Overall I like the rule, but this past weekend it completely changed the outcome of a tournament game for me. (and thus the tournament as a whole) I was playing Eldar + Ynnari and my opponent had Magnus and a bunch of Earth Shaker cannons. It was the last round and both of us had the most tourney points overall. He was up to go first and I had exactly zero answers to Magnus once he got buffed up.
Then it happened. I rolled a '6'. Magnus was on the ground. So every single gun I had pointed straight at him and dropped him in the first round. I am 100% confident that if I had not rolled this single '6' at that exact moment, Magnus would have mopped up my army in 1-2 turns easily. By rights, this guy should have won the tourney with full points. I didn't even get full points in my first round
Is it ok for a single roll like that to impact the entire game? Have any of you had Seize make a major difference in your games?
I'd say the blame here doesn't rest on Seizing the Initiative, at least not entirely.
Galef wrote: He was up to go first and I had exactly zero answers to Magnus once he got buffed up.
Galef wrote: I am 100% confident that if I had not rolled this single '6' at that exact moment, Magnus would have mopped up my army in 1-2 turns easily.
Sounds like the issue here is actually Magnus!
If you kill him turn 1, you win - if you don't, you lose. That's not strategy, it's just dice, which is a problem like you say.
You winning due to that Seize the Initiative roll is a symptom of a (deeply) broken game system, not a root cause.
gummyofallbears wrote: I hope its removed, its a ridiculous mechanic that can screw over an entire game because someone got lucky.
Yeah, I am starting to feel that way too, This time it was in my favor, but it could easily be reversed.
I'd rather give the player who goes second some form of defensive protection. Maybe +1 cover in the 1st turn, or the ability to roll for reserves in the first game turn (only -1 or something to prevent the second player from alpha striking) Who knows?
But winning or losing due to 1 lucky roll at the beginning of the game is lame
While the single d6 system was fine enough when 40k came out, it really doesn't have the range or nuance to deal with a lot of things these days. 40k has some serious issues in any competitive setting, and while a lot of people cite points balance, I believe almost as much of a problem is the ability for things to swing disproportionately on single important rolls. With bulk fire, it generally averages out, but those single critical heavy weapon, etc., a 1 or 6 at the wrong moment can hugely change things, and it's a lot of why I prefer 40k only when playing casually.
I always have mixed feelings. It sucks when you get seized and it costs you the game. At the same time to me that usually means that you deployed in an overly aggressive manner or there is poor terrain on the table. I would say that given good terrain I'd rather keep seize in the game. My reasoning is as follows.
1.) Removing it simply changes which single dice roll might decide the game. No instead of seize it becomes the roll for first turn.
2.) You may argue that, "knowing" that you are going second has you deploy differently, but that is what seize keeps in check. If you take the risk of deploying in an aggressive manner to get the jump on your opponent you might lose because of it. Without seize what stops things with scout/infiltrate from crippling your opponent first turn?
so unless it is replaced with a contested roll post deployment (and scout, and infiltrate) to see who gets first turn, I don't think its removal is a good thing. That said in that case deploying second is almost always an advantage (since terrain is often very even) so it would likely need some bonus to the roll for deploying first.
I feel guilty every time I manage to roll a 6 for Seizing, as if I'm somehow cheating. Although I can see why it's there I'd like to see some better way of dealing with it.
I like it. honestly I hate the one side goes then another as opposed to some sort of all inclusive game turn. that said I think going first is such a huge advantage I would love a % points be added to the player going second to make up for the disadvantage (not huge, think 5% so a 1250 would be 1250 going first vs 1313 going second so 63 points maybe you get a few more bodies or a transport to help weather the storm.
Breng77 wrote: I always have mixed feelings. It sucks when you get seized and it costs you the game. At the same time to me that usually means that you deployed in an overly aggressive manner or there is poor terrain on the table. I would say that given good terrain I'd rather keep seize in the game. My reasoning is as follows.
1.) Removing it simply changes which single dice roll might decide the game. No instead of seize it becomes the roll for first turn.
2.) You may argue that, "knowing" that you are going second has you deploy differently, but that is what seize keeps in check. If you take the risk of deploying in an aggressive manner to get the jump on your opponent you might lose because of it. Without seize what stops things with scout/infiltrate from crippling your opponent first turn?
so unless it is replaced with a contested roll post deployment (and scout, and infiltrate) to see who gets first turn, I don't think its removal is a good thing. That said in that case deploying second is almost always an advantage (since terrain is often very even) so it would likely need some bonus to the roll for deploying first.
Think this is a pretty solid take on it. Ultimately, in a dice-based game, sometimes the dice go your way, sometimes they go against you. This is just another instance of that.
I hate the seize the initiative rule. As a Chaos player if I have any vehicles in my list I will pay for a 20 point upgrade to force a reroll on seizing just because I hate it that much. In the last tournament I was in, for game 3 I was playing against Eldar with my Daemons. He rolled the lucky 6, killed both Lords of Changes and a few other things and proceeded to basically start the game with me being down 1050 to his 1850. I still almost won the game, only loosing because of trash maelstrom that ITC likes to have in some scenarios. Had I not been down by 800 points in the first turn then I would of won the game.
The roll to go first and the seize roll are way to powerful in how the game functions right now since shooting is so powerful. I have also been of the opinion that reserves should be rolled for the player going 2nd just so that there is an actual choice being made if you want to go first or not. This would mean 3+ for turn one, 3+ for turn two, and automatically in on turn three. Right now the choice if you win the roll is to go first or to go first.
I actually like Seize. It represents some unpredictability, which is good. I think we should turn it into a roll-off though and have more units like Coteaz that effect a roll. That way, if going first is really important to you it's actually something you can build around and try to mitigate/heighten.
I love Seize, and depending on my list it's often part of my gameplan to make my opponent deploy first then deploy in response and Seize. Space Wolves have acess to units that allow a re-roll on deployment and modifiers to Sieze.
Since games can be won and lost at the list-building level, the game has started long before Sieze the Initiative takes place.
Maybe Seize should be on a 5+ but only allows the player to "activate" a small number of units on the board, rather than actually getting the 1st turn. Maybe this activation would allow D3+1 units to move, shoot and cast psychic powers prior to the first "turn"
That would allow a crucial buff or pot-shot at a big target, without the total devastation of losing the first turn.
No. It forces the player to have some restraint and common sense in deployment.
You say magnus could have tabled you in two turns and you had no answer to him other than hitting him before he ever took off.
Then, I answer, why the hell wasnt he in reserve? Or at least deployed somewhere safe? They took a risk - albeit a small one - in return for better deployment position, and it didnt pay off.
I hope they replaced it with the you deploy one unit I deploy one unit I deploy one unit, etc. The one who is done deploying first gets a serious bonus on the go first roll.
This used to be fun, straight up removing the seize would induce more alpha strike styles that I would probably not enjoy that much. However I do agree that a seize on a 6+ isn't an ideal mechanism.
oldzoggy wrote: I hope they replaced it with the you deploy one unit I deploy one unit I deploy one unit, etc. The one who is done deploying first gets a serious bonus on the go first roll.
This used to be fun, straight up removing the seize would induce more alpha strike styles that I would probably not enjoy that much. However I do agree that a seize on a 6+ isn't an ideal mechanism.
I kinda like this is an older edition of Fantasy, but I rather like being able to deploy my whole army at once. Maybe a better solution would be: Both players to roll for sides, the winner than immediately deploys Then player 2 deploys. Once both sides are deployed (including infiltrators and Scout moves, then both players roll to go first.
This would force both players to deploy defensively as neither knows if the other will go first.
