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.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like the problem is you're over-extending and putting yourself in a position where rolling a 6 is a fatal blow. Try not doing this anymore.

Pretty much exactly this, the rule is fine and I actually like that the rule is there.

I'm seeing a lot of people talking about how it punishes people who deploy stupidly, and yes, that's fine and good and all, but...

What if I deploy conservatively, in cover, behind walls, etc. and then my opponent takes the first turn, having been able to counter deploy too. It still puts me on the back foot, all because my opponent managed to roll a 6. There must be a better way of punishing people who deploy like a fool but doesn't give someone who deploys less 'balls to the wall' a disadvantage 1/6th of the time.



I believe that deploying second and knowing where the vast majority of your opponents forces are, that you can deploy in such a way as to take advantage of having the first turn instead of him/her while still being in a good position if you go second.

This thread is just hilarious if you know that "STI" has a very different meaning for most people.

 Peregrine wrote:
This thread is just hilarious if you know that "STI" has a very different meaning for most people.

How dare you make light of the abbreviation. This is serious business!!!

Yeah... don't think I'd be calling it that out loud either.

You know STI will catch on!

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Area terrain doesn't exist in this edition, and you must be the first person on this forum I have seen that believes all of the random dice is a good thing. It's a terrible thing that removes player choice. Furthermore, if you honestly believe someone should expect to lose because of a random die roll right before the game begins, I will have to respectfully disagree. Winning the first turn roll off should be all that you need to get off that alpha strike in this game. Deploying second and going first is just stupidly good, and should never be allowed.

With the rules for forests, ruins, and obscurement in 7th edition, Area Terrain is around but not explicitly stated.

Randomness is inherent in any dice game. You are never guaranteed to succeed on any given roll. Note that I explicitly made an exception for random tables for determining army composition and abilities, so nice strawman.

You complain about the random roll for Seize the Initiative, but have no problem with the random roll-off for going first? Makes sense.

Again, because the ability to get the first turn is so powerful in 40k, Seize the Initiative exists to make the first player have to actually think about deploying their units rather than just lining them up and shooting at the second player. The ability to deploy second and go first is powerful, but only occurs rarely. And as other posters have pointed out, there are definitive advantages to going second as well.

Sti is meant as a deterrent to aggressive play t1. It's meant to give pause to a player deploying in such a way that an enemy might be able to seize and demolish their glass cannon setup.

Back when GW cared about games being fun for two people rather than fun for whoever had spent money the most recently.

the_scotsman wrote:
Sti is meant as a deterrent to aggressive play t1.

I just can't stop laughing at this. Maybe it's because when I see the abbreviation I think of something completely different to tabletop wargames.

 Lammikkovalas wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Sti is meant as a deterrent to aggressive play t1.

I just can't stop laughing at this. Maybe it's because when I see the abbreviation I think of something completely different to tabletop wargames.

Something tells me that "STI" is not going to become an approved DakkaDakka acronym for "Seize the Initiative".

Well, to be fair, they're entirely correct about STI acting as a deterrent to aggressive play...

I'd rather just have a consistent advantage for going second.

e.g. in Warmachine (IIRC) the player deploying second gets an extended deployment zone.


One thing I feel I should point out is that Seize the Initiative was introduced in 5th. At that time, there were relatively few weapons which could reach across the table (and Night Fight further limited this). Nowadays, there are a lot more weapons that can hit the other side of the table, and many are also considerably more powerful than those in 5th. Not to mention the drastic increase in Ignores Cover.

So getting an alpha strike can be a lot more brutal now - even if the other player has made use of cover and such.

To be fair, most people I know(I work for the United States VA Healthcare system, so...a lot of people)are not taught STI, but rather they replace the I with a D...

I agree with a lot of posters in this thread, if Seize alone is making you lose, there is a problem with your strategy, not Seize itself. It doesn't come up that much unless your opponent has some sort of ability that improves their Seize. It can change the way a game turns out for me, but it hasn't ever directly caused a loss for me. Drop Pods help me out a lot since they allow me to plop down next to an opponent on my turn and mow them down.

 Vector Strike wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
I would prefer it if the game worked more like Bolt Action, random activation of each unit until all units have been activated. Takes away from this sort of problem.

The problem is bigger than StI; it's with the I-Go-You-Go game method.

I do agree, that this is a big part of the problem. Having each player go with alternating units might balance it out, but that would also make it a drastically different game. Seize the Initiative wouldn't even be a thing anymore.

