Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Warhammer 40,000 (fifth edition)» Forums » General

Subject: Removing casualties: Cheesey? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michael Cox
Japan
Tokyo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First, I am new to the game so I am still learning. In my quest to learn new strategies, I've been watching YouTube videos and reading forums, blogs, etc. I only have 2 other opponents and they are also learning.

When we play we always remove casualties from the unit starting with the figures closest to the unit that is shooting. It just makes sense that the guys in front take the first shots.

However, I have seen cases where the casualties are being taken from the rear or a section of the unit that is not even in LOS of the firing unit. I checked the rulebook and from what I can tell, that is legal. To me, it just smells like cheese. I'd say cheating but it is not since the rules state it is OK. I would just be very disappointed if I was expecting certain figures to be removed and they were not. I guess I have a problem with it because every other game that I have played says to remove the figures from the front, closest to the firing unit, etc.

Don't get me wrong. I still like the game and will keep playing. Unfortunately, I will most likely never play a game with anyone else but friends as there is little to no support for the game in my area that I know of. I'd like for that to change, of course, as more opponents means more variety and opportunities to play.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Michael
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruno
Ireland
Galway
Galway
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, that's what GW call 'streamlining the rules'. Even minis under cover can be chosen as losses.

Of course, the 'remove the closest' way can be as ridiculous as the heavy/special weapon trooper is then *somehow* always at the back of the squad and is always the last to die.

Only one way: total randomization of the casualties, but i'm told the youth of today no longer has the time...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian James
msg tools
I think that what you're saying makes a lot of sense but the rules, as they funciton, are most likely more an oversight/holdover from WHFB since that game came first and 40K was originally more an adaptation of that. In WHFB you remove the casualties from the back ranks of a regiment because its assumed the men behind move up to take the place of their fallen comrades. Since its a melee this more or less makes sense. I think thats the most likely explanation. If you guys prefer doing it from the front, you can always make a house rule!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Urban
United States
Merrimack
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Welcome to the world of 40k I've been playing for a very long time and have seen the rules gone through many many changes There are a few reasons for the rules but mostly it's to keep the game moving fast. If you had to worry about which troops go up front to take casualties then you would spend extra minutes forming your perfect screen for your sgt or flamer or special guy. As well as getting into all kinds of discussions about who is closer to which guy in your unit if you have a unit of 20 guys all spread out. Now it's not casualties that are removed but wounds that are assigned and this is a very distinct difference!

So the way the rule is written is that the owning player of the squad assigns wounds to the unit in any way he sees fit as long as he evenly spreads them out. Then he takes saves for models that are the same and saves for models that are different.

For example.

Say I have a 7 man space marine squad. I have a sergeant, a flamer, a missile launcher and 4 normal space marines.

My squad is shot at by a unit of eldar guardians who get 10 wounds. Remember you roll to hit, then roll those hits to wound. I must now assign wounds BEFORE saving. So out of 10 shots I must allocated one wound to every unit before overlapping. So I put one wound on the sgt, one hit on the flamer, one wound on the missile launcher, 4 wounds on the marines and now I have 3 extra wounds I must assign. Well I want to keep my flamer and rocket launcher but don't care about the sgt so I'll put one more on the sgt and 2 more on normal marines.

This is why this part of the rule is very important. I have to assign wounds before I save. I don't do it after I fail.

Ok now back to saves.

Sgt has 2 hits, rolls a 2, 4 - He is dead
Flamer has 1 hit, rolls 5 He is alive
Missile launcher has 1 hit, rolls 1 so he is dead (See why the assigning hits is so much more important than assigning deaths)
Now normal marines are all the same so by the rule they all save together. 4 Marines have 6 hits, roll 3,4,5,6,1,2 so 2 marines die.

So out of the firing phase I started with 7 marines and ended up losing the sgt, the missile launcher and 2 marines.

See the distinction between assigning hits first and then saving versus assigning casualties? Hope that clears it up some and helps out your games more!