Yeah a 6+ to seize is kind of meh, It should really be something like Komi in Go, where the second player gets an advantage. One Idea I kicked around was bidding units that won't get to go on the first turn. You secretly record your bid as does your opponent, then both reveal your bids. The person with the higher bid gets to go first, but the player with the lowest bid gets to pick units from his opponents army equal to the highest bid that don't get to act on the first turn. So it becomes a little bit of strategy, a little bit of bluffing, and a whole lot of discouragement to bring a single OP unit if you want to go first. If there is a tie then it's a roll off.
I kinda like this is an older edition of Fantasy, but I rather like being able to deploy my whole army at once.
-
Jup I enjoyed it in old WFB, but I also enjoy it in X-wing and in the few rare 5th battle missions that I play and still use this deployment method. The main reason for it is that it changes me waiting on my opponent deploying into an actual interesting and interactive element of the game.
I like seize. Precisely because it's unpredictable, it adds SOME level of doubt and risk to deployment, and 1 in 6 is rare enough that I don't feel it's a game killer, but CAN be a game changer.
Also, I don't think the OP won on that single roll, but more on the entire army rolling enough hits to take Magnus down. ALL of those rolls count too - if one had missed....
forgot to comment earlier on your game and to echo... if they did not put magnus behind sufficient cover that is your opponent's fault not yours. barring something like rolling 9 1's out of 11 saves which just happens sometimes.
Instead of seize the Initiative, I would rather see both players roll off to see who goes first, then do some sort of comparative roll between their Warlords.
Like roll 2D6+Leadership and whoever gets higher gets to choose to go first or second.
Grey Templar wrote: Instead of seize the Initiative, I would rather see both players roll off to see who goes first, then do some sort of comparative roll between their Warlords.
Like roll 2D6+Leadership and whoever gets higher gets to choose to go first or second.
3rd ed had a similar system, Where it was your factions command level plus D6
But yeah I like seize atm, just because I don't believe deploying first should guarantee going first
But really the duder the OP played lost because he didn't consider seizing to be a factor, which means it was his own fault he lost
Grey Templar wrote: Instead of seize the Initiative, I would rather see both players roll off to see who goes first, then do some sort of comparative roll between their Warlords.
Like roll 2D6+Leadership and whoever gets higher gets to choose to go first or second.
I never liked the idea of systems where a model's characteristics have that much of an effect on the game order. Look at my Necrons, for example against Orks. Ld 10 on any model I might choose as my general versus Orks with a leadership of what? 7 or 8? I don't play Orks but I know their leadership is usually cited as one of the many issue with the army. It give my army an unfair advantage. The same goes for the other characteristic people love to recommend for deciding first turn: Initiative. Most Necron units have Initiative 2. It'd be kind of hard for me to beat the roll-off against an Eldar army. These kind of systems would just mean the armies who naturally have a high score in the chosen characteristic are disproportionately represented in the meta. It's not a very good way to balance an already imbalanced game.
Seize the Initiative is a terrible mechanic that basically forces a 1 in 6 chance for one player to be utterly screwed over before the game begins, whilst the other player gets a 1 in 6 chance of gaining a major advantage over his foe. Why you ask, why is this so unbalancing? Well, I shall tell you.
Before you begin you roll for deployment, correct? And the player whom wins the roll gets to go first, but at the cost of having to deploy first.
"Deploy first", I hear you say, "how is that a disadvantage?"
Well, when you deploy first you essentially commit your forces to the field before your opponent does. You are placing your units and committing them to those positions before you know how your opponent will deploy and this means you are at a disadvantage. your opponent, in the meantime, now committed to going second, deploys after you, which means he or she knows exactly where each end every unit you have is. And so suddenly you have AT weapons deployed to fire at the flank of your tanks, big anti-infantry weapons arrayed against your blobs and in general your opponent has stolen the strategic initiative on you. But this is okay, you are still going first, right? That means you can take measures to correct this and lessen the hurt.
But hold on, whats this? They rolled a '6'!
And quite suddenly your opponent does not only have the strategic initiative, they have the tactical initiative too. They have seen you deploy, counter deployed and are now in the perfect position to bring about the maximum hurt. You sacrificed the Strategic initiative to gain the Tactical initiative, but by whim of the dice your opponent took that from you too.
You are royally fethed.
And that, fellow Dakkanoughts, is why 'Seize the Initiative' is a bad thing.
master of ordinance wrote: "Deploy first", I hear you say, "how is that a disadvantage?" Well, when you deploy first you essentially commit your forces to the field before your opponent does. You are placing your units and committing them to those positions before you know how your opponent will deploy and this means you are at a disadvantage. your opponent, in the meantime, now committed to going second, deploys after you, which means he or she knows exactly where each end every unit you have is.
See in the past I would say this was a valid argument, but the amount of T1 Deep Striking and ifratraiting there is in the game it is no longer a real disadvantage
That 1 in 6 of losing first turn is just something the person deploying first has to consider when deploying.
In the Op's example his opponent didn't consider it an option and left his Magnus open to cop all the incoming fire, which is just a bad play by the opponent.
If he had deployed better there is a good chance even though he didn't get the First turn Maguns could of survived and then got mega beffed up and wreaked face still. While the Seize did paly a major factor in this. It was more his opponents fault for deploying badly. it is the same as First Turn Charging IMO
I'd like Seizing to stay but reworked to something else.
As it stands, rolling a D6 for a 6 to basically completely change the dynamic of the match amounts to the biggest middle finger the dice gods can give to the poor sod.
master of ordinance wrote: Seize the Initiative is a terrible mechanic that basically forces a 1 in 6 chance for one player to be utterly screwed over before the game begins, whilst the other player gets a 1 in 6 chance of gaining a major advantage over his foe. Why you ask, why is this so unbalancing? Well, I shall tell you.
Before you begin you roll for deployment, correct? And the player whom wins the roll gets to go first, but at the cost of having to deploy first.
"Deploy first", I hear you say, "how is that a disadvantage?"
Well, when you deploy first you essentially commit your forces to the field before your opponent does. You are placing your units and committing them to those positions before you know how your opponent will deploy and this means you are at a disadvantage. your opponent, in the meantime, now committed to going second, deploys after you, which means he or she knows exactly where each end every unit you have is. And so suddenly you have AT weapons deployed to fire at the flank of your tanks, big anti-infantry weapons arrayed against your blobs and in general your opponent has stolen the strategic initiative on you. But this is okay, you are still going first, right? That means you can take measures to correct this and lessen the hurt.
But hold on, whats this? They rolled a '6'!
And quite suddenly your opponent does not only have the strategic initiative, they have the tactical initiative too. They have seen you deploy, counter deployed and are now in the perfect position to bring about the maximum hurt. You sacrificed the Strategic initiative to gain the Tactical initiative, but by whim of the dice your opponent took that from you too.
You are royally fethed.
And that, fellow Dakkanoughts, is why 'Seize the Initiative' is a bad thing.
I agree with you on everything except your opening argument and conclusion.
Oh, and when you win the deployment roll you get to choose who deploys first and potentially goes first.
Grey Templar wrote: Instead of seize the Initiative, I would rather see both players roll off to see who goes first, then do some sort of comparative roll between their Warlords.
Like roll 2D6+Leadership and whoever gets higher gets to choose to go first or second.
I never liked the idea of systems where a model's characteristics have that much of an effect on the game order. Look at my Necrons, for example against Orks. Ld 10 on any model I might choose as my general versus Orks with a leadership of what? 7 or 8? I don't play Orks but I know their leadership is usually cited as one of the many issue with the army. It give my army an unfair advantage. The same goes for the other characteristic people love to recommend for deciding first turn: Initiative. Most Necron units have Initiative 2. It'd be kind of hard for me to beat the roll-off against an Eldar army. These kind of systems would just mean the armies who naturally have a high score in the chosen characteristic are disproportionately represented in the meta. It's not a very good way to balance an already imbalanced game.
