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.

Inspired by the thread over in General Discussion, here is my proposed change to Seize the Initiative, to make it a bit more of a tactical decision instead of a no-brainer 'I win' button 1/6th of the time.

Seize the Initiative
After all deployment is complete, and all scout and infiltrate units are placed, the player with the second turn may choose to try and Seize the Initiative. If he succeeds, he will make the first player turn, rather than his opponent. To do so, he rolls on a D6 and consults the following chart:

1: Communication Breakdown. The player does not seize the initiative. In addition, they must roll for Bad Intel on their first turn.
2-3: Failure to Act. The player does not seize the initiative. Play continues as normal.
4: Move! No, over there! The player seizes the initiative, but they must roll for Bad Intel at -3 on their first turn.
5: Get ready... The player seizes the initiative, but they must roll for Bad Intel on their first turn.
6: Take them by surprise! The player seizes the initiative.


Bad Intel: Sometimes the message just doesn't get delivered right. If a player is forced to roll for Bad Intel as a result of a Seize the Initiative roll, each unit that they control must take a Leadership test. If failed, that unit cannot make any voluntary actions on that turn - This includes movement, psychic powers, shooting, running, and assaulting. Note that passive and reactionary actions, such as generating Warp Charges, rolling for It Will Not Die, and firing Overwatch, may still be taken, and that special rules such as Fearless, And They Shall Know No Fear, or Stubborn do not affect this test. Vehicles count as being Leadership 10 for the purpose of this test.
Units embarked in a transport must still test for Bad Intel, but if they fail, the transport may act as normal. If a transport vehicle fails, it may not act, but units can still embark and disembark as normal.
The Warlord, any unit he is attached to, and any vehicle he is deployed in do not need to roll for Bad Intel - He's the one giving the orders!




Obviously this would affect related special rules a bit, but I don't think it would be by much - A +1 is still always going to be a good thing. (For example of a change, though, Coteaz wouldn't force a re-roll, he would give the player the option to re-roll or force their opponent to re-roll if they so choose.)

I think this choice is superior to the current rule because it allows for more variety of choice and tactics - Seizing the Initiative is always going to be a very viable option - It goes off half the time now, instead of only 1/6th, but it could potentially backfire horribly, and even when succesful it might cause difficulty for the player seizing if he can't get all of his important units to move as he needs them to.
Thoughts?

I understand that making random tables is fun, but this feels like just adding another table for the sake of having more tables.

In addition to making a seize happen on a 3+, with very limited effects(since leadership in general is so high in 40k, the overall effects would frankly be limited except for Orks who continue to get the shaft), this would also put the biggest slowdown imaginable. Let's just use my usual army of 2000 points as an example, in my first turn, with this system in most cases I am taking anywhere from 5 to 20 leadership tests. Does that sound like fun to you?

Needs playtesting. Not a bad idea-but definitely needs to be tested.

 curran12 wrote:
I understand that making random tables is fun, but this feels like just adding another table for the sake of having more tables.

In addition to making a seize happen on a 3+, with very limited effects(since leadership in general is so high in 40k, the overall effects would frankly be limited except for Orks who continue to get the shaft), this would also put the biggest slowdown imaginable. Let's just use my usual army of 2000 points as an example, in my first turn, with this system in most cases I am taking anywhere from 5 to 20 leadership tests. Does that sound like fun to you?

Well, first off, it's on a 4+, not a 3+. Also, even Space Marines are only Ld8 - Not fantastic. Only a couple armies have a Leadership on their basic troops higher than that without buying a Veteran Sergeant.
Speaking of which, this rule gives players an incentive to buy Veteran Sergeants and whatever the equivalent is!
People are constantly complaining that Leadership doesn't play a big enough role in 40k. This goes some way to fixing that.

(You have a point about slowdown, but rolling one test before moving a given unit is not that big a deal - Compare it to rolling for Warp Storm, it's less rolling than that and only happens once a game, half the time someone decides to seize. Not so bad, all in all.)

But as it is worded it's a roll for moving, another for psychic, another for shooting and still another for anything in the assault phase.

 curran12 wrote:
But as it is worded it's a roll for moving, another for psychic, another for shooting and still another for anything in the assault phase.

No, it's not? It's one test. If failed, they cannot make actions. How the heck are you reading it? I do not see any way that my words could be reasonably interpreted that way.

Yeah, it's pretty clearly one test for the whole turn, not one test per phase.

As a potential addendum to stop Tyranids from getting more nerfed:
If a unit with Instinctive Behavior is within range of a model with the Synapse special rule, it may use that model's Leadership instead of its own. (In case of multiple units with Synapse, use the highest value available.)

Waaaghpower wrote:
Inspired by the thread over in General Discussion, here is my proposed change to Seize the Initiative, to make it a bit more of a tactical decision instead of a no-brainer 'I win' button 1/6th of the time.

