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.

jbunny:

No, if the Orks beat the Harlequins, then the Harlequins would be being "gimped".

Skarboy:

Your counter-proposal is terrible, and I send you play lots of WFB. The "Always strikes first" and "Always strikes last" rules were excised from the 40k rules in the 4th edition (maybe the 5th) because they were only workable unless you built in layers, but if you built in layers then you might as well order combat by Initiative and call it a day.

Likewise your proposed changes are far more radical than mine, since I'm simply proposing that combat be made riskier for high initiative units and less risky for low initiative units, while you're proposing to not only dismiss Initiative from the game (What about Sweeping Advances? What about Hit and Run? What about all the rules involving Initiative tests?), but reintroduce rules that were considered unworkable the first time through.

Macok:

Well, if you're going to call my proposal "nerfing" high Initiative units then of course it's going to sound stupid. But if you call it what it is, which is increasing the risk of assaults for high Initiative units and lowering the risk of assaults for low Initiative units, then yes, I am telling you that combat should be riskier for Harlequins and less so for Orks.

Why should it be risker? Well, consider what happens if the Shoota Boyz can be expected to do with their shooting: 20 Orks, 20 shootas.

Since the Harlequins have a Shadowseer, then the Orks have the following spotting distances, with 18" being their hard and fast limit:

4", 3%
6", 6%
8", 8%
10", 11%
12", 14%
14", 17%
16", 14%
18", 11%
19"+, 17%

So 1/6 there's a chance of no shots. 1/10 there's a chance of 2 shots. Supposing the Eldar are maximum spread with ~6" depth and ~12" wide, then the closest would need to be within 12" to get all of them. That would be what? 56%

So (0.56)(40)(0.33)(0.67)(0.67), or 3.32 expected casualties on the Harlequins.

If the Harlequins shoot the Orks, then that's

7 shots, 4.69 hit, 2.35 wound (3.52 if Orks Doomed).

with a trade of 3 for 2-4 (favouring whichever side shoots first), the Eldar player faces the following decision if Doom is in effect:

Trade 3 models worth 54pts each for 4 models worth 24pts each.

Or;

Trade 6 models worth 108 points for 20 models worth 155pts.

Or:

If you are close enough to shoot and then assault (anyone else notice that Harlequins don't need Assault Grenades?), then you have the following scenario (including Doom):

Normal
10 shots, 6.7 hits, 3.35 wounds (5.03 if Orks Doomed)
and 40 attacks, 26.80 hits, 20.1 wounds (3.42 rending), so 17.26 Orks die, for a total of 22.29. Orks can be expected to be wiped out without inflicting any casualties in return.

Trade 0 models for 20 models worth 155pts.

Proposed
10 shots, 6.7 hits, 3.35 wounds (5.03 if Orks Doomed).

H: 40 attacks, 26.80 hits, 20.1 wounds (3.42 rending), so 17.26 Orks die, for a total of 22.29. Orks wiped out again.

O: 28 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 4.69 casualties or 5 rounded up. Nob gets 0.83 for 1 casualty again.

Trade 6 models worth 105pts for 20 models worth 155pts.

Harlequins aren't scoring, are pricier, and more delicate, and either way they will wipe the floor with Ork boys.

I am calling it nerfing because it just is.
There is almost no scenario when Harlies are going to get better results.
The only place where Eldar can take advantage from that Inint change is Banshees during first round of combat. Charging at the enemy that is going to kill them anyway.
I think that second round of combat will nullify that first I10 round "bonus kills".

I can't understand why you call it riskier. Most of the time, Eldar are going to have bigger losses. It gives no real advantage. Actually, you call it increasing the risk of assaults, but all you do is increasing losses for them. What is the difference?

Let's make plasma "get's hot" wound any time it doesn't hit isn't. I call it increasing the risk of shooting the plasma on low BS models. I think that is true. But at the same time is it weakening it? yes.
It gives some disadvantage when you fail at it, but no real advantage when you take the risk and succeed.

In addition ONLY high Init models assault is going to get 'riskier'. If assault for low I models stays the same (or is 'less riskier') then yes, it is nerfing.

Then again, why do you think high Iinit assault must be changed? Like I said Inint plays no role during shooting, so it is more important in CC. IMHO assault should be harder for big, slow, bulky models. One clean hit with the sword and you're out. No matter how big or strong you are. Strength is nullified by technology.

Lets see 70% of the Harlies die versus 10%, nope thats not nerfing at all :(

Macok:

I call it riskier because the Eldar can be expected to take greater losses. Of course the Eldar gain no "real advantage" from this situation. It's intended to make wiping out a unit of Orks costlier than 0. It's the Orks, the lower Initiative troops that need to do better for the points expended.