The thing is that if the game was well balance and thought out this wouldn't be an issue. Take Firestorm Armada for example. They have a system where you get a faction bonus. So certain army get a lot more chance to go first. However it's balanced by the general stats of the army. For example armies with super strong long range guns have really poor command stats, and inverse for armies who wanna get close.
In warhammer 40k term, it would be necessary to include a new stats per factions to balance it all out. For example Tau and Eldar would have low command (even tho it doesn't really fit their fluff, this is purely for gameplay) and melee army like orks or nids who need high command stats.
I actually really like the seize the initiative mechanic. If the person who won the initial roll deploys very aggressively, it allows the player who seizes to have an opportunity to counter. Those arguing that it completely screws over the game, well so does the initial roll in many cases. Its the downside of I Go U Go based play. With seize the initiative in play, it at the very least makes the player who won the initial roll off consider deploying conservatively. I believe the game would be less strategic without it. I wouldn't mind seeing it reworked but I don't think it should be removed entirely.
Commissar Benny wrote: I actually really like the seize the initiative mechanic. If the person who won the initial roll deploys very aggressively, it allows the player who seizes to have an opportunity to counter. Those arguing that it completely screws over the game, well so does the initial roll in many cases. Its the downside of I Go U Go based play. With seize the initiative in play, it at the very least makes the player who won the initial roll off consider deploying conservatively. I believe the game would be less strategic without it. I wouldn't mind seeing it reworked but I don't think it should be removed entirely.
I agree wholeheartedly. When someone deploys very aggressively, knowing they'll go first, there is no downside. That 1 in 6 chance means they will either ignore it and hope for the best(In which case they will almost assuredly lose 1 in 6 games) or they will deploy more conservatively and you will have a game that is less like 2 fat guys facing off at a buffet.
I agree wholeheartedly. When someone deploys very aggressively, knowing they'll go first, there is no downside. That 1 in 6 chance means they will either ignore it and hope for the best(In which case they will almost assuredly lose 1 in 6 games) or they will deploy more conservatively and you will have a game that is less like 2 fat guys facing off at a buffet.
So the one who go second, and got the opportunity to counter-deploy the whole army of player 1, need something to compensate foran aggressive deployment?
Deploying without knowing where your opponent will be is a pretty big disadvantage, and being aggressive in your deployment doesn't change that...
I think that deploying first is not "hope for the best", but "prepare for worst"...
But winning or losing due to 1 lucky roll at the beginning of the game is lame
Isn't it how every game's decided with such skewed lists? Mages, heavy shooters, gsc...they all are affected by first turn quite a lot. First turns wouldn't be so game-changing if there was no way of losing 50% of your army from the get go. Possible killiness is just way through the roof atm.
Seize is okay but there should be faction modifiers. Then you can plan around the likelihood of the opponent seizing.
Dark Eldar? They should be pretty much guaranteed to seize, +4 to seize rolls etc.
Imperial Guard? Unlikely to seize at all because they're simply humans in an overpowered galaxy. Reroll first successful seize attempt.
So on, depending on faction.
Whilst it's still a dice roll and slow-er factions might surprise and win the initiative, it's more cut and dry and more tactical.
While I agree that the Seize roll can have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of a game I'm not sure I'd like to see it disappear completely. Some sort of modified roll might be more appropriate. Ideally, I'd like to see a general reduction in the amount of long-range firepower ion the game so the alpha strike isn't such an issue.
In your game I think it's not just the importance of the Seize roll that's being highlighted, it's also the ridiculous imbalance present in the game at the moment. If a model is so overpowered he wins the game provided he gets turn 1 that's a huge problem.
Given that, I'd say your opponent deployed badly. Magnus is a flyer so there's no reason why he needs to be standing in the open at deployment. Why was he not tucked behind cover in a far corner somewhere, away from all your guns just in case you seized? Why wasn't he in reserve?
If the tournament doesn't have enough terrain that's also a problem with playing the game in a way it's not meant to be played.
gummyofallbears wrote: I hope its removed, its a ridiculous mechanic that can screw over an entire game because someone got lucky.
I entirely disagree.
Seize the Initiative is a known factor. Some armies can boost their chances, others rely on that 6.
But, if it costs your opponent the game, that's their own lack of planning. Any strategy which relies solely on assumption of the first turn isn't a solid strategy.
In the above example, knowing how central Magnus is to their game plan, why wasn't he hidden out of sight as much as possible? Why was enough of the enemy army, at the longer ranges seen in the game, able to draw a bead and take him out?
Compare to this. I played in an Apocalypse game last June. We planned to steal the Initiative, and stacked it our way. Coteaz for the 2+, and the Tau stratagem to re-roll it. But, we also had a plan in case we rolled Snake Eyes.
Our opponents? Thought they had the first turn in the bag, and singularly failed to plan otherwise. It cost them dear. Our Reaver took out their Reaver, and we were able to get some other choice destruction in - because from the way they deployed with first turn in mind, we could spot their plan. We still lost though
Complaining a rule in the rulebook screwed you over and cost you your win is pretty poor sportsmanship.
Grey Templar wrote: Instead of seize the Initiative, I would rather see both players roll off to see who goes first, then do some sort of comparative roll between their Warlords.
Like roll 2D6+Leadership and whoever gets higher gets to choose to go first or second.
Accidentally the stat your warlord has maxed out. I love these sorts of rules suggestions. I have jet to see someone to make a similar suggestion regarding a sat they lack in.
I don't think Seizing the Initiative should go away. It forces players to consider what would happen if they don't go first. It means that sometimes you risk deploying a unit where it will die easily if your opponent goes first because you need the better positioning. I usually try to deploy with Seizing in mind so that I'm not totally blown away if they get the drop on me.
From the sounds of it, the mistake in your game belonged to your opponent. Magnus flies and has LoS to everyone, always. As such, there is just about ZERO reason that he shouldn't have been deployed behind insurmountable cover/out of LoS just in case you successfully seized.
In fact, the only thing I don't like about seizing the initiative is that it happens so infrequently that it doesn't do its job well enough. If it were a 5+, you'd see people being much more careful with their deployments.
I theoretically like punishing players who deploy with an overly aggressive manner, but...
Let's just say there's a reason why Coteaz is an autopick for most competetive Imperial lists.
There's already a turn imbalance in 40k. Whoever goes first probably wins about 60% of the time, all other things being equal.
Whoever seizes, though? They're going to win around 70-80% of the time, because it's just that big of an advantage.
If anything, I think seizing should be optional, more reliable, and costly - Once everyone is deployed, you choose if you want to try, but there is some kind of penalty regardless of whether you pass or fail. (Maybe each unit must pass a Leadership test to act, to represent orders getting mixed up? It'd need tweaking and balancing, but it's just a thought.)
Anything to add some tactics to what is currently an overpowered no-brainer roll.
I agree wholeheartedly. When someone deploys very aggressively, knowing they'll go first, there is no downside. That 1 in 6 chance means they will either ignore it and hope for the best(In which case they will almost assuredly lose 1 in 6 games) or they will deploy more conservatively and you will have a game that is less like 2 fat guys facing off at a buffet.
So the one who go second, and got the opportunity to counter-deploy the whole army of player 1, need something to compensate foran aggressive deployment?
Deploying without knowing where your opponent will be is a pretty big disadvantage, and being aggressive in your deployment doesn't change that...
I think that deploying first is not "hope for the best", but "prepare for worst"...
The problem is that things like scout and infiltrate exist meaning that it is quite possible to go first and still counter deploy in a fairly meaningful way. Honestly most of this could be fixed by turn by turn initiative roll off and activation by unit or group of units (battle group)as to balance MSU a bit say you activated a unit or ~250 points worth of units (which ever is larger) at a time. SO a deathstar of 700 points would be one activation, as would say two 5 man tactical squads in Razorbacks.
Also a big reason why people consider deploying first a huge disadvantage is that we generally play on symmetrical boards which means choice of side has very little impact. Given this if you deployed unit by unit or battlegroup by battlegroup it would help immensely.
