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.

So I've noticed recently that Initiative in Warhammer 40k has three roles:

1. Determines the order in which attacks are carried out in close combat.

2. Determines the likelihood of a Sweeping Advance.

3. Acts as the threshold number for Initiative tests for special rules such as Jaws of the World Wolf and Hit and Run.

Now, as the 5th edition of Warhammer 40k returns the game to its roots of using opposed rating mechanics (WS vs WS when hitting in close combat, S v T when wounding, etc) the Initiative order of hitting seems a little all or nothing. In particular it means that low Initiative units are penalized twice, and maybe even three times, for having a low Initiative rating. Firstly they attack after units with a higher Initiative rating (well, models really, but you follow) and secondly they are easier to wipe out in a Sweeping Advance.

To some degree this is balanced in the game so that small model count units with a higher Initiative have an advantage over large model count units with a higher initiative. But it means there's lots of kludges in the game to help lower Initiative troops make up for what is a striking handicap: Furious Charge, Living Battering Ram, Assault Grenades, broadened model casualty removal rules, etc.

So I thought: Why not just have everyone attack at the same time?

There's several problems with this notion, particularly the fact that the game has been designed with the notion that attacking after someone else is bad, and therefore that units with low Initiative operate at a deficit. Another problem is that the rules are still replete with ad-hoc bits and pieces meant to enhance a unit's Initiative, and annulling those advantages would make them worthless and thus pointless to take.

So this is my idea: As well as making combat fought simultaneously, make to hit rolls the attacker's WS vs the defender's I. Troops with low Initiative still suffer, but not as much, and troops with high Initiative still benefit, but not as much.

Your thoughts?

And put a stopper on 40K Assault Edition? Why of course I like the idea!

Worst idea i've ever heard. Make the assault nicer for low initiative armies, eldar would become even more useless (jk) and tau would shoot your face off and still stand a chance in melee. Orks would be eaten in melee while marines would probably remain relatively the same.
In conclusion. NO

This was what it was like in 2nd edition. Everyone hit at the same time but a higher initiative gave you a better overall score. I'm only slightly familiar with the 2nd edition combat rules unfortunately.

But that's kind of what it was like.

Joetaco wrote:Worst idea i've ever heard. Make the assault nicer for low initiative armies, eldar would become even more useless (jk) and tau would shoot your face off and still stand a chance in melee. Orks would be eaten in melee while marines would probably remain relatively the same.
In conclusion. NO

WS4 v.s. I2 = 5+
WS4 v.s. WS2 = 5+

The Tau mainstay (Fire Warriors), perform exactly the same.

WS2 vs WS4 would be four, since WS has to be more then double.

Let's consider some matchups:

Matchup - Normal to Hit - Proposed to Hit
SM v Ork - 4+ - 3+
SM v SM - 4+ - 4+
SM v IG - 3+ - 3+
Ork v IG - 3+ - 3+
IG v SM - 4+ - 4+
IG v Ork - 4+ - 3+
FW v IG - 4+ - 4+
IG v FW - 3+ - 3+
SS v SM - 4+ - 4+
SM v SS - 4+ - 4+
etc.

So why is it necessary I represents how quick the refelexes of a model are hence why they get to hit first. I see no point in changing this.

Ed_Bodger:

I think I already explained the necessity of implementing this in the original post, to whit: having both the tiered attacking in close combat and sweeping advances based on Initiative distorts the game too much. My proposal evens out the problems with initiative, such as its double-effect on combat, by making lower initiative less debilitating to I2- units and less ludicrously advantageous to I5+ units, and actually relevant to I3-4 units.

Surely the point of having high I is to get the advantage in this area. This is why models with PF have their I lowered to 1 to make up for the fact that they are wielding an amazingly powerful weapon. I understand why you are suggesting it but I don't believe it is necessary sweeping advance and the order of fighting is relevant to I because it shows how switched on the individual is.

Which units do you think suffer because of their low I and do they have anything that makes up for it?

Ed_Bodger:

That's why my proposal doesn't entirely eliminate the advantages and disadvantages confered by high/low Initiative, and that's why I don't propose to do away with Sweeping Advance.

