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.

Hi Folks

So going first is pretty huge. What sort of house rules can be added to smooth out the experience, the potentially devastating Alpha Strike.

Night Fighting?
- A native 4+++ for all models?
- Shooting denied or at a minus to-hit past a certain range
- Possible accessed (or enhanced?) via the expenditure of CP

Seize the Initiative?
- Possibly modified via the difference between fielded units?
- Possible enhanced via the expenditure of CP

LOS Blocking terrain
- Simply to block LOS, help prevent Alpha strike.

Thoughts?

We have been playing with the ITC ruleset:

1. Deploy as normal
2. Roll off to see who goes first - the player that finished deploying first gets +1 to their result (reroll ties)
3. Roll to Seize.

Note: ITC does not allow Command points to be used to reroll anything before the game starts.

Overall, this has worked really well. It forces you to deploy without the certainty of knowing who will go first.

Suks wrote:
We have been playing with the ITC ruleset:

1. Deploy as normal
2. Roll off to see who goes first - the player that finished deploying first gets +1 to their result (reroll ties)
3. Roll to Seize.

Note: ITC does not allow Command points to be used to reroll anything before the game starts.

Overall, this has worked really well. It forces you to deploy without the certainty of knowing who will go first.

Yeah, this is pretty much the best solution.

I might take it a bit further and just get rid of Seize entirely
Or if you really want to keep Seize, give the player who finished deploying first +2 to the roll off.
While it sucks to know you are going last because you have MSU, it sucks worse to build your list specifically to go first, then have it taken away by a lucky roll.

-

Suks wrote:
We have been playing with the ITC ruleset:

1. Deploy as normal
2. Roll off to see who goes first - the player that finished deploying first gets +1 to their result (reroll ties)
3. Roll to Seize.

Note: ITC does not allow Command points to be used to reroll anything before the game starts.

Overall, this has worked really well. It forces you to deploy without the certainty of knowing who will go first.

It is not really a solution to anything. In the ordinary rules the person who finished deploying gets first turn, but you can reroll the seize-roll by using a command point. That leads to quite similar odds as the ITC rules.

But stopping the list-tailoring for first turn is only half the battle. The person going first still has a big advantage, irrespective of how this person is selected.

One solution could be to give every unit on the table an extra point of Toughness, or perhaps the benefit of cover, in the first turn only. But this might disadvantage some factions while benefitting others, leading to hissyfits and spontaneous eruptions of whine.

My 2c,

Scrap current rules.
Roll off before deployment. Winner can pick turn order, or table side and deployment order.

Example: If I win and choose to go first, then my opponent can pick which side of the table they deploy on and I deploy on. Since I chose to go first, I have to deploy first. I have deploy all of my models first before my opponent deploys anything. They are free to do their deployment with perfect information.

The only way to "fix" alpha strike is to remove it entirely. You need an interleaved turn order where you alternate moving units, then alternate shooting, then alternate charges. If players can handle alternating in the fight phase, they can handle doing it elsewhere.

The only problem is this halves the amount of CC attacks a unit gets since you're skipping a fight phase, but that problem can be fixed elsewhere.

I would love to see some experimentation with alternating phases. IE both players move before moving on to psychich shooting etc.

Runs the risk of major game slowdown, but I really loved the way it played back in 3rd.

Alpha strike isn't really a problem if you play with a good amount of LoS terrain. We don't need these more complicated solutions, like alternating activation, if we just do that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The only way to "fix" alpha strike is to remove it entirely. You need an interleaved turn order where you alternate moving units, then alternate shooting, then alternate charges. If players can handle alternating in the fight phase, they can handle doing it elsewhere.

The only problem is this halves the amount of CC attacks a unit gets since you're skipping a fight phase, but that problem can be fixed elsewhere.

I've always wondered why they don't do this, it really is the best way to balance war-games. Otherwise you will always have a turn where one side wipes out a large chunk the other, or each side playing chicken.