I don't mind Seize the Initiative. It gives the player going first a reason to not deploy overly aggressively. Without it, he's free to just put all his shooting units out in the open if that gives them the best line of fire, and put all his fast moving assault units right on the front line of his deployment zone to cross no-man's land as fast as possible.
With Seize in the game, the player going first has to be mindful of the fact that he might not get to go first, so he puts a little more thought into deployment. Protecting his units becomes a factor he has to consider. Without it, all he has to think about is how to maximize his first turn damage potential.
He might simply ignore the possibility of being Seized on, but doing so is going to come back to bite him every so often. That's what happened to the OP's opponent. I've got no sympathy for him. He didn't adequately take into account the possibility he might be seized on, and it cost him big because he left his most expensive and most crucial unit out in the open. Any gameplay mistake of that magnitude should cost a player the game. We wouldn't have people stating "Assault is broken" if that player had landed Magnus right in front of a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry, or some similarly powerful assault unit, and lost him as a result. Why should leaving him out in the open to be gunned down first turn be any different?
Just get rid of the entire army turn and go to squad activation and it becomes a non-event.
Seize the initiative is just another way of making a part of the game another random event and not a "sure-thing".
Small wonder people focus on army lists, at least you do not roll up randomly your troops.
Talizvar wrote: Just get rid of the entire army turn and go to squad activation and it becomes a non-event.
Seize the initiative is just another way of making a part of the game another random event and not a "sure-thing".
Small wonder people focus on army lists, at least you do not roll up randomly your troops.
The issue with straight squad by squad activation is that out activation becomes a huge advantage. Some sort of group by group activation would go a long way to balancing out that advantage. Also summoning would really hurt a squad by squad activation model.
Talizvar wrote: ..... at least you do not roll up randomly your troops.
Please don't give GW any ideas!
But on the topic of 'You Go, I Go' I think unit based activation would be annoying as heck. You'd have to have little counters to keep track or some other such nonsense. What about "phase turns"?
Keep the "You go, I go" but make 1 game turn like this: You move, I move, You psychic, I psychic, You shoot, I shoot, You assault, I assault, Resolve combats. End turn Beginning of each turn both players roll off to 'go first"
I don't mind the general idea of seizing, but I don't like how they did it. As some people have said, it's just too much of an advantage.
This is where I feel like 40k could benefit from some kind of strategy layer. I mean they had stratagems in apocalypse and cities of death already. They should have updated that rather than drop it.
Using command points to manipulate reserves, deployment, bombardments, traps, whatever. Seizing could be something like d3 re-deployments or d3 unit activations (all phases) after both have set up but before the first turn, depending on whether you go first or second. Or something along those lines. That would work both ways. It wouldn't be useless if going first and compared to already going first it's not overly powerful. Go Second and you get a chance to do something before taking a beating.
Like getting Magnus airborne or moving CC units up the board to put some pressure on your opponent, or putting up psychic buffs and what have you so you don't get hit quite as hard.
redleger wrote: His deployment lost him the game. Enjoy the victory.
this.
They guy deployed very aggressive and wanted to crush your army in 1-2 turns.. you even acknowledge that. If he knew he was going to get seized on he would have positioned less aggressive.
To be honest. StI isn't the reason why he lost..it was his deployment. Not 1 dice role.
I am also going to add this. One of the reasons why I like 40K is that generally losing 1 model shouldnt cost you the game. In the new era of 40k, 600+ point units are now in the game. I don't like that. However if your going to put all your eggs in one basket..fine go ahead. I hope I seize on you and take that unit out.
Seize is a necessary evil.. more than ever, now that players can run 1-2 units that take up a majority of points and can terrorize most armies.
I like seize the initiative, but I think their should be a bonus to getting it based on an armies average initiative, because in general, armies with higher initiative have less staying power. I know craftspeople Eldar, SM, orks are the exception. Not even a big bonus, just plus 1 or something. I just think that the initiative stat should play a role in seize the initiative.
redleger wrote: His deployment lost him the game. Enjoy the victory.
this.
They guy deployed very aggressive and wanted to crush your army in 1-2 turns.. you even acknowledge that. If he knew he was going to get seized on he would have positioned less aggressive.
To be honest. StO isn't the reason why he lost..it was his deployment. Not 1 dice role.
I am also going to add this. One of the reasons why I like 40K is that generally losing 1 model shouldnt cost you the game. In the new era of 40k, 600+ point units are now in the game. I don't like that. However if your going to put all your eggs in one basket..fine go ahead. I hope I seize on you and take that unit out.
Seize is a necessary evil.. more than ever, now that players can run 1-2 units that take up a majority of points and can terrorize most armies.
I don't think your assessment is fair.
The opponent's deployment would win him a game 5/6ths of the time. Not because Magnus is overpowered, but because the OP's list had not brought enough anti-psyker and anti-air power to deal with a threat like Magnus. If you have a way to win a game 5/6ths of the time, but you'll be screwed 1/6th of the time, and your other option is to deploy defensively and take it closer to a 60/40 shot 5/6th of the time and a 40/60 shot the other 1/6th, then the aggressive choice is objectively the better one.
Also: I am reading the same OP as you, right? Because Galef never said that his opponent deployed aggressively. It doesn't matter where you put Magnus on the board, unless you have really heavy terrain and get Night Fighting, he's only going to get a 4+ save - You could stick him further back on the table, but since the Magnus player was going first, there was no real way to get him away from Galef's units - There was nothing he could have done in any normal game. If he was the second player, he could have observed where Galef put his big guns, and then placed Magnus on the far side of the board, or left him in reserves, but since he was going first he was effectively helpless against a Seize roll. (I don't know the specifics of the game, sure, but NEITHER DO YOU because the OP never mentioned them, so accusing the Magnus player of deploying badly is not fair at all.)
And yes, it is a problem with 40k balance that losing a single model can change the game so drastically, but Magnus isn't normally that easy to drop - The only reason he was easy to kill is because of a 1/6th chance roll that can never be relied on.
Breng77 wrote: I always have mixed feelings. It sucks when you get seized and it costs you the game. At the same time to me that usually means that you deployed in an overly aggressive manner or there is poor terrain on the table. I would say that given good terrain I'd rather keep seize in the game. My reasoning is as follows.
1.) Removing it simply changes which single dice roll might decide the game. No instead of seize it becomes the roll for first turn.
2.) You may argue that, "knowing" that you are going second has you deploy differently, but that is what seize keeps in check. If you take the risk of deploying in an aggressive manner to get the jump on your opponent you might lose because of it. Without seize what stops things with scout/infiltrate from crippling your opponent first turn?
so unless it is replaced with a contested roll post deployment (and scout, and infiltrate) to see who gets first turn, I don't think its removal is a good thing. That said in that case deploying second is almost always an advantage (since terrain is often very even) so it would likely need some bonus to the roll for deploying first.
Jefffar wrote: I'd think a chance to steal initiative every turn would be a little more interesting while at the same time reducing the impact of the single roll
Like rolling to see who goes first each game turn?
That would be interesting, but it could/will give a player the opportunity of using their whole army twice before the other guy.
2 turns of Tau/Eldar shooting before you get to move your stuff.
2 turns of Berzerkers berzerking before you get to shoot them.
Jefffar wrote: I'd think a chance to steal initiative every turn would be a little more interesting while at the same time reducing the impact of the single roll
Like rolling to see who goes first each game turn?
That would be interesting, but it could/will give a player the opportunity of using their whole army twice before the other guy.
2 turns of Tau/Eldar shooting before you get to move your stuff.
2 turns of Berzerkers berzerking before you get to shoot them.
Eh... sounds dangerous!
