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.

Another way to blunt first turn advantage would be to define units in their deployment zone that have not yet moved or performed an action to be "transitioning" to the battlefield, they are in some sense not really there yet. Transitioning units can't be charged, and are treated as being at twice the measured range for the purposes of being targeted by shooting attacks (ie 24" is treated as 48") with a -1 to-hit penalty.

Getting first turn then just confers a small move and manoeuvre advantage.

jeff white wrote:
Today, I was thinking that each side should deploy up to half of its units according to a chart specified by the mission. Some missions may put one or the other in a defensive position to start, so heavies and standard troops may be deployed in some proportion, and other missions may put one side or the other in recon type positions, so infiltrating units, light infantry and fast vehicles might be deployed first turn.

....

Besides this, i think that reducing movement and weapon ranges including charge ranges is a good idea for the most part.
AND I think that returning to more realistic terrain and cover rules is necessary, to make the battlefield more dynamic.

In the end, to limit game play time (as for some reason, this is the biggest concern for so many people, cuz for some reason it is great when you can play three mediocre games in one evening in rather than one serious nail-biter) smaller forces may be in order.

Maybe 1250 or 1500pts on a 6x4 with reduced ranges and movement?

Deployment by force org was the default for a long time, and I think default is better. In most missions players took turns deploying their heavies first, then troops, HQ, and elite, with fast attack going last. Then in more exotic missions, force off was also used, for example sometimes heavy support had to move on from the board edge on turn one, while other units had already deployed.

While this is very good, it is not completely default. Choosing a mission, either by rolling or player agreement, can seem like it advantages one army in unpredictable ways. It's often a turn off to playing missions at all. It's so hard to say whether a mission was the reason a game was won or lost, and even if it is easy to point to that, it's both cold comfort and hollow victory.

So it is better to build these mission conditions into the units themselves. The data sheet itself can say this transport can count as deploying normally but actually arrive from reserves on turn one, this specific HQ causes friendly heavy support units to deploy last, this other HQ unit causes enemy HQ to before your troops units do. This removes the uncertainty of how choosing a mission affects your units vs how much it affects the opponents'.


The there is also the idea of reducing ranges and army size, and I think there is an alternative. Obviously these address important problems, because boards are very small compare to the ranges and model scale, and the potential problem of game length. The alternative is to simulate an increased board size. It's possible to do this by causing more units to start in reserve and to increase the options in that area. For example, your board edge is broken up into sections, and you have to roll for which section you enter from, similar to the old outflank, and you have differ s ways of affecting that through the units' battlefield role, Ld, and transport, as well as HQ abilities. This causes the number of units on the board at any time to go down, shortening the turn length.

It is also important to keep game sizes large. With smaller armies, it is more likely that the opponent will have a large amount of units you don't have anything with which to counter. The obvious example is multiple heavy armor units in an 1000 game. If you simulate a large board by making more things walk from the board edge and come from reserves, then it is possible to keep the model count on the board low while keeping the model count in the armies high.

IronSlug wrote:What about no deployment but simulating the forces arriving on the battlefield from out of it ?

Deployment : You only set up infiltrators
First turn : Ouriders and very fast units (flyers) from your table edge
Second turn : Fast units (jump infantry, vehicules, ...)
Third turn : Footsloggers
Certainly not like that but you got the idea.

You could delay first turn units but your opponent will protfit of this time to grab objectives.

Don't jump at my throat I'm just throwing an idea here and did not thought it through.

It is a very good idea. There are many conditions where the order could be the opposite. Infiltrators currently deploy last because the enemy doesn't know where they are so it can't react to them by deploying to avoid or kill them. However you are talking about them both appearing and acting first, like the infiltrators actually get to fight first, which can be an advantage, but mixed when only enemy infiltrators are in the board.

Wow, I just returned to this post
After reading all the replies, I’m refining my initial thoughts. A few considerations I think are important. First, consider the advantages gained through the current deployment phase to each player. (very rough estimate) Remember players can spend CP's to reroll throughout. I based this on the typical +1 modifier in tournament play. The MRB sequence totally skews the game toward a super heavy model alpha strike.

Player 1 - Placing the 1st objective - 5% (or 0%)
Player 2 - Rolling for the deployment map and choosing sides - 15%
Player 1 - Placing the first unit - 10%
Player that finishes deployment first choosing to go first or second - 60%
Opponent decides to seize or not - 10%

Adding that up, the player that ends up going first has a 75% to 25% advantage no matter which player wins the roll off. Here are some more considerations.