I've also explained why I think that this higher initiative advantage needs to be reduced (although not eliminated): It doubles up with Sweeping Advance, it puts lower initiative troops at too much of a disadvantage.

Of course lower initiative troops should be at a disadvantage, which is why the change I'm proposing simply flattens the advantage/disadvantage of their being a difference in Initiative.

Call it what you want to, I call it a very bad idea that does nothing but hurts CC armies and strengthens shooty armies. If you can't see how that gimps CC units then this conversation is done on my part.

Overall I also think that this change isn't so good. Mainly because It's not I that make the most killy CC squads so powerful.
It just nerfs a bit armies which are already at a disadvantage.
I mean come on.. Full Eldar CC army is going to get wrecked by full CC Orks..

I don't like that change because it doesn't add balance, no fluff or 'realism' and no simplification of the rules. It isn't even that interesting or fun.
My opinion is just plain no.

I have to agree with Macok in this. It's true that orks are pretty vulnerable to sweeping advance, but thats balanced out by by the fact that ork boyz have incredible WS, T, number of attacks, and furious charge all for only 6 points. Orks have some of the best assault troops there are, and yes they have crappy I. I don't think that the double penalization for low I is that bad really. The necrons are the only ones I can think of that I would agree are penalized a bit too much, and thats really a problem with the necrons, not the rules overall.

necrons and tau definately need to get higher IN

Sorry if this has already been said but I lik ethat initiative actually means something in 40k now. In fantasy it is almost entirely ignored one way or another and in 2nd Ed initiative was tie breaker in a drawn combat and that's it. A pretty much irrelevant stat, but in 40k it is actually very important and I think they should port that over to fantasy.

This is coming from a Tau player!

Actually, Nurglitch, I don't play WFB, didn't play 4th Ed, so your references are meaningless. You're free to dislike my proposal, it took all of 30 seconds to evolve and I still like it better than WS vs I, which makes no conceivable sense based on what those two stats are supposed to represent. As far as Hit and Run, Sweeping Advance, et al, REALLY? Those are that important and couldn't be solved by a simple roll off, since neither really makes much sense to tie to Initiative anyway? Face it, WS vs I is not a good idea. No need to get defensive about it.

Skarboy:

It's not that I don't like your proposal: it's just that it was tried in earlier editions and it was dropped because it worked so badly.

It's not that I'm defensive about my proposal, it's moreso that some of you guys don't seem to be capable of giving it any serious consideration. If you're going to say "This nerfs Harlequins!" then frankly you obviously don't have anything intelligent to contribute. If you're going to look at what I'm actually doing and weigh its effect in the game, to see what it actually does and how it affects the game, then we can talk.

I mean run numbers, show that the proposal is a worse idea than what's currently available: address the idea rather than dismissing it. That's what these threads are for, discussing ideas.

I mean I get that you don't like it. But I like it, and if that's the end of the discussion there's no point in having one. But convincing you that it's a good idea, or convincing me that it isn't is actually constructive. I'm open to being convinced, but I'd rather have some discussion of whether it would work, something objective, rather than whether you would like it, something subjective.

My proposal makes combat riskier, and if you were paying attention it does so by making combat deadlier. As you can see all the advantages that are supposed to balance out the disadvantages of having a lower Initiative are bunk because we can expected 10 Harlequins to wipe out 20 Orks on the charge at no cost to them.

That the Harlequins can be expected to wipe out units of Orks 3/4 their size without a single casualty is pretty imbalanced. What are the Orks supposed to do, defeat the Eldar with their superior firepower?

That the Harlequins can be expected to wipe out units of Orks 3/4 their size without a single casualty is pretty imbalanced. What are the Orks supposed to do, defeat the Eldar with their superior firepower?

OK, lets look at that:
Lets give those orks another 10 shoota boys.

30 orks + PK Nob assaulting.

Harlies attack first:
30 attacks 20 hits.
6 wounds + 1 rending.
1 save later 6 dead orks.

Orks attack.
23 Shootas is 69 attacks
34 hits wound 23 times
4 saves later Harlies are obliterated.

Harlies assaulting

First round:
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:
17 Orks attack and get 17 hits
This leads to 8 wounds (rounding down)
1 save later we have 7 dead Harlies.
PK nob by your calculations adds another one killed.

Orks have lost the assault but thanks to the fearless USR they don't run. Let's say all 4 orks die to no retreat.