Orks Boyz and Necron Warriors suffer due to their low Initiative. In the former case the Boyz have numbers and Fearless to make up for it, except in worst case scenarios, and Necron Warriors get their We'll Be Back rule screwed by its absence from Sweeping Advances, which they're hard pressed to resist when they fight like Tactical Marines except at I2.

Basically being able to kill someone before they kill you means that assault with some close combat units is very low-risk when close combat should be a risky proposition.

Nurglitch wrote:
Basically being able to kill someone before they kill you means that assault with some close combat units is very low-risk when close combat should be a risky proposition.

This is where I think we ultimately disagree I don't think that close combat should not be a risky proposition for units like Assault Terminators, Genestealers, Howling Banshees etc it is their speciality it should be risky for units such as Devastators, Necron Warriors, IG (all of them) because it is not something they excell in.

Ultimately the only reason I don't like your idea is that it takes away an advantage from CC units without giving them anything back, so in essense you are weakening one area of the game. This will mean that shooty units get more of an advantage in CC whereas CC units do not gain anything. I have read your earlier posts and agree that it won't make that much difference but I believe the current CC rulkes work well so there is no need to change them.

Actually it only lowers the advantage of high Initiative close combat units while increasing the advantage of low Initiative close combat units.

The balance between close combat units and ranged untis remains the same, and just the radical imbalance between high and low Initiative troops is corrected without abandoning the original design concept that higher Initiative is better by rolling it into the to Hit roll.

In which case Eldar players are going to find life pretty hard as the only thing going for them is their high Initiative: their toughness is pump as is their strength in a lot of cases.

Maybe. Take Howling Banshees, for example. Unless my memory is lying to me, as it occasionally does, the Banshee Mask will jack their Initiative up to 10. This means that they'll be hit on 5+.

Consider:

Normal
Howling Banshees vs Tactical Marines (10 each)
HB: 3 attacks each, 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no saves
TM: 1 attack each, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 4+ saves

HB: 30 attacks, 15 hits, 5 unsaved wounds.
TM: 5 attacks, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 unsaved wound.

Proposed
Howling Banshees vs Tactical Marines (10 each)
HB: 3 attacks each, 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no saves
TM: 1 attack each, 5+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 4+ saves

HB: 30 attacks, 15 hits, 5 unsaved wounds.
TM: 10 attacks, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 1 unsaved wound.

ok maybe I'm misunderstanding i'll try it in my next couple of games and let you know how I have found it then maybe I can have a more informed opinion.

So in your example it makes no difference, so why do it?

Why not go back to 3rd ed for sweep advance where Int made no impact. Just each squad rolls 2d6 and thats how far they move. If the attackers over run the fleing squad they are destroyed.

Of course Jump troops got 3d6 for this test.

Also the banshee example only works for the first turn of combat after that their Int falls to 5. Also this would give too much power to Power Fist, where the risk of dieing before they get to attack is equaled out by the fact they could kill anything they attack.

The Power Fist is the biggest thing that needs to be addressed. But since the I falling to 1 for the Powerfist is based on the assumption that I determines the order of attack rather then the chance to hit then it stands to reason that this should be rewritten as well.

I want to agree with you Nuglitch on this one, but there is more to redefining a base statline then just saying "Ok calculate this that way instead".

I liked the 3rd edition Sweeping Advance, it should be brought back.

Nice game hack.
( Scratching out the opinion that was once on this line, as it would necessitate a different rule to be changed as well. )

jbunny:

The point of the example was to show that the Eldar don't get screwed by my proposal.

Personally I rather prefer the 5th edition Sweeping Advance rules. That's why I propose to modify the order of attacks rather than the Sweeping Advance rule. The deviation involved in adding Initiative to the result of 1D6 conforms to the design principles I alluded to above, and doesn't radically favour higher Initiative armies unless that army can already take advantage of the higher Initiative by attacking first and suppressing retaliation.

Likewise I don't think that this enhances Powerfists all that much. Now units with Powerfists and similar weapons are hit by just about everything at 3+.