One more tactic, if you plan to assault them, you take the normal casualties from the back, if you don't want to get assaulted you take them from the front. Think of it as falling back under fire to escape their charge range

Good gaming to you!
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kai Scheuer
Germany
Eppelsheim
Rheinland Pfalz
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's a question of balance (if you can speak about balance in WH40k at all ) and gamespeed:

Having the defender remove the units he wishes, causes the least trouble to the participants.

If you state that the closest troopers fall first, you might break their formation with all consequences.
This way you are enforcing certain formations when moving a unit (like a V-formation or a simple diagonal line or whatever).
It is however part of the wh40k strategy, to move without strict formation.

Imo, as long as you and all of your friends agree on this houserule, feel free to play with it - it's a game after all with no need for rulemongering
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Ferris
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Also, if you want to think of why (rationalization) the one guy with a heavy weapon up front keeps living when people behind him fall. The moving up idea works, think of the line from the movie 'Enemy at the Gates' the commisar talking to the poor guys who are going to charge:

'The man in front has the rifle, the man behind him has the ammunition. When the man with the rifle falls, the man behind him picks up the rifle and shoots, and so on.'


Grendelkitty
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
e l
United States
detroit
Unspecified
flag msg tools
If you removed casualties from only the models that were visible/closer that may influence you to keep your important models at the rear of your formations. On the flip side it may cause your opponents to put themselves in position where they can only see and/or are closer to certain models. You close the door to some cheese just to open it up to a different kind. Are you guys staying true to the wound allocation rules or have you moved past those?

The 5th ed wound allocation and casualty removal rules take some getting used to but are “clean”. It makes units get looked as as a whole as opposed to only small segments of visible models. I think it also tries to inject some “flow” to targeting as opposed to the you-go-I-go standard. The units are nebulous and flowing and are not just the static models placed on the table..

My biggest beef is when a unit of 20 guants (for example) is crossing the opening between a hill and an intact building and only 4 of the 20 guants are visible. If that unit is fired at by 3 War Walkers with 2 scatter lasers each (for example) ALL of the gaunts in the unit are possible casualties. The only upside is that since 50% (or more) of the target unit is in/behind cover the gaunts will get a 4+ cover save.

Good luck on your house rules. Having said that, it is my experience the HR’s open up more questions than they solve in 40K and often need to be adapted as more armies and players are folded into your gaming group (or forgotten if you ever get a chance to get out and play away from your usual setting).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Necessary Evil
United States
Glen Arm
Maryland
flag msg tools
Yes, I play the Bass.
badge
Sweet Holy Moses, Fruit F*cker Prime!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Never ever try to think of or make sense of 40k rules in Real life terns.

They are written to streamline and in most cases balance the game.

So using logic like the closest guy get hit (this is not even the case in RL anyway) is useless. Read the rules and apply the rules as literally as possible and you will get it right 99% of the time. That remaining 1% will fill up countless hours arguing with the guys at the local GW shop who will constantly contradict their own rulings.

40k is a great game. I wish i still had the time to play it. Always remember it's about having fun, and that everything on the table will die and you should be ok.


-M
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gene Warren
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bismark776 wrote:
I think that what you're saying makes a lot of sense but the rules, as they funciton, are most likely more an oversight/holdover from WHFB since that game came first and 40K was originally more an adaptation of that. In WHFB you remove the casualties from the back ranks of a regiment because its assumed the men behind move up to take the place of their fallen comrades. Since its a melee this more or less makes sense. I think thats the most likely explanation.



40K used to use a system with individual models shooting at individual models. While more 'realistic', it was considerably slower. They changed things to speed up play and make it more feasible to go to a game store night or a tournament and get in a few games, thus increasing accessibility and presumably sales.

The fiction used to support this change is that that,in a vaguely Heisenbergian quantum mechanical way, an individual model doesn't necessarily represent that in-game character, but rather a point within the overall area taken up by all a squad's models which may contain any constituent model at any time. Essentially, you're never sure where an individual model actually is within the squad probability field until an obsever (let's say a bolter round) makes a measurement (beats target's Toughness value).
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruno
Ireland
Galway
Galway
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
geneandcourtney wrote:
Essentially, you're never sure where an individual model actually is within the squad probability field until an obsever (let's say a bolter round) makes a measurement (beats target's Toughness value).



