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.

Turn Init Based: Init + Init Bonus + D6 = goes first!
1] Magic Highest [Init] goes first
2] Movement Lowest [Init] goes first
3] Shooting Highest [Init] Goes first
4] Assualt/Runing Highest Goes first
5] Cleanup VPs for that turn counted Highest gets init Bonus [+1] for next turn. Draw = neither gets bonus


Battles
5 turns + mission specifics
Deploy choice: D6 + LD highest gets to pick.
First Deployer gets turn 1 init bonus [+1] and goes first

If both players unit/Character has same Init then roll D6+Init+bonus, highest goes first.

Bring back the init stat from 7th!

The idea to was to get both players more involved each turn. Something like in X-Wing.
I hate how one players just sits there a whole turn while the other player is doing stuff.
I like the back and forth during each turn.

Comments, suggestions?

So to clarify, is this a proposal for Age of Sigmar or 40k? The reference to a magic system and "mission specifics" implies that you're referring to a different system, but the rest of the post seems 40k-compatible.

Also, are you referring to the initiative of like... the warlord? The average initiative of the army as a whole? A new "Initiative" based purely on deploying first and achieving objectives but also recommending bringing back the classic Initiative primarily used in the assault phase? I'm going to assume it's the first one.

Assuming we're talking about 40k, assuming we're talking about the warlord's initiative, and assuming we're talking about having Player A do a phase, then Player B does the same phase, then Player B does a phase, then Player A does the same phase, etc., here are some disorganized thoughts:

* Initiative-based turn orders were suggested here quite a bit in 7th. The general consensus was that it's a bad idea to punish orks, necrons, and tau for having the misfortune to be low initiative armies while rewarding eldar players for being eldar. You're essentially suggesting giving large advantages to whichever player has the higher initiative.

*The phase order you've suggested appears to give a huge advantage to the player with the higher initiative. Magic (psychic?) gives one player a turn to get off some damaging spells before the other player can respond. Going second in the movement phase means you can move to perfectly counter the other player's movement. Shooting first means you can take huge chunks out of your opponent's army before he gets a shot at yours. Running as a separate phase slows the game down compared to what we have now. Assaulting first doesn't have a huge benefit in a system where the units fight in an order based on their initiative stats.

So basically, winning initiative gives a player a huge advantage, and playing low initiative armies gives players a huge disadvantage.

Trying to keep players more engaged over the course of a game turn is a good goal, but I see issues with this particular method.

Thanks for the reply.
Yes I meant to say 40K.
I was thinking more init on the sqaud character level.
Bring the I back in the stat line.
Couldnt the orks, necrons, and tau have warlord traits/ character/army bonus's to help them out a bit?
Yes Magic = Psychic, old Warhammer player.
For the phases, doesnt that happen now too. Player who goes first gets to fire off their spells?
With this way both players get to do all their spells, also their counter spells, based on their init stat + any bonus's.

Always happy to toss my two cents in.

INIT ON CHARACTER LEVEL:
I'm still not completely clear on what the core suggestion here is. Are you...

A.) Proposing that players use the highest initiative value in their entire army to determine who has the highest/lowest initiative, then have the player with the highest/lowest initiative do all their actions for that phase before allowing their opponent to do all their actions for that phase. So for instance, my keeper of secrets has a really high initiative, so I'll generally have the highest initiative on the table. In my Psychic phase, I'll end up casting all the psychic powers known by all my psykers (not just the keeper of secrets), and then my opponent will get a chance to cast with all of his psykers.

If this is correct, you end up with weird scenarios where a chaos army full of cultists (initiative 3) but lead by a Keeper of Secrets (initiative 9? 10?) well have a higher initiative overall than an army of eldar (initiative 5, 6, and occasionally 7).

B.) Proposing that units take turns on a unit-by-unit basis, using their initiative stats to determine the activation order. So in the psychic phase, all Initiative 5 units would take turns activating, then all initiative 4, then all initiative 3. Then in the movement phase, you'd start with the lowest initiative units (3), and take turns activating progressively higher initiative units.

Note that in this system, a player could potentially have both the highest and lowest initiatives. See above about the keeper of secrets + cultsts army.