ComputerGeek01:

Yes, the lowered Initiative of Powerfists is based on the assumption that an Initiative 1 is an disadvantage that equalizes the Strength and Ignores Armour advantages to the points paid. It turns out that it didn't in 4th edition, and the designers put in another disadvantage: it became more difficult to get the additional weapon close combat bonus attack.

Notice that I'm not "redefining a base statline". I'm proposing that one case of Initiative coming into effect should be different. The other cases remain the same. Indeed, because the other cases remain the same, the impact of the proposed change does not multiply out to wreak the established balance of the game. Rather, my proposal smooths over an imbalance that various kludges have been introduced to handle (and works with those kludges to boot).

More to the point, by flattening out the order in which attacks are made so that they all happen simultaneously, we better fulfill the design intentions of making close combat riskier to balance the potential payoffs. As you may be aware the casualty removal rules were re-worked for 5th edition so that the advantages of higher Initiative were mitigated.

These casualty removal rules already preserve I1 Powerfists so that models bearing them can attack, unless the attacking unit can wipe out the defending unit, or at least pile so many attacks on it that there's a reasonable chance of killing the Powerfist-bearing model.

So allowing all models to hit simultaneously isn't going to allow "hidden" Powerfists to do anything they don't already do. That leaves Powerfists in units. But then the unit is I1, and gets hit on 3+.

Consider:

Howling Banshees vs Assault Terminators with Thunderhammers and Storm Shields, 10 vs 5.

Normal
Howling Banshees hit on 4+, wound on 5+, fail saves on 2-
Assault Terminators hit on 4+, wound on 2+, no saves

HB Charge AT
HB expect 1.67 wounds on AT
AT expect 2.50 wounds on HB

AT Charge HB
HB expect 1.11 wounds on AT
AT expect 5.00 wounds on HB

Proposed
Howling Banshees hit on 3+, wound on 5+, fail saves on 2-
Assault Terminators hit on 5+, wound on 2+, no saves

HB Charge AT
HB expect 2.22 wounds on AT
AT expect 1.67 wounds on HB

AT Charge HB
HB expect 1.48 wounds on AT
AT expect 3.33 wounds on HB

As you can see, the Howling Banshees do better against the Assault Terminators than they would normally.

Similarly, consider the case of a unit of Striking Scorpions including an Exarch with a Scorpion's Claw against a unit of Tactical Marines including a Sergeant with a Powerfist.

Normal
Striking Scorpions hit on 4+, wound on 4+, fail saves on 2-, while the Exarch hits on 3+, wounds on 2+, and no saves.
Tactical Marines hit on 4+, wound on 3+, fail saves on 2-, while the Sergeant hits on 4+, wounds on 2+ and no saves.

SS Charge TM
SS expect 5.22 wounds on TM
TM expect 1.50 wounds on SS

TM Charge SS
SS expect 3.92 wounds on AT
AT expect 1.83 wounds on HB

Proposed
Striking Scorpions hit on 4+, wound on 4+, fail saves on 2-, while the Exarch hits on 3+, wounds on 2+, and no saves.
Tactical Marines hit on 4+, wound on 3+, fail saves on 2-, while the Sergeant hits on 4+, wounds on 2+ and no saves.

SS Charge TM
SS expect 5.22 wounds on TM
TM expect 1.58 wounds on SS

TM Charge SS
SS expect 3.92 wounds on AT
AT expect 2.75 wounds on HB

Notice that in both cases the Powerfist would have most likely hit anyways, and that the only real difference is the extra wound we can expect the Space Marines to cause on the charge.

No.
Initiative works just fine.

Units with lower I usually don't need it or make up for it (i.e. plague marines have T5+FNP+ Def grenades, Crons have WBB and gauss)

If powerfists/klaws got to attack at the same time power weapons did, their would be almost no point in feilding power weapons.

Nurglitch wrote:jbunny:

The point of the example was to show that the Eldar don't get screwed by my proposal.

That example only showed that Banshees aren't screwed up fighting that actual enemy. During first round of combat.
Do both of that calculations during first and second turn.

