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.

I like the tactical advantage of going first when charging but its terrible for the fluff (as most of the new streamlining has been), an ork outstriking an eldar... as I think we should keep the rules as they are but add Initiatives, if your opponent has an initiative larger than yours, they get to roll a d6 on a 6 they go first and you +1 for every initiative number you have above theirs so if yours was 7 and theirs was 4 its a 2+. What do people think? Then for the second round of combat you both roll off and who gets the highest goes first that time +1 to the roll for the higher initiative. But that's probably getting too complicated for GW maybe just alternate after the first round.

Initiative was an awful mechanic and a frankly arbitrary nerf on the assault units of slow armies. No thanks.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Initiative was an awful mechanic and a frankly arbitrary nerf on the assault units of slow armies. No thanks.

That's absurd lol, yeah I think you are extremely biased there being a necron player lol. Its a mechanic you don't like it isn't awful, strength and toughness etc. is represented why not their speed, espeacially when spped is such a wide spectrum, an eldar is far faster than a space marine and a space marine is far faster than a human etc. They got rid of Initiative not because it was a horrible idea but because GW thought it was too complicated fighting in CC when you had so many Initiative values and wanted to streamline the game and they wanted to add the strategic benefit of charging if you get to fight first. It was only a nerf to you lol

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I like the tactical advantage of going first when charging but its terrible for the fluff (as most of the new streamlining has been), an ork outstriking an eldar... as I think we should keep the rules as they are but add Initiatives, if your opponent has an initiative larger than yours, they get to roll a d6 on a 6 they go first and you +1 for every initiative number you have above theirs so if yours was 7 and theirs was 4 its a 2+. What do people think? Then for the second round of combat you both roll off and who gets the highest goes first that time +1 to the roll for the higher initiative. But that's probably getting too complicated for GW maybe just alternate after the first round.

No, an ork striking first against a guardian in melee is ok, simply because the guardian was spraying bullets at the ork before and i don't care how fast he is, a spalta swung against a shuriken catapult will always end on top.
I would not mind after a charge that initiative decides when you strike but a unit charging should always get the initiative advantage.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I like the tactical advantage of going first when charging but its terrible for the fluff (as most of the new streamlining has been), an ork outstriking an eldar... as I think we should keep the rules as they are but add Initiatives, if your opponent has an initiative larger than yours, they get to roll a d6 on a 6 they go first and you +1 for every initiative number you have above theirs so if yours was 7 and theirs was 4 its a 2+. What do people think? Then for the second round of combat you both roll off and who gets the highest goes first that time +1 to the roll for the higher initiative. But that's probably getting too complicated for GW maybe just alternate after the first round.

No, an ork striking first against a guardian in melee is ok, simply because the guardian was spraying bullets at the ork before and i don't care how fast he is, a spalta swung against a shuriken catapult will always end on top.
I would not mind after a charge that initiative decides when you strike but a unit charging should always get the initiative advantage.

I had some ideas similar to this back in 7th, when they had teased some 8th rules.

Basically, you would strike at I10 or I+5 (not sure which, though I'd lean towards I+5) on the turn you charged, while Unwieldy weapons instead strike at your normal initiative if you charged that turn.

If you strike at I10, then only stuff like Warp Speed enhanced Daemon Princes strike at the same time as you, or special I10 damaging rules. If you strike at I+5, then a Daemon Prince (at I8) still strikes before an Orc Boy or a Necron, but on the charge, they strike at the same time as Harlequins and faster than Eldar.

Eh… I think 8th is fine without initiative; I definitely wouldn't want to add dice-rolling for initiative as it just means extra rolling. Fast units should either have the speed to make it easier for them to charge first, an ability to strike first, or both, and most already do.

There were enough issues with initiative in the past that I'm not sure I necessarily want it back. At least, not in a form that strongly resembles its past incarnations.

However, I will admit that it feels very strange when a squad of orks charges my harlequins and manages to stab them all to death without suffering a single casualty in return. Not so much because my space elves are so fast that they always get the first swing. More because the sheer skill level of a harlequin compared to an ork seems like it should warrant having some ability to ward off enemy attacks or get in some retalitory hits. Similarly, an Emperor's Children chosen with a powersword, one of the most formidable melee combatants in the galaxy, seems like he should be able to stab a few charging guardsmen before they manage to bring him down with their bayonets.

