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.

First turn is always a problem. Going second in a competitive game is a significant disadvantage.
Making the pregame sequence have some gamesmanship is a good thing, but it isn't enough.

In a more realistic game, 28mm would require a larger board. There is so little space to maneuver. It is all shooting and fighting.
Everything is in range on the first turn. There is almost no opportunity to maneuver except to go straight toward the target.

I propose a very crazy idea. The player who goes first can activate no more than half of the units deployed during the deployment phase.

If I place 5 units, I can activate 3, this includes units that exit a vehicle.

I'm not going to hammer out the details, but something of this sort is logical I believe.

Huh. I'd be willing to try that. There are certainly ways to mitigate it by taking small, cheap units for the purpose of not activating first turn, but you can't escape it completely. Units that provide auras would still contribute, so it would encourage their use even more.

I assume this means the ones that don't "activate" can't move during the movement phase, can't manifest during the psychic phase, can't shoot during the shooting phase and can't charge during the assault phase.

However, if it's "no more than half" then you could only activate 2 out of 5 units, because you can't activate 2,5 units. If you want it to allow 3 out of 5 you'll need to reword it.

I played during 2nd ed and have been trying to get back in ever since. Back then the tables were either 4x6 or 4x8 and IIRC to longest range on anything was 24 inches so for both sides the first turns were always moving troops into good positions.

I think either bigger tables are need or ranges shortened down as I'm hearing this a lot on the forums here. (About first turn shooting, wiping out half the enemy turn 1, etc.)

*edit*
forgot to add that only moving half your force turn 1 (maybe even for both players first turn) sounds like a pretty good idea

 Cream Tea wrote:
Huh. I'd be willing to try that. There are certainly ways to mitigate it by taking small, cheap units for the purpose of not activating first turn, but you can't escape it completely. Units that provide auras would still contribute, so it would encourage their use even more.

Actually, taking small, cheap units wouldn't really help. By adding more units to your army, you actively decrease your odds of getting turn one, which in turn reduces the odds of being able to actually... y'know, need the chaff units.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Huh. I'd be willing to try that. There are certainly ways to mitigate it by taking small, cheap units for the purpose of not activating first turn, but you can't escape it completely. Units that provide auras would still contribute, so it would encourage their use even more.

Actually, taking small, cheap units wouldn't really help. By adding more units to your army, you actively decrease your odds of getting turn one, which in turn reduces the odds of being able to actually... y'know, need the chaff units.

If you go by the BRB. However, the missions for ITC format say finishing first is simply +1 to go first and seizing is still possible. Going first is only relative to the army you are playing and playing against. Many lists are structured around this concept of getting the first shot. If you design lists that are structure to go second, they also work going first. There is definitely a boon to go first in general but for some races in 40k its circumstantial benefits.

Turning Warhammer into a cheerleading fest for turn 1 alpha. Half units are relative (my baneblade shot but not my chimera!). A power level reserve restriction would be better. That is bigger units show up turn 2. Then going first is a bad thing because the enemies big things shot your big stuff first!

Why not halve all the ranges? This way the board will feel larger.

 koooaei wrote:
Why not halve all the ranges? This way the board will feel larger.

That might make melee armies far too powerful - If I can still move and then charge with something between a 18-24" threat range (depending on the unit) but your machine gun only gets full effectiveness when you're 6" away, that machine gun isn't going to be doing anything for most of the game.

ALL ranges. Marines will move 3". Orks 2.5".

That would have couple side effects though.

a) footslogging armies struggle to reach other side of the board.
b) gunlines with very long range which don't mind range halving that much would LOVE that while assault armies would get a nerf.

Assuming you don't halve the deployment distance as well but if you do you are basically back at square one...

I think the idea of giving who-ever goes second more CP is still one of the best. Say 1 CP for every 500 points in the army that goes second.

I like where the OP is going with this.

