Switch Theme:

Fixing "the game is decided on the first turn" syndrome  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




I think this is one of the biggest problems in today's 40k metagame. Shorter play time is better of course, but not because the game is all but decided on the first turn!

For matched play games:
- The player who gets the first turn is always randomly determined, which encourages players to deploy as if they won't get the first turn, because they might not
- No strategems, no allies, no Lords of War (see https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/774725.page)
- All deployment zone distances from the center are lengthened by 6", so both armies start out on average an additional 12" farther apart from one another. This balances out how fast virtually all units are today (with higher movement values, advancing, and 2D6" charge distances), and brings back an element of maneuver warfare, rather than just trying for a first-turn charge. Also encourages the use of transports more.

For all games:
- Area terrain like forests block line of sight to everything behind it (except TITANIC models)
- Models only partially visible due to intervening non-area-terrain that they are behind but not in gain the benefits of cover
- Models out of line of sight may not be taken as casualties if their visible squadmates come under fire during the shooting phase
- Units in open-topped transports can disembark and act normally after the transport has moved. If it also advanced, each model dies on a 4+


As a result of these changes, we could expect players to deploy their units in or behind cover far away from the enemy, and spend one or two turns maneuvering them into position before the big fight begins. The impact of first-turn shooting should be substantially blunted, and we won't see so many desperate attempts at first-turn charges, which as I recall, were the bane of 3rd edition. Everything old is new again...
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




In My Lab

Pointed Stick wrote:
I think this is one of the biggest problems in today's 40k metagame. Shorter play time is better of course, but not because the game is all but decided on the first turn!

For matched play games:
- The player who gets the first turn is always randomly determined, which encourages players to deploy as if they won't get the first turn, because they might not
- No strategems, no allies, no Lords of War (see https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/774725.page)
- All deployment zone distances from the center are lengthened by 6", so both armies start out on average an additional 12" farther apart from one another. This balances out how fast virtually all units are today (with higher movement values, advancing, and 2D6" charge distances), and brings back an element of maneuver warfare, rather than just trying for a first-turn charge. Also encourages the use of transports more.

For all games:
- Area terrain like forests block line of sight to everything behind it (except TITANIC models)
- Models only partially visible due to intervening non-area-terrain that they are behind but not in gain the benefits of cover
- Models out of line of sight may not be taken as casualties if their visible squadmates come under fire during the shooting phase
- Units in open-topped transports can disembark and act normally after the transport has moved. If it also advanced, each model dies on a 4+


As a result of these changes, we could expect players to deploy their units in or behind cover far away from the enemy, and spend one or two turns maneuvering them into position before the big fight begins. The impact of first-turn shooting should be substantially blunted, and we won't see so many desperate attempts at first-turn charges, which as I recall, were the bane of 3rd edition. Everything old is new again...


So, screw melee armies, right? Bork'an, with their 36" Pulse Rifles, still hit me just fine, but my Nurgle Daemons now get a 7" charge turn two... Assuming they roll sixes to advance on both turns AND have Slimux drop a tree near them turn to to allow them to advance and charge AND have a Scrivener with them the whole time AND get an instrument AND the enemy never just backs up.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




There's more to getting into the fight than rushing as fast as possible through open ground. The idea is to restore the element of strategic maneuver that (IMO) has been lost with 8th edition.

I've been playing Orks for 16 years, and for most of that time I've had no difficulty getting into close combat due to the ability to actually hide units behind terrain, hide vehicles behind other vehicles, and charge from open-topped transport vehicles after they've moved. I almost never got a first-turn charge; I would set my army up for devastating second or third turn charges, after softening the enemy up with shooting and maneuvering the assaulters into the perfect position in the preceding turns.

Only in 8th did those strategies stop working. Now I, like all other melee army players, have to rely on deep strike, gimmicky strategems, and deploying as close as possible and hoping for the first turn. It all just feels wrong.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/28 16:09:02


 
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant






None of that addresses the actual root problem. It just attempts to place band aids over specific symptoms to try to mitigate their impact while creating new issues.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




What would you say is the actual root problem?
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

Pointed Stick wrote:

- The player who gets the first turn is always randomly determined, which encourages players to deploy as if they won't get the first turn, because they might not


This is not a solution, the player who deploys first always has the first turn, so that the other one can deploy according to that

- No strategems, no allies, no Lords of War

stratagems are an essential part of 8th. remove them and the game lost the last bit of tactical depth that was there
Allies and LoW just shift the meta, nothing more

an alternative would be to limit the amount of CP an army can spend on stratagems in a game so that "farming" won't help

- All deployment zone distances from the center are lengthened by 6", so both armies start out on average an additional 12" farther apart from one another.