Well what I think your asking for is some form of CC overwatch.

Initiative was too minimal in 2nd ed.....3rd made it too powerful.

I like a compromise that Initiative determines which battles are fought first. Not sure how that plays out in 8th ed with ugoigo all after charges etc backlogs the normal sequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I still think CC should be a blood bath and all models in a combat should attack at the same time.

Initiative could permit a side to determine which battles are fought first....Highest initiative model ofc goes first battle. etc

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I like the tactical advantage of going first when charging but its terrible for the fluff (as most of the new streamlining has been), an ork outstriking an eldar... as I think we should keep the rules as they are but add Initiatives, if your opponent has an initiative larger than yours, they get to roll a d6 on a 6 they go first and you +1 for every initiative number you have above theirs so if yours was 7 and theirs was 4 its a 2+. What do people think? Then for the second round of combat you both roll off and who gets the highest goes first that time +1 to the roll for the higher initiative. But that's probably getting too complicated for GW maybe just alternate after the first round.

No, an ork striking first against a guardian in melee is ok, simply because the guardian was spraying bullets at the ork before and i don't care how fast he is, a spalta swung against a shuriken catapult will always end on top.
I would not mind after a charge that initiative decides when you strike but a unit charging should always get the initiative advantage.

We'll to be honest , I'd get rid of over-watch all together. I think it's a stupid rule. If you aren't going to shoot at a unit closet to you, then I don't see why you should be able to get an extra shot when they charge you. If they are getting close to you, shooting in the normal shooting phase is over-watch. I honestly think over-watch was created in GW at a time when most of the rule makers where collecting shooty armies, it makes no sense. They get an extra round of attacks, 'because', chargers never got to shoot at a unit with their pistols just 'because'

Well back in the day Overwatch was a tactic. Do I shoot in my phase OR do I shoot when my opponent makes a move out of hiding.

So it was an EITHER OR not an extra.

The problem was stalemates as whole sides would sit and wait in a static game waiting for the other guy to pop their head out.

So My solution would be that only Mighty characters or Leaders, etc can issue an OverWatch Order. And only on 1 unit each. So you give up your turn of shooting and go on Overwatch and then you can Actually interact on your opponents turn.

Actually in 8th I'd probably make Overwatch a stratagem; i.e- for 1cp you can put a unit into Overwatch instead of shooting normally, enable it to shoot at one enemy that moves within range (your choice) at normal BS. In addition to the CP spent, the trade-off is that the enemy might not move into range, but then that may still be useful.


Back to Initiative though, I think the real problem is that combats aren't simultaneous, so going second is a big penalty as you're losing attacks before you get to strike back, which doesn't really reflect the chaos of melee. Being able to jump ahead of another unit doesn't actually solve that, it just changes who is benefiting. A possible alternative could be something like:

• When a model is slain in combat but hasn't yet fought, it is placed on its side and only removed from play once it has attacked.
  
• A unit that strikes first (is attacking a unit that hasn't fought yet) gets +1 Attack.
  
• Excess damage can be used to eliminate models on their side (treat as one wound models).

The idea here is that fight order is still desirable (as you get to inflict more damage), but you're not losing out as much by going second.

This would make combat in general even more deadly, but that may not be a bad thing?

Wyldhunt wrote:
However, I will admit that it feels very strange when a squad of orks charges my harlequins and manages to stab them all to death without suffering a single casualty in return.

Why? It's exact same case as two units starting game within gun range and one gunning down the other first without casualties. Do you ask opponent then to be able to roll dice too?

If the orks had enough attacks to kill all harlequins, they simply charged hard enough to trample them all, no skill needed. Simple. If not, the surviving models' performance being proportional to ork success is good enough to reflect situation in an abstract way.

If anything, the reverse was garbage in all the recent editions, melee inclined army always taking casualties first from everyone due to bad I2 no matter how hard they assaulted, which coupled with overwatch meant losing good 20-40% of models uselessly before they did anything. Was that fun? I doubt that...

 Irbis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
However, I will admit that it feels very strange when a squad of orks charges my harlequins and manages to stab them all to death without suffering a single casualty in return.

Why? It's exact same case as two units starting game within gun range and one gunning down the other first without casualties. Do you ask opponent then to be able to roll dice too?

If the orks had enough attacks to kill all harlequins, they simply charged hard enough to trample them all, no skill needed. Simple. If not, the surviving models' performance being proportional to ork success is good enough to reflect situation in an abstract way.

