesn't make sense. If this is some odd IRL logic that's being used, I can use my experience and say that IRL logic doesn't exist.

 dracpanzer wrote:


I get it, I just don't have any sympathy for it. Its your choice to hide or be heroic, at least I don't have to suffer through watching all my shots only hit models in the rear rank of your unit while your super killy gits up front dodge every shot. Yes the thought that the casualties always coming from the closest models isn't as "realistic" as random targeting, I wouldn't want that either.

And that's a gakky choice, mechanically, and fluff wise. Either I spend the extra time micro managing models so that my melta gunners and sergeants are safely bubble wrapped, or I throw the game for a turn of looking cool. Its not hard to realize that the overwhelming majority of players in the overwhelming majority of situations will pick the former over the latter.

Yeah so you have to watch random guys get killed off the back. Use your imagination. Its an abstraction; an approximation of what's actually happening. In a game that can potentially field upwards of 200 individual models, you want the game to run smoothly and efficiently, and let the players make up the reasons why 'X' is happening. When you think of the blob as less of a detailed representation of every person's exact position and more of a general footprint they're all running, ducking, weaving, and shooting in, it makes a lot more sense.

It does afford the shooting player to be able to have some control over what they are trying to assign target priority too with unit positioning. Are we just advocating for the player being shot at to have control of who dies first? Shouldn't the player who is targeting the unit have some control too? Or must we all be forced to whittle through 50 guardsmen to start getting a chance at the heroic commissar who knew he had 50 additional wounds if he was just smart enough to join up with first platoon?

The shooting player should. As Insaniak mentioned, there's a compromise through a mechanic like torrent of fire. Likewise, we have precision shots USR. Sounds like plenty of control to me without burdening the game or removing too much control from the owning player.

I would like to see if removing look out sir entirely and resolving wounds closest model first, where surviving models in the unit could roll ONCE to see if one of them could pick up the squads meltagun, or sgt's power sword, would take less time to resolve than the current look out sir system.

I too would like to see LOS gone. I am absolutely against more dice rolling when you can just have a simpler method and justify the story in your head. People always talk about forging a narrative, but then demand for the rules to have a chart, rule, or roll to make for every detailed action. Just make up the story in your head that the metla gunner was actually shot and his best friend picked up to enact revenge on the chaos land raider that vaporized him. Or how the sergeant died in single combat with a Tyranid warrior, only for Master Corporal Bob to pick up the power axe and finish off the warrior while rallying his platoon onto the objective.

I'm all for it. But shouldn't it be putting the control back in both players hands? I like dice in a game, they keep it from turning into little kids knocking each others army men over as fast as they can then crying "nuh uh" when their favorite guy throwing a grenade gets his number called. Seems like your advocating for YOU to keep control of what models get hit.

There's a difference between using the dice as an impartial judge to resolve opposed checks and using the dice to justify every detail of the battle. Abstraction is key here. Let the player remove their own casualties and then add a small handful of exceptions and workarounds for the opponent.

You have the option to keep your "favorite" guys up front and think they are heroic or hide them in back like the cowards they truely are. I should have the option to deploy my troops so as to kill your little dandies first if I want or even last if I want to isolate them to pile on and ensure his fifteen friends are no help in the challenge my MoW card says I need to get busy with.

As I said earlier, its a gakky option.

Throwing in one 3+ to succeed dice roll is a fair trade off IMO to see if your units remaining troops are smart enough to remember the meltagun kills stuff their bolter just won't. You still have control of who goes where in your unit. I still have control of which direction I want to shoot from first so as to get at my intended target with the most effective shots.

And that's still the same problem the current system has, only with more dice rolling and the same amount of micro management. In that system, anyone worth their salt is still going to bubble wrap their important guys so you don't even get to make that dice roll. Its still model micro management and not anymore fluffy than just making up the story yourself.

And there's still a chance your bolter marine will remember that plasma gun is better at killing terminators. A pretty good chance. Different doesn't always = Bad. I will talk to some friends about playtesting it a bit. We will see if 50+ wound commissars are better or worse than that 3+ pickup the special bits roll.

This game needs less dice rolling, not more. Forge your own narrative the way you want by letting players remove the models they want. Its faster, simpler, easier to learn, and as fluffy/narrative oriented as any alternative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OrkaMorka wrote:


Choosing casualties doesn't make sense. If this is some odd IRL logic that's being used, I can use my experience and say that IRL logic doesn't exist.

It makes as much sense as choosing casualties.

Tell me, do bullets always hit the closest models in the exact order they appear from the firer?

Because that's what you're saying when you say its more logical. Once more, abstraction is key here. Stop thinking of the models as being representations of their specific location, but as a constantly moving and shifting mass within the unit's footprint.

 OrkaMorka wrote:
I don't see the huge confusion over "models closest to shots" die first mentality.

The issue isn't that it's confusing. The issue is that it leads to pointless micro-managing of models within units. And when you combine it with mixed armour and Look Out Sir, it leads to having to roll saves one at a time, which is just downright irritating against massed incoming shots.

Why pick and choose models? It'd be a pretty faith based system on a game that has players trying to win.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

If it wasn't overwhelming firepower, why would I choose my warboss to take the wounds over my boys?

If it was overwhelming firepower, why would my opponent not just throw them all on my warboss?

Yes, that's the point.

Against normal incoming shooting, you get to absorb the shots with your meatshields. That's what they're there for.

Against overwhelming fire, the shooter gets to allocate a shot specifically against the model he wants to take out.

This isn't just an abstract idea that's being thrown out there. It's how the game used to work, and it worked just fine, and with far fewer issues than are caused by the current system.

Choosing casualties doesn't make sense. If this is some odd IRL logic that's being used, I can use my experience and say that IRL logic doesn't exist.