This would help, but the tables are already too small for the armies you can bring in.

I would say, you could also decrease the point value of standard games to 1500 too add more "empty" space on the table

Area terrain like forests block line of sight to everything behind it (except TITANIC models)
- Models only partially visible due to intervening non-area-terrain that they are behind but not in gain the benefits of cover
- Models out of line of sight may not be taken as casualties if their visible squadmates come under fire during the shooting phase
- Units in open-topped transports can disembark and act normally after the transport has moved. If it also advanced, each model dies on a 4+


More LOS blocking terrain would help, but than I would skip the whole TLOS thing and go with a more complex rules

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in fi
Dakka Veteran






Pointed Stick wrote:
What would you say is the actual root problem?


The turn structure. IGOUGO is horrible if everything hits hard or sweeping maneuvers block most of the table unopposed. In alternating activations all players get to contribute equally and target priorities also care about timing, bringing more depth.

I play 40k with alternating activations, it works very well. Using Cities of Death rules for obscuration, hard cover and whatnots also helps immensely in having an actual game of war.

Heavily converted tall scaled 30k / 40k loyalist Death Guard blog here, C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page
Now with titans! Legio Favilla walks! 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Pointed Stick wrote:
What would you say is the actual root problem?
IGOUGO creates the first-turn advantage by allowing one player to act with their entire army, followed by the other player acting with much less of their now-battered army. This advantage then snowballs into later turns.

The clear supremacy of the Shooting phase over the Fight phase aggravates that advantage further, by making armies already well-disposed to taking advantage of the first turn even more able to do so.

The increased lethality of the game, thanks to easier wounds from massed shooting, granular Armor Penetration, weakened cover/line of sight, and the kill-doubling Morale phase, make the first-turn alpha strike even more important and effective.

The frontloaded nature of the Command Point pool also makes it even easier to launch an alpha strike, by allowing players to burn through their entire stock of CP in that first, vital turn.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/28 21:57:20


 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






We address it using tokenhammer, which ignores the IGOUGO system altogether. Works pretty well.

I would also ignore trying to balance all-melee armies with normal armies. Bringing an all-melee army is a poor choice in 40K and should be extremely difficult to do.

 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




In My Lab

 Elbows wrote:
We address it using tokenhammer, which ignores the IGOUGO system altogether. Works pretty well.

I would also ignore trying to balance all-melee armies with normal armies. Bringing an all-melee army is a poor choice in 40K and should be extremely difficult to do.
Then add shooting to Daemons outside of tzeentch.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant






Pointed Stick wrote:
What would you say is the actual root problem?


The root problem is players take turns acting with their entire army. If each player has 2k points of units and all things being equal a 2k force is capable of removing 400 points worth of models then on turn 1 player 1 removes 400 points from player 2. Player 2 in turn is capable of removing 320 points. then player 1 removes 336. then player 2 removes 252.8. Turn 3, player 1 removes 285.44 and player 2 removes 195.712 ... and so on (exponentially widening the gap between what player 1 and player 2 is capable of) and at the end of turn 3 player 1 still has 1231.488 points remaining and player 2 has 978.56). First turn advantage is a direct result of each players turn amounting to a single large activation with the opponent having almost no chance for recourse (and whatever chance they have comes from melee (often attacking second after losses or based on a limited currency in the form of stratagems).

Imagine chess, except each side gets to move every piece at once before the other player gets to move any pieces.

If you break up the game into individual unit activations with each side getting to do a small activation and the other side getting to respond then each activation is greatly diminished in effect and player choice in what they activate and when and to what effect starts to mean significantly more than who gets to act first.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/29 00:08:59



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






 JNAProductions wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
We address it using tokenhammer, which ignores the IGOUGO system altogether. Works pretty well.

I would also ignore trying to balance all-melee armies with normal armies. Bringing an all-melee army is a poor choice in 40K and should be extremely difficult to do.
Then add shooting to Daemons outside of tzeentch.