...

I think this choice is superior to the current rule because it allows for more variety of choice and tactics - Seizing the Initiative is always going to be a very viable option - It goes off half the time now, instead of only 1/6th, but it could potentially backfire horribly, and even when succesful it might cause difficulty for the player seizing if he can't get all of his important units to move as he needs them to.
Thoughts?

I may be missing something, but I'm not sure I see how this really adds "more variety of choice and tactics." As far as I can tell, you're making the same number of choices (do I try to seize? Do I deploy this unit in or out of cover in case a seize happens? etc.), but you're adding additional pregame and first turn rolling. There's more variety in what happens as a result of the seize, but it seems like it boils down to, "Does the player that got seized on get screwed over by suddenly not going first, or does the player that tried to seize get screwed over by have a third of his army holding still on turn 1?"

If your game is one in which going first will determine the victor, then this basically just gives one player a second chance at going first. If one player is obviously going to win regardless of how the seize goes, then this has no impact. If Player A can only beat player B if he seizes (imagine an ork truk rush list versus tau, for instance), then this basically just gives the tau player a second shot at going first and possibly punishes the ork player more than the tau player if the ork is trying to seize due to their respective leadership values.

It's a neat concept, but I'm not sure it adds much meaningful choice to the game so much as it just adds more random charts.

I dont want to roll a d6 3 times and consult 2 charts just to see who goes first. Maybe thats just me.

The idea is that it changes seizing so that it's no longer a no-brainer. Currently, seizing has pretty much no downsides. There are a tiny, tiny fractional handful of armies that actually do better by going second. Seizing is free, and can potentially give someone both the first-turn advantage AND the counter-deployment advantage. By my rough estimates, going first results in a win about 3/5ths of the time, but seizing the initiative results in a win at least 3/4ths of the time if not more. It's not so much a way to discourage agressive deployment as it is a random torpedoe to Player One. While you might win against a stronger army who is going first with careful play and a bit of luck, you will always lose against that opponent when he gets a one-in-six chance to taking every advantage right out of the gate.

Under the new system, it's (intended to be) a more thoughtful decision - Seizing is more likely, but also liable to cause handicaps as well. If your opponent deploys modestly, you might not want to try and seize, because the potential losses outweigh the cost. Meanwhile, if she deploys agressively, you have a much more reliable way to capitalize on that and punish her for doing so. Rather than being a very small chance for a high reward, it becomes a much higher chance for a much smaller reward.
Should the penalty be higher? Or should it rely more on the Warlord's Leadership rather than a unit-by-unit basis? I thought about ways to add a simple army-wide debuff, but couldn't think of one that didn't imbalance things. (Stat debuffs or pinning checks are meaningless to certain armies but frippling to others.)


I do get the concerns about clogging up play with more pre-game rolling, but I don't think there's a good way to make Seizing the Initiative genuinely fair without making it more nuanced and complicated. Obviously, I'm also working from the assumption that Seizing is currently broken and unfair in its current iteration and needs to be replaced. (I don't want to see it gone, because I like it in theory, but as with D weapons and Stomp attacks, I prefer a more nuanced system instead of blatant all-or-nothing excellent-or-worthless rolls.)

Going first is only such a drastic advantage because you get to go first with your entire army. The second player gets to retaliate against your full force with his survivors. THAT is the problem.

 Lance845 wrote:
Going first is only such a drastic advantage because you get to go first with your entire army. The second player gets to retaliate against your full force with his survivors. THAT is the problem.

Well... Yes, but without completely changing the way the game runs there's no fixing that, and I didn't want to propose another variant of the 'Activation based' or 'Phase based' proposals.
Also, player two has ways to mitigate the penalty, though they can't cancel it out completely. Seizing is a double whammy, though, because you can't even bunker down or defend yourself.

Which is fine but it's only ever a band aid solution to the actual problem. The underlying problem still exists. You start to mitigate it's effects but you don't solve it.

I don't disagree that the system you propose helps to mitigate the effectiveness of seizing the initiative. But it does nothing to mitigate first player going first or the impact of each subsequent turn.

 Lance845 wrote:
Which is fine but it's only ever a band aid solution to the actual problem. The underlying problem still exists. You start to mitigate it's effects but you don't solve it.

I don't disagree that the system you propose helps to mitigate the effectiveness of seizing the initiative. But it does nothing to mitigate first player going first or the impact of each subsequent turn.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but this is inherently a band-aid. That's the point. I don't want to re-write the whole system, I just want to try out a few experimental changes that might help add a bit of tactical flexebility to the start of the game and reduce the potential harm of one of the mechanics I like the least in the game.
So, with those conditions in mind... Do you have any suggestions for the proposed system? Is it too harsh? Not harsh enough? Should the penalty be increased, but the likelihood of seizing be increased as well? Visa versa?