What about a small squad of harlies or banshees assaulting *doomed* 5 terminators? (Charging not doomed T4+ with banshees is just asking to get killed. Esp. with 3++)

With 3T and not so great save if you don't wreck assaulted unit you are asking to get your ass kicked HARD.
Harlies would be THE most useless CC unit of all. Even against IG (4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 5++ save, IG fighting IG gets the same results).

Nurglitch wrote:Likewise I don't think that this enhances Powerfists all that much. Now units with Powerfists and similar weapons are hit by just about everything at 3+.

Remember that most of PF models may not be singled and directly attacked in combat. That means that you attack majority = you hit PF on 4+ along with the rest.

jbunny wrote:If powerfists/klaws got to attack at the same time power weapons did, their would be almost no point in feilding power weapons.

Agreed

Macok:

I addressed the fact that Power Fists gain no huge advantage by flattening out the order of initiative in combat by my example of the Striking Scorpions vs the Tactical Marines. After all, in the case of hidden Power Fists they're going to hit anyways since they'll be the last model to have wounds assigned. So yeah, you hit the Power Fist at 4+ along with the rest, just like you ordinarily would.

The point of fielding Power Weapons in such a case would be the one that there is now: more attacks, cheaper, and that small advantage when the last surviving model (now hitting at Initiative instead of Initiative 1) which would remain a small advantage (getting hit on Initiative instead of Intiative 1).

Against hordes you'd have to back up your assault troops by shooting those blocks of troops up before assaulting them. Let's consider a unit of Harlequins vs Orks:

Harlequins get 3 attacks each on the charge with Furious Charge for WS4 S4 I7, correct? I'm going from memory here, so I have a feeling I'm wrong here.

Normal
So 10 Harlequins would be expected to get 30 attacks, 15 hit, 7.5 wounds (2.5 rending), for 6.67 Ork casualties, or 7 rounded up.

Let's suppose 20 Orks including a Nob with a Powerfist. They're down to 13. So supposing Shoota Boyz, 26 attacks, 13 hits, 6.5 wounds, 4.33 casualties or 4 for the Harlequins without the Power Klaw Nob striking with 0.83 for 1 more dead Harlequin.

The Harlequins win 7:5, meaning 1.67 expected casualties or 2, bringing the Orks down to 11.

Proposed
10 Harlequins, 30 attacks, 20 hits, 10 wounds (3.33 rending), for 8.89 casualties or 9 rounded up.

20 Orks including Nob, so 38 attacks, 19 hits, 9.50 wounds, 6.33 casualties or 6 rounded down. Nob gets 0.83 for 1 casualty again.

Harlequins win 9:7, by 2, with 1.67 expected casualties or 2 more dead Orks thanks to No Retreat! rendering the Orks both non-Fearless and Ld9 for the next round.

Let's consider the second round of both combat:

Normal
Harlequins: 15 attacks, 7.50 hits, 2.5 wounds (1 rending), for 2.25 or 2 more dead orks.

Orks: 16 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds, 2.67 wounds for 3 more dead Harlequins. 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.83 unsaved wounds for another dead Harlequin. 4 dead in total.

Orks win 4:2, by 2 with 1 Harlequin left.

Proposed
H: 9 attacks, 6 hits, 2 wounds (1 rending), for 1.83 casualties or 2 casualties.

O: 14 attacks, 7 hits, 3.5 wounds, 2.33 casualties or 2 casualties. 3 attacks, etc, for 0.83 or 1 more dead Harlequin.

So really the horde is going to spank the Harlequins anyways. At least the Harequins do more damage before they get run off with my proposal.

Actually considering Furious Assault Harlies have WS5 S4 4A and I7 during first round of assault.

Again 10 harlies vs 20orks (Nob PK included)

First round:
Right now:
40 attacks, 26.(6) hits rounding to 27
That leads to 13,5 wounds; including 4,5 rending; rounding to 14 [5R] (I'm lucky today)
2 saves later we have 12 dead orks.