Or don't fall for the sales gimmick that is an all-daemon army in 40K? It's just GW double-dipping on the models.

 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




In My Lab

There are more types of Daemons in the lore than there are marines in your average chapter.

Why the hell shouldn’t I be able to play a daemon army?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Lance845 wrote:
Pointed Stick wrote:
What would you say is the actual root problem?

The root problem is players take turns acting with their entire army. If each player has 2k points of units and all things being equal a 2k force is capable of removing 400 points worth of models then on turn 1 player 1 removes 400 points from player 2. Player 2 in turn is capable of removing 320 points. then player 1 removes 336. then player 2 removes 252.8. Turn 3, player 1 removes 285.44 and player 2 removes 195.712 ... and so on (exponentially widening the gap between what player 1 and player 2 is capable of)


I get what you're saying, and this makes a lot of sense given the rest of the game. In fact, it's a well-studied phenomenon discovered by naval strategists before and during the era of battleship combat: the first side to attack and score hits has an advantage in subsequent exchanges of fire proportional to the effectiveness of their initial bombardment, thereby spawning the naval maxim, "attack effectively first." For more on this, see https://www.usni.org/press/books/fleet-tactics-and-naval-operations-third-edition.

However, in real life this phenomenon is only pronounced in naval combat, where there is no cover or defensive positions. By contrast, forces on land take advantage of cover, concealment, defensive positions, and the generally shorter range of enemy firepower to neutralize most of the first strike advantage. If we don't see the same thing in 40k, I would suggest that the root cause is actually poor terrain and cover rules that make it impossible to adequately hide your units behind or in terrain. In prior editions of 40k, I had great success deploying almost entirely behind line-of-sight blocking terrain or my heaviest vehicles. I found it quite common to take no damage in my opponent's first turn, and then my fast vehicles would flit from cover to cover to close the distance unless the opposing forces maneuvered to get better shots.

I'm not finding that any of that works in this edition, because now area terrain like forests doesn't block line of sight, cover doesn't provide much of a defensive benefit for low-save models, vehicles are targetable if even a little bit of antenna is visible, and there are no target priority rules (other than the shooting at characters limitation). So now shooty units can see almost everything no matter what, given the typical terrain in a gaming store (some low ruins and forests). All a shooting army has to do is deploy its heaviest hitters in a commanding position with screens to prevent deep-strike charges, go first, and then pour CPs into them to double or triple their offensive output and maul as much as possible of the enemy army before it can even do anything. I think if long range guns had fewer ready targets all the time, then the IGOUGO might not be so bad, as it never was for most of my time playing 40k (I left for a few years during the dark years of 6th and 7th editions).
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant






Pointed Stick wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Pointed Stick wrote:
What would you say is the actual root problem?

The root problem is players take turns acting with their entire army. If each player has 2k points of units and all things being equal a 2k force is capable of removing 400 points worth of models then on turn 1 player 1 removes 400 points from player 2. Player 2 in turn is capable of removing 320 points. then player 1 removes 336. then player 2 removes 252.8. Turn 3, player 1 removes 285.44 and player 2 removes 195.712 ... and so on (exponentially widening the gap between what player 1 and player 2 is capable of)


I get what you're saying, and this makes a lot of sense given the rest of the game. In fact, it's a well-studied phenomenon discovered by naval strategists before and during the era of battleship combat: the first side to attack and score hits has an advantage in subsequent exchanges of fire proportional to the effectiveness of their initial bombardment, thereby spawning the naval maxim, "attack effectively first." For more on this, see https://www.usni.org/press/books/fleet-tactics-and-naval-operations-third-edition.

However, in real life this phenomenon is only pronounced in naval combat, where there is no cover or defensive positions. By contrast, forces on land take advantage of cover, concealment, defensive positions, and the generally shorter range of enemy firepower to neutralize most of the first strike advantage.


Real life doesn't matter. This is a game. Not real life. But if you want to debate this real life crap then there is this. In real life one side does not sit there idly waiting to take losses for their chance to shoot back. But that is exactly what happens in 40k.

If we don't see the same thing in 40k, I would suggest that the root cause is actually poor terrain and cover rules that make it impossible to adequately hide your units behind or in terrain.