You make some good points. I think it's mostly because of the close quarters involved. It's easy enough for me to picture one unit gunning down another while the target is looking the wrong way. It seems difficult enough to rotate towards the source of the shooting, line up a target, and then shoot with any amount of accuracy that it doesn't seem all that strange for one unit to go mostly unmolested when firing at another. With large models like vehicles, I've always pictured them being so busy lining up shots at their targets and counting on other units to cover them that it isn't all that strange for a tank with a chunky turret to get blasted away without retaliation. My mental cinematic can sort of forgive it.

With melee combat, it's different. It seems very strange that something with superhuman reflexes (like an eldar) and galaxy-class skill with a stabby thing (like a harlequin or incubus or whatever) can't bring a single lumbering ork down with them provided there are sufficient lumbering orks present. It's hard to picturing harlequins standing still long enough to get "trampled" rather than stepping in or back or jumping on top of the orks and murdering a few while they move. If the ork is close enough to swing an axe at the harlequin, surely the harlequin is close enough to step in and stab the guy.

But I acknowledge the merit of making mechanics more abstract for the sake of gameplay. It just feels odd when a handful of guardsmen charge in and handily slay the ancient, untouchable, master melee combatants by virtue of having a little momentum behind them.

If anything, the reverse was garbage in all the recent editions, melee inclined army always taking casualties first from everyone due to bad I2 no matter how hard they assaulted, which coupled with overwatch meant losing good 20-40% of models uselessly before they did anything. Was that fun? I doubt that...

Which is why the part of my post you didn't quote acknowledges that the old initiative system was flawed and not to be re-implemented wholesale. ;D

To play daemon's advocate, I think what I sort of miss about the old initiative system was the sense of give and take in melee. I'm probably very biased as my main armies are all pointy-eared, but it always felt good to have a chance to harm the guys that had just charged you before they wiped you out. Sure, that ork mob is going to kill you to a man, but you'll take a couple down with you. The armies that had the most egregiously low initiative stats included things like orks and necrons that had the numbers and durability to take a punch on the chin from many units and tau who were simply meant to be terrible at melee. Initiative was, in a roundabout way, part of the "defense" of high-initiative, low-strength-low-durability space elf units. You mention i2 armies losing 20%-40% of their unit before they can swing back, but for armies with higher initiatives, the losses can be significantly higher than that. While I won't defend the old initiative system, I will say that it's sort of frustrating to watch a bunch of expensive, fragile harlequins sit there and get bayonetted to death by guardsmen without retaliation.

I often see people make the claim that extra movement translates to being the charger rather than the chargee and that this makes up for the lack of initiative. To some extent, this claims are right. However, there's only so much you can do when you charge and wipe out a reasonable target for your melee unit only to have a different melee unit jog up and kill you without more than a few overwatching pistol shots to stop them.

To some extent, we've moved the, "I die before I can swing" problem of i2 armies in past editions and made it a universal frustration instead of an army-specific one.

 Irbis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
However, I will admit that it feels very strange when a squad of orks charges my harlequins and manages to stab them all to death without suffering a single casualty in return.

Why? It's exact same case as two units starting game within gun range and one gunning down the other first without casualties. Do you ask opponent then to be able to roll dice too?

If the orks had enough attacks to kill all harlequins, they simply charged hard enough to trample them all, no skill needed. Simple. If not, the surviving models' performance being proportional to ork success is good enough to reflect situation in an abstract way.

If anything, the reverse was garbage in all the recent editions, melee inclined army always taking casualties first from everyone due to bad I2 no matter how hard they assaulted, which coupled with overwatch meant losing good 20-40% of models uselessly before they did anything. Was that fun? I doubt that...

Perfectly said, and not to harp or to be seen as attacking but I have seen so many of this type of post where people want to change how CC Works to give the army being charged more chances to inflict damage.

Several posters here have summarized my belief on why they think this, it boils down to "My super elite model should be able to do more then a stupid ork" which is fine and dandy but it smells vaguely of wanting orkz and other CC armies with horrible ranged abilities to be the NPC race. Every game I play I inflict extremely minimal casualties turn 1unless my unit gets to charge from "Da Jump" or if my opponent has positioned terribly and I can charge him, most likely I won't get into CC until turn 2 with some of my army and the majority not until turn 3. What this means is that my opponent gets 1-3 turns to blast my army off the table before I can even inflict any kind of retaliation on them. Add in Overwatch, and the ridiculous number of armies and units that get to add to overwatch, and suddenly I am barely making it into CC with enough models to accomplish anything.

