Switch Theme:

Are Most Games Over By Turn Two?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Amishprn86 wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
 DarkHound wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Pff - on top of all of this you can even seize the initiative which should ultimately be removed from the game at this point IMO.
The existence of seizing the initiative is extremely important for the game. It forces the player going first to consider giving up an optimal first turn due to the risk of being blown out. For a single game, it can make sense to accept the possibility and maximize turn 1, and a poor player will accidentally do this. However, in a tournament or series, it's very likely the initiative will get seized at some point, so you always have to prepare for it.
If your goal is a game decided by skill and tactics, there can hardly be a worst way to determine who goes first than Seize The Initiative. The player who wins the roll to go first either setup to take advantage of his initiative or he set up to mitigate the possibility of a 1 in 6 chance of getting seized on. Either way, he is forced into making a bad choice. He has a 1 in 6 chance of being screwed by the die, or a 5 in 6 chance of having let a good opportunity to be in a better position in the game go away. That's not skill at work, that's luck.

It would be more skill based if Player A set up, Player B setup, and then Player a rolled a die 1-3 he goes for and 4-6 Player B goes first. At least then both players have to deploy not knowing if they will go first.


Last year i took my Pure quins to an ITC tournament, 2 wins good scores with quins, playing on top table for (depending on score, 1st through 4th). last game it was a TERRIBLE mission (bonus), terrain setup and deployment, it was literally everything perfect for him. But i knew i was going first and i had to set up to go first for a chance to win, or i had to set up to go second and have a large uphill battle (moreso than normal for quins). He ing seized on me. I played out turn 1 then just to him he gets max points and stopped. So stupid b.c i had a chance if he didn't seize, otherwise i had almost 0.

I hate seize so much.
Yes following the discussion on STI. It seems that most people don't like it. The point is - you are forced to take advantage of a 5/6 chance because your opponent got to counter deploy you. You are conceding defeat or looking for a long slong at best if you don't deploy to take advantage.

Obviously going first or second need certain considerations to be made for balance BUT STI is just stupid. I would much prefer the player that goes second gets to counter deploy AND choose (not randomly determine) the deployment type AND zone + remove STI. In an ITC mission where that is all predetermined I don't know how they could handle it. Though going second in an ITC setting with tons of terrain and mission scoring is actually a huge advantage already.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Falls Church, VA

Isn't that how it works in the CA2019 missions?

The "Defender" (chosen by the person who won the roll off) gets to pick what deployment zone type is used, what deployment zone they want, and deploys second.

Some people say they know no fear. What they mean is that they have encountered and conquered it. I, on the other hand, truly know no fear. It is as alien to me as doubt, rage, or mercy.

2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment - 12,376 points
Order of the Luminous Beacon - 2087 points
Nevian Conclave of the Ordo Hereticus - 2002 points 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





I read it too like that the first time.

Unfortunately it is written quite badly and what it really means is that you counterdeploy and choose your zone, but can't decide the deployment type.

Still quite a massive advantage which offen offsets going second.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Falls Church, VA

Spoletta wrote:
I read it too like that the first time.

Unfortunately it is written quite badly and what it really means is that you counterdeploy and choose your zone, but can't decide the deployment type.

Still quite a massive advantage which offen offsets going second.


Can't you? I remember in CA2018 you had to roll randomly because that's what the rulebook says, but in CA2019 I thought they fixed that. I guess it's still random. I don't have CA on hand to check.

Some people say they know no fear. What they mean is that they have encountered and conquered it. I, on the other hand, truly know no fear. It is as alien to me as doubt, rage, or mercy.

2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment - 12,376 points
Order of the Luminous Beacon - 2087 points
Nevian Conclave of the Ordo Hereticus - 2002 points 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
I read it too like that the first time.

Unfortunately it is written quite badly and what it really means is that you counterdeploy and choose your zone, but can't decide the deployment type.

Still quite a massive advantage which offen offsets going second.


Can't you? I remember in CA2018 you had to roll randomly because that's what the rulebook says, but in CA2019 I thought they fixed that. I guess it's still random. I don't have CA on hand to check.
Even in CA19, the deployment zone is still random. The defender "determines" it, but it's still random.
BRB Page 216 wrote:These six standard deployment maps are referenced in the matched play missions in this section. When playing matched play missions, you must randomly select one of these deployment maps. To do so, one of the players simply rolls a D6 – you then use the deployment map that corresponds to the result. The mission will typically say which player makes this roll – if not, it is made by the youngest player.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
I read it too like that the first time.

Unfortunately it is written quite badly and what it really means is that you counterdeploy and choose your zone, but can't decide the deployment type.