WARLORD TRAITS/OTHER ABILITIES TO BOOST INITIATIVE
You *could* give 'crons, orks, tau, etc. various bonuses to offset this inherent disadvantage, but you'd presumably be paying some sort of price for doing so. If you have a warlord trait that fixes the problems this turn system creates, for instance, you'd basically be saying that these armies have to take that particular warlord trait instead of something else just to break even. If you give various units/characters some sort of special rule to off-set the disadvantage, then you'd either have to raise the price of those units to reflect this new ability or else give to them for free. And if you're giving people a way to get around this new disadvantage for free, you probably shouldn't inflict the disadvantage in the first place.


PHASES GIVING ADVANTAGES
"For the phases, doesnt that happen now too. Player who goes first gets to fire off their spells? "
Yes, but I'd argue that your system, as I understand it, kind of makes the problem even more severe.

Let's say my army has a lower initiative than yours. In the system you've proposed (if I understand it correctly), I will...
*Not be able to use psychic powers until after my opponent does.
*Have to move my units before my opponent does, thus allowing my opponent to put his units in the perfect position to beat me up or run away now that he knows where all of my guys are.
*I'll get shot up by units that have moved to their ideal spots before I have a chance to damage my opponent at all.
*I'll get to declare charges or run before my opponent does. The latter could be useful as it might let me run away from an enemy that wants to charge me. The former is a lot less important because in your system, charging doesn't mean that I get to automatically swing first. Some dark eldar wyches, for instance, would be swinging before tactical marines regardless of who charged whom.

So basically, the assault phase is the only phase where the low intiative army gets any advantage at all, and that's kind of a meh advantage. In the official rules, it's true that going first lets you take some shots, toss up some buffs, and maybe get lucky and manage an assault before the player that goes second, but the player that goes second then gets a chance to realiate and make their actions count. Under the system you've proposed, it looks to me like the guy with the lower initiative just gets screwed over in every phase of the turn. :(


Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your proposal?

More like [B].
Where it would go back and forth between the players based of the characters/Squads Init stat.
In the Magic phase, , you'd still be able to do counter spells as he does his spells.

Ah. Then I think you're proposing several semi-distinct changes instead of just a turn system. As I understand it, you're proposing...

1. That we bring back the Initiative stat and presumably replace the "chargers swing first" rule with it.

2. That Player Turns cease to exist, instead having players take turns activating units in a given phase until all units have done the relevant actions for that phase, then moving on to the next phase.

3. That the initiative stat of a unit combined with various bonuses and penalties determine the order in which units are activated in a given phase.

So regarding each of those proposals...
1. Eh. Sure. I'm not married to the new lack of initiative, but I didn't hate the initiative stat either. Do not that this will reintroduce certain problems caused by the initiative stat in 7th edition though. Orks, for instance, will almost always be swinging after enemies have had a chance to kill off some of their (relatively squishy) guys.

2. This is something that gets suggested in this corner of the forum pretty frequently. It has merit, but you introduce new problems. You have more bookkeeping, for instance, as you try to keep track of which units have acted each phase. Also, you end up favoring either MSU armies or elite armies in various ways with such a system. Not that the current system doesn't do that too.

3. Using intiative to determine the order in which units activate will simultaneously add even more bookkeeping, slow down the game as you calculate bonuses, and also ultimately not matter as much as you might think. It probably isn't worth the extra time and energy to have minor modifiers in such a system. Especially considering you're probably already going to be slowing your game down a lot by jumping back and forth between players that have to reconsider their options based on new data every couple of seconds.

In general, I feel that alternating activation systems tend to work best in games with a handful of units instead of "standard" 40k games. The drawbacks of such systems (extra book keeping and slowing the game down) are mitigated when you only have a handful of units to think about.

I think initiative is a terrible way to do alternating activations. It royally screws over entire armies.

Yeah, you could add traits or whatever to try to help boost certain armies like orks. But now your adding patches to fix new problems created by your new fix. The basic game rules shouldn't need to make exceptions for certain armies. Everyone should just function.

I agree with Lance845.
Using the striking order for close combat derived 6 editions ago, is not the best option for basing a more interactive game turn, for the latest edition of the game .

Why not model simultaneous turns in a simple way instead?