You suggest wrong. Poor terrain rules are a thing. But even with terrain both sides still take turns trading blows and IGOUGO is still a problem. No terrain advantage you implement will apply only to one army. Both armys, with good terrain and cover rules, will still be trading blows.

In prior editions of 40k, I had great success deploying almost entirely behind line-of-sight blocking terrain or my heaviest vehicles. I found it quite common to take no damage in my opponent's first turn, and then my fast vehicles would flit from cover to cover to close the distance unless the opposing forces maneuvered to get better shots.


Great. So you took advantage of the terrain and then on YOUR turn you initiated the same problem. Now that you have come out of cover and done your shots THEY have less points and YOU have "first turn advantage". The inherent problem continues to be inherent.

I'm not finding that any of that works in this edition, because now area terrain like forests doesn't block line of sight, cover doesn't provide much of a defensive benefit for low-save models, vehicles are targetable if even a little bit of antenna is visible, and there are no target priority rules (other than the shooting at characters limitation). So now shooty units can see almost everything no matter what, given the typical terrain in a gaming store (some low ruins and forests). All a shooting army has to do is deploy its heaviest hitters in a commanding position with screens to prevent deep-strike charges, go first, and then pour CPs into them to double or triple their offensive output and maul as much as possible of the enemy army before it can even do anything. I think if long range guns had fewer ready targets all the time, then the IGOUGO might not be so bad, as it never was for most of my time playing 40k (I left for a few years during the dark years of 6th and 7th editions).


Well again, you're wrong. Because IGOUGO is not a symptom of terrain. Maybe you played back during that edition where everyone was 2 gunlines sitting across the table from each other waiting for one side to feth up so they could decimate the other. Thats not a good game either AND it has the same IGOUGO issue. It just doesn't happen for the first player on the first turn. But it STILL makes the first player to grab the advantage be the primary deciding factor in the game.

You wanna fix terrain?

Here.

Spoiler:

 Lance845 wrote:
So this was originaly part of the Beyond the Gate of 40k project (Located here https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/733472.page ). I have had a few games that have utilized this recently and it works great so it should also work well in normal 40k. A lot of this is ripped from Beyond the Gates of Antares and then adapted to fit within the context of 8th 40k.


Line of Sight Rules

You can trace Line of Sight from any part of your model to any part of the target unit. For the purpose of targeting I recommend using 7ths targeting rules (I.E. wings, antennae, banners) do not count as a part of the model, meaning you cannot draw los from or too these bits. That is just my personal preference, do what you want.

Targeting Occupied Terrain Occupied Terrain is any terrain that has a unit within the terrain feature. Units that occupy a Terrain feature can see and be seen through it. Units that Occupy Terrain gain Cover from the terrain. A unit is considered to be occupying the terrain if all of it's models bases are at least partially within the terrain or meet it's other requirements. Models that do not have a base must be at least 50% within the terrain to be considered to Occupy it.

Intervening Terrain Intervening terrain is any terrain that sits between you and the target unit but is not occupied by the target unit. You can trace LoS over a single piece of Light terrain. A second piece of Light terrain and/or Dense terrain will block LoS normally. Targeting a unit over intervening Terrain confers a -1 to hit penalty.

High Ground If your unit is on a piece of raised terrain they may have high ground. A unit with high ground can ignore all terrain and los blocking terrain features when targeting units on a lower level so long as they can still actually trace line of sight to the unit. To repeat, you still need to be able to trace line of sight, but the target unit would gain no benefit from any intervening terrain. I personally use a lot of the Mantic Battlezones. So each layer up in my terrain is 3". So we use that 3" marker to determine height. Again, do what you want.

Intervening Units If you cannot trace LoS to your target unit without tracing a line through an enemy unit the intervening unit counts as Light Terrain. That means if your target unit is behind both an enemy unit and a piece of Light terrain that unit is untargetable because your LoS is blocked (just like 2 pieces of light terrain). For this you are counting the entire unit and the spaces between models as 1 object. You cannot trace LoS between models in the same unit to get around this. You would need to actually be able to trace LoS around the entire unit to not be effected by the unit.

Monsters, Vehicles, and Titanic When targeting any unit with the MONSTER or VEHICLE Keyword you ignore any intervening units when tracing Line of Sight treating them as Open Ground. When targeting any unit with the TITANIC keyword you ignore all intervening units and Light Terrain treating them as Open Ground. In addition treat all Dense Terrain as Light Terrain for the purpose of tracing LoS on TITANIC units.