Today, I was thinking that each side should deploy up to half of its units according to a chart specified by the mission. Some missions may put one or the other in a defensive position to start, so heavies and standard troops may be deployed in some proportion, and other missions may put one side or the other in recon type positions, so infiltrating units, light infantry and fast vehicles might be deployed first turn.

For a simple battle, each side will choose as the other deploys, unit by unit, until the specified number of units is fielded.

Another way to do this would be with points. So, first turn, 1/3 or 1/2 of points might be deployed, then moved and used normally.
Moreover, this is done BEFORE determining who goes first. So, one may deploy all long range heavies hoping to go first, but then not go first and get outmaneuvered.

Besides this, i think that reducing movement and weapon ranges including charge ranges is a good idea for the most part.
AND I think that returning to more realistic terrain and cover rules is necessary, to make the battlefield more dynamic.

In the end, to limit game play time (as for some reason, this is the biggest concern for so many people, cuz for some reason it is great when you can play three mediocre games in one evening in rather than one serious nail-biter) smaller forces may be in order.

Maybe 1250 or 1500pts on a 6x4 with reduced ranges and movement?

 ArmyC wrote:
First turn is always a problem. Going second in a competitive game is a significant disadvantage.
Making the pregame sequence have some gamesmanship is a good thing, but it isn't enough.

In a more realistic game, 28mm would require a larger board. There is so little space to maneuver. It is all shooting and fighting.
Everything is in range on the first turn. There is almost no opportunity to maneuver except to go straight toward the target.

I propose a very crazy idea. The player who goes first can activate no more than half of the units deployed during the deployment phase.

If I place 5 units, I can activate 3, this includes units that exit a vehicle.

I'm not going to hammer out the details, but something of this sort is logical I believe.

This seems exploitable. Like "3 Baneblades and 3 Astropaths" levels of exploitable. Personally, I prefer removing IGOUGO and phases for Altactivation but ymmv.

I don't mind the IGOUGO play, but in the first turn neither army should be shooting at each other yet. It should be all about advancement and getting units out of deployment zone and into position.

*edit*
I remember games where points spent on a devastator squad were nearly wasted since the tactic was to leave then in the DZ in a good position for LOS, but then they would sit there most of the game not being able to reach anything and sometimes it would happen that they didn't end up shooting all game.

Alpha strikes are worse in 8th than they've ever been. I think it's mostly because 8th is the deadliest edition yet: many shooty units can make their points back in at most a couple turns. And GW did that on purpose, to shorten the game length.
If you want to change the game so that the first few turns are more about positioning than destroying the opponent's army (for instance by increasing the board size), the game will take a lot longer, because it's that many additional turns in a game.
Lowering overall damage output would also decrease the advantage of going first, but again would increase the number of turns (or at the very least the number of units still alive on later turns).
You might be perfectly fine with it, I'm just pointing out what I think is the reason we're in the current situation.

Yeah, I understand their wanting to shorten the length of the game and I'd actually welcome shorter games, but the trade-off of losing half your army before being able to take your first turn sounds like a lot less fun than a longer game.

How about both players alternate activating units? That way there is no alpha strike.

kaotkbliss wrote:
I don't mind the IGOUGO play, but in the first turn neither army should be shooting at each other yet. It should be all about advancement and getting units out of deployment zone and into position.

*edit*
I remember games where points spent on a devastator squad were nearly wasted since the tactic was to leave then in the DZ in a good position for LOS, but then they would sit there most of the game not being able to reach anything and sometimes it would happen that they didn't end up shooting all game.

Something I don't get though. If side A can allpha opponent with first shooting what does one turn of no shooting and moving help? Clearly it's not used to protect you from shooting by terrain. If there was enough terrain for that you should be able to do that without moving turn. So basically apart from CC units having easier time getting into combat before other side gets to shoot even once(which is just another form of alpha strike) all you would accomplish is moving models and then get alpha striked.

 warpcrafter wrote:
How about both players alternate activating units? That way there is no alpha strike.

