seizing the iniative

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.

**Hyglar's Hellraiser**

My playing group all wanted to see the end of seizing the initiative. Now that rumours have brought it back with a vengeance im happy because I disagree with them. They believe it's too much of a random element that breaks the game for one player when first turn is 'stolen'. I believe that it adds a random element which gives us a unknown quantity to respond to and make us build balanced builds or use reserves rather then auto-getting something. To me it's needed to add randomness which you can respond to in the game and have a dynamic that's not fixed before deployment. Rant over, what do you guys think?

**PrinceRaven**

Devil's advocate here.
Seizing the initiative creates a situation of overwhelming advantage for someone playing an army like Tau, where they not only get to counter-deploy their army but also get a first turn alpha strike to weaken the opponent.

**MarkyMark**

Thats the hole point of sieze, do you risk going all out and getting seized on, if going second do you risk taking that alpha strike. You say it adds more randomness but we are playing with dice, there are odds to everything.

You and your group are free to house rule it though as yes it is in 7th edition.

**PrinceRaven**

The whole point of seizing the initiative is to give Tau an overwhelming advantage?

**MarkyMark**

If they deploy to have everything in range and line of sight if they are going second, the 1 in 6 times they seize yes they will have the advantage. The 5/6 times they dont they have most things out in the wind.

**PrinceRaven**

It's not hard to put your entire army 6" out of being in range of everything on the table when your basic gun has 30" range.

**BoomWolf**

MarkyMark wrote:
If they deploy to have everything in range and line of sight if they are going second, the 1 in 6 times they seize yes they will have the advantage. The 5/6 times they dont they have most things out in the wind.

And that's different from anyone else doing an aggressive deployment despite being second how exactly?

Its not like tau even have seize-buff mechanics to make it into a viable strategy, it just screwes over the enemy once in 12 games (half you start anyway, then you steal 1/6 times) if he deploys recklessly and uses no safeguards in case of a steal.

**MarkyMark**

Try reading the rest of the thread boomwolf, I was replying to Raven who mentioned Tau, I never mentioned Tau till that point.

**niv-mizzet**

I'm not a fan of seizing.

A long range shooty army that seizes suddenly gets to blow over units that were set up as if they were going first.

An assault army, or other short/mid range army, that seizes, was about to go second, and so is going to be set up in a defensive manner around terrain, not in a way to maximize first turn movement. Suddenly they seize and they...move forward and do little significant damage. Shocker.

It's just another rule that favors shooting more.

**Hyglar's Hellraiser**

I'm probably not the best one for starting this thread as I play competitively for about four games a year. The rest of the time I play narrative games. I honestly hope that the issues people have with seizing the initiative are overcome by these tactical cards. Making competitive games with 'mini' tactical objectives should mitigate this idea of the one method of deployment..defence or attack.

**creeping-deth87**

I've always hated the seize rule, I'm sad it's in the new rulebook. This game is plenty random enough as it is, it really doesn't need seizing on top of all the other random crap. Such a huge advantage too.

**rigeld2**

niv-mizzet wrote:
An assault army, or other short/mid range army, that seizes, was about to go second, and so is going to be set up in a defensive manner around terrain, not in a way to maximize first turn movement. Suddenly they seize and they...move forward and do little significant damage. Shocker.

So... don't opt to seize. You're not required to. If your plan doesn't benefit by going first, don't.

**Murdius Maximus**

In most cases I actually prefer to go second. I deploy everything behind cover anyway (a disadvantage sometimes, but it's my style lol) and I like to have the last word on objectives when they are being played, so seize the initiative is pretty pointless to me, but I appreciate the rule. If I win the dice roll I elect to go second, if I lose, nine times out of ten my opponent elects to go first so there ya have it...

**kronk**

Murdius Maximus wrote:
In most cases I actually prefer to go second. I deploy everything behind cover anyway (a disadvantage sometimes, but it's my style lol) and I like to have the last word on objectives when they are being played,

I generally agree for the same reasons.

However, sometimes you just want to throw everything at that Riptide before it tears you a new one or those 5 wave serpents BEFORE they move and get their jink save.

**bosky**

I agree that Seize the Initiative seems like a real kludge of a rule, and way too swingy, and also kind of slapped on like the designers figured "Well first turn is really important, I guess we'll just let them roll a dice to totally change it".

**PrinceRaven**

Remeber, GW thinks random = fun and balanced.

**dementedwombat**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Remeber, GW thinks random = fun and balanced.

I mean, random is balanced, it's the same odds for both people. If there was a game of "we both roll dice, the person who rolls highest wins" then it would be perfectly balanced and completely random.

Fun is a personal decision. I have no opinion on that point. It's more the people I'm playing with than the game I'm playing that determines fun for me.

**Zodiark**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Remeber, GW thinks random = fun and balanced.

You can't get more balanced than random tbh

**PrinceRaven**

Random isn't balanced, random is the imbalance shifting wildly game to game.