That means that the next round 2 harlies are going to battle 18 orks.. GG Eldar.



All I want to show you is that a 250 point elite slot, CC only orientated is going to get wiped either way by 210+ Troops (scoring, more available), more shooting orientated (still talking about Shootas) no matter who is assaulting.
You want to add "balance"?

What are orks supposed to do? Apparently nothing because they are going to win any way.

Just because there is a scenario where this 250 unit with a support of at least 90 point doomseer, and a round of shooting by some other unit (let's say 10 Dire avengers for 120 points), who killed 10 orks before assault, is going to win doesn't mean that this needs changing. That is 2:1 points ratio. Troops + HQ + Elite focussed on a single troops choice, and you think they shouldn't kill it? If you want to add balance do it the other way.
You want to add potential to one of the most cost effective troops there is. Come on. Who wouldn't want that kind of troops in his army. Orks are already a power house in CC and Init is their only weakness. Lets make them win on 2+ with re-rolls if we take that weakness away.

I told you my subjective thoughts earlier. No fluff, no realism, not fun, not a simplification. If you need numbers to show that objectively those low Init guys don't need a boost, I've showed it too you either. Again, my answer is no.

I did as I said earlier and tried this rule out last night deliberatley playing against a friend who due to the rule we were playing used CC Eldar against my new IG army I have never used (therefore this example is based on me having no skill with the army). I wiped out his entire army by turn 3 including a unit of Banshees, one of SS and one of Harlequins. I did not shoot them up very much all three units started with 10 models HB charged with 8, SS charged with 10 and Harlequins with 6 my guardsmen wiped them out after the second round of combat.

Ed_Bodger wrote:I did as I said earlier and tried this rule out last night deliberatley playing against a friend who due to the rule we were playing used CC Eldar against my new IG army I have never used (therefore this example is based on me having no skill with the army). I wiped out his entire army by turn 3 including a unit of Banshees, one of SS and one of Harlequins. I did not shoot them up very much all three units started with 10 models HB charged with 8, SS charged with 10 and Harlequins with 6 my guardsmen wiped them out after the second round of combat.

When Guardsmen can wipe out Harlequins in two rounds of combat, something is seriously wrong with the system.

Nurglitch; I dislike the idea, for several reasons.

1. As people have mentioned before, this proposal hurt units which really don't need hurting and helps units that usually don't need help. Orks are I2 because in the majority of cases they can be expected to inflict serious pain even after being mauled by faster opponents. Would I like Orks that hit simultaneously with Space Marines? Of course! Do I need them? No.

If this proposal were to be effected, I would suggest increasing the cost of Ork Boyz by 2-3 points apiece, and Nobz by 5.

2.This proposal makes power weapons essentially useless. A power fist, under the proposed system, would strike simultaneously, hit just as often, and inflict far greater damage. This is an exaggerated version of the effect on low-Initiative units; you are removing the only disadvantage of the Power Fist. Once again, you would need to bump up the cost of PFs SIGNIFICANTLY. Probably nearly double it. And Power Weapons would be so useless that you might as well remove them.

3. It is not, in fact, realistic. I've done a not-insignificant amount of hand-to-hand combat; sabre fencing, tae kwon do, and zweihander fencing, to name my most important activities. To my mind, "Initiative" represents the raw speed of a combatant, whereas "Weapon Skill" represents familiarity with the weapon and the ability to place the edge and point where you want them. Weapon Skill is far, far more important. A fast but imprecise fighter is quickly defeated by a slower fighter who knows exactly how to handle his weapon; I've seen it happen dozens of times. I've been beaten repeatedly by a 50-year-old lady who is perhaps 9 inches shorter than me, with a commensurately shorter reach, and does not move as fast as I do, because she's been fighting for 30 years while I've been doing so for 5. Experience and weapon familiarity, the things represented by "Weapon Skill" in 40k, are far more important than raw speed. As such, I think the WS vs. WS comparison is, realism-wise, far better than a WS vs. I comparison, which frankly makes very little sense to me.

Thoughness has a much higher inpact on the game than Initiative. If you think "I" is too important right now, I'd have a look at "T" first.

Ed_Bodger:

Thank you for taking the time to try this out: having actual feedback to work with is very much appreciated. However, it would be even more useful if you had a battle report I could follow, and an accounting of the luck you encountered during the game. It's pretty onerous, but I've found that play-testing lacks an objective quality if the results of the dice aren't there to situate the mission, board, armies, and decisions made during the game. It would help me evaluate where the deficiency lies. Still, interesting to hear the results even if how they were determined continues to be unknown.