Orks strike back
7 orks, 14 attacks hit 7 times
7 hits leads to 4 wounds and 3 dead pointy-ears. (Ork is having some luck too)
PK Nob Earns his points back and kills 1. (don't know his stats, but only 1 kill? seriously?)

That means Orks get to test their LD with a stunning modifier of -8. Sweeping advance takes care of greenskins.
I have just lost my precious 4 eldar Elites.

If doomed (not uncommon)
27 hits lead to 20 wounds with 7 rending which has a decent chance of taking down PK before it strikes.
Let's be lucky and kill the big one.
3 saves leave 3 orks alive. 1 Harlequin of the Laughing God dies.



Proposed:
Again 12 dead orcs.
By your calculations orks kill 7 (Nob really kills only 1?).
Again orks are killed in sweeping advance. Doom changes nothing here. (Only increases odds for SA to happen).

I, as a Eldar player am clearly at a disadvantage. Not only because my 250point super elite fighters (Shadowseer included) loose 88 points from 140ish point greenskins troops. Your system nearly doubles that loss.

With doom it's 1:7 dead space elves.

Macok:

Okay, so I left out Doom and forgot the proper stats for Harlequins (0/2 ain't bad...wait a second, it sucks!).

But checking your math:

Remember that Orks have a Sv6. So the Orks will be hit on 3+, wounded on 4+ (re-roll misses - Doom!), and save on 6, except for the rending wounds.

Normal
H: 40 attacks, 26.67 hits, 20 wounds (3.33 rending), 17.22 expected dead Orks, rounding down to 17 dead Orks.

O: 4 attacks, 2 hits, 1 wound, 0.67 expected dead Harlequins, rounding up 1 dead Harlequin. 3 attacks, 1.50 hits, 0.83 expected dead Harlequins, rounding up to 1 more dead Harlequin.

Harlequins win 17:2, meaning the Orks need snake-eyes to pass Morale, or risk Sweeping Advance of I5vI2.

Proposed
H: 40 attacks, 26.67 hits, 20 wounds (3.33 rending), 17.22 expected dead Orks, rounding down to 17 dead Orks.

O: 38 attacks, 19 hits, 9.50 wounds, 6.33 expected dead Harlequins, rounding down to 6 dead Harlequin. 3 attacks, 1.50 hits, 0.83 expected dead Harlequins, rounding up to 1 more dead Harlequin.

Harlequins win again but 17:7, meaning the Orks need snake-eyes to pass Morale, or risk Sweeping Advance of I5vI2.

So in this case the Harlequins get screwed. Not because of the Powerfist, which does the same in each instance, but because of the regular boyz!

Is that bad? The Orks are around ~160pts, while the Harlequins are what ~250pts?

That last combat was much more palatable to me since the Harlequins can expect a credible threat from the Orks. Charging those Orks is a hard decision, not a "no-brainer".

Representationally in an assault you should have 3:1 advantage in terms of material, losing 1/3 and leaving 1/3 behind to hold territory. The Harlequins engage with (risk) at 1:1 and only lose 7/10 when they should lose 100%

If the Harlequins were 480 points, then demolishing the Orks in the normal way would be justified. At 320 points (or 2:1) they should lose half. Losing ~2/3 at 150% or 3:2 is about right.

Of course, supposing that there were 10 Striking Scorpions with Doom...

Normal
S: 40 attacks, 20 hits, 15 wounds, 12.50 expected wounds or 13 dead Orks.

O: 12 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds, 1 expected wounds or 1 dead Scorpion. 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 1.25 expected wounds or 1 more dead Scorpions.

Scorpions win 13:2, or meaning the Orks need snake-eyes to pass Morale, or risk Sweeping Advance of I5vI2.

Proposed
S: 40 attacks, 26.67 hits, 19.50 wounds, 16.25 expected wounds or 16 dead Orks.

O: 38 attacks, 19 hits, 9.50 wounds, 3.17 expected wounds or 3 dead Scorpions. Add another for the Powerklaw.

Scorpions win 16:4. Yadda yadda, Orks run, I5vI2.

In both cases the combat can be expected to be riskier for the higher Initiative troops, but with the additional casualties to moderate the risk.