Flier Units with the Flier battlefield role can be targeted freely treating all terrain and intervening units as Open Ground so long as you can still trace Line of Sight. Do the same for any LoW with the FLY Keyword.

Terrain

All terrain has 3 features.

1) Line of Sight
2) Cover
3) Difficulty

1] Line of Sight

There are 3 degrees of effect terrain has on LoS.

-Open Ground: No effect on LoS. This terrain piece can be shot over as though it was not there. Example: A water pool or river.

-Light: Blocks LoS to some extent. You can draw Line of Sight over a single piece of light terrain. A unit cannot draw LoS over 2 pieces of light terrain. Barricades, grassy hills, light copse of trees, smaller ruins/

-Dense: Dense Terrain blocks LoS entirely. Dense cops of trees, ruined whole buildings.

2) Cover

All terrain has a cover value that is a bonus to your Sv roll (Ex. +1). This bonus is granted to any unit entirely within or meets the requirements of the terrain feature.

3) Difficulty

All terrain has a difficulty value. This value is a penalty to the Movement Value of any unit that enters or attempts to move through the terrain. It is possible the Difficulty of the terrain is a 0 meaning it does not impact movement at all. They may also have special considerations such as "Impassible to VEHICLES".


So for example, the baricades that make of a Aegis Defense Line and thus AGLs themselves would be

LoS: Light
Cover: +1 - The unit must be within 1" or within 1" of a model from their unit that is within 1" of the terrain to occupy the terrain. This unit only gains the benefit of cover from units targeting them from the opposite side of the terrain.
Difficulty: 1

Thus tracing LoS over these baracades would impose a -1 to hit to any unit that is not occupying it. Provides a +1 Sv bonus to any unit that is occupying it, and eat up 1" of Movement to cross over it.

Ruined Building could be.

LoS: Dense
Cover: +1
Difficulty: 1 non-INFANTRY

You could not target units on the other side of the building even if you could trace LoS. Units that occupy the terrain gain a +1 SV bonus and any noninfantry would loose 1" of movement by entering or trying to pass through the terrain. Driving some bikes over the rough surface of the ruins is hard on them and the ruins make navigating the landscape difficult for anything that is too big and/or lacking the dexterity that Infantry have.

In addition. I propose that Character Targeting is changed to make it so a character cannot be targeted with shooting if the character is not the closest visible unit and within 3" of another visible friendly unit. This way they need to maintain a semi unit coherency to keep their protection AND a closer unit behind some LoS blocking terrain won't save them.

Any unit with Sniper Weapon/rules will also ignore intervening units when tracing LoS.



You want to fix first turn advantage? Change the turn structure.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/29 02:05:59



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




RevlidRas wrote:
Pointed Stick wrote:
What would you say is the actual root problem?
IGOUGO creates the first-turn advantage by allowing one player to act with their entire army, followed by the other player acting with much less of their now-battered army. This advantage then snowballs into later turns.

The clear supremacy of the Shooting phase over the Fight phase aggravates that advantage further, by making armies already well-disposed to taking advantage of the first turn even more able to do so.

The increased lethality of the game, thanks to easier wounds from massed shooting, granular Armor Penetration, weakened cover/line of sight, and the kill-doubling Morale phase, make the first-turn alpha strike even more important and effective.

The frontloaded nature of the Command Point pool also makes it even easier to launch an alpha strike, by allowing players to burn through their entire stock of CP in that first, vital turn.
If you want to mitigate first turn advantage without removing IGOUGO, you have to handle these other points, basically. Shooting needs to be less supreme, the game needs to be less immediately and extremely lethal, and

If the "standard" range for guns is 18" rather than 24", for example, things immediately change. You have to move forward before firing, bringing you into the danger zone for countercharge and lowering the shots you can potential get off. If cover offers greater protection or outright immunity, it immediately helps to avoid that first turn blitz. If it goes back to being harder to score individual wounds, the snowball effect is greatly lessened. If CP are generated per turn instead of per game, you can't dump then on all the first turn. And so on.
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant






RevlidRas wrote:
RevlidRas wrote:
Pointed Stick wrote:
What would you say is the actual root problem?
IGOUGO creates the first-turn advantage by allowing one player to act with their entire army, followed by the other player acting with much less of their now-battered army. This advantage then snowballs into later turns.