1. I play some Bolt Action and I LOVE random activation. It feels so much more realistic and yields a ton of strategic depth. That said, for our purpose here I think only simple changes, staying close to 40k conventions, could ever fly. Also, game length is a real issue. An expanded first turn where units only move or enter in some restricted sequence either simply creates a delayed Alpha Strike or a melee version of an Alpha Strike.
2. Much can be accomplished with terrain heavy boards. Particularly, blocking terrain. Also, the Dawn Raid rule in Narrative Play is available and could be used or tweaked to great effect.
3. Any fix needs to reduce 1st player lethality by 50% IMO, but the 2nd player should also see some reduction for balance purposes. Imagine a terrain heavy board where player 1 comes out to shoot, then player 2 gets the Alpha strike. You also don’t want everyone hiding until turn 2 which simply delays the Alpha Strike.
4. Super heavy models must count for more than one unit because they shoot as if they are 2 or 3 models.

Here would be my rule changes.
- Count Super Heavy models according to their primary weapon systems. Anything that isn’t on a regular model counts as a primary. So a Knight with a Reaper Chain Sword, a Thermal Cannon, and Titanic Feet counts as 3 for deployment and model count purposes. Thus a player facing the Knight can place 3 models after the Knight goes down.
- The first player can activate no more than half (rounding up) of their units during the movement, shooting, and charge phases. Super heavy models count equal to their deployment value for this purpose. The units chosen to activate during the movement phase can be different from those activated during the other phases. However, only units activated during the shooting phase are eligible to be activated during the charge phase. A unit deployed from off the table at the end of the movement phase counts as having been activated during the movement phase.
- The second player is restricted like the first player for activating units, except that one extra unit may be activated each phase.
- During each player's first turn, stationary units count as having moved for shooting purposes. This accounts for both armies moving into position during the deployment phase.

Taking these changes into account and using my "out of thin air" percentages above, I think things break out like this:
- I think the super heavy rule is basically a fair trade and should be part of the MRB regardless of this discussion.
- The stationary model rule counts both ways, so it grants no advantage.
- If the first player is using half their models, I think it is a 50% reduction in lethality. The 2nd player has absorbed damage but gets to activate an extra unit. I think this balances things out pretty well. Albeit, I still think the first player has some advantage by going first.
- These changes reduce the advantage of being able to seize the initiative. Seizing will become more of a strategic choice based on the scenario rather than an automatic no brainer.

Adding the percentages now while changing going first to 35% and seizing the initiative to 5% yields a 50% to 50% result no matter which player wins the roll.

Of course it is very convenient that the percentages I pulled out of my arse just happen to work out, but hey, I'm the OP.

Simlultaneous turns/phases work great in Infinity but you are deling with 12 models and making decision at each step of the way. game takes some time to resolve as well but each step/decision can be countered when it happens.

If this was implemented in 40K one game would take a day to play because of the size of the armies and the number of units that can react to a decision.

Infinity is heavily based on using terrain and the cover rules. There is nowehree enough terrain to do the same in 40K. the units sizes are too big and thats before you thinnk of bringing vehicles. While i will balance any alpha striking and allow you to counter an oponent right then and there it can make for some rather borring gameplay. the old days overwatch where people sit arround and wait for oponents to trigger the overwatch and have 200 guardsman open fire on that first sacricicial unit . not that is tactiacly unsound just boring as fk.

Okay, how about this idea for a simple change.

Deploy AFTER determining who goes first.

Each player determines how many deployments they will make.
The player with the fewest deployments has first turn.
If it is a tie, roll for first turn.
The player with first turn deploys first.
The Second player can change the number of deployment they make.

So . . .

If you go first, then you deploy to optimize your Alpha Strike (if you are planning one).
If you go second, you deploy to defend against an Alpha Strike.

 koooaei wrote:
ALL ranges. Marines will move 3". Orks 2.5".

Ok.

Basilisks can shoot 60"
Baneswords can shoot 70"
Aquila Macro Cannon Quake shells can reach 90"

In the meanwhile... Valkyries can move 10-22.5" and reach 12-24"...

Alternating activations: In each player's turn, they only pick one unit (normally). This activates and does its thing. Then play goes to the other guy, who does the same.