Alt Activation has been discussed quite frequently for 40k, but such conversations usually devolve into arguing semantics. Stuff like "not all units are the same power level" (activating an Acolyte versus activating a Baneblade), or that such systems tend to fall apart as the number of units increases per game, or one player has a marked numerical advantage. Other systems (Dropzone Commander for example) attempt to reach a middle ground, as players alternate activating different detachments.

If you wanted to go with the DZC approach, one option could be to restructure 40k detachments, so each detachment has a certain value. Taking an auxiliary would have less weight than taking a spearhead, etc. Some detachments are composites with smaller subdetachments (A "flex decurion" if you will), and you must activate your "command" before activating a sub-detachment, or so. Personally, I feel this is a kludge but ymmv.

Me; my main approach is rather than strict IGOUGO, or strict alt-activation, to make it an alt-activation system where you use Command Points (which regenerate from turn to turn) to manipulate the system, be it consecutive unit activations, counter-interrupting (with Interrupting actions placed on a stack, ala MTG) etc. Rather than random rolls for retaining the initiative, the CP cost slowly increments (activating 2 units in a row is 1 CP, 2 in a row is 3 CP, 3 in a row is 6, etc). But the idea is even when it's not your turn, you can make meaningful decisions.

 ArmyC wrote:
First turn is always a problem. Going second in a competitive game is a significant disadvantage.
Making the pregame sequence have some gamesmanship is a good thing, but it isn't enough.

In a more realistic game, 28mm would require a larger board. There is so little space to maneuver. It is all shooting and fighting.
Everything is in range on the first turn. There is almost no opportunity to maneuver except to go straight toward the target.

I propose a very crazy idea. The player who goes first can activate no more than half of the units deployed during the deployment phase.

If I place 5 units, I can activate 3, this includes units that exit a vehicle.

I'm not going to hammer out the details, but something of this sort is logical I believe.

It's not a terrible idea. Might have an interesting counter-effect to MSU, but I could see people sitll abusing it for alpha strike purposes.

I have counter-arguments. How about either/both:
- No deep striking first turn. Still gives perfect timing and setup options, but it's vulnerable to a better on-board alpha strike, which is vulnerable to whatever left coming in too late.

- A "setup" turn, wherein anything can move (but must remain in deployment zone) and psychic powers/abilities/stratagems can be used, but no unit can shoot or assault the other unit. It's a little strange, but at least then you don't deal with the weirdness of neither army having been prepared as they both drew within spitting range of each other, as if waiting for a starting gun.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Huh. I'd be willing to try that. There are certainly ways to mitigate it by taking small, cheap units for the purpose of not activating first turn, but you can't escape it completely. Units that provide auras would still contribute, so it would encourage their use even more.

Actually, taking small, cheap units wouldn't really help. By adding more units to your army, you actively decrease your odds of getting turn one, which in turn reduces the odds of being able to actually... y'know, need the chaff units.

I wasn't being clear enough. I meant taking about half cheap units, and the other half expensive and powerful ones, so that you get to use a greater proportion of your army's power.

 Cream Tea wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Huh. I'd be willing to try that. There are certainly ways to mitigate it by taking small, cheap units for the purpose of not activating first turn, but you can't escape it completely. Units that provide auras would still contribute, so it would encourage their use even more.

Actually, taking small, cheap units wouldn't really help. By adding more units to your army, you actively decrease your odds of getting turn one, which in turn reduces the odds of being able to actually... y'know, need the chaff units.

I wasn't being clear enough. I meant taking about half cheap units, and the other half expensive and powerful ones, so that you get to use a greater proportion of your army's power.

And if those cheap units were, say, 3 Astropaths or Acolytes hiding in a Stormlord, you don't even have to worry about having a larger number of drops.