The clear supremacy of the Shooting phase over the Fight phase aggravates that advantage further, by making armies already well-disposed to taking advantage of the first turn even more able to do so.

The increased lethality of the game, thanks to easier wounds from massed shooting, granular Armor Penetration, weakened cover/line of sight, and the kill-doubling Morale phase, make the first-turn alpha strike even more important and effective.

The frontloaded nature of the Command Point pool also makes it even easier to launch an alpha strike, by allowing players to burn through their entire stock of CP in that first, vital turn.
If you want to mitigate first turn advantage without removing IGOUGO, you have to handle these other points, basically. Shooting needs to be less supreme, the game needs to be less immediately and extremely lethal, and

If the "standard" range for guns is 18" rather than 24", for example, things immediately change. You have to move forward before firing, bringing you into the danger zone for countercharge and lowering the shots you can potential get off. If cover offers greater protection or outright immunity, it immediately helps to avoid that first turn blitz. If it goes back to being harder to score individual wounds, the snowball effect is greatly lessened. If CP are generated per turn instead of per game, you can't dump then on all the first turn. And so on.


ehhhh... ish?

The issue here is you just increase the value of other things. Lets pretend we reduce ranges by 6". Sure. K. So any gun with a (adjusted) 24+ range is now incredibly more valuable and armies will start being built with as many of those guns as possible (I.e. Tau just got a HUGE buff).

As an example, when everything in the Nid dex sucked but flyrants all you faced was as many flyrants as possible. This isn't so simple a fix that it just solves the problem. It just shifts the meta and makes the game about something else without actually resolving the issue. I agree with the command point bit though. Just as a general thing. As much as people seem to like command points and stratagems I think they are actually a toxic mechanic and they are bad for the game.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/29 03:05:00



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




RevlidRas wrote:
IGOUGO creates the first-turn advantage by allowing one player to act with their entire army, followed by the other player acting with much less of their now-battered army. This advantage then snowballs into later turns.

The clear supremacy of the Shooting phase over the Fight phase aggravates that advantage further, by making armies already well-disposed to taking advantage of the first turn even more able to do so.

The increased lethality of the game, thanks to easier wounds from massed shooting, granular Armor Penetration, weakened cover/line of sight, and the kill-doubling Morale phase, make the first-turn alpha strike even more important and effective.

The frontloaded nature of the Command Point pool also makes it even easier to launch an alpha strike, by allowing players to burn through their entire stock of CP in that first, vital turn. If you want to mitigate first turn advantage without removing IGOUGO, you have to handle these other points, basically. Shooting needs to be less supreme, the game needs to be less immediately and extremely lethal


That's basically what I was thinking, yeah. Though I can see how removing IGOUGO is also another way of fixing the problem.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator






We've been playing on terrain heavy tables, using the ITC LoS First floor rules and have stopped having problems with Alpha Strikes in my local area.

Not only do the tables look better, but it is much harder to get a good, clear line of sight to shoot every gun or unit you have.

We also crafted our own terrain rule. In order to get the +X cover save, a unit need only have a minimum of 1 model within 2" of a terrain feature.

it seems to work pretty good.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/29 05:08:09


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:
ehhhh... ish?

The issue here is you just increase the value of other things. Lets pretend we reduce ranges by 6". Sure. K. So any gun with a (adjusted) 24+ range is now incredibly more valuable and armies will start being built with as many of those guns as possible (I.e. Tau just got a HUGE buff).

As an example, when everything in the Nid dex sucked but flyrants all you faced was as many flyrants as possible. This isn't so simple a fix that it just solves the problem. It just shifts the meta and makes the game about something else without actually resolving the issue. I agree with the command point bit though. Just as a general thing. As much as people seem to like command points and stratagems I think they are actually a toxic mechanic and they are bad for the game.

Yes, I didn't mean literally just shrinking all ranges by a standard amount. Rather, taking steps to weaken shooting (or increase the danger of retaliation) across the gameline is a general principle that will lessen the impact of first-turn massed fire. So would removing Morale in the first round, for example.