How units are selected varies. Some systems use some kind of initiative system, others use random selection (like a deck of cards or whatnot), others just let you pick whichever.

If you have more units than the other guy, some systems let you just finish up using them, others only let you do a certain number more (representing your force being less "wieldy" after a certain size) etc.

A "turn" ends when every unit has gone for both players, and it begins again.

This worked well in FAD, where basic riflemen of typical quality often shot 4+ feet with small arms.

40k also has no penalties for range, either. Point blank and 100" is the same chance to hit. This favors maneuvering at longer ranges to avoid waiting time trying to get pot shots in that ultimately leave you in the open.

Another observation is that a lot of game boards I have seen are very sparse on terrain, especially LOS blocking terrain.

M.

Slayer6 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
ALL ranges. Marines will move 3". Orks 2.5".

Ok.

Basilisks can shoot 60"
Baneswords can shoot 70"
Aquila Macro Cannon Quake shells can reach 90"

In the meanwhile... Valkyries can move 10-22.5" and reach 12-24"...

Yep it would make long range gunlines even more powerful. You would need to seriously up the price of those weapons to compensate.

How about this:
The player winning the roll to see who goes first can choose to go either first or second.
If he chooses to go first, he can not deep strike any units during his first turn, and all his models count as having moved 3".

That way, assaulty armies might not get as close in the first turn, and shooty armies will take a penalty to hit for most of their units.
Maybe some will even want to go second.

-1 to hit on all shooting first player turn, and only d6 on the charge? Returns to normal on second player turn?

I do like first-player-chooses. I lost the rolloff last night, and was happy, because I wanted to go second (wanted him to commit first).

Vastly simplified, partial solution: 1st player turn one - dawn raid rule, no extra movement spells or abilities, no advance and charge spells. 2nd player turn one - dawn raid rule except for units that stood still.

Bharring wrote:
-1 to hit on all shooting first player turn, and only d6 on the charge? Returns to normal on second player turn?

I do like first-player-chooses. I lost the rolloff last night, and was happy, because I wanted to go second (wanted him to commit first).

I like the -1 to hit on first turn. Team Yankee, which is also a D6 system, uses that and it makes first turn a interesting proposition.

Or perhaps... people could try and actually account for the fact that powerful alpha strikes are a thing in 8th and should be considered during list building, deployment and longer term strategic planning.

I've always found it strange that people always jump to change the rules or significant aspects of the game rather than how they play. Alpha strikes are powerful and they matter, being caught out by them and being wrecked 1st turn is because you haven't used that knowledge to sort yourself out. It's not the mechanics that suck.... it's you.

Why do you want powerful alpha strikes to be a part of the game? In what way is it a good aspect of the game?
How do you account for them in "long term strategic planning", and in what way does that term apply to 40k?

Slayer6 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
ALL ranges. Marines will move 3". Orks 2.5".

Ok.

Basilisks can shoot 60"
Baneswords can shoot 70"
Aquila Macro Cannon Quake shells can reach 90"

In the meanwhile... Valkyries can move 10-22.5" and reach 12-24"...

But isn't it the point of long ranged guns such as artillery? To be able to shoot while staying out of harm's way. Noone rides an artillery gun within effective rifle shot range. That's what tanks are for. And even tanks try to outrange other tanks.

This also further increases the effectiveness of deepstrikes. Will require some point changes.

 koooaei wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
ALL ranges. Marines will move 3". Orks 2.5".

Ok.

Basilisks can shoot 60"
Baneswords can shoot 70"
Aquila Macro Cannon Quake shells can reach 90"

In the meanwhile... Valkyries can move 10-22.5" and reach 12-24"...

But isn't it the point of long ranged guns such as artillery? To be able to shoot while staying out of harm's way. Noone rides an artillery gun within effective rifle shot range. That's what tanks are for. And even tanks try to outrange other tanks.

This also further increases the effectiveness of deepstrikes. Will require some point changes.

It's not about if it does or does not make any real world sense. Real world sense has no place compared to game mechanics and balance.

What would it do to the game? How would it impact mid range armies like nids and orks when matched against tau and guard? The game would break. Horribly.

 Lance845 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
ALL ranges. Marines will move 3". Orks 2.5".

Ok.

Basilisks can shoot 60"
Baneswords can shoot 70"
Aquila Macro Cannon Quake shells can reach 90"

In the meanwhile... Valkyries can move 10-22.5" and reach 12-24"...

