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.

I like seize the initiative, but I think their should be a bonus to getting it based on an armies average initiative, because in general, armies with higher initiative have less staying power. I know craftspeople Eldar, SM, orks are the exception. Not even a big bonus, just plus 1 or something. I just think that the initiative stat should play a role in seize the initiative.

 zedsdead wrote:

 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. StO 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.

I don't think your assessment is fair.
The opponent's deployment would win him a game 5/6ths of the time. Not because Magnus is overpowered, but because the OP's list had not brought enough anti-psyker and anti-air power to deal with a threat like Magnus. If you have a way to win a game 5/6ths of the time, but you'll be screwed 1/6th of the time, and your other option is to deploy defensively and take it closer to a 60/40 shot 5/6th of the time and a 40/60 shot the other 1/6th, then the aggressive choice is objectively the better one.

Also: I am reading the same OP as you, right? Because Galef never said that his opponent deployed aggressively. It doesn't matter where you put Magnus on the board, unless you have really heavy terrain and get Night Fighting, he's only going to get a 4+ save - You could stick him further back on the table, but since the Magnus player was going first, there was no real way to get him away from Galef's units - There was nothing he could have done in any normal game. If he was the second player, he could have observed where Galef put his big guns, and then placed Magnus on the far side of the board, or left him in reserves, but since he was going first he was effectively helpless against a Seize roll. (I don't know the specifics of the game, sure, but NEITHER DO YOU because the OP never mentioned them, so accusing the Magnus player of deploying badly is not fair at all.)


And yes, it is a problem with 40k balance that losing a single model can change the game so drastically, but Magnus isn't normally that easy to drop - The only reason he was easy to kill is because of a 1/6th chance roll that can never be relied on.

Breng77 wrote:
I always have mixed feelings. It sucks when you get seized and it costs you the game. At the same time to me that usually means that you deployed in an overly aggressive manner or there is poor terrain on the table. I would say that given good terrain I'd rather keep seize in the game. My reasoning is as follows.

1.) Removing it simply changes which single dice roll might decide the game. No instead of seize it becomes the roll for first turn.

2.) You may argue that, "knowing" that you are going second has you deploy differently, but that is what seize keeps in check. If you take the risk of deploying in an aggressive manner to get the jump on your opponent you might lose because of it. Without seize what stops things with scout/infiltrate from crippling your opponent first turn?

so unless it is replaced with a contested roll post deployment (and scout, and infiltrate) to see who gets first turn, I don't think its removal is a good thing. That said in that case deploying second is almost always an advantage (since terrain is often very even) so it would likely need some bonus to the roll for deploying first.

I concur!

I'd think a chance to steal initiative every turn would be a little more interesting while at the same time reducing the impact of the single roll

Jefffar wrote:
I'd think a chance to steal initiative every turn would be a little more interesting while at the same time reducing the impact of the single roll

Like rolling to see who goes first each game turn?

That would be interesting, but it could/will give a player the opportunity of using their whole army twice before the other guy.

2 turns of Tau/Eldar shooting before you get to move your stuff.

2 turns of Berzerkers berzerking before you get to shoot them.

Eh... sounds dangerous!

 kronk wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
I'd think a chance to steal initiative every turn would be a little more interesting while at the same time reducing the impact of the single roll

Like rolling to see who goes first each game turn?

That would be interesting, but it could/will give a player the opportunity of using their whole army twice before the other guy.

2 turns of Tau/Eldar shooting before you get to move your stuff.

2 turns of Berzerkers berzerking before you get to shoot them.

Eh... sounds dangerous!

But it could work if the overall game turn structure was Player A, then B movement pahse, Player A then B psychic phase, A then B shooting phase, A then B declare and move charges, with 1 single combat resolution per game turn. Sieze each turn just determines if A then B or B then A happens first each turn.
That would ensure that no player gets back-to-back turns because each phase include both players.

-

 Galef wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
I'd think a chance to steal initiative every turn would be a little more interesting while at the same time reducing the impact of the single roll

Like rolling to see who goes first each game turn?

That would be interesting, but it could/will give a player the opportunity of using their whole army twice before the other guy.

2 turns of Tau/Eldar shooting before you get to move your stuff.

2 turns of Berzerkers berzerking before you get to shoot them.

Eh... sounds dangerous!

But it could work if the overall game turn structure was Player A, then B movement pahse, Player A then B psychic phase, A then B shooting phase, A then B declare and move charges, with 1 single combat resolution per game turn. Sieze each turn just determines if A then B or B then A happens first each turn.
That would ensure that no player gets back-to-back turns because each phase include both players.