Command Points are an excellent idea that's arguably become toxic. In theory, they offer a flexible range of flavorful army-wide abilities that reward diverse/robust force organization via the Detachment system. In practice, they're incredibly frontloaded, have come to gobble up more and more concept-space, and reward hordes that can spam the two big Detachments for CP generation.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






I think that IGOUGO is far to engrained in the way 40k works to be removed. Auras and psychic powers would become nearly useless if it went over to AA - a complete rewrite of most special abilities would be needed.

There are other ways to limit the first-turn death dealing; one is to reduce the damage output in general for shooting - it is a lot easier to make armour to defend against bullets than to defend against a monster swinging an axe the size of your body at you. The energy delivered from a bullet can be stopped with modern tech - there's not a lot of armour, even now, which can stop an axe swung with gusto. so, realistically, CC should be higher damage than shooting, which will balance it's limited range.

If you also reduce charge movement potential, along with reducing gun ranges, what you essentially are doing is increasing the size of the board, and adding manoeuvring (back) into the game. but I digress.

Another option to reduce turn 1 destruction is actually available to you already, but people seldom use it - reserves. Don't want it getting shot up turn 1? hold it back, move on in your own turn and immediately attack. If you put this as a requirement, then you will get very different games. Try a game where 50% of your army must be off the board. Player 1 gets to attack with 50% of his army, at 50% of your army. Then you attack back, but 25% of your army (half your reserves) come on - now you are more powerful than him, so you have the advantage. Then 25% of his army comes on, and he's probably as powerful as you, and so on.

let's try this mechanic:
The root problem is players take turns acting with their entire army. If each player has 2k points of units and all things being equal a 2k force is capable of removing 400 points worth of models then on turn 1 player 1 removes 400 points from player 2. Player 2 in turn is capable of removing 320 points. then player 1 removes 336. then player 2 removes 252.8. Turn 3, player 1 removes 285.44 and player 2 removes 195.712 ... and so on (exponentially widening the gap between what player 1 and player 2 is capable of) and at the end of turn 3 player 1 still has 1231.488 points remaining and player 2 has 978.56). First turn advantage is a direct result of each players turn amounting to a single large activation with the opponent having almost no chance for recourse (and whatever chance they have comes from melee (often attacking second after losses or based on a limited currency in the form of stratagems).


2k causes 400pts, so you're going for 20% damage output.

player 1 (1k) does 200pts of damage
player 2 (1k + 500 - 200 = 1300pts) does 260pts of damage
player 1 (1k + 500 - 260 = 1240pts) does 248pts of damage
player 2 (1300 + 500 - 248 = 1552pts) does 310.4pts damage
player 1 (1240 + 500 - 310 = 1430pts) does 286pts of damage
Player 2(1552pts - 286 = 1266pts) does 253.2pts of damage

End of turn 3, Player 1 has (1430 - 253) = 1177pts left on the board. Player 2 has 1266pts left on the board.

I think that, with the existing system, ranges etc, by doing this you can easily make the game still anybody's by turn 3. I think there's enough variation to say that an 89pt gap in the assumed remnants is likely to vary enough with tactics, cover etc. to make this fair.

It also serves the "realistic" crowd, which I include myself in, that 2 armies won't line up, allowing each other to pick their preferred fighting position, 100 yards apart, and then all start fighting when the whistle blows. you'll have a forward force, and then more army coming to support.

Ruleswise, I would simply state that you must deploy between 25% and 50% of your army, by points. Then, starting from player 2's first turn, they can bring in up to 25% of their army. on player 2's second turn, and player 1's 3rd, they must bring in all of their remaining forces.

4th Edition Orks in 7th, W/D/L 5/0/0 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





From what I’ve seen, first turn alpha strikes tend to rely on the front loading of command points to make use of stratagem shenanigans. So changing the CP and stratagem system is where I’d look first when trying to curb first turn alpha strikes.

Maybe have CPs generate each turn so they can’t all be used in turn one to enable an alpha strike. I’d also make the first turn a straight roll-off, not depending on deployment or number of drops or anything like that. Possibly allow the players to apply modifiers to the first turn roll off by spending CPs. It is a strategic decision to go first after all. Again this would limit the number of CPs in turn one.

Alternatively, simply don’t allow stratagems to be used in turn one, with one or two exceptions this might work quite nicely.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Aash wrote:
From what I’ve seen, first turn alpha strikes tend to rely on the front loading of command points to make use of stratagem shenanigans. So changing the CP and stratagem system is where I’d look first when trying to curb first turn alpha strikes.