I think a common misconception of the game in the stance of the "napoleonic" IGOUGO battle stems from when the players deploy their armies, they're always lining up their armies AT the deployment line, waiting for the green light to start charging at each other.

I like to relate deployment to the moment when armies clash in games like SC and DoW. You are simulating the moment when the battle begins, not a cross-continental march.

With clever positioning and enogh MSU's, you can deny ANY deep strikes by maintaining 18" from one unit to another by removing any spots that can be deep triked onto (since you have to be more than 9" away from enemy model). Obviously there are certain counters such as valkyrie drop.

 skchsan wrote:

I like to relate deployment to the moment when armies clash in games like SC and DoW. You are simulating the moment when the battle begins, not a cross-continental march.

So then why didn't the farseer do anything to prepare if they were about to clash?

If you play with enough terrain, a 0cp stratagem that can be only used in the first round of the game if you go second that allows you to ignore the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons on all your units might be helpful.

With that, you could try to hide as many units as possible behind terrain and position them in your first turn while shooting normally.



IMO, what causes the biggest unbalance is that some units can ignore terrain (either by deep striking or by shooting without LoS) while being too efficient.
Not sure about Scions, but for 128 points, you get 4 plasma guns, 4 extra wounds with decent guns and a troop slot while raptors only give you 3 guns extra 2 wounds with no offensive potential and a little bit more toughness in a the FA slot.

Pretty much any Heavy Support IG unit that requires no LoS to the target is too cheap as well.

If the things mentioned above were more expensive/less potent, terrain would be enough.

 daedalus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

I like to relate deployment to the moment when armies clash in games like SC and DoW. You are simulating the moment when the battle begins, not a cross-continental march.

So then why didn't the farseer do anything to prepare if they were about to clash?

Cuz he's channeling right now man. Haven't you watched DoW 2 Trailer?

Seems like a half-step towards alternating activation. Why not go all the way?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 ArmyC wrote:
First turn is always a problem. Going second in a competitive game is a significant disadvantage.
Making the pregame sequence have some gamesmanship is a good thing, but it isn't enough.

In a more realistic game, 28mm would require a larger board. There is so little space to maneuver. It is all shooting and fighting.
Everything is in range on the first turn. There is almost no opportunity to maneuver except to go straight toward the target.

I propose a very crazy idea. The player who goes first can activate no more than half of the units deployed during the deployment phase.

If I place 5 units, I can activate 3, this includes units that exit a vehicle.

I'm not going to hammer out the details, but something of this sort is logical I believe.

This seems exploitable. Like "3 Baneblades and 3 Astropaths" levels of exploitable. Personally, I prefer removing IGOUGO and phases for Altactivation but ymmv.

Theoretically it's the best option. But very hard to balance out.

What about no deployment but simulating the forces arriving on the battlefield from out of it ?

Deployment : You only set up infiltrators
First turn : Ouriders and very fast units (flyers) from your table edge
Second turn : Fast units (jump infantry, vehicules, ...)
Third turn : Footsloggers
Certainly not like that but you got the idea.

You could delay first turn units but your opponent will protfit of this time to grab objectives.

Don't jump at my throat I'm just throwing an idea here and did not thought it through.

IronSlug wrote:
What about no deployment but simulating the forces arriving on the battlefield from out of it ?

Deployment : You only set up infiltrators
First turn : Ouriders and very fast units (flyers) from your table edge
Second turn : Fast units (jump infantry, vehicules, ...)
Third turn : Footsloggers
Certainly not like that but you got the idea.

You could delay first turn units but your opponent will protfit of this time to grab objectives.

Don't jump at my throat I'm just throwing an idea here and did not thought it through.

That'd work, assuming players brought well balanced lists with lots of variety.
Competetive players would just frontload armies, though, so everything arrives all at once. Your system would increase the value of quick units by a large margin, while making screens and infantry effectively useless.

It might be neat for a campaign mission, though!

Yeah you're right. That might work if all fast units had low staying power though