BeRzErKeR:

I would say that we don't have enough information to determine whether the situation of Guardsmen wiping out Harlequins supports such a conclusion. After all, Guardsmen will give normal Eldar Harlequins a hard time if the unit is large enough, or alternatively, small enough so that they wipe it out and expose themselves to considerable amounts of IG fire the next turn.

Regarding your reasons for disliking the proposal, as I have shown the Orks would not be able to inflict "serious pain" on the Harlequins under normal conditions. Indeed, under normal conditions that Harlequins would wipe them out without suffering significant casualties.

Like the Harlequins, certain units benefit greatly from being able to wipe out Orks before they can attack: Berzerkers, Possessed, Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, other Orks, and so on.

Your evaluation of the Power Fist is downright faulty, because Power Fists have three faults: I1, no bonus from non-identical close combat weapons, and expense (25pts). As I've pointed out the I1 isn't an issue because the models with 'hidden' Power Fists are going to be the last models left in the unit anyways: they'll hit either way, they'll have fewer attacks than equivalent Power Weapon armed models, and they'll still be more expensive than equivalent Power Weapon armed models.

Your attempt to apply a metric of "realism" fails because it supports my conclusion that speed is irrelevant and what is important is skill. I've been involved in Kendo and I'm very familiar with the situation of having my hash settled by arthritic old men whose skill outweighs any advantage I had by speed.

As you point out, my proposal would represent the comparative utility of WS to I, in that fast but unskilled troops would not have a huge advantage over slow but skilled troops. My proposal removes the advantage of raw speed that the current system confers, and indexes it with skill.

Besides my experience of fencing with slower and more skilled opponents I was 'lucky' enough to be used as a punching bag by faster and more skilled opponents who often abandoned any pretense of skill by simply exploiting my comparatively slow reflexes. In order to offset their advantage in speed, I would have had to have more skill. In order to offset their advantage in skill, I would have had to be much faster.

Of course the thing about Kendo is that most practioners would be killed in a real sword-fight not because they are not skilled in fencing, but because they are skilled in fencing: getting the point first and before their opponent. Only the really skilled ones are capable of both scoring on an opponent and avoiding the attack that would neutralize the point.

Hence when WS = I, then 4+, and WS < I, then 4+, and when WS > I, then 3+, and so on.

Nurglitch wrote:Regarding your reasons for disliking the proposal, as I have shown the Orks would not be able to inflict "serious pain" on the Harlequins under normal conditions. Indeed, under normal conditions that Harlequins would wipe them out without suffering significant casualties.

And I have showed that Orks will wipe assaulting Harlequins without a problem. Your conditions were defiantly not "normal". They were VERY unbalanced and favouring Eldar forces.
Did you just avoid that part? Did you ignore the fact that this "normal conditions" is at least 3 units focused on 1? At least 2:1 point ratio? Are you still going to ignore that fact and say Harlies are winning because of Init?
Harlies alone, assaulting!!, with point cost the same as the Ork unit have almost no chance of winning. This is truth. Period. With Orks assaulting it's massacre.
Stop writing this nonsense.


If you want realism It's Toughness which should be nerfed in CC and shooting. No mass and muscles are going to save you when you'll get hit by a sword which cuts through metal with ease.

Again, Ork Boys are one of the best units in the game. You really want to add potential to them?

Hi all.
I have always though of the Initiative value as representing the striking order in a straight up fight.
Even with modifiers some units charging into assaults are doomed to strike last .

I have not enough evidence to determine if Nurglitch's suggestion effects the game play too much to be concidered as viable.

However , may I suggest a simpler alternative?

When the assaulting unit engages the target unit, IF the assaulting unit roll over the target units highest 'I' value on a D6, they get to strike first, in the first round of close combat.
(Natural 6 always counts as sucess, natural 1 always counts as failuire.Slow weapons like power fists ALWAYS strike at Initiative order.)

After the first round of close combat it reverts to using Initiative order.

This just gives some Lower Initiative units the chance of 'getting the drop' on higher intitiative units in the first round of assault.

Eg Ork boys get a 1 in 3 chance of getting the drop on some space marines.(Roll 5+ to strike first.)
Where as the SMs get a 2 in 3 chance of getting the drop on the orks.(Roll a 3+ to strike first.)

You could use the modifiers to initiative to modify the dice roll -score required as necissary.

This seems to be picthed between 40ks ONLY inititative based striking order, and WHFBs charging units ALWAYS strike first in the first round of combat.

What do you think?

TTFN
Lanrak.