Maybe have CPs generate each turn so they can’t all be used in turn one to enable an alpha strike.
RevlidRas wrote:
Tactical Points
When you build a Battle-forged army, it generates a number of Tactical Points (or TP) at start of each of your turns. These can be spent to utilise Stratagems – each of which represents a strategic or tactical asset available to your army. Any unspent Tactical Points are lost at the start of your turn – the tides of war shift constantly. Some abilities allow your army to generate additional Tactical Points during the game, or refund the Tactical Points you spent on a Stratagem. You can only gain (or regain) Tactical Points from one such rule each battle round, regardless of the source. This restriction does not apply to Stratagems that specifically supply or refund Tactical Points.

Calculate the number of Tactical Points your army generates each round as follows:
  • Your army is Battle-forged: +1 TP
  • Your Warlord is on the battlefield: +1 TP
  • Your army roster includes a Battalion: +1 TP per Battalion Detachment
  • Your army roster includes a Brigade Detachment: +2 TP per Brigade Detachment
  • Your army roster includes a Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider, Air Wing, or Supreme Command Detachment: +1 TP per three Detachments of these types


  • Then Raiding Force becomes "you can treat Patrol Detachments as Outrider Detachments for the purposes of generating Tactical Points", and Raiders from the Maelstrom becomes "you can treat Detachments that include three or more units with this trait as Outrider Detachments for the purposes of generating Tactical Points. If these units are CHAOS SPACE MARINES, the Detachment instead generates +1 TP each round". Warlord Traits/Special Character abilities that give flat extra TP (like Abaddon's The Warmaster) are reduced, or become discounts or random TP.


    This would have the following effects:
  • More even CP usage. It becomes impossible to splurge all your CP in one vital turn, because the maximum CP available to you at any given time is more limited. On the other hand, there is no CP drought where a player runs out and has to sit on their hands.
  • Lower CP modifiers. The numbers used to modify CP pools become smaller and less complex, because they apply every turn rather than once per game. On the other hand, CP pool modifiers become less granular.
  • More dynamic CP generation. Abilities and Stratagems that generate CP become less of a concern. You still want to look carefully at them, but the extra CP vanishes at the end of your turn.
  • This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/29 17:01:49


     
       
    Made in gb
    Been Around the Block





    Yeah, something along those lines or similar would go a long way to mitigating the alpha strikes and games being decided in the first turn.

    I've said something similar before too:

    Aash wrote:
    I’m definitely in favour of changing command points and stratagems.

    I like the idea of regenerating command points each turn, of tying the number of CPs to points too, as it would scale well. And linking CP regeneration to the warlord is something I hadn’t considered, I like it.

    I’d propose the following:

    The majority of stratagems would be removed as I think most of them work better as special rules for units, I’d keep a few faction specific ones and the generic ones from the rulebook though.

    If most stratagems are changed to special rules, then the game would work well with fewer CPs in total. I’d suggest 2 Cps per 500pts, or 1 CP per 250pt for better granularity.

    On top of this, generation of one CP at the start of each turn provided your Warlord is on the table. (So 2 per battle round).

    I’d like to see CPs as a limited resource where each use has to be carefully considered, but I dislike the idea of allowing any sort of farming, I think the system only works well if the CPs stay a limited resource.

    When it comes to army building, I’d charge a CP cost for any detachment that isn’t the same faction as your Warlord. So multiple factions of the same faction wouldn’t cost anything, but if you wanted to have an imperial knight to support your Custodes for instance, it would cost a CP.

    I’d also change the way first turn is determined. First turn would be determined by a roll off, but the dice roll is modified by each player, each +1 modifier would cost 1 CP. I like the fact that going first is not a strategic decision you have to weigh up against keeping back some CPs to spend when the game starts. I’d consider making the players pay for the CP modifier before rolling, or even make it a blind bid so that each player writes down how many CPs they will spend to modify the roll-off for first turn and their opponent doesn’t know. Not sure what would work best here, would need play-testing.

    Also I’d add a new generic stratagem, the opposite of the Command re-roll. Maybe call it “strategic interference” or something like that: you can force your opponent to re-roll a single dice roll. The same limitations would apply