The last tournament I went to I played the best list I could as far as Orkz go, mostly boyz (160) some Kommandos and some Stormboyz as well as buffing characters. One of my games was against a Tau player who brought a ton of Firewarriors , broadsides, pathfinders and marker light support. I could not charge him. I had a 30 Boy unit jump into 9" range of his firewarriors, after the overwatch I had 3 models left including the nob. OVERWATCH, killed 27 Boyz.

Last edition I hated Eldar with a passion, mostly because of their patented abilities which ignored core rules. But nothing was as annoying as FINALLY getting into CC with them only to then be killed off because they get to swing first.

If anything, Melee should be made EASIER to get into rather then harder, and Melee heavy armies should not have to be nerfed by another mechanic like initiative.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
However, I will admit that it feels very strange when a squad of orks charges my harlequins and manages to stab them all to death without suffering a single casualty in return.

Why? It's exact same case as two units starting game within gun range and one gunning down the other first without casualties. Do you ask opponent then to be able to roll dice too?

If the orks had enough attacks to kill all harlequins, they simply charged hard enough to trample them all, no skill needed. Simple. If not, the surviving models' performance being proportional to ork success is good enough to reflect situation in an abstract way.

If anything, the reverse was garbage in all the recent editions, melee inclined army always taking casualties first from everyone due to bad I2 no matter how hard they assaulted, which coupled with overwatch meant losing good 20-40% of models uselessly before they did anything. Was that fun? I doubt that...

Perfectly said, and not to harp or to be seen as attacking but I have seen so many of this type of post where people want to change how CC Works to give the army being charged more chances to inflict damage.

Several posters here have summarized my belief on why they think this, it boils down to "My super elite model should be able to do more then a stupid ork" which is fine and dandy but it smells vaguely of wanting orkz and other CC armies with horrible ranged abilities to be the NPC race. Every game I play I inflict extremely minimal casualties turn 1unless my unit gets to charge from "Da Jump" or if my opponent has positioned terribly and I can charge him, most likely I won't get into CC until turn 2 with some of my army and the majority not until turn 3. What this means is that my opponent gets 1-3 turns to blast my army off the table before I can even inflict any kind of retaliation on them. Add in Overwatch, and the ridiculous number of armies and units that get to add to overwatch, and suddenly I am barely making it into CC with enough models to accomplish anything.

The last tournament I went to I played the best list I could as far as Orkz go, mostly boyz (160) some Kommandos and some Stormboyz as well as buffing characters. One of my games was against a Tau player who brought a ton of Firewarriors , broadsides, pathfinders and marker light support. I could not charge him. I had a 30 Boy unit jump into 9" range of his firewarriors, after the overwatch I had 3 models left including the nob. OVERWATCH, killed 27 Boyz.

Last edition I hated Eldar with a passion, mostly because of their patented abilities which ignored core rules. But nothing was as annoying as FINALLY getting into CC with them only to then be killed off because they get to swing first.

If anything, Melee should be made EASIER to get into rather then harder, and Melee heavy armies should not have to be nerfed by another mechanic like initiative.

Initiative would've been fine if the charger would always get strike first and other strike first rules would've not existed.
That beeing said even harlequins that got full charged by a Boy mob will have no explanation how they would end on top of that situation.
Overwatch anyways, especially Tau one, needs a nerf.
Also orkz atm just come short, and lack options in gamestyle certainly doesn't help them.
Also ballaboyz don't exist anymore thanks to -1 bs abilities.

SemperMortis wrote:


Perfectly said, and not to harp or to be seen as attacking but I have seen so many of this type of post where people want to change how CC Works to give the army being charged more chances to inflict damage.

Several posters here have summarized my belief on why they think this, it boils down to "My super elite model should be able to do more then a stupid ork" which is fine and dandy but it smells vaguely of wanting orkz and other CC armies with horrible ranged abilities to be the NPC race.