-

I've played a few games with this alternating phases mechanic, and it works pretty well. Never thought of doing an AoS style roll-off, though. That could be interesting.

 Jaxler wrote:
Can we just roll for who goes first after deployment?

That would be even worse than the current system.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Can we just roll for who goes first after deployment?

That would be even worse than the current system.

I agree with Black + White Templar.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:

 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. StO 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.

I don't think your assessment is fair.
The opponent's deployment would win him a game 5/6ths of the time. Not because Magnus is overpowered, but because the OP's list had not brought enough anti-psyker and anti-air power to deal with a threat like Magnus. If you have a way to win a game 5/6ths of the time, but you'll be screwed 1/6th of the time, and your other option is to deploy defensively and take it closer to a 60/40 shot 5/6th of the time and a 40/60 shot the other 1/6th, then the aggressive choice is objectively the better one.

Also: I am reading the same OP as you, right? Because Galef never said that his opponent deployed aggressively. It doesn't matter where you put Magnus on the board, unless you have really heavy terrain and get Night Fighting, he's only going to get a 4+ save - You could stick him further back on the table, but since the Magnus player was going first, there was no real way to get him away from Galef's units - There was nothing he could have done in any normal game. If he was the second player, he could have observed where Galef put his big guns, and then placed Magnus on the far side of the board, or left him in reserves, but since he was going first he was effectively helpless against a Seize roll. (I don't know the specifics of the game, sure, but NEITHER DO YOU because the OP never mentioned them, so accusing the Magnus player of deploying badly is not fair at all.)


And yes, it is a problem with 40k balance that losing a single model can change the game so drastically, but Magnus isn't normally that easy to drop - The only reason he was easy to kill is because of a 1/6th chance roll that can never be relied on.

He put Magnus in harm's way because it was the optimal position to start an offensive on his opponent. He chose that optimal position because he didn't weigh the potential of a BRB rule to bite him in the butt.
I count aggression and overconfidence as his downfall.

I quite like it - it forces the player who has the first turn to consider what would happen if his enemy had first turn, and perhaps slightly alter his deployment because of it.

You know the roll is going to happen in advance, so it should be expected. It's still 50/50 who gets first turn. presuming both players attempt to seize if they roll lower for deciding first turn.

Don't forget that sometimes you *want* your opponent to go first.

Also, the OP probably deployed like gak if he had enough on the table to delete Magnus and relevant targets.

The big thing with going second is that you're aiming to minimize the damage you're going to take, and that in turn generally makes your seizing not that devastating.

Unless you're bidding on seizing, in which case you're taking a risk which you pay for.

Going second also depends on the nature of the game.

In a Tournament, not so great if your sole plan is 'TABLE HIM'.

Any other time where you plan tactical objective seizing, having that last say when your opponent can do precious little about it is damned handy.

 Galef wrote:

 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 think that phase activation would really hurt assault armies. If I need to move my units into the open to assault you or disembark from my assault vehicle then you get to shoot me. Further if the assault player moves first it is easier for his opponent to flee and kite the unit. I feel like the game would become even more about shooting than it is now or incentivize deathstars even more because you would need a unit to be able to survive in the open to be able to assault.

I think unit (though I would argue for groups of units rather than single units) activation has built in ability to punish deathstars, hurts the ability to alpha strike other armies. The biggest issue would be combat resolution so that might need to be separate at the end of turn or something


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:

 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. StO 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.

I don't think your assessment is fair.
The opponent's deployment would win him a game 5/6ths of the time. Not because Magnus is overpowered, but because the OP's list had not brought enough anti-psyker and anti-air power to deal with a threat like Magnus. If you have a way to win a game 5/6ths of the time, but you'll be screwed 1/6th of the time, and your other option is to deploy defensively and take it closer to a 60/40 shot 5/6th of the time and a 40/60 shot the other 1/6th, then the aggressive choice is objectively the better one.

Also: I am reading the same OP as you, right? Because Galef never said that his opponent deployed aggressively. It doesn't matter where you put Magnus on the board, unless you have really heavy terrain and get Night Fighting, he's only going to get a 4+ save - You could stick him further back on the table, but since the Magnus player was going first, there was no real way to get him away from Galef's units - There was nothing he could have done in any normal game. If he was the second player, he could have observed where Galef put his big guns, and then placed Magnus on the far side of the board, or left him in reserves, but since he was going first he was effectively helpless against a Seize roll. (I don't know the specifics of the game, sure, but NEITHER DO YOU because the OP never mentioned them, so accusing the Magnus player of deploying badly is not fair at all.)