But it could work if the overall game turn structure was Player A, then B movement pahse, Player A then B psychic phase, A then B shooting phase, A then B declare and move charges, with 1 single combat resolution per game turn. Sieze each turn just determines if A then B or B then A happens first each turn.
That would ensure that no player gets back-to-back turns because each phase include both players.
Jefffar wrote: I'd think a chance to steal initiative every turn would be a little more interesting while at the same time reducing the impact of the single roll
Like rolling to see who goes first each game turn?
That would be interesting, but it could/will give a player the opportunity of using their whole army twice before the other guy.
2 turns of Tau/Eldar shooting before you get to move your stuff.
2 turns of Berzerkers berzerking before you get to shoot them.
Eh... sounds dangerous!
But it could work if the overall game turn structure was Player A, then B movement pahse, Player A then B psychic phase, A then B shooting phase, A then B declare and move charges, with 1 single combat resolution per game turn. Sieze each turn just determines if A then B or B then A happens first each turn.
That would ensure that no player gets back-to-back turns because each phase include both players.
-
I've played a few games with this alternating phases mechanic, and it works pretty well. Never thought of doing an AoS style roll-off, though. That could be interesting.
redleger wrote: His deployment lost him the game. Enjoy the victory.
this.
They guy deployed very aggressive and wanted to crush your army in 1-2 turns.. you even acknowledge that. If he knew he was going to get seized on he would have positioned less aggressive.
To be honest. StO isn't the reason why he lost..it was his deployment. Not 1 dice role.
I am also going to add this. One of the reasons why I like 40K is that generally losing 1 model shouldnt cost you the game. In the new era of 40k, 600+ point units are now in the game. I don't like that. However if your going to put all your eggs in one basket..fine go ahead. I hope I seize on you and take that unit out.
Seize is a necessary evil.. more than ever, now that players can run 1-2 units that take up a majority of points and can terrorize most armies.
I don't think your assessment is fair.
The opponent's deployment would win him a game 5/6ths of the time. Not because Magnus is overpowered, but because the OP's list had not brought enough anti-psyker and anti-air power to deal with a threat like Magnus. If you have a way to win a game 5/6ths of the time, but you'll be screwed 1/6th of the time, and your other option is to deploy defensively and take it closer to a 60/40 shot 5/6th of the time and a 40/60 shot the other 1/6th, then the aggressive choice is objectively the better one.
Also: I am reading the same OP as you, right? Because Galef never said that his opponent deployed aggressively. It doesn't matter where you put Magnus on the board, unless you have really heavy terrain and get Night Fighting, he's only going to get a 4+ save - You could stick him further back on the table, but since the Magnus player was going first, there was no real way to get him away from Galef's units - There was nothing he could have done in any normal game. If he was the second player, he could have observed where Galef put his big guns, and then placed Magnus on the far side of the board, or left him in reserves, but since he was going first he was effectively helpless against a Seize roll. (I don't know the specifics of the game, sure, but NEITHER DO YOU because the OP never mentioned them, so accusing the Magnus player of deploying badly is not fair at all.)
And yes, it is a problem with 40k balance that losing a single model can change the game so drastically, but Magnus isn't normally that easy to drop - The only reason he was easy to kill is because of a 1/6th chance roll that can never be relied on.
He put Magnus in harm's way because it was the optimal position to start an offensive on his opponent. He chose that optimal position because he didn't weigh the potential of a BRB rule to bite him in the butt.
I count aggression and overconfidence as his downfall.
I quite like it - it forces the player who has the first turn to consider what would happen if his enemy had first turn, and perhaps slightly alter his deployment because of it.
You know the roll is going to happen in advance, so it should be expected. It's still 50/50 who gets first turn. presuming both players attempt to seize if they roll lower for deciding first turn.
Don't forget that sometimes you *want* your opponent to go first.
Also, the OP probably deployed like gak if he had enough on the table to delete Magnus and relevant targets.
The big thing with going second is that you're aiming to minimize the damage you're going to take, and that in turn generally makes your seizing not that devastating.
Unless you're bidding on seizing, in which case you're taking a risk which you pay for.
Talizvar wrote: ..... at least you do not roll up randomly your troops.
Please don't give GW any ideas!
But on the topic of 'You Go, I Go' I think unit based activation would be annoying as heck. You'd have to have little counters to keep track or some other such nonsense.
What about "phase turns"?
Keep the "You go, I go" but make 1 game turn like this: You move, I move, You psychic, I psychic, You shoot, I shoot, You assault, I assault, Resolve combats. End turn
Beginning of each turn both players roll off to 'go first"
What are the issues with that system?
-
I think that phase activation would really hurt assault armies. If I need to move my units into the open to assault you or disembark from my assault vehicle then you get to shoot me. Further if the assault player moves first it is easier for his opponent to flee and kite the unit. I feel like the game would become even more about shooting than it is now or incentivize deathstars even more because you would need a unit to be able to survive in the open to be able to assault.
I think unit (though I would argue for groups of units rather than single units) activation has built in ability to punish deathstars, hurts the ability to alpha strike other armies. The biggest issue would be combat resolution so that might need to be separate at the end of turn or something
redleger wrote: His deployment lost him the game. Enjoy the victory.
this.
They guy deployed very aggressive and wanted to crush your army in 1-2 turns.. you even acknowledge that. If he knew he was going to get seized on he would have positioned less aggressive.
To be honest. StO isn't the reason why he lost..it was his deployment. Not 1 dice role.
I am also going to add this. One of the reasons why I like 40K is that generally losing 1 model shouldnt cost you the game. In the new era of 40k, 600+ point units are now in the game. I don't like that. However if your going to put all your eggs in one basket..fine go ahead. I hope I seize on you and take that unit out.
Seize is a necessary evil.. more than ever, now that players can run 1-2 units that take up a majority of points and can terrorize most armies.
I don't think your assessment is fair.
The opponent's deployment would win him a game 5/6ths of the time. Not because Magnus is overpowered, but because the OP's list had not brought enough anti-psyker and anti-air power to deal with a threat like Magnus. If you have a way to win a game 5/6ths of the time, but you'll be screwed 1/6th of the time, and your other option is to deploy defensively and take it closer to a 60/40 shot 5/6th of the time and a 40/60 shot the other 1/6th, then the aggressive choice is objectively the better one.
Also: I am reading the same OP as you, right? Because Galef never said that his opponent deployed aggressively. It doesn't matter where you put Magnus on the board, unless you have really heavy terrain and get Night Fighting, he's only going to get a 4+ save - You could stick him further back on the table, but since the Magnus player was going first, there was no real way to get him away from Galef's units - There was nothing he could have done in any normal game. If he was the second player, he could have observed where Galef put his big guns, and then placed Magnus on the far side of the board, or left him in reserves, but since he was going first he was effectively helpless against a Seize roll. (I don't know the specifics of the game, sure, but NEITHER DO YOU because the OP never mentioned them, so accusing the Magnus player of deploying badly is not fair at all.)
And yes, it is a problem with 40k balance that losing a single model can change the game so drastically, but Magnus isn't normally that easy to drop - The only reason he was easy to kill is because of a 1/6th chance roll that can never be relied on.
I will say that we have no knowledge of the terrain available, but your assessment assumes that a change in deployment changes the chances of winning from 100% 5/6ths of the time to 60% 5/6th of the time. Chances are though that if Magnus is a game winning piece what we are talking about is the difference between winning the game on turn 3 vs winning on turn 4 or 5 by changing deployment (assuming there is a place to hide him out of line of sight) If we make that assumption that it changes when he wins rather him losing 40% of the time. Or what if changing deployment means he wins 90% if he doesn't get seized and 80% if he does. Then it is objectively the better choice.
In the end I would argue that objectively it is always a better choice to not leave winning or losing to 1 dice roll. Unless terrain is terrible (no LOS blocking pieces) then we can assume that this was a mistake in deployment at worst, or a calculated risk (as you suggest) that did not go to plan. It is the same thing as trying to claim an objective with one guy with a 2+ save who needs to survive 1 armor save to win you the game.
