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.

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.

 EnTyme wrote:

 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.

Ghorros wrote:

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"...

 Galef wrote:

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.

I think it shopould be 7+ on d6. That way unless you have a modifier it's impossible and if you have a modifier you will paid points for it.

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.

What about scions? They're swat.

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.

Dark Phoenix wrote:

Ghorros wrote:

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.

I like it 1/6th of the time ...

 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"

What are the issues with that system?

-

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.

StI can be pretty crippling, but I think that says more about the basic rules and powerlevels of the game than about StI.

Can we just roll for who goes first after deployment?