I don't 100% not hold that view. It's not so much that I want orks as a faction to be the "NPC race" that always loses. It's more that I want the law of conservation of ninjutsu to be a bit better represented. A squad of boyz charging a squad of harlequins should absolutely be able to wipe out the harlequins. It just feels odd that getting the charge off causes the harlequins to inflict zero casualties in return. In wuxia movie terms, a squad of ork boyz is the group of faceless ninjas surrounding the outnumbered harlequin guy(s). The ninja mooks can win, but the law of conservation of ninjutsu (i.e. the points difference between the units) as well as the laws of action scene choreography demand that the outnumbered faction take a few ork boyz down before they're defeated.

Yeah, orks are no slouches in close combat, but we can probably agree that it's weird for something with the in-universe combat prowess and superhuman agility of a harlequin to get taken out without bringing some orks down with them, right? I guess what I'm saying is that ork boyz are both narratively and mechanically designed around losing bodies and having enough extra bodies to not care too much. So it feels odd when a squad of faceless ninjas shows up and takes down a more elite unit with more plot armor without suffering any harm in return.

This fluff dissonance is kind of echoed mechanically. It feels like the melee prowess of harlequins (or wyches or banshees or whatever) isn't really represented when they're charged by less "elite" enemies, though I suppose that's where stratagems and psyker support are meant to come in. Again, I'm not saying the old iniitiative system is the way to go. I'm just acknowledging that the new system isn't perfect either. I'm not opposed to pondering new alternatives.

If anything, Melee should be made EASIER to get into rather then harder, and Melee heavy armies should not have to be nerfed by another mechanic like initiative.

See, you're thinking orks and see initiative as a nerf. I'm thinking space elves and see initiative as a buff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

That beeing said even harlequins that got full charged by a Boy mob will have no explanation how they would end on top of that situation.

To clarify, I'm not of the opinion that harlequins should be coming out ahead when they get charged by orks. It's more that I find it odd when the announcer shouts, "FLAWLESS VICTORY," when the orks kill all the harlequins without taking any casualties of their own.

Overwatch anyways, especially Tau one, needs a nerf.

To each their own. I personally find that overwatch rarely makes much of a difference. The biggest problem with overwatch in my eyes is that it tends to eat up a fair bit of time but have little to no impact on the game. Except when it does, and then it usually feels bad for the person that got overwatched. Overwatch in its current incarnation made more sense in 7th when you had to remove casualties that were closest to the overwatching unit. That had its own set of problems, but at least it conveyed the sense that your overwatching shots were keeping the enemy unit at bay. You did have moments where you managed to make the charge just hard enough for your opponent's charge roll to fail. Which felt crummy for the guy that got overwatched.

I guess what I"m saying is that Overwatch, on the whole, isn't "too good." It's just a feel bad rule that neither results in interesting decisions nor represents the cinematic moments it used to.

Wyldhunt wrote:

If anything, Melee should be made EASIER to get into rather then harder, and Melee heavy armies should not have to be nerfed by another mechanic like initiative.

See, you're thinking orks and see initiative as a nerf. I'm thinking space elves and see initiative as a buff.

Because space elves had the highest natural Initiative of any faction, you see it as a buff because it made space elves better then basically every other faction. Add to the fact that they also shoot as well as dedicated ranged units and you basically want your super elite army to be better at everything then everyone else. As for the plot hole of losing to orkz without killing a single model....well 1 that will never happen. You forget that those orkz have to walk up the board for 2-3 turns, all the while getting blasted off the table by every ranged gun you can bring to bear. And 2: you then get the opportunity to use 2 CP to interrupt my assault and use your guys to swing back first. Ive done that tactic myself to annihilate an entire squad of genestealers.

Overwatch anyways, especially Tau one, needs a nerf.

Wyldhunt wrote:
To each their own. I personally find that overwatch rarely makes much of a difference. The biggest problem with overwatch in my eyes is that it tends to eat up a fair bit of time but have little to no impact on the game. Except when it does, and then it usually feels bad for the person that got overwatched. Overwatch in its current incarnation made more sense in 7th when you had to remove casualties that were closest to the overwatching unit. That had its own set of problems, but at least it conveyed the sense that your overwatching shots were keeping the enemy unit at bay. You did have moments where you managed to make the charge just hard enough for your opponent's charge roll to fail. Which felt crummy for the guy that got overwatched.

I guess what I"m saying is that Overwatch, on the whole, isn't "too good." It's just a feel bad rule that neither results in interesting decisions nor represents the cinematic moments it used to.