And yes, it is a problem with 40k balance that losing a single model can change the game so drastically, but Magnus isn't normally that easy to drop - The only reason he was easy to kill is because of a 1/6th chance roll that can never be relied on.

I will say that we have no knowledge of the terrain available, but your assessment assumes that a change in deployment changes the chances of winning from 100% 5/6ths of the time to 60% 5/6th of the time. Chances are though that if Magnus is a game winning piece what we are talking about is the difference between winning the game on turn 3 vs winning on turn 4 or 5 by changing deployment (assuming there is a place to hide him out of line of sight) If we make that assumption that it changes when he wins rather him losing 40% of the time. Or what if changing deployment means he wins 90% if he doesn't get seized and 80% if he does. Then it is objectively the better choice.

In the end I would argue that objectively it is always a better choice to not leave winning or losing to 1 dice roll. Unless terrain is terrible (no LOS blocking pieces) then we can assume that this was a mistake in deployment at worst, or a calculated risk (as you suggest) that did not go to plan. It is the same thing as trying to claim an objective with one guy with a 2+ save who needs to survive 1 armor save to win you the game.

For certain match ups it can be far too devastating, in fact almost a certain loss. I'd tweak it so that if you lose you could make a standard move, trying to get into cover or something.

I agree with the theme that it's a crude way to balance out the threat of an alpha strike.

I've seized the initiative against Dark Eldar in tournament games. that single roll certainly swung the odds of the game more than anything else. This was back when skimmers had bonuses to durability, but only after they moved. But all of the rules that went into that situation were also dumb.

Seize is fine. It's an awkward patch on a flawed system.

In 40K, it's an annoyance that you can't plan on, and what, only 1 in 6 games does it work?

In 30K, there are Primarchs and Rite of War that can heavily influence the Seize the Initiative roll.

If it stays as is, I'd rather it just "goes away" in 8th edition. If they add more modifiers and allow you to plan for it, then I'd like to see it stay.

I like it, anytime I've seized it's helped me tremendously. Any time I've been seized against it didn't make a huge different because I deploy strategically. It's great and can be a huge boon for having good luck and deploying intelligently. Even my last game we were able to kill the Necron Lord in the first turn which helped TREMENDOUSLY throughout the entire game because of the removal of re-rolling 1s for resurrection. It's a fun mechanic and punishes more for being not strategic than anything else.

breng77 and Dakka Wolf sum up my position and ill stick to it. True I made a few assumptions ... however those assumptions were based on the result of that Seize (reserving Magus would have prevented it). I also stand by my assertion that having 600+ point units in this game is stupid when regardless of who went first, one of these players ( by the OPs admission) was getting there armies mopped up in 1-2 turns due to that model (living or dying).

BTW I run both a White Scars Gladius army and a White scar Biker army that would love to see StI go away... however It keeps me in check because I know if I get seized on it could be a bad day for me. So I deploy accordingly.

I agree that Seize is a fallible mechanic...however I do remember in the days of 5th edition (pre StI ...if I recall correctly) when Alpha Strike and Leaf Blower armies were a thing. Since StI has been introduced..those armies have toned down a bit. Something I feel is a good.

I'll say again: I think it should bea a 7+ roll on a d6 that way only armies that actually have a modifier for it can make the roll.

Anything that makes the game a bit random random but not extremely random is welcome IMHO. Seize the initiative is nice, you have to consider it when deploying your army.

 zedsdead wrote:
breng77 and Dakka Wolf sum up my position and ill stick to it. True I made a few assumptions ... however those assumptions were based on the result of that Seize (reserving Magus would have prevented it). I also stand by my assertion that having 600+ point units in this game is stupid when regardless of who went first, one of these players ( by the OPs admission) was getting there armies mopped up in 1-2 turns due to that model (living or dying).

BTW I run both a White Scars Gladius army and a White scar Biker army that would love to see StI go away... however It keeps me in check because I know if I get seized on it could be a bad day for me. So I deploy accordingly.

I agree that Seize is a fallible mechanic...however I do remember in the days of 5th edition (pre StI ...if I recall correctly) when Alpha Strike and Leaf Blower armies were a thing. Since StI has been introduced..those armies have toned down a bit. Something I feel is a good.

There was Seize in 5th but vehicles were so durable it often did not matter for those alpha strike armies. You could also get flat out cover saves during scout moves. I 100% agree on hugely expensive models in stock 40k games, I just think they are super hard to balance correctly. Either they are way too good, or they are terrible. My line is around 300 points on an individual model. I only think models that expensive work are in systems like the old fantasy where there is a cap on how much of your army can come from certain slots.