Behold Schrödinger 40k!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cafard83 wrote:
geneandcourtney wrote:
Essentially, you're never sure where an individual model actually is within the squad probability field until an obsever (let's say a bolter round) makes a measurement (beats target's Toughness value).



Behold Schrödinger 40k!


I'm no expert, but I would have said Heisenberg 40K.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Cox
Japan
Tokyo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
will_urban wrote:
Welcome to the world of 40k
Thanks! I've been reading the novels for a long time but have never had the chance to play WH40k.
Quote:
Say I have a 7 man space marine squad. I have a sergeant, a flamer, a missile launcher and 4 normal space marines.

My squad is shot at by a unit of eldar guardians who get 10 wounds. Remember you roll to hit, then roll those hits to wound. I must now assign wounds BEFORE saving. So out of 10 shots I must allocated one wound to every unit before overlapping.
This is true even if some of the figures are out of LOS of the firing unit, correct?
Quote:
See the distinction between assigning hits first and then saving versus assigning casualties? Hope that clears it up some and helps out your games more!
Yes, it does, thanks. I will re-read the section about allocating hits again.

Quote:
One more tactic, if you plan to assault them, you take the normal casualties from the back, if you don't want to get assaulted you take them from the front. Think of it as falling back under fire to escape their charge range
OK, I get it. As another user posted, it is like the ones in the rear are just moving to the front (remove figures from rear) to continue the assault. Funnily enough, I have played games where the rules explain it that way but have never thought of it while reading the rules and playing WH40k.

Thanks.

Michael
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Cox
Japan
Tokyo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kensel wrote:
Are you guys staying true to the wound allocation rules or have you moved past those?
I think we missed that part and will give it a try tomorrow.

Quote:
My biggest beef is when a unit of 20 guants (for example) is crossing the opening between a hill and an intact building and only 4 of the 20 guants are visible. If that unit is fired at by 3 War Walkers with 2 scatter lasers each (for example) ALL of the gaunts in the unit are possible casualties. The only upside is that since 50% (or more) of the target unit is in/behind cover the gaunts will get a 4+ cover save.
Being a Tyranids player, I understand that feeling...

Quote:
Good luck on your house rules. Having said that, it is my experience the HR’s open up more questions than they solve in 40K and often need to be adapted as more armies and players are folded into your gaming group (or forgotten if you ever get a chance to get out and play away from your usual setting).
Good points. Thanks.

Michael
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arthur chang
United States
TUSTIN
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Removing casualties from the front ranks may also be kind of "cheesy" as you technically increase the distance between the unit and the opponent, so if he has more units left to shoot, the unit just *might* be out of range now -- every inch/eighth of an inch/millimeter counts!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Bell
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Of course, there's an interesting quirk in the rules where occasionally shooting with more weapons DECREASES the expected number of wounds you cause. Lasguns can inflict negative wounds.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arthur chang
United States
TUSTIN
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chipacabra wrote:
Of course, there's an interesting quirk in the rules where occasionally shooting with more weapons DECREASES the expected number of wounds you cause. Lasguns can inflict negative wounds.


Can you explain?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Bell
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Say you've got a unit with two lascannons, and are shooting at a small unit of something tough and armored, like space marines. If you only fire the lascannons, and both lascannons hit, they have to go on different models, probably killing both of them.

If the same unit ALSO fires a bunch of lasguns, then the opponent can assign the hits so that a single model takes both lascannon hits, and the lasgun hits are spread across the rest of the squad. This is legal, so long as the lascannon victim is in any way different than the rest of the squad, such as being a sergeant or having a different weapon. The lasguns add hardly any expected wounds (Imperial flashlights!), but doubling up means that the second lascannon shot was wasted.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.