Still quite a massive advantage which offen offsets going second.


Can't you? I remember in CA2018 you had to roll randomly because that's what the rulebook says, but in CA2019 I thought they fixed that. I guess it's still random. I don't have CA on hand to check.


The wording's a bit stupid and definitely not the clearest, but deployment zones have always been randomly determined in these missions. It was a pretty common mistake lots of people made when that Chapter Approved came out though.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Slipspace wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
I read it too like that the first time.

Unfortunately it is written quite badly and what it really means is that you counterdeploy and choose your zone, but can't decide the deployment type.

Still quite a massive advantage which offen offsets going second.


Can't you? I remember in CA2018 you had to roll randomly because that's what the rulebook says, but in CA2019 I thought they fixed that. I guess it's still random. I don't have CA on hand to check.


The wording's a bit stupid and definitely not the clearest, but deployment zones have always been randomly determined in these missions. It was a pretty common mistake lots of people made when that Chapter Approved came out though.
Exactly. I feel like the misunderstanding would actually be a big improvement along with removing STI.

This would give both player automatic benefits - and the befits are roughly even.


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In my experience, yes. It's rare to see a game go to turn 3 in any meaningful state (i.e. the game is decided turn 2 if not before that).

The simple fact is that GW cranked the killyness of everything to a ludicrous degree. Hurricane Bolters and Twin Assault Cannons are the best example.

Hurricane Bolters, when first introduced in 4th edition, "consists of three twin-linked bolters". This meant they could either fire 6 shots at 12", or 3 shots at 24" if they did not move, re-rolling failed hits. Now they fire 12 Shots at 12" or 6 shots at 24" with Centuions being able to fire 12 shots at 24" regardless of if they moved or not.

Twin(-Linked) Assault Cannons went from 3 Shots re-rolling misses in 3rd edition and could jam to TWELVE SHOTS EACH.

In 3rd edition, Rapid Fire weapons allowed 1 shot at 12" if you moved; or 2 shots at 12" or 1 shot at 24" if you remained stationary, and you couldn't charge if you fired them.

Rapid Fire weapons in general have steadily become more and more lethal, starting with the range increase from the standard 24" to 30" when T'au were introduced, to making the double fire happen at half range instead of 12", to allowing two shots at 12" instead of 1 on the move, to allowing Rapid Fire weapons to fire at maximum range regardless of whether you moved. The move to save modifiers instead of the flat cover system, combined with a D6 system that basically crushes the usable dice results and has a MASSIVE impact between AP0 and AP-1, the game is simply more lethal. Grunts die quicker, which means you need to spam more grunts to survive even a single turn of shooting, which in turn makes elite models worthless to take because things such as Plasma make multi-wound models a detriment, not a benefit.


This.

It just adds more weight to 3rd edition (while not perfect), was the best edition that 40k has ever had. Each edition that has come afterwards has deviated further away from the elegance of 3rd edition. The end result is the bloated mess we have today, I've given up on 40k... but a return to a system that is similar to 3rd edition would probably get me back in, sadly I think there is little appetite for putting the genie back in the bottle, bloat seems (for some unbeknown reason) to be very popular with modern 40k players.

The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





i am happy when my R&H army makes it to turn 2 in some capacity nowadays when i am not Blobbing.

For my CSM i regularly go to t3-4 as the more decisive ones but overall it depends vastly on the armies in play.

F.e. 2 nu marines list playing the ranged game, i have wittnessed turns basically into a all out slauggtherfest with the player that goes first generally having an advantage.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/16 09:16:20


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 stonehorse wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
In my experience, yes. It's rare to see a game go to turn 3 in any meaningful state (i.e. the game is decided turn 2 if not before that).

The simple fact is that GW cranked the killyness of everything to a ludicrous degree. Hurricane Bolters and Twin Assault Cannons are the best example.

Hurricane Bolters, when first introduced in 4th edition, "consists of three twin-linked bolters". This meant they could either fire 6 shots at 12", or 3 shots at 24" if they did not move, re-rolling failed hits. Now they fire 12 Shots at 12" or 6 shots at 24" with Centuions being able to fire 12 shots at 24" regardless of if they moved or not.

Twin(-Linked) Assault Cannons went from 3 Shots re-rolling misses in 3rd edition and could jam to TWELVE SHOTS EACH.

In 3rd edition, Rapid Fire weapons allowed 1 shot at 12" if you moved; or 2 shots at 12" or 1 shot at 24" if you remained stationary, and you couldn't charge if you fired them.