You clearly haven't played against Tau. First off they have a trait that gives them 5+ instead of 6+ on overwatch, then they have buttloads of markerlights they shoot you with first before firing real weapons, so when they do shoot you with the 30-40 fire warriors they have clumped up, all in double tap range, all with a Ethereal nearby to give them 3 shots instead of 2, they are shooting you with 4+ to hit instead of 6+. Or to put it another way, whatever unit you are attacking with will cease to be.

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

If anything, Melee should be made EASIER to get into rather then harder, and Melee heavy armies should not have to be nerfed by another mechanic like initiative.

See, you're thinking orks and see initiative as a nerf. I'm thinking space elves and see initiative as a buff.

Because space elves had the highest natural Initiative of any faction, you see it as a buff because it made space elves better then basically every other faction. Add to the fact that they also shoot as well as dedicated ranged units and you basically want your super elite army to be better at everything then everyone else. As for the plot hole of losing to orkz without killing a single model....well 1 that will never happen. You forget that those orkz have to walk up the board for 2-3 turns, all the while getting blasted off the table by every ranged gun you can bring to bear. And 2: you then get the opportunity to use 2 CP to interrupt my assault and use your guys to swing back first. Ive done that tactic myself to annihilate an entire squad of genestealers.

Overwatch anyways, especially Tau one, needs a nerf.

Wyldhunt wrote:
To each their own. I personally find that overwatch rarely makes much of a difference. The biggest problem with overwatch in my eyes is that it tends to eat up a fair bit of time but have little to no impact on the game. Except when it does, and then it usually feels bad for the person that got overwatched. Overwatch in its current incarnation made more sense in 7th when you had to remove casualties that were closest to the overwatching unit. That had its own set of problems, but at least it conveyed the sense that your overwatching shots were keeping the enemy unit at bay. You did have moments where you managed to make the charge just hard enough for your opponent's charge roll to fail. Which felt crummy for the guy that got overwatched.

I guess what I"m saying is that Overwatch, on the whole, isn't "too good." It's just a feel bad rule that neither results in interesting decisions nor represents the cinematic moments it used to.

You clearly haven't played against Tau. First off they have a trait that gives them 5+ instead of 6+ on overwatch, then they have buttloads of markerlights they shoot you with first before firing real weapons, so when they do shoot you with the 30-40 fire warriors they have clumped up, all in double tap range, all with a Ethereal nearby to give them 3 shots instead of 2, they are shooting you with 4+ to hit instead of 6+. Or to put it another way, whatever unit you are attacking with will cease to be.

That's not quite how Tau work now. Regardless how about each charging model makes 1 bonus attack first, then go by initiative if you want that stat back? There could be back and forth sets of attacks without initiative but that would take too long.

I think the main reason harlequins getting butchered in close quarters by a mob of boyz seems odd is primarily because everyone knows harlequins are smart enough to avoid that situation. If a small space elf, however talented he is, allows a green muscle train of boyz to run him down like a dog then he has made a tactical error. In game terms, the player has made a tactical error.

This is where the lore gets broken during the game. Ork players are smarter than an ork general should be (I hope), and eldar players are unlikely to be sly as an eldar commander, leading to situations where orks (or any other "dumb" race) outsmart their intellectual superiors.

SemperMortis wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

If anything, Melee should be made EASIER to get into rather then harder, and Melee heavy armies should not have to be nerfed by another mechanic like initiative.

See, you're thinking orks and see initiative as a nerf. I'm thinking space elves and see initiative as a buff.

Because space elves had the highest natural Initiative of any faction, you see it as a buff because it made space elves better then basically every other faction. Add to the fact that they also shoot as well as dedicated ranged units and you basically want your super elite army to be better at everything then everyone else.

Initiative was certainly a melee advantage of eldar, although you don't hear a lot of stories about howling banshees and striking scorpions running around winning the day. Even back when initiative did exist. But that's a tangent waiting to happen. The more I think on it, the more I think my position is mostly unrelated to initiative itself. I feel just as weird about harlequins dying without resistance to a squad of charging orks or guardsmen as I do about meganobs dying without resistance to a squad of charging guardians or kroot. It's not about faction or "initiative" so much as it's about having a unit that is allegedly good at melee getting wiped out without retaliation by a unit that may or may not be terrible at melee.

It's not so much about superhuman reflexes specifically. It's more that it just feels a little bizarre for some of the deadliest melee combatants in the galaxy (be they green, pointy-eared, or astartes) to get within stabbing distance of a bunch of much less impressive mooks and fail to bring anyone down with them. Would you disagree that a wounded squad of nobz that gets charged and killed by some guardsmen should probably kill a couple of guardsmen before they go?

P.S. If my army can be described as "super elite," then yes. I want my more expensive and less numerous models to be better at the things they're paying points for than more numerous, less-elite models. They don't have to be better "at everything," but an "elite" melee unit should probably do well in melee. Being charged and killed with no chance of swinging back feels like it ignores both the mechanical investment and the lore-based abilities of the unit. So it's not that I want my special snowflakes to be better at everything so much as I acknowledge it feels strange that they suddenly stop being good at something simply because my opponent gets a charge off.

As for the plot hole of losing to orkz without killing a single model....well 1 that will never happen. You forget that those orkz have to walk up the board for 2-3 turns, all the while getting blasted off the table by every ranged gun you can bring to bear.

No one is saying that orks don't die to shooting. The weird part is when some orkz get close enough to melee combatants of similar or superior melee prowess and then said combatants fail to bring down a single ork.

And 2: you then get the opportunity to use 2 CP to interrupt my assault and use your guys to swing back first. Ive done that tactic myself to annihilate an entire squad of genestealers.

A.) Sure, but you can't use that stratagem every time for every squad. If you charge my harlequins with a squad of boyz, you will be able to choose to swing those boyz before I use said stratagem. If you then kill all the harlequins in said squad, it will feel very strange that the harlequins didn't manage to kill a single boy in return.

B.) The Counterattack stratagem introduces similar weirdness but in reverse. If I charge two squads of orkz with two squads of harlequins, the second ork squad can spend 2 CP to suddenly tear my harlequins limb from limb before the clowns even have a chance to swing.

You clearly haven't played against Tau. First off they have a trait that gives them 5+ instead of 6+ on overwatch, then they have buttloads of markerlights they shoot you with first before firing real weapons, so when they do shoot you with the 30-40 fire warriors they have clumped up, all in double tap range, all with a Ethereal nearby to give them 3 shots instead of 2, they are shooting you with 4+ to hit instead of 6+. Or to put it another way, whatever unit you are attacking with will cease to be.

I will acknowledge that Tau overwatch is more impactful than most. The rest of my points stand. In most cases, overwatch ends up being unimpactful or frustrating. Tau overwatch is more likely to be the latter than the former. Either way, overwatch probably isn't a great mechanic.

Maybe for all the people with their "super elite armies" they should find a way to make sure that they're not charged by the "faceless mooks". Aka, play tactically.

Maybe, no matter how good you are, if you get charged by a wall of sheer living muscle, hate and rage, you might not be able to use all that "super elite" training when you're on the business end of a choppa.
You want to avoid that? Make sure you're not in the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hippyjr wrote:
I think the main reason harlequins getting butchered in close quarters by a mob of boyz seems odd is primarily because everyone knows harlequins are smart enough to avoid that situation. If a small space elf, however talented he is, allows a green muscle train of boyz to run him down like a dog then he has made a tactical error. In game terms, the player has made a tactical error.

This is where the lore gets broken during the game. Ork players are smarter than an ork general should be (I hope), and eldar players are unlikely to be sly as an eldar commander, leading to situations where orks (or any other "dumb" race) outsmart their intellectual superiors.

Exactly this.

Before 8th got announced I was working on a 40k rule set that was a Fan 7.5.

I ended up scraping Initiative but I had a KIND of initiative in it.

Basically there were 3 steps and the player whos turn it was acted first in each step.

1 Quick or Swift Melee

2 Melee

3 And Slow Melee

Units and weapons could have rules that had them act as quick or slow.

So, for example, Scything Talons were Quick Melee weapons. Rending Claws were melee weapons. Crushing Claws (and power fists) were slow Melee weapons. If my tyranid warrior with Rending claws charged your marines with chain swords the Warriors would hit first because both units were acting in the same initiative step but it was my turn.

On the other hand if your marines charged my hormagaunts the hormagaunts would fight first because scything talons are quick melee weapons so they act in the initiative step before the marines with the chain swords.

Harlequinns would probably just have a rule to be quick, which means only other quick melee things would hit first on their turn.

SemperMortis wrote:
they are shooting you with 4+ to hit instead of 6+.

How? You can't modify overwatch.