Bike armies were a big reason I support STI, I'm playing DA and I just picture Ravenwing with no Seize, I take a ton of Grav bikes, Scout 12", move 12" light up pretty much whatever I want turn 1. Now it wouldn't be the best army ever, but against some lists it would be almost auto-win with no seize. You can fit 16 grav bike squads (32 grav guns) into 1850 points. Doesn't really seem like fun to me.

 Tamwulf wrote:
In 40K, it's an annoyance that you can't plan on, and what, only 1 in 6 games does it work?

In 30K, there are Primarchs and Rite of War that can heavily influence the Seize the Initiative roll.

If it stays as is, I'd rather it just "goes away" in 8th edition. If they add more modifiers and allow you to plan for it, then I'd like to see it stay.

40k has those modifiers too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They're rare and hard to stack but they're there.

I really enjoyed the old fantasy rules of placing one unit at a time and whoever finishes first gets +1 to the roll to go first.

Not only does it force you to deploy as if you might go second, but it adds a layer of strategy to army composition as well. I've purpose built armies to finish deploying first, to get that +1 advantage, but those armies also struggled more on objective grabbing. due to small numbers of units.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

He put Magnus in harm's way because it was the optimal position to start an offensive on his opponent. He chose that optimal position because he didn't weigh the potential of a BRB rule to bite him in the butt.
I count aggression and overconfidence as his downfall.

So, how would you recommend deploying a model that is most of a foot tall and already has a 4++ rerolling 1s? No cover save is going to be better than what he already has unless you've got really tall ruins and nightfighting, and you can't deploy far away from your opponent if you don't know where your opponent is going to deploy. Maybe if the Magnus player brought a Void Shield Generator, but didn't deploy within the Void Shield, that would count as deploying non-defensively, but that's just about the only circumstance I can think of. (Space Marine/CSM allies with a Techpriest to bolster defenses on a piece of cover, maybe?)
Due to Magnus's size, and inbuilt durability, there is nothing that you can do on most game boards to make him more durable during deployment. Unless you know some secret that I do not, there's just nothing that he could have done to prevent the damage he took beyond leaving Magnus off the board entirely.

So is that what you are suggesting? That simply putting Magnus on the board at all was a bad tactical decision? That leaving a third of your army off the board for the first turn is a wise tactical decision because a 1/6th chance, even though the other 5/6ths of the time, a move that stupid will cost you the game?
Or are you saying that Magnus is a tactically bad choice entirely, because the mechanics of Seize the Initiative make him impossible to use without excessive risk?

There's just no good outcome here for your argument. Seize the Initiative should not make major chunks of codexes/armies unplayable, but by your own argument, it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
In 40K, it's an annoyance that you can't plan on, and what, only 1 in 6 games does it work?

In 30K, there are Primarchs and Rite of War that can heavily influence the Seize the Initiative roll.

If it stays as is, I'd rather it just "goes away" in 8th edition. If they add more modifiers and allow you to plan for it, then I'd like to see it stay.

40k has those modifiers too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They're rare and hard to stack but they're there.

The best I've come up with is to take Coteaz, Bjorn, and a Heralds of the Great Wolf formation. You re-roll first turn, your opponent re-rolls seizing, and you have a 4+ rerollable seize the initiative. (If you make someone else your warlord, you could even get the right Command Trait for a 3+.) Space Wolves are the only army I know of that have more than one source of StI manipulation, not including BRB Warlord Traits.

I'd expect AOS-style Roll per turn to appear, max two turns in a row for a player. Seems tactically interesting, as you have to leave yourself ready to attack but defended just in case.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

He put Magnus in harm's way because it was the optimal position to start an offensive on his opponent. He chose that optimal position because he didn't weigh the potential of a BRB rule to bite him in the butt.
I count aggression and overconfidence as his downfall.

So, how would you recommend deploying a model that is most of a foot tall and already has a 4++ rerolling 1s? No cover save is going to be better than what he already has unless you've got really tall ruins and nightfighting, and you can't deploy far away from your opponent if you don't know where your opponent is going to deploy. Maybe if the Magnus player brought a Void Shield Generator, but didn't deploy within the Void Shield, that would count as deploying non-defensively, but that's just about the only circumstance I can think of. (Space Marine/CSM allies with a Techpriest to bolster defenses on a piece of cover, maybe?)
Due to Magnus's size, and inbuilt durability, there is nothing that you can do on most game boards to make him more durable during deployment. Unless you know some secret that I do not, there's just nothing that he could have done to prevent the damage he took beyond leaving Magnus off the board entirely.