For certain match ups it can be far too devastating, in fact almost a certain loss. I'd tweak it so that if you lose you could make a standard move, trying to get into cover or something.
I agree with the theme that it's a crude way to balance out the threat of an alpha strike.
I've seized the initiative against Dark Eldar in tournament games. that single roll certainly swung the odds of the game more than anything else. This was back when skimmers had bonuses to durability, but only after they moved. But all of the rules that went into that situation were also dumb.
Seize is fine. It's an awkward patch on a flawed system.
In 40K, it's an annoyance that you can't plan on, and what, only 1 in 6 games does it work?
In 30K, there are Primarchs and Rite of War that can heavily influence the Seize the Initiative roll.
If it stays as is, I'd rather it just "goes away" in 8th edition. If they add more modifiers and allow you to plan for it, then I'd like to see it stay.
I like it, anytime I've seized it's helped me tremendously. Any time I've been seized against it didn't make a huge different because I deploy strategically. It's great and can be a huge boon for having good luck and deploying intelligently. Even my last game we were able to kill the Necron Lord in the first turn which helped TREMENDOUSLY throughout the entire game because of the removal of re-rolling 1s for resurrection. It's a fun mechanic and punishes more for being not strategic than anything else.
breng77 and Dakka Wolf sum up my position and ill stick to it. True I made a few assumptions ... however those assumptions were based on the result of that Seize (reserving Magus would have prevented it). I also stand by my assertion that having 600+ point units in this game is stupid when regardless of who went first, one of these players ( by the OPs admission) was getting there armies mopped up in 1-2 turns due to that model (living or dying).
BTW I run both a White Scars Gladius army and a White scar Biker army that would love to see StI go away... however It keeps me in check because I know if I get seized on it could be a bad day for me. So I deploy accordingly.
I agree that Seize is a fallible mechanic...however I do remember in the days of 5th edition (pre StI ...if I recall correctly) when Alpha Strike and Leaf Blower armies were a thing. Since StI has been introduced..those armies have toned down a bit. Something I feel is a good.
Anything that makes the game a bit random random but not extremely random is welcome IMHO. Seize the initiative is nice, you have to consider it when deploying your army.
zedsdead wrote: breng77 and Dakka Wolf sum up my position and ill stick to it. True I made a few assumptions ... however those assumptions were based on the result of that Seize (reserving Magus would have prevented it). I also stand by my assertion that having 600+ point units in this game is stupid when regardless of who went first, one of these players ( by the OPs admission) was getting there armies mopped up in 1-2 turns due to that model (living or dying).
BTW I run both a White Scars Gladius army and a White scar Biker army that would love to see StI go away... however It keeps me in check because I know if I get seized on it could be a bad day for me. So I deploy accordingly.
I agree that Seize is a fallible mechanic...however I do remember in the days of 5th edition (pre StI ...if I recall correctly) when Alpha Strike and Leaf Blower armies were a thing. Since StI has been introduced..those armies have toned down a bit. Something I feel is a good.
There was Seize in 5th but vehicles were so durable it often did not matter for those alpha strike armies. You could also get flat out cover saves during scout moves. I 100% agree on hugely expensive models in stock 40k games, I just think they are super hard to balance correctly. Either they are way too good, or they are terrible. My line is around 300 points on an individual model. I only think models that expensive work are in systems like the old fantasy where there is a cap on how much of your army can come from certain slots.
Bike armies were a big reason I support STI, I'm playing DA and I just picture Ravenwing with no Seize, I take a ton of Grav bikes, Scout 12", move 12" light up pretty much whatever I want turn 1. Now it wouldn't be the best army ever, but against some lists it would be almost auto-win with no seize. You can fit 16 grav bike squads (32 grav guns) into 1850 points. Doesn't really seem like fun to me.
Tamwulf wrote: In 40K, it's an annoyance that you can't plan on, and what, only 1 in 6 games does it work?
In 30K, there are Primarchs and Rite of War that can heavily influence the Seize the Initiative roll.
If it stays as is, I'd rather it just "goes away" in 8th edition. If they add more modifiers and allow you to plan for it, then I'd like to see it stay.
40k has those modifiers too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: They're rare and hard to stack but they're there.
I really enjoyed the old fantasy rules of placing one unit at a time and whoever finishes first gets +1 to the roll to go first.
Not only does it force you to deploy as if you might go second, but it adds a layer of strategy to army composition as well. I've purpose built armies to finish deploying first, to get that +1 advantage, but those armies also struggled more on objective grabbing. due to small numbers of units.
He put Magnus in harm's way because it was the optimal position to start an offensive on his opponent. He chose that optimal position because he didn't weigh the potential of a BRB rule to bite him in the butt.
I count aggression and overconfidence as his downfall.
So, how would you recommend deploying a model that is most of a foot tall and already has a 4++ rerolling 1s? No cover save is going to be better than what he already has unless you've got really tall ruins and nightfighting, and you can't deploy far away from your opponent if you don't know where your opponent is going to deploy. Maybe if the Magnus player brought a Void Shield Generator, but didn't deploy within the Void Shield, that would count as deploying non-defensively, but that's just about the only circumstance I can think of. (Space Marine/CSM allies with a Techpriest to bolster defenses on a piece of cover, maybe?)
Due to Magnus's size, and inbuilt durability, there is nothing that you can do on most game boards to make him more durable during deployment. Unless you know some secret that I do not, there's just nothing that he could have done to prevent the damage he took beyond leaving Magnus off the board entirely.
So is that what you are suggesting? That simply putting Magnus on the board at all was a bad tactical decision? That leaving a third of your army off the board for the first turn is a wise tactical decision because a 1/6th chance, even though the other 5/6ths of the time, a move that stupid will cost you the game?
Or are you saying that Magnus is a tactically bad choice entirely, because the mechanics of Seize the Initiative make him impossible to use without excessive risk?
There's just no good outcome here for your argument. Seize the Initiative should not make major chunks of codexes/armies unplayable, but by your own argument, it does.
Tamwulf wrote: In 40K, it's an annoyance that you can't plan on, and what, only 1 in 6 games does it work?
In 30K, there are Primarchs and Rite of War that can heavily influence the Seize the Initiative roll.
If it stays as is, I'd rather it just "goes away" in 8th edition. If they add more modifiers and allow you to plan for it, then I'd like to see it stay.
40k has those modifiers too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: They're rare and hard to stack but they're there.
The best I've come up with is to take Coteaz, Bjorn, and a Heralds of the Great Wolf formation. You re-roll first turn, your opponent re-rolls seizing, and you have a 4+ rerollable seize the initiative. (If you make someone else your warlord, you could even get the right Command Trait for a 3+.) Space Wolves are the only army I know of that have more than one source of StI manipulation, not including BRB Warlord Traits.
I'd expect AOS-style Roll per turn to appear, max two turns in a row for a player. Seems tactically interesting, as you have to leave yourself ready to attack but defended just in case.
He put Magnus in harm's way because it was the optimal position to start an offensive on his opponent. He chose that optimal position because he didn't weigh the potential of a BRB rule to bite him in the butt.
I count aggression and overconfidence as his downfall.
So, how would you recommend deploying a model that is most of a foot tall and already has a 4++ rerolling 1s? No cover save is going to be better than what he already has unless you've got really tall ruins and nightfighting, and you can't deploy far away from your opponent if you don't know where your opponent is going to deploy. Maybe if the Magnus player brought a Void Shield Generator, but didn't deploy within the Void Shield, that would count as deploying non-defensively, but that's just about the only circumstance I can think of. (Space Marine/CSM allies with a Techpriest to bolster defenses on a piece of cover, maybe?)