**dementedwombat**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Random isn't balanced, random is the imbalance shifting wildly game to game.

Now this statement will require some explaining. I'm curious as to how you define balance. I've always heard it defined as an equal chance for either side to win, or at least equal potential based on player skill. Chess is pretty much balanced perfectly since both sides have the exact same options and you see approximately 50% win rates (depending on whether you believe white has a first move advantage, which game results seem to back up as a small but noticeable advantage). By the same criteria "the roll off game" would be perfectly balanced because both sides have the exact same options (rolling a dice) and the game would have a 50% win rate barring cheating.

Are you saying that player skill should be factored in when balance is considered, and that a balanced game should have equal options, not necessarily equal win rates? I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you. I'm honestly curious to hear you explain yourself more fully since your previous statement is somewhat unclear to me.

**PrinceRaven**

A 100% balanced game would be one in which two players of equal skill can sit down to have a game with two lists of equal points, and no matter what armies they chose, who goes first and what mission, terrain, warlord traits, psychic powers, etc. are rolled, they have an equal chance of winning.
A perfectly balanced game is decided by player skill alone, and the more random elements you add to the game, especially ones where a single roll can give a huge advantage to one side, player skill becomes less of a factor, thus the game becomes less balanced.

**Vineheart01**

Have to admit i never liked it either, and this is coming from a Tau player lol.

Its not as bad now, technically. Read the deployment rules, and you notice the player that deploys first does not declare if he/she is going to take first turn until both sides have deployed (its left out for some reason, but im assuming this is after infiltrate and scout moves. I think we need a faq here to clarify though). Meaning you kinda have to deploy the same regardless of if you go first or not - as if you play the ultimate mole-rat behind terrain, im just going to say "You go first" and you are forced to get out of hiding, or just waste a turn.

**Bludbaff**

Here's how I handle Seize the Initiative:

1. Before it's rolled, regardless of whether my opponent or I am the one rolling, I mention that I hate the rule and think it's an ugly solution.

2. 5 times out of 6, it's not an issue.

3. 1 time out of 12, I am the one who rolls a 6. I then reiterate that I hate the rule, and tell my opponent to go ahead and take first turn.

4. 1 time out of 12, my opponent rolls a 6. If they choose to take advantage of it, I restrain myself from commenting and accept that I'm playing at a large handicap.

So a maximum of 1/12th of my games are ruined by the rule, and never in my favor (I always feel terrible about taking an advantage I perceive as unfair).

As for replacements for it, I think granting Scout to a couple of units of the player who deploys second would work. You could either cover some ground (for example to take cover outside your deployment zone) before you get shot up, or else you could Outflank some units that the opponent will have to prepare for the arrival of.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Seize is infinitely more balanced than "OK, you won the dice roll. Go ahead and kill 30%of my stuff".

**Vash108**

Isn't the whole game based around random dice rolls?

**PrinceRaven**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Seize is infinitely more balanced than "OK, you won the dice roll. Go ahead and kill 30%of my stuff".

"Ok, you lost the dice roll, got to counter-deploy, and seized. Go ahead and kill 30% of my stuff" is better?

**Wilytank**

PrinceRaven wrote:
The whole point of seizing the initiative is to give Tau an overwhelming advantage?

Recently, I played Daemons against a friend's Space Marines and neither of us had any Tau units whatsoever. But he seized the initiative which gave the non-existent Tau an overwhelming advantage. So really, that comment may be more accurate than you originally thought.

**ressgonzol**

When you are deploying you HAVE to take into account that a seize can happen. Thats why it exists. You deploy assuming that a seize wont happen and it does... well thats on you.

**Xerics**

I like the new terrain rules though. There is no longer a set number of terrain and even the book writers say "In general, we have found that the more scenery you can place on the battlefield, the better the game will be." BRB pg. 130

Automatically Appended Next Post:
fill that board up and make LoS extremely difficult OH YEAH!

**PrinceRaven**

Wilytank wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
The whole point of seizing the initiative is to give Tau an overwhelming advantage?

Recently, I played Daemons against a friend's Space Marines and neither of us had any Tau units whatsoever. But he seized the initiative which gave the non-existent Tau an overwhelming advantage. So really, that comment may be more accurate than you originally thought.

That post was in response to Markymark's post responding to my post about the huge advantage seizing the initiative

ressgonzol wrote:When you are deploying you HAVE to take into account that a seize can happen. Thats why it exists. You deploy assuming that a seize wont happen and it does... well thats on you.

And that somehow means it's completely fair and balanced? Can I apply that logic to other things?

When you are deploying you HAVE to take into account that a Revenant Titan can wipe out 2 of your vital units. Thats why it exists. You deploy assuming that a Revenant Titan won't wipe out your 2 most vital units and it does... well thats on you.

Also, how does deploying while taking into account that a seize can happen negate the advantage of your opponent being able to both counter-deploy and get the first round of shooting?