So is that what you are suggesting? That simply putting Magnus on the board at all was a bad tactical decision? That leaving a third of your army off the board for the first turn is a wise tactical decision because a 1/6th chance, even though the other 5/6ths of the time, a move that stupid will cost you the game?
Or are you saying that Magnus is a tactically bad choice entirely, because the mechanics of Seize the Initiative make him impossible to use without excessive risk?

There's just no good outcome here for your argument. Seize the Initiative should not make major chunks of codexes/armies unplayable, but by your own argument, it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
In 40K, it's an annoyance that you can't plan on, and what, only 1 in 6 games does it work?

In 30K, there are Primarchs and Rite of War that can heavily influence the Seize the Initiative roll.

If it stays as is, I'd rather it just "goes away" in 8th edition. If they add more modifiers and allow you to plan for it, then I'd like to see it stay.

40k has those modifiers too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They're rare and hard to stack but they're there.

The best I've come up with is to take Coteaz, Bjorn, and a Heralds of the Great Wolf formation. You re-roll first turn, your opponent re-rolls seizing, and you have a 4+ rerollable seize the initiative. (If you make someone else your warlord, you could even get the right Command Trait for a 3+.) Space Wolves are the only army I know of that have more than one source of StI manipulation, not including BRB Warlord Traits.

I have every respect for taking gambles, I also accept that taking gambles comes with concequences and relies on luck - I've been burned enough times to get into the habit of knowing those concequences. I play aggressive, I play with a re-rollable deployment and a 2+ Seize, funny story, I cater to the possibility that Lady Luck might spit in my face - my build is still aggressive, as is my deployment.

I've said on multiple occassions when people claimed that Magnus was OP that Magnus is an inflexible, high risk, high yield choice, an offensive choice.
A list building choice of putting six hundred odd points into one model is also an offensive choice. Magnus is a large chunk of points that not only synergises with his army, he's dependent on it - as proved, if Magnus dies the army is crippled, on the flip side, if the army dies, Magnus is crippled.
Hiding Magnus in Reserves is no worse than what happened, one turn of psychic mayhem is better than - how many turns did Magnus get again? It was a nice, round number.

My argument is fine, as is Seize the Initiative, it doesn't make anything "Unplayable" it makes deployment a gamble. If randomness scares you maybe a dice game is just the wrong place for you.


Seize modifiers
Grimnar's War Council +2
Bjorn +1
Imotekh the Stormlord +1
Chaos Strategic Genius +1
Heralds of the Great Wolf +1
Harlequins re-roll
Coteaz no idea about his modifier - Can't be bothered looking it up.
Farsight Enclaves Mirror Codex - Don't know, can't be bothered chasing it.

Waaaghpower wrote:

So, how would you recommend deploying a model that is most of a foot tall . . .

1. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

2. If you do, don't put your basket in front of a car.

Okay, so tell me this once again:
Why, when I have sacrificed the Strategic Initiative for the Tactical Initiative does my opponent have a 1 in 6 chance plus modifiers to take the Tactical initiative off me?
Can I gain a 1 in 6 plus modifiers chance to take the strategic initiative and redeploy my units? Or how about this:
Seize the Initiative: You can go first on a roll of a 6, but if you do make the roll then your opponent can instantly redeploy his entire army.

Look at how Infinity does this: Whichever player goes first can choose who deploys first and where (Strategic Initiative) or who goes first (Tactical Initiative).
The other player then chooses the remaining option.
So, say I choose to deploy second, here, then you can choose to go first.
Or if I choose to go first you can choose where you want to deploy and who goes first.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Okay, so tell me this once again:
Why, when I have sacrificed the Strategic Initiative for the Tactical Initiative does my opponent have a 1 in 6 chance plus modifiers to take the Tactical initiative off me?
Can I gain a 1 in 6 plus modifiers chance to take the strategic initiative and redeploy my units? Or how about this:
Seize the Initiative: You can go first on a roll of a 6, but if you do make the roll then your opponent can instantly redeploy his entire army.

Look at how Infinity does this: Whichever player goes first can choose who deploys first and where (Strategic Initiative) or who goes first (Tactical Initiative).
The other player then chooses the remaining option.
So, say I choose to deploy second, here, then you can choose to go first.
Or if I choose to go first you can choose where you want to deploy and who goes first.

Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.