Due to Magnus's size, and inbuilt durability, there is nothing that you can do on most game boards to make him more durable during deployment. Unless you know some secret that I do not, there's just nothing that he could have done to prevent the damage he took beyond leaving Magnus off the board entirely.
So is that what you are suggesting? That simply putting Magnus on the board at all was a bad tactical decision? That leaving a third of your army off the board for the first turn is a wise tactical decision because a 1/6th chance, even though the other 5/6ths of the time, a move that stupid will cost you the game?
Or are you saying that Magnus is a tactically bad choice entirely, because the mechanics of Seize the Initiative make him impossible to use without excessive risk?
There's just no good outcome here for your argument. Seize the Initiative should not make major chunks of codexes/armies unplayable, but by your own argument, it does.
Tamwulf wrote: In 40K, it's an annoyance that you can't plan on, and what, only 1 in 6 games does it work?
In 30K, there are Primarchs and Rite of War that can heavily influence the Seize the Initiative roll.
If it stays as is, I'd rather it just "goes away" in 8th edition. If they add more modifiers and allow you to plan for it, then I'd like to see it stay.
40k has those modifiers too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: They're rare and hard to stack but they're there.
The best I've come up with is to take Coteaz, Bjorn, and a Heralds of the Great Wolf formation. You re-roll first turn, your opponent re-rolls seizing, and you have a 4+ rerollable seize the initiative. (If you make someone else your warlord, you could even get the right Command Trait for a 3+.) Space Wolves are the only army I know of that have more than one source of StI manipulation, not including BRB Warlord Traits.
I have every respect for taking gambles, I also accept that taking gambles comes with concequences and relies on luck - I've been burned enough times to get into the habit of knowing those concequences. I play aggressive, I play with a re-rollable deployment and a 2+ Seize, funny story, I cater to the possibility that Lady Luck might spit in my face - my build is still aggressive, as is my deployment.
I've said on multiple occassions when people claimed that Magnus was OP that Magnus is an inflexible, high risk, high yield choice, an offensive choice.
A list building choice of putting six hundred odd points into one model is also an offensive choice. Magnus is a large chunk of points that not only synergises with his army, he's dependent on it - as proved, if Magnus dies the army is crippled, on the flip side, if the army dies, Magnus is crippled.
Hiding Magnus in Reserves is no worse than what happened, one turn of psychic mayhem is better than - how many turns did Magnus get again? It was a nice, round number.
My argument is fine, as is Seize the Initiative, it doesn't make anything "Unplayable" it makes deployment a gamble. If randomness scares you maybe a dice game is just the wrong place for you.
Seize modifiers
Grimnar's War Council +2
Bjorn +1
Imotekh the Stormlord +1
Chaos Strategic Genius +1
Heralds of the Great Wolf +1
Harlequins re-roll
Coteaz no idea about his modifier - Can't be bothered looking it up.
Farsight Enclaves Mirror Codex - Don't know, can't be bothered chasing it.
Okay, so tell me this once again:
Why, when I have sacrificed the Strategic Initiative for the Tactical Initiative does my opponent have a 1 in 6 chance plus modifiers to take the Tactical initiative off me?
Can I gain a 1 in 6 plus modifiers chance to take the strategic initiative and redeploy my units? Or how about this:
Seize the Initiative: You can go first on a roll of a 6, but if you do make the roll then your opponent can instantly redeploy his entire army.
Look at how Infinity does this: Whichever player goes first can choose who deploys first and where (Strategic Initiative) or who goes first (Tactical Initiative).
The other player then chooses the remaining option.
So, say I choose to deploy second, here, then you can choose to go first.
Or if I choose to go first you can choose where you want to deploy and who goes first.
master of ordinance wrote: Okay, so tell me this once again:
Why, when I have sacrificed the Strategic Initiative for the Tactical Initiative does my opponent have a 1 in 6 chance plus modifiers to take the Tactical initiative off me?
Can I gain a 1 in 6 plus modifiers chance to take the strategic initiative and redeploy my units? Or how about this:
Seize the Initiative: You can go first on a roll of a 6, but if you do make the roll then your opponent can instantly redeploy his entire army.
Look at how Infinity does this: Whichever player goes first can choose who deploys first and where (Strategic Initiative) or who goes first (Tactical Initiative).
The other player then chooses the remaining option.
So, say I choose to deploy second, here, then you can choose to go first.
Or if I choose to go first you can choose where you want to deploy and who goes first.
Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.
master of ordinance wrote: Okay, so tell me this once again:
Why, when I have sacrificed the Strategic Initiative for the Tactical Initiative does my opponent have a 1 in 6 chance plus modifiers to take the Tactical initiative off me?
Can I gain a 1 in 6 plus modifiers chance to take the strategic initiative and redeploy my units? Or how about this:
Seize the Initiative: You can go first on a roll of a 6, but if you do make the roll then your opponent can instantly redeploy his entire army.
Look at how Infinity does this: Whichever player goes first can choose who deploys first and where (Strategic Initiative) or who goes first (Tactical Initiative).
The other player then chooses the remaining option.
So, say I choose to deploy second, here, then you can choose to go first.
Or if I choose to go first you can choose where you want to deploy and who goes first.
Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.
Okay then, then on a roll of a '6' plus modifiers let me redeploy my entire army, because my opponent might not have bothered with scouts.
Perhaps make the seize roll optional, say a roll of a one being not only does the other player still go first, but perhaps they get a free 6" move on anything mobile before turn one.
master of ordinance wrote: Okay, so tell me this once again:
Why, when I have sacrificed the Strategic Initiative for the Tactical Initiative does my opponent have a 1 in 6 chance plus modifiers to take the Tactical initiative off me?
Can I gain a 1 in 6 plus modifiers chance to take the strategic initiative and redeploy my units? Or how about this:
Seize the Initiative: You can go first on a roll of a 6, but if you do make the roll then your opponent can instantly redeploy his entire army.
Look at how Infinity does this: Whichever player goes first can choose who deploys first and where (Strategic Initiative) or who goes first (Tactical Initiative).
The other player then chooses the remaining option.
So, say I choose to deploy second, here, then you can choose to go first.
Or if I choose to go first you can choose where you want to deploy and who goes first.
Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.
Okay then, then on a roll of a '6' plus modifiers let me redeploy my entire army, because my opponent might not have bothered with scouts.
Personally, I'd be thrilled to death if those stackable Seize Modifiers were on my Wolf Scouts rather than Bjorn, Heralds of the Great Wolf and Grimnar's War Council, I might actually find a use for them if that were the case.
We all know that there are many questionable rules in 40k. However, seize the initiative is in my opinion the worst rule in the book. I'd be willing to bet that it's gone and I don't expect to hear anyone complain about that.
Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.
So what is the "risk" of seizing? Can it backfire?
Seizing is a lucky bonus to allow second player to deploy not very carefully (because, unlike the first player, he know where every opposing unit is, except those in reserve...), and still alpha strike.
Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.
So what is the "risk" of seizing? Can it backfire?
Seizing is a lucky bonus to allow second player to deploy not very carefully (because, unlike the first player, he know where every opposing unit is, except those in reserve...), and still alpha strike.
If you deploy to take maximum advantage of the seize there is really quite a lot of risk. I always look at seize as less of a significant bonus to the second player, and more of a check on player 1.
But the earlier mentioned command level system would be nice in place of the current system.
Actually even nicer would be a system were armylist gets assigned Swiftness score, based on unit choices. Like every unit either providing +0 or +X swiftness, or something. And the more swift army would get some deployment bonuses or something +X to who goes first roll or something.
But in general I would like to see 40k overhauled on many different levels, so I'm against most of the features of current system.
Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.
So what is the "risk" of seizing? Can it backfire?
Seizing is a lucky bonus to allow second player to deploy not very carefully (because, unlike the first player, he know where every opposing unit is, except those in reserve...), and still alpha strike.