It's less real-world illogical than the guy at the front of the unit taking all of the incoming fire until he dies, and then the next nearest model becoming the bullet magnet.

Allowing the owning player to choose the casualties allows you to incorporate multiple abstract ideas in there - the guy who catches the shot isn't always the closest guy to the enemy, the special weapon doesn't always get disintegrated when the guy carrying it cops a bullet and can be picked up by other squad members, and the static models don't actually represent a bunch of guys standing around in frozen poses with their feet nailed to big round circles... they're a unit of guys who are potentially constantly in motion.

All of those abstracts go away when you force casualties on the nearest model.

I don't see a problem with special weapons being picked up or passed around. That doesn't seem like a terrible idea, but one I'd rarely incorporate anyways because Orks don't have very many special weapons in our groups. I could go either way. I think the wound allocation has never been a big issue for me because my models usually come off the table in droves anyways

I'd say more, but I think Blacksail said basically what I meant to say.

And I make error trying to put IRL logic to any of this.

Peregrine wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Would a better system be to take casualties from the front and replace the look out sir rule with a "pick up his kit" rule where a special, heavy, power sword etc, could be picked up on a 3+ by survivors in the gory aftermath?

That's actually a pretty cool idea. If you fail the roll, doesn't mean you didn't pick up the weapon, just means it was destroyed and couldn't be used anymore.

No, it's a terrible idea because it adds even more pointless dice rolling. Why is it so important to have a chance of failure? Just let the owning player choose their casualties and significantly reduce the complexity of the wound allocation process.

vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

No, it's a terrible idea because it adds even more pointless dice rolling. Why is it so important to have a chance of failure? Just let the owning player choose their casualties and significantly reduce the complexity of the wound allocation process.

This.

Because picking up 1 single die and rolling once adds soo much extra work.

With all the banter back and forth about where to take models from and who gets to pick which models to remove and should it be random and on and on and on, this seems like a quick easy solution that fits all those scenarios.

Yeah, I used to be a blob Guard player, I know what you mean about picking up models by the dozen.

Trying to apply logic to any wargame, 40k especially, can be problematic. Wargames, by necessity, are abstractions of the real thing. Things like morale, casualties, and movement are all zoomed out, simplified and streamlined versions of the real/logical thing to make the game playable.

For incredibly specific actions and micro management, you have RPGs to turn to, who will make you roll to jump something or check to see if you're winded after running a distance. If you had to do that for all 180 of your Orks or my 100 Guardsmen, we'd have to play a turn over a week.

Point is, both the current system and old system are abstractions. Both have failings at some sort of logical level, but such is the nature of abstractions and wargames. Given that, the simplest method is more often than not the best method.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kaotkbliss wrote:

Because picking up 1 single die and rolling once adds soo much extra work.

In isolation, sure, its simple.

Doing over and over and over again presents the same issue the current system does.

Why not just not have to roll at all? What is there really to gain from this proposal? Its not any more narrative oriented, its not any more tactical, and its certainly not faster. What advantages are there?

With all the banter back and forth about where to take models from and who gets to pick which models to remove and should it be random and on and on and on, this seems like a quick easy solution that fits all those scenarios.

No, its not a solution, its just another alternative that includes more random dice rolls for no gain in gameplay.

Certain things should be random though. That's why the word "chance" exists, because there's a "chance" something could happen.
In this case, there's a chance a bullet could pierce the rocket launcher making it unusable, but there's a chance it will be untouched able to be picked up by another.

How many mobs are you going to have in a battle, and how many of those mobs are going to have a heavy weapon? Also I think just a single roll for the whole squad would suffice, not a roll for each member of the squad as that would be ridiculous.

kaotkbliss wrote:
Certain things should be random though. That's why the word "chance" exists, because there's a "chance" something could happen.
In this case, there's a chance a bullet could pierce the rocket launcher making it unusable, but there's a chance it will be untouched able to be picked up by another.

How many mobs are you going to have in a battle, and how many of those mobs are going to have a heavy weapon? Also I think just a single roll for the whole squad would suffice, not a roll for each member of the squad as that would be ridiculous.

But that's the thing - this can be more easily represented using the old torrent of fire rule, without the need for a separate roll at all.

 insaniak wrote:

But that's the thing - this can be more easily represented using the old torrent of fire rule, without the need for a separate roll at all.

What is the torrent of fire rule? I honestly don't know.

The solution "Role a dice to see if a model picks up their special weapon" would not work and would be confusing to implement.

For example, with a squad of 30 orks with 2 big shootas and a nob (an ork with higher strength and more wounds) with a power klaw (power fist) in the front of the unit, a round of shooting using closest model first removes both big shootas and the nob. The player makes his pick up the weapon roles, succeeding with one of the big shoota roles and the nob role. So, what happens now?

Does the rule remain faithful to "another model picked it up", meaning that he would need to remove all of his casualties, including the big shootas and the nob, and then remove surviving models and replace them with models with the equipment modeled onto them? This would be time consuming and result in people needing to buy and model things like "ork boy with shokk attack gun" or "gaunt with twin bone swords and wings", it's not an ideal solution.

Do the models not get removed and normal boyz get removed, meaning that now I have a nob and big shoota an entire movement phase outside of unit coherency? Also, at picking up his bosses equipment, an ork boy suddenly finds himself bigger and tougher? That makes no sense.

The chance for picking up the special weapon rule does not work with models that have different statistics and rules. A fire warrior will not gain the abilities of an ethereal just because he picked up their staff. A conscript does not become a heroic leader because he put on his dead commissar's hat.

I support the old "owner's choice" method of model removal. I have yet to see the new method do anything for an experienced player besides double the length of the movement phase as players ensure that their shields are in place, which results in several minutes after they moved of tweaking the position of sergeants and grunts.