Im knocking around a couple ideas. I will let you know when i get something i think is functional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok. Here is my take on this.

For the sake of minimizing rolls each roll is going to serve 2 purposes. First to establish winner and to apply modifiers.

So to start you roll off to see who goes first before deployment.

Highest roll wins, but if the higher die is a 2-3 then the first player has "disorganized deployment".
On a 4 "Bad Intel"
On a 5 "Slow start".
and on a 6 first turn as normal.

Than a single optional seize roll.

On a 1 no seize and "disorganized deployment".
On a 2-3 no seize and "bad intel"
4-5 Seize but also "slow start"
on a 6 seize and take turn as normal.

If the second player successfully steals the initiative the results of the initial roll are completely negated.

Slow Start: All units move at half speed on first turn. This means all models can only move up to 1/2 their maximum move distance and any rolls for run, charge, or special movement like jump or jetpack are divided by 2 (Round up)

Bad Intel: As Slow Start but also unit special rules that effect deployment such as Scout and Infiltrate may not be used during deployment.

Disorganized Deployment: As Bad Intel but also you cannot roll for reserves until turn 3. Any units that would automatically arrive from reserves or deep strike reserves before turn 3 will not arrive until turn 3.


Here are my thoughts on this.

1) It's back to only 2 rolls. One to establish turn order and one potential to steal initiative.

2) Even without stealing initiative there is a 5/6ths chance that the first player will have some kind of negative impact on their first turn to help mitigate the games inherent advantage in alpha strikes.

3) The second player has to weigh not only the risk of picking up some kind of penalty themselves but also the potential penalty their enemy has from winning the initial roll off. Maybe it's worth it to go second if the first player has bad intel?

4) Because whoever goes first has a high chance of some kind of penalty the second player has the first unhindered turn. But, knowing this, the first player can move and act accordingly before the second player gets to pull any of their gak.

5) There is now a 50% chance that stealing the initiative will work but a 5/6ths chances that it will happen with a penalty and a 50% chance that you will still go second but take a hit to your first turn due to the more harsh negative effects.

 Lance845 wrote:
Im knocking around a couple ideas. I will let you know when i get something i think is functional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok. Here is my take on this.

For the sake of minimizing rolls each roll is going to serve 2 purposes. First to establish winner and to apply modifiers.

So to start you roll off to see who goes first before deployment.

Highest roll wins, but if the higher die is a 2-3 then the first player has "disorganized deployment".
On a 4 "Bad Intel"
On a 5 "Slow start".
and on a 6 first turn as normal.

Than a single optional seize roll.

On a 1 no seize and "disorganized deployment".
On a 2-3 no seize and "bad intel"
4-5 Seize but also "slow start"
on a 6 seize and take turn as normal.

If the second player successfully steals the initiative the results of the initial roll are completely negated.

Slow Start: All units move at half speed on first turn. This means all models can only move up to 1/2 their maximum move distance and any rolls for run, charge, or special movement like jump or jetpack are divided by 2 (Round up)

Bad Intel: As Slow Start but also unit special rules that effect deployment such as Scout and Infiltrate may not be used during deployment.

Disorganized Deployment: As Bad Intel but also you cannot roll for reserves until turn 3. Any units that would automatically arrive from reserves or deep strike reserves before turn 3 will not arrive until turn 3.


Here are my thoughts on this.

1) It's back to only 2 rolls. One to establish turn order and one potential to steal initiative.

2) Even without stealing initiative there is a 5/6ths chance that the first player will have some kind of negative impact on their first turn to help mitigate the games inherent advantage in alpha strikes.

3) The second player has to weigh not only the risk of picking up some kind of penalty themselves but also the potential penalty their enemy has from winning the initial roll off. Maybe it's worth it to go second if the first player has bad intel?

4) Because whoever goes first has a high chance of some kind of penalty the second player has the first unhindered turn. But, knowing this, the first player can move and act accordingly before the second player gets to pull any of their gak.

5) There is now a 50% chance that stealing the initiative will work but a 5/6ths chances that it will happen with a penalty and a 50% chance that you will still go second but take a hit to your first turn due to the more harsh negative effects.

I'm digging this so far, what happens with Seize modifiers?

They effect the die roll like they normally would? If your HQ or whatever gives you a +1 to seize then you add 1 to whatever you roll and see what happens.

I'm not sure if I am reading this right, but; if this says what I think it says then it is utter bs.

 Lance845 wrote:
They effect the die roll like they normally would? If your HQ or whatever gives you a +1 to seize then you add 1 to whatever you roll and see what happens.

I meant in regards to the events but I had a moment and forgot where the modifiers actually go, they don't bring the target down, they make the roll result higher.