If you deploy to take maximum advantage of the seize there is really quite a lot of risk. I always look at seize as less of a significant bonus to the second player, and more of a check on player 1.
agreed 100%. if the player going first puts nothing behind cover, 100% of army on the line ready to rush forward and then gets seized on that is just bad tactics. Even when I am setting up on a board as the attacking player I need to set up somewhat defensively using LOS blocking terrain to cover me from most angles where possible or at least get partial coverage from most possible angles of fire. otherwise I am ignoring a 17% chance to have my forces obliterated. I always saw seize the initiative as sort of a thematic the opposing general has discerned your tactics and battle plan and is ordering units to react before the would be attacker has a chance to implement their plan.
I've thought about this a little bit... it doesn't have to be seize, but there needs to be a mechanic such that whoever deploys first does so without putting everything super far forward and out in the open.
I think a better solution would be one like I mentioned earlier where you have alternating unit or "battlegroup" activation with an initiative roll off at the start of each game turn for initiative. battle group would be my preference I think.
So you would roll off for deployment, winner either gets to choose sides and begin deployment, or deploy second. Then alternate deploying battlegroups - I deploy 1, then my opponent, until we are fully deployed.
At the start of turn 1 roll off, the winner gets to decide to either take the first activation, or pass it to his opponent.
Then alternate activating battlegroups, until all units have activated.
repeat roll off on turn 2.
I would invision turns looking like
1.)Activations of battle groups = move, psychic, shoot, charge.
2.) Resolve close combats
3.) End turn
An example of how battle groups might work would be.
Battlegroup ~ 250 points worth of units
Independent characters that join units activate as part of that unit's battlegroup.
the problem you then get is that alpha strike literally becomes the meta of the entire game. its bad enough right now where alpha strike pretty much rules the roost with little chance of another army archetype to carry the day against it. but taking away seize clads it in armour that you can never just remove
and honestly, if you brought magnus and didnt expect him to get focused down because hes literally insanely undercosted to the point where if you x1.5'd his cost hed still probably be undercosted (some would argue) thats your own fault. thats like forgetting your books and dice at home for the LVO and expecting to be allowed to compete.. thats not how that works.
honestly if anything this is a sign that magnus should maybe be treated as less of an auto include in your army because of the polarizing nature of the overpowered stuff like him or other mega units that tend to basically decide a game on turn 1. i mean if magnus lives to see turn 2 your almost always going to win that game, if he dies then your probably about to lose. makes your army a lot less "all your eggs on 1 basket"
Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.
So what is the "risk" of seizing? Can it backfire?
Seizing is a lucky bonus to allow second player to deploy not very carefully (because, unlike the first player, he know where every opposing unit is, except those in reserve...), and still alpha strike.
If you deploy to take maximum advantage of the seize there is really quite a lot of risk. I always look at seize as less of a significant bonus to the second player, and more of a check on player 1.
agreed 100%. if the player going first puts nothing behind cover, 100% of army on the line ready to rush forward and then gets seized on that is just bad tactics. Even when I am setting up on a board as the attacking player I need to set up somewhat defensively using LOS blocking terrain to cover me from most angles where possible or at least get partial coverage from most possible angles of fire. otherwise I am ignoring a 17% chance to have my forces obliterated. I always saw seize the initiative as sort of a thematic the opposing general has discerned your tactics and battle plan and is ordering units to react before the would be attacker has a chance to implement their plan.
I really don't understand why the second player need such a big advantage.
First player have to deploy blindly, and get cover can be difficult, because you don't know where the enemy is. So the second player can deploy to force the first player to get cover in the first round, but 17% of the time, he can't even do that!
This wouldn't problem with alternating deployment, but here the first player have to deploy his whole army and hope for the best.
Second player just have to counter deploy, which is a big advantage, especially if you have a longer range (because you know you are out of range, but the enemy will be in yours), and if you are lucky, you gain the first turn, with no downside (risk = 0, reward = get the alpha strike)
Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.
So what is the "risk" of seizing? Can it backfire?
Seizing is a lucky bonus to allow second player to deploy not very carefully (because, unlike the first player, he know where every opposing unit is, except those in reserve...), and still alpha strike.
If you deploy to take maximum advantage of the seize there is really quite a lot of risk. I always look at seize as less of a significant bonus to the second player, and more of a check on player 1.
agreed 100%. if the player going first puts nothing behind cover, 100% of army on the line ready to rush forward and then gets seized on that is just bad tactics. Even when I am setting up on a board as the attacking player I need to set up somewhat defensively using LOS blocking terrain to cover me from most angles where possible or at least get partial coverage from most possible angles of fire. otherwise I am ignoring a 17% chance to have my forces obliterated. I always saw seize the initiative as sort of a thematic the opposing general has discerned your tactics and battle plan and is ordering units to react before the would be attacker has a chance to implement their plan.
I really don't understand why the second player need such a big advantage.
First player have to deploy blindly, and get cover can be difficult, because you don't know where the enemy is. So the second player can deploy to force the first player to get cover in the first round, but 17% of the time, he can't even do that!
This wouldn't problem with alternating deployment, but here the first player have to deploy his whole army and hope for the best.
Second player just have to counter deploy, which is a big advantage, especially if you have a longer range (because you know you are out of range, but the enemy will be in yours), and if you are lucky, you gain the first turn, with no downside (risk = 0, reward = get the alpha strike)
I have no issue with alternate deployment, just thinking how things are now.
as for not being able to defensively deploy I would argue that is easy when going first as you at leas know what your opponent has from initial discussion of armies. the idea of a defensive deploy for first player also requires there to be either plenty of terrain or LOS blocking terrain. obviously an open field will not work, but there is a reason tournaments have set terrain and plenty of LOS blocking things around.
personally UI plan on them seizing and get pleasantly surprised when they do not. I might expose rear armor of a vehicle to make sure a space marine placed devistators on a certain corner of their board where I will have an outflanker coming in later, or where a scout move unit will not have hard time getting a turn 2 assault.
because without seize there is absolutely no way to avoid some alpha strikes that exist in the game. It is really not that hard to get cover as the first player deploying if terrain is good. To some extent since many people play with even terrain getting first turn is somewhat mitigated, but if terrain is not symmetrical the first player may have a significant advantage in both deployment, and initiative.
Your range thing works both ways. If I know I have better range than you and am going first I can set up where I know you cannot get range to me and I will have range to you.
As for get the alpha strike, as player 2 you most likely cannot set up in an optimal alpha strike deployment because you are unlikely to go first. So it is rare, unless your opponent has over extended that seizing results in a huge alpha strike.
Marmatag wrote: I've thought about this a little bit... it doesn't have to be seize, but there needs to be a mechanic such that whoever deploys first does so without putting everything super far forward and out in the open.
Breng77 wrote: I think a better solution would be one like I mentioned earlier where you have alternating unit or "battlegroup" activation with an initiative roll off at the start of each game turn for initiative. battle group would be my preference I think.
So you would roll off for deployment, winner either gets to choose sides and begin deployment, or deploy second. Then alternate deploying battlegroups - I deploy 1, then my opponent, until we are fully deployed.
At the start of turn 1 roll off, the winner gets to decide to either take the first activation, or pass it to his opponent.
For those who remember 4th Ed, that's pretty similar to how it was done. Each player took turns deploying a unit at a time, starting with Heavy Support, then Troops - Elites - HQ - Fast Attack, until both armies were completely deployed minus Reserves. Then they rolled off to see who goes first.
Not to mention that LOS worked differently, you couldn't see through a forest or other types of area terrain at all, so it was easier to block LOS to the other army. The deployment rules plus terrain rules helped mitigate the potential of first turn erasures. There's something to be said about the fact that 5th Ed. was the "Leafblower" edition.
The current set up obviously saves time, and Seize is there to encourage the first player from deploying super aggressively.
