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.

Overall I like the rule, but this past weekend it completely changed the outcome of a tournament game for me. (and thus the tournament as a whole)
I was playing Eldar + Ynnari and my opponent had Magnus and a bunch of Earth Shaker cannons.
It was the last round and both of us had the most tourney points overall. He was up to go first and I had exactly zero answers to Magnus once he got buffed up.

Then it happened. I rolled a '6'. Magnus was on the ground. So every single gun I had pointed straight at him and dropped him in the first round.
I am 100% confident that if I had not rolled this single '6' at that exact moment, Magnus would have mopped up my army in 1-2 turns easily.
By rights, this guy should have won the tourney with full points. I didn't even get full points in my first round

Is it ok for a single roll like that to impact the entire game? Have any of you had Seize make a major difference in your games?

-

I'd say the blame here doesn't rest on Seizing the Initiative, at least not entirely.

 Galef wrote:
He was up to go first and I had exactly zero answers to Magnus once he got buffed up.

 Galef wrote:
I am 100% confident that if I had not rolled this single '6' at that exact moment, Magnus would have mopped up my army in 1-2 turns easily.

Sounds like the issue here is actually Magnus!

If you kill him turn 1, you win - if you don't, you lose. That's not strategy, it's just dice, which is a problem like you say.

You winning due to that Seize the Initiative roll is a symptom of a (deeply) broken game system, not a root cause.

I hope its removed, its a ridiculous mechanic that can screw over an entire game because someone got lucky.

 gummyofallbears wrote:
I hope its removed, its a ridiculous mechanic that can screw over an entire game because someone got lucky.

Yeah, I am starting to feel that way too, This time it was in my favor, but it could easily be reversed.
I'd rather give the player who goes second some form of defensive protection. Maybe +1 cover in the 1st turn, or the ability to roll for reserves in the first game turn (only -1 or something to prevent the second player from alpha striking) Who knows?

But winning or losing due to 1 lucky roll at the beginning of the game is lame

While the single d6 system was fine enough when 40k came out, it really doesn't have the range or nuance to deal with a lot of things these days. 40k has some serious issues in any competitive setting, and while a lot of people cite points balance, I believe almost as much of a problem is the ability for things to swing disproportionately on single important rolls. With bulk fire, it generally averages out, but those single critical heavy weapon, etc., a 1 or 6 at the wrong moment can hugely change things, and it's a lot of why I prefer 40k only when playing casually.

It's just another indication of why IGOUGO is a piss poor design for a wargame.

I wouldn't mind if they did away with it, though I find that random psychic powers and warlord traits are worse.

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 feel guilty every time I manage to roll a 6 for Seizing, as if I'm somehow cheating. Although I can see why it's there I'd like to see some better way of dealing with it.

I like it. honestly I hate the one side goes then another as opposed to some sort of all inclusive game turn. that said I think going first is such a huge advantage I would love a % points be added to the player going second to make up for the disadvantage (not huge, think 5% so a 1250 would be 1250 going first vs 1313 going second so 63 points maybe you get a few more bodies or a transport to help weather the storm.

I like the idea of a benefit to the player who gets seized on. +1 cover or -1 to reserves/making drop pods roll for reserves sounds like a fun idea.

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.

Think this is a pretty solid take on it. Ultimately, in a dice-based game, sometimes the dice go your way, sometimes they go against you. This is just another instance of that.

I hate the seize the initiative rule. As a Chaos player if I have any vehicles in my list I will pay for a 20 point upgrade to force a reroll on seizing just because I hate it that much. In the last tournament I was in, for game 3 I was playing against Eldar with my Daemons. He rolled the lucky 6, killed both Lords of Changes and a few other things and proceeded to basically start the game with me being down 1050 to his 1850. I still almost won the game, only loosing because of trash maelstrom that ITC likes to have in some scenarios. Had I not been down by 800 points in the first turn then I would of won the game.

The roll to go first and the seize roll are way to powerful in how the game functions right now since shooting is so powerful. I have also been of the opinion that reserves should be rolled for the player going 2nd just so that there is an actual choice being made if you want to go first or not. This would mean 3+ for turn one, 3+ for turn two, and automatically in on turn three. Right now the choice if you win the roll is to go first or to go first.

I actually like Seize. It represents some unpredictability, which is good. I think we should turn it into a roll-off though and have more units like Coteaz that effect a roll. That way, if going first is really important to you it's actually something you can build around and try to mitigate/heighten.