Keep in mind when you propse to change a major element of the game there will be balance issues. Units are priced (in an ideal setting) based on how their stats work in the current frame work of the rules.

When you change how stats work within the game you make units either overpriced, or underpriced depending on how they are effected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So with the Harlies it takes on of the Eldars best close combat units and completely nurfs them. yah thats completely fair. What you are doing is taking away any point to having high Int (and the points cost that goes along with it)

That any change to a game will affect the balance is given, though I should have mentioned that at the beginning.

That's also why I retained the dual-element of Intiative in combat, so that higher Initiative models retained some advantage and lower Initiative models retained some advantage rather than removing it entirely.

I'd go so far as to suggest that the "real" value of units that points values are supposed to reflect won't change significantly under this proposal, and perhaps even better reflect the current points values than the current rules do, given the principle I laid out in my previous post for assault ratios.

The fact that over half of the Harlies would be wiped out under your system compared to losing 1 in the current system tells me that they are not retaining any advantage, and instead are being gimped.

I'm intrigued by the idea, but don't think it's quite there yet. Some situations should allow for swifter models to strike first, but in general, I agree that melee should be more of a wild scrum and "initiative" shouldn't really matter that much, especially after the first "wave" of combat. I would favor the elimination of the Initiative statistic IF: weapon skill meant more for both offense and defense (right now, I feel WS is largely pointless except in extremes); there were some rules akin to "First Strike" for certain units; similarly, there should be some "Delayed Strike" penalties for very slow weapons/creatures; and swift units gain bonuses to their attacks for being able to attack more often.

So, for example, maybe an assault phase works like this:

1 - Declare assaults and move
2 - Defenders consolidate
3 - "First Strike" attacks go off. I envision this being a variable number of attacks per model, listed as, say, "First strike: 1" or "First Strike: 2", meaning, their first attack (First Strike: 1) or first two attacks (First Strike:2), and so on, go off first. Roll to hit, wound, etc.
4 - Normal assault. Vast majority go here. Remaining attacks from first strike units go here.
5 - Delayed Strike models. The slow monstrous creatures, powerfist/klaws, etc.
6 - Combat resolution.

In subsequent rounds, First Strike no longer applies because it's a wild free-for-all, but Delayed Strike does, due to the cumbersome weapon. Grenades could grant/remove First Strike attacks. Attacking into cover would grant defenders some first strike attacks.

And weapon skill would be adjusted so that it was more like BS, with a range of 2+ to 6+ to hit. Exceptionally graceful fighters (Harlequins, Banshees, etc.) would have high enough WS to only be hit on 6s versus the slower opponents, like Orks. It would allow fighters to survive based on SKILL, not just armor saves.

Anyway, that's how I would look at adjusting.

Nurglitch, those calculations including Harlies are made with one simple scenario:
Harlies assault and there is nothing else on the table.


Let's take under consideration, that harlies have worse shooting weapon than Orks - we take shootas here.
Harlies aren't scoring.
Harlies are elites and take up a "more precious" slot.
They are less resistant to fire from small range. Less T, less models - less wounds as a unit.
They are about 1,5 more pricey than 20 + PK nob orks.

I don't want to do the math, but I bet they'll get killed (or VERY close to it) if it is the orks who are assaulting. At the current Init rules. Are you telling me that we need to NERF them even further?


If moving up to the enemy (who can easily outshoot you, even with BS2) with more expensive, more CC orientated *elite* unit should be "hard decision" than let's just remove assault phase from the game.
Sorry if I sound impolite but imho assaulting more expensive, and more combat orientated unit should be no-brainer. The tough thing is getting it to assault distance.

Almost nobody plays Eldar CC at tourneys. If I is so important why don't we see all those super powerful eldar HtH armies?

The ONLY good thing in pointy-ears' assaults is "kill before the enemy strikes".


Edit:
I think that T plays much more important role than I. I is important in combat but in shooting it's irrelevant. During assault everything is taken under consideration, mainly: WS, S, T, I, Sv, weapons. In shooting you ignore I completely so no wonder it should affect CC a bit more than other statistics.