Rapid Fire weapons in general have steadily become more and more lethal, starting with the range increase from the standard 24" to 30" when T'au were introduced, to making the double fire happen at half range instead of 12", to allowing two shots at 12" instead of 1 on the move, to allowing Rapid Fire weapons to fire at maximum range regardless of whether you moved. The move to save modifiers instead of the flat cover system, combined with a D6 system that basically crushes the usable dice results and has a MASSIVE impact between AP0 and AP-1, the game is simply more lethal. Grunts die quicker, which means you need to spam more grunts to survive even a single turn of shooting, which in turn makes elite models worthless to take because things such as Plasma make multi-wound models a detriment, not a benefit.


This.

It just adds more weight to 3rd edition (while not perfect), was the best edition that 40k has ever had. Each edition that has come afterwards has deviated further away from the elegance of 3rd edition. The end result is the bloated mess we have today, I've given up on 40k... but a return to a system that is similar to 3rd edition would probably get me back in, sadly I think there is little appetite for putting the genie back in the bottle, bloat seems (for some unbeknown reason) to be very popular with modern 40k players.


You're literally the only person I've ever seen that has wanted to go back to 3rd. The closest outside of you are chaos players who want the 3.5 codex in 5th ed rules.

Also, I love the 'multi wound models are worthless' argument because it is almost always followed up by 'Primaris are op tho!!!'.

If your games are ending on turn two it's because of a couple of reasons. One is that one or the other list is purposely designed to frontload it's output at the expense of longevity. Plenty of lists, especially at the tournament level are designed this way and games with or against them end turn two because it either crippled its oppositions ability to counter attack and won, or failed and died.

Another reason is simple unfavorable matchups. If you bring Eldar Flyers+Nightspinners against Valourous Heart SoB+anything with decent damage out of deepstrike, the game is likely not going to be super fun for ou.

The reason most people see their games ending on turn two is because their opponent is just better than they are, whether in player skill or list preparation. Sorry your Salamanders assault marine/stalker/servitor list didn't pan out but that's not entirely the game's fault.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





washington state USA

 stonehorse wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
In my experience, yes. It's rare to see a game go to turn 3 in any meaningful state (i.e. the game is decided turn 2 if not before that).

The simple fact is that GW cranked the killyness of everything to a ludicrous degree. Hurricane Bolters and Twin Assault Cannons are the best example.

Hurricane Bolters, when first introduced in 4th edition, "consists of three twin-linked bolters". This meant they could either fire 6 shots at 12", or 3 shots at 24" if they did not move, re-rolling failed hits. Now they fire 12 Shots at 12" or 6 shots at 24" with Centuions being able to fire 12 shots at 24" regardless of if they moved or not.

Twin(-Linked) Assault Cannons went from 3 Shots re-rolling misses in 3rd edition and could jam to TWELVE SHOTS EACH.

In 3rd edition, Rapid Fire weapons allowed 1 shot at 12" if you moved; or 2 shots at 12" or 1 shot at 24" if you remained stationary, and you couldn't charge if you fired them.

Rapid Fire weapons in general have steadily become more and more lethal, starting with the range increase from the standard 24" to 30" when T'au were introduced, to making the double fire happen at half range instead of 12", to allowing two shots at 12" instead of 1 on the move, to allowing Rapid Fire weapons to fire at maximum range regardless of whether you moved. The move to save modifiers instead of the flat cover system, combined with a D6 system that basically crushes the usable dice results and has a MASSIVE impact between AP0 and AP-1, the game is simply more lethal. Grunts die quicker, which means you need to spam more grunts to survive even a single turn of shooting, which in turn makes elite models worthless to take because things such as Plasma make multi-wound models a detriment, not a benefit.


This.

It just adds more weight to 3rd edition (while not perfect), was the best edition that 40k has ever had. Each edition that has come afterwards has deviated further away from the elegance of 3rd edition. The end result is the bloated mess we have today, I've given up on 40k... but a return to a system that is similar to 3rd edition would probably get me back in, sadly I think there is little appetite for putting the genie back in the bottle, bloat seems (for some unbeknown reason) to be very popular with modern 40k players.


For game play as i progressed through from 3rd through 5th i actually find 5th a better version of the game. there were some better and some worse rules in 4th and 3rd (the bad things like crystal targeting matrix, size catagories for terrain, the good like LOS from the weapon mount/range from the hull for measurments on vehicles. and difficulties hitting them in CC based on the vehicles movement). if you take them all and put them into 5th it would have been the better evolution of where the game should have gone.

P.S. assault cannons were only 4 shots in 4th-7th it wasn't until 8th that they made them 6 per gun. and having them jam with only 3 shots made them a weapon nobody used in 3rd because the heavy bolter was superior in every way, they had to fix it to make it usable, just like guess range weapons.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: