One of the most iconic sights in tabletop wargaming is watching a once-proud unit slowly dwindle as battle takes its toll. Removing figures from the table is one of the oldest and most instinctive ways to track casualties—but is it always the best method?
In my latest video, I dig into the pros and cons of figure removal, exploring why some players swear by it and others have moved toward tokens, trackers, or hybrid systems. Figure removal has a clear appeal. It tells a visual story that you can follow at a glance, adds weight to each dice roll, and keeps the table uncluttered. For narrative-driven games or players who enjoy cinematic spectacle, there’s nothing quite like it.
But there are downsides. Constant handling can damage delicate miniatures, slow down gameplay, and create problems with formations or unit boundaries. For large-scale battles in particular, the process can feel cumbersome, breaking the flow of the game.
Tokens and trackers solve some of these issues by keeping units intact until the moment they’re destroyed. They can also allow for more detailed tracking, such as morale or fatigue. However, they risk cluttering the tabletop and breaking immersion—especially when brightly coloured markers intrude on a beautifully painted battlefield.
I also look at hybrid options, from casualty rings to scenic bases with built-in counters, which aim to balance clarity, efficiency, and visual appeal. Ultimately, the right approach depends on the scale of the game, the period being represented, and whether you’re aiming for a competitive or narrative experience.
If you’ve ever debated whether vanishing ranks or token-based tracking works best for your games, this discussion will give you plenty to think about. Watch the video, weigh the arguments, and join the conversation—because every battlefield tells a story, and how we track the fallen shapes how that story is told.
Good post, Lee. I use both. Though with rules that have figure removal, I tend to use casualty dice.
ReplyDeleteI don't think figure removal is any more dangerous to the miniatures than the normal rigours of game play.
Perhaps the implication here is whether degrading of units should be measured in casualties (figure removal) or by an alternative criteria like unit morale, effectiveness, cohesion etc. (counters etc.). Which is better?
Figure removal dates back the rules of the 60s and 70s, who were still very much individual-figure based. E.g. roll so many dice per so many figures, calculate casualties, and remove the figures. The status of a unit was expressed in how many figures were active, hence the 1-1 mapping with the mechanism of figure removal.
ReplyDeleteBut over the years, we have seen more and more a shift away from the individual figure as a basis for rule mechanics, but rather the unit, with stats specified per unit and not per individual figure. Moreover, we already need to keep track of the status of units beyond simply countig figures (demoralized, broken, disorganized, supressed, ...). Thus, it only seems natural to me that we should move away from figure removal since it no longer matches neatly on what modern game designs want in terms of visually representing the status of a unit.
For me, there's also another reason: miniature wargaming is all about moving toy soldiers (which we spend a long time painting) around on the table. Why take them away so quickly? Keep them on the table as long as possible instead of removing them, and only remove a unit when it's really and completely out of action.
So yeah, I'm firmly AGAINST figure removal in unit-based games. It also allows to choose a unit representation to match the collection of the gamer, whether these is 16 28mm figures or 100 6mm figures or whatever ...
Delete