But isn't it the point of long ranged guns such as artillery? To be able to shoot while staying out of harm's way. Noone rides an artillery gun within effective rifle shot range. That's what tanks are for. And even tanks try to outrange other tanks.

This also further increases the effectiveness of deepstrikes. Will require some point changes.

It's not about if it does or does not make any real world sense. Real world sense has no place compared to game mechanics and balance.

What would it do to the game? How would it impact mid range armies like nids and orks when matched against tau and guard? The game would break. Horribly.

Why would it if you reprice really long-ranged weapons. Cause currently there is very little difference between a 48" gun and a 72" one. And there is literally no difference between a 72" gun and any gun with higher range than that. Isn't it a flaw?

Because an average 18 inch gun army becomes a 9 inch gun army. Which mean Termagants and gargoyles couldn't even shoot out of deepstrike.

Your talking about long ranges that will still be effective long ranges. I'm talking about all the mid range guns that suddenly don't work.

An exocrine needs to stand still to be really effective... Well, that 36" artillery beast just became 18.

Biovores who want to sit in your backfield and blast 48" away just became 24" and can't even reach the opponents deployment zone. Biovores btw have the longest range gun in the codex.

Again, what does this do to the mid ranged armies? They break.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because an average 18 inch gun army becomes a 9 inch gun army. Which mean Termagants and gargoyles couldn't even shoot out of deepstrike.

Your talking about long ranges that will still be effective long ranges. I'm talking about all the mid range guns that suddenly don't work.

An exocrine needs to stand still to be really effective... Well, that 36" artillery beast just became 18.

Biovores who want to sit in your backfield and blast 48" away just became 24" and can't even reach the opponents deployment zone. Biovores btw have the longest range gun in the codex.

Again, what does this do to the mid ranged armies? They break.

Deepstrike would also be 4.5".

Every range gets halved. That's just a way to play a 144*96 game on a 72*48 table. Basically an apoc game on a regular table. With larger minis.

 koooaei wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Because an average 18 inch gun army becomes a 9 inch gun army. Which mean Termagants and gargoyles couldn't even shoot out of deepstrike.

Your talking about long ranges that will still be effective long ranges. I'm talking about all the mid range guns that suddenly don't work.

An exocrine needs to stand still to be really effective... Well, that 36" artillery beast just became 18.

Biovores who want to sit in your backfield and blast 48" away just became 24" and can't even reach the opponents deployment zone. Biovores btw have the longest range gun in the codex.

Again, what does this do to the mid ranged armies? They break.

Deepstrike would also be 4.5".

Every range gets halved. That's just a way to play a 144*96 game on a 72*48 table. Basically an apoc game on a regular table. With larger minis.

Ok, So tyranids, if they deepstrike, could shoot. Does that change the net effect I was talking about? Nids would be blasted entirely off the table before making a dent in anyones bubble wrap let alone their actual army.

Have you ever played on an apoc table?

1) Determine who gets +1 for first turn by comparing drops before deployment, roll to see who gets first turn. Winner can elect to surrender first turn to their opponent.
2) Second turn player picks deployment zones and claims their zone by deploying their first unit.
3) First turn player alternates unit deployments but can only deploy units up to the half way point of their deployment zone.
4) After deployment Second turn player can roll to sieze the initiative and become the First turn player.
5) During First turn players first turn "Fog of War" is in effect and all their shooting is done at -1 to hit, all shooting over 12" gives those targets not already in cover the benefits of being in cover.
6) Deepstrike units need to roll a 3+ to come onto the table turn one unless using a Strategem to do so.

Alpha Strike is a part of the game for sure, IMO they are all too often the deciding event of most games. As a player who greatly benefits from my Dom Alpha Strike, my games are rarely more than actual mopping up if I get to go first and my opponent doesnt bury themselves deep in their deployment zone. Even then, they usually lose 25-35% of their force before they get to go. I think 8ed 40k would benefit from a better dynamic for first turn. Players could still navigate the above system to actually pull off an Alpha Strike but they would be nowhere near as effective.

Might be kind of nice to actually have turns 3-5 actually matter in most every game wouldn't it?

Edited for having stupid fingers...

 koooaei wrote:
Have you ever played on an apoc table?

Once. Recently. a 6 x 8

 Lance845 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Have you ever played on an apoc table?

Once. Recently. a 6 x 8 [/quote

My favorite table size]