I love Seize, and depending on my list it's often part of my gameplan to make my opponent deploy first then deploy in response and Seize. Space Wolves have acess to units that allow a re-roll on deployment and modifiers to Sieze.
Since games can be won and lost at the list-building level, the game has started long before Sieze the Initiative takes place.

Maybe Seize should be on a 5+ but only allows the player to "activate" a small number of units on the board, rather than actually getting the 1st turn.
Maybe this activation would allow D3+1 units to move, shoot and cast psychic powers prior to the first "turn"

That would allow a crucial buff or pot-shot at a big target, without the total devastation of losing the first turn.

No. It forces the player to have some restraint and common sense in deployment.

You say magnus could have tabled you in two turns and you had no answer to him other than hitting him before he ever took off.

Then, I answer, why the hell wasnt he in reserve? Or at least deployed somewhere safe? They took a risk - albeit a small one - in return for better deployment position, and it didnt pay off.

Seize the Initiative is something of a hamfisted answer to inherent turn 1 advantage in IGOUGO systems.

It's not a very good or very fair balancer, but it's a simple one GW has chosen to go with.

I wouldnt lost any sleep over seeing it go, most of the time it just ends up being a punitive "gotcha".

I hope they replaced it with the you deploy one unit I deploy one unit I deploy one unit, etc. The one who is done deploying first gets a serious bonus on the go first roll.

This used to be fun, straight up removing the seize would induce more alpha strike styles that I would probably not enjoy that much. However I do agree that a seize on a 6+ isn't an ideal mechanism.

 oldzoggy wrote:
I hope they replaced it with the you deploy one unit I deploy one unit I deploy one unit, etc. The one who is done deploying first gets a serious bonus on the go first roll.

This used to be fun, straight up removing the seize would induce more alpha strike styles that I would probably not enjoy that much. However I do agree that a seize on a 6+ isn't an ideal mechanism.

I kinda like this is an older edition of Fantasy, but I rather like being able to deploy my whole army at once. Maybe a better solution would be:
Both players to roll for sides, the winner than immediately deploys
Then player 2 deploys.
Once both sides are deployed (including infiltrators and Scout moves, then both players roll to go first.

This would force both players to deploy defensively as neither knows if the other will go first.

-

Yeah a 6+ to seize is kind of meh, It should really be something like Komi in Go, where the second player gets an advantage. One Idea I kicked around was bidding units that won't get to go on the first turn. You secretly record your bid as does your opponent, then both reveal your bids. The person with the higher bid gets to go first, but the player with the lowest bid gets to pick units from his opponents army equal to the highest bid that don't get to act on the first turn. So it becomes a little bit of strategy, a little bit of bluffing, and a whole lot of discouragement to bring a single OP unit if you want to go first. If there is a tie then it's a roll off.

It seems that night fighting + no first turn charges is inadequate in counterbalancing the first turn advantage then ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

I kinda like this is an older edition of Fantasy, but I rather like being able to deploy my whole army at once.

-

Jup I enjoyed it in old WFB, but I also enjoy it in X-wing and in the few rare 5th battle missions that I play and still use this deployment method.
The main reason for it is that it changes me waiting on my opponent deploying into an actual interesting and interactive element of the game.

I don't think Sieze should be in the game, but it's low on the totem pole of things that need to be fixed with the overall system in the first place.

I like seize. Precisely because it's unpredictable, it adds SOME level of doubt and risk to deployment, and 1 in 6 is rare enough that I don't feel it's a game killer, but CAN be a game changer.

Also, I don't think the OP won on that single roll, but more on the entire army rolling enough hits to take Magnus down. ALL of those rolls count too - if one had missed....

His deployment lost him the game. Enjoy the victory.

If the presence or lack thereof of Magnus lost you the game, that isn't a problem with Seize.

That is an issue with a particular model. Or your army.

forgot to comment earlier on your game and to echo... if they did not put magnus behind sufficient cover that is your opponent's fault not yours. barring something like rolling 9 1's out of 11 saves which just happens sometimes.

I would like to see Seizing the Initiative go away.

I like it as it makes the player going first have to think about the possibility of losing the first turn advantage when deploying

It is helpful against the Alphastrike lists

it is a random dice roll to get first turn at any rate, the chance to steal just adds a little extra in possible tatics

there was already a random roll and it was already decided. and now we have to decide it again?

adds nothing to the game for me but an unexpected dose of disappointment honestly.