I think cover save or to-hit modifiers would be great.

It balances the first turn alpha with attrition. Encourages a Beta Strike which is a good thing, I feel. More reactive gameplay.

Turn by turn... interesting. Possibly tricky.

just changing who goes first (ITC or any other method) does not change the alpha strike - it just changes who gets it.

While LOS blocking terrain can help - the BEST solution would be alternative activation. Hopefully GW can move to this in a future edition.

Audustum wrote:
Alpha strike isn't really a problem if you play with a good amount of LoS terrain. We don't need these more complicated solutions, like alternating activation, if we just do that.

This.

A 6' x 4' table needs at least eight 4" x 8" terrain features:

2 that block LOS and are Impassible (rock formations)

2 that don't block LOS and are Impassible (ponds)

2 that block LOS and provide cover saves (trees)

2 that don't block OS and provide cover saves (craters)

Players take turns choosing and placing terrain features until all are placed. THEN they can choose deployment zones.

I've been thinking about this and I agree LOS-blocking terrain is good.

The problem is LOS terrain and using it well benefits more experienced players. New/less fluent players won't get the same benefit and therefore there is that imbalance.

I feel there should be something inherent to the game, just as for example overwatch only hits on a 6, which limits that first turn alpha strike. You get a turn to react and counter to the board state, before potentially suffering the full firepower of the opposing army.

Hence why an innate cover or to-hit modifier. Possible zoning, within 12" of the long (or short) table edge provides the benefit, with the centre being a more deadly no-mans-land.

I mean, I feel like something benefiting a more experienced player is a good thing. We want more aspects of the game to be twistable to the advantage of smart/experienced players, not less. A new player can always get better. Modifiers are forever.

It benefits smaller units. No amount of experience will allow you to hide 30 boyz behind a regular ruin with at least 1 window.

Cover should be done in a model by model basis really. That one model just outside the ruins shouldn't negate the rest of the unit that is firmly entrenched.

Alternative movement doesn't seem viable because one unit can move forward to shoot or charge but then the opponent just moves back with their unit and negate that completely.

Something like Infinity where your opponent can react if they can see you might be possible. But then again Infiinity uses a D20 - and singular models as opposed to large hulking war machines.

Might it make more sense to go back to the 7th edition system of having one player deploy his entire army and then have the other player deploy his entire army, and whoever deployed first gets the first turn?

So, there's still an alpha-strike, but the player going second got to deploy his army in such a way as to mitigate it as much as possible.

This would also save some time during deployment.

 vipoid wrote:
Might it make more sense to go back to the 7th edition system of having one player deploy his entire army and then have the other player deploy his entire army, and whoever deployed first gets the first turn?

So, there's still an alpha-strike, but the player going second got to deploy his army in such a way as to mitigate it as much as possible.

This would also save some time during deployment.

But again, cover benefits the more skilled player.

And to be clear, it is relative. Two unskilled players, the person to receive the Alpha strike is more disadvantaged. Two skilled players, the person to receive is in a much better position (with regards to LOS blocking terrain).

Hence the need for an innate detriment to that first time of firepower.

===

So the problem is that, it really sucks to have units deleted from the board without the player having any real opportunity to change the outcome. That's why i think the option to spend CP to impact that first time (to engage night fighting or etc,) is nice and reactive, That's the key thing, being able to be reactive.

The real issue i see is that on turn on if the player who goes first can unload all of their shooting the player who goes second will be underpowered the whole game. So for all the armies that have 24" range troops are better than armies that have 12" range shooting and will auto win if they get to go first.

So list building for such would be one method but that is tailoring for your opponent.

More terrain is not always available or not big enough to actually hide a unit and if you have to move to hide you cant shoot.

I agree that the ops concern with first turn being an issue of auto winning that alternating phases at the unit level instead of by player would allow for a more even game from turn one.

Wizards of the coast star wars minis games used a two models at a time method (usually playing 10/20 models) and it worked very well.