A lot of people are talking about how it punishes aggressive or "hyper-aggressive" playing styles like this is inherently a good thing. Why is being aggressive a less valid strategy than playing defensively? Why does it deserve to be singled out for punishment? Heck, there are tons of factions in the fluff that are SUPPOSED to be hyper-aggressive and hit the opponent hard and fast (Deldar, anything Khorne, most Orks). The idea that players who want to play aggressively are playing "wrong" and should lose because of it is ridiculous. Not to mention that games where both players play defensively are pretty ing dull, IMHO.

Anyway, let me clarify about my army. I play Daemons. Parking behind a wall and playing "conservatively" is not an option for me. At all. If you play Tau, Necrons, SM, or Craftworld, Eldar, you have that luxury. Some armies don't. If I don't close with the enemy quickly, I don't get to attack, except in the psychic phase. So yes, this disproportionately punishes assault based armies, which have already been punished many times over in the last few, heavily shooty-biased editions.

 fallinq wrote:


I do agree, that this is a big part of the problem. Having each player go with alternating units might balance it out, but that would also make it a drastically different game. Seize the Initiative wouldn't even be a thing anymore.

A lot of people are talking about how it punishes aggressive or "hyper-aggressive" playing styles like this is inherently a good thing. Why is being aggressive a less valid strategy than playing defensively? Why does it deserve to be singled out for punishment? Heck, there are tons of factions in the fluff that are SUPPOSED to be hyper-aggressive and hit the opponent hard and fast (Deldar, anything Khorne, most Orks). The idea that players who want to play aggressively are playing "wrong" and should lose because of it is ridiculous. Not to mention that games where both players play defensively are pretty ing dull, IMHO.

Anyway, let me clarify about my army. I play Daemons. Parking behind a wall and playing "conservatively" is not an option for me. At all. If you play Tau, Necrons, SM, or Craftworld, Eldar, you have that luxury. Some armies don't. If I don't close with the enemy quickly, I don't get to attack, except in the psychic phase. So yes, this disproportionately punishes assault based armies, which have already been punished many times over in the last few, heavily shooty-biased editions.

Seize the Initiative does not punish "aggressive" deployment; it punishes bad deployment. Putting a whole bunch of non-fearless units out in the open on the very edge of your deployment is asking to get tabled.

40k is not a game designed to be played where the only goal is to kill the entire enemy army. Five out of the six Eternal War missions and all of the Maelstrom missions are about controlling objectives on the table, placed by the players. The goal is to claim the objective or objectives by the end of the game. Killing enemy units is a great way to prevent them from scoring objectives or killing your scoring units, but by itself combat is not how you win games. Objectives and the ability to score them win games. If you aren't deploying to either take or hold objectives and just line up on your deployment zone, you're doing it wrong.

Terrain is also a key factor. Unless you play on planet bowling ball, the board should be liberally covered with terrain pieces and debris, including at least one piece that completely blocks line-of-sight from the opposing table edges. If you don't deploy to take advantage of terrain, you are handing your opponent free units to kill.

Think of Seize the Initiative this way: the "6" result is no more or less likely than any number you or your opponent could have rolled when determining to go first. Because going first is so powerful, Seize the Initiative gives the person who rolled to go second a small chance of turning the tables, specifically one in six. The first player has to deploy with the possibility that they might not be at such an advantage for every game.

I love to troll players when I can seize on a 2+. The fear, the near certainty of being screwed.

They usually compensate by changing their deployment into something not ideal which I can either capitalize by seizing OR choose not to seize the initiative and let them waste a turn using their movement phase to try and re-position everything the way it was.

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
I love to troll players when I can seize on a 2+. The fear, the near certainty of being screwed.

How do you seize on a 2+?

 vipoid wrote:

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
I love to troll players when I can seize on a 2+. The fear, the near certainty of being screwed.

How do you seize on a 2+?

It is random but Harlequins have a Warlord trait which gives a +4 to seize the initiative... and I get a re-roll on the table. It is not a sure thing but it is not a bad thing either. It can screw up someone's game real fast.

The person who deploys first chooses who goes first. If you deploy in such a way that you are easily counterdeployed then your opponent having a 1/6 chance of siezing should make you pay attention to how you place models to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if your opponent deployed with the idea in mind that they will somehow get to go first, they will be at a worse position than you when that doesn't happen.