Dandelion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
they are shooting you with 4+ to hit instead of 6+.

How? You can't modify overwatch.

You sure about that? what about if they get 5 markerlights on you? But hell even if they don't (I admit you might be right here) 40 Firewarrios shooting 3 times hitting on 5s wounding on 3s = 22 unsaved wounds. So going from 30 Ork boyz to 8 is kind of a big negative

SemperMortis wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
they are shooting you with 4+ to hit instead of 6+.

How? You can't modify overwatch.

You sure about that? what about if they get 5 markerlights on you? But hell even if they don't (I admit you might be right here) 40 Firewarrios shooting 3 times hitting on 5s wounding on 3s = 22 unsaved wounds. So going from 30 Ork boyz to 8 is kind of a big negative

Yes hes sure. Go read the section on overwatch. Its a shooting attack except only a unmodified roll of 6 will hit. Modifiers do not apply. They CAN reroll their 1s. But nothing can turn a roll of 5 into a 6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless it specifically says it modifies overwatch. Markerlights dont. Also, ml only last for the round. So he would have to get 5 ml hitting on 6s onto the unit that declared the charge AND shoot. How is that happening?

For the 5+ he is referring to the "Ta'u Sept" tenet: Co-ordinated Fire Arcs

When a unit with this tenet uses their For the Greater Good ability, or when they fire Overwatch whist they are within 6" of a friendly T'au Sept unit, a 5 or 6 is required for a successful hit roll, irrespective of the firing model's Ballistic Skill or any modifiers

But the marker light thing is correct, they took out the part in the marker light rules that allowed that modifier in overwatch. Huh.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Maybe for all the people with their "super elite armies" they should find a way to make sure that they're not charged by the "faceless mooks". Aka, play tactically.

Maybe, no matter how good you are, if you get charged by a wall of sheer living muscle, hate and rage, you might not be able to use all that "super elite" training when you're on the business end of a choppa.
You want to avoid that? Make sure you're not in the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hippyjr wrote:
I think the main reason harlequins getting butchered in close quarters by a mob of boyz seems odd is primarily because everyone knows harlequins are smart enough to avoid that situation. If a small space elf, however talented he is, allows a green muscle train of boyz to run him down like a dog then he has made a tactical error. In game terms, the player has made a tactical error.

This is where the lore gets broken during the game. Ork players are smarter than an ork general should be (I hope), and eldar players are unlikely to be sly as an eldar commander, leading to situations where orks (or any other "dumb" race) outsmart their intellectual superiors.

Exactly this.

Myabe I'm just spoiled from playing Marines and Custodes, but MY "super elite melee units" are useally tough eneugh to take a charge from some Orks.

What if Initiative existed as it used to, but electing to Overwatch automatically reduces the firer to effectively I0 in that they must go last?

EDIT: Could be interesting if Characters chose whether or not to Overwatch independent of their squad; e.g. a Space Marine Sergeant can strike at I4 by foregoing his Overwatch even when his squad does not. Kind of makes sense with 40k squad leaders tending to have a pistol + melee weapon as their default loadout, and an extra Attack.

Initiative isn't needed in this edition. It just makes no sense gameplay wise to give armies either a buff or nerf before they even start swinging.

As a person who ran khorne daemons and KDK in 5th to 8th. My I10 bloodthirsters would always go first, unless i took my d axe thirster.

As a mechanic it always felt off how ork boys would charge into my dude and end up being mulched to half their strength before they even got a swing in. I mean, i always expected enough boys could take down my greater daemon but i still wanted my opponent to feel a sense of satisfaction if they did charge the hyper steroid daemon of death.

8th edition has some rules that allow units to negate of mitigate whole army charges (slaneesh daemons quicksilver, Psychic powers, Strats ect.) And i would say that is satifactory in applying "exceptions" that are represented in lore wise of units outpacing a mob charging them. But I would never revert back to a system where whole armies would kill off whole units before they even got the chance to swing, EVEN IF THEY HAD CHARGED.


And also, overwatch should probably be changed to a stratagem, cause i feel that if it actually had some element of cost to it the game would be more tactical as a response. Hell even with the Tau one you could make their Rule for the greater good as an mass unit overwatch strat, Would actually make CP more valuable.

Tl;DR Dont bring back initiative, it just would ruin the ruleset

No strategems. Those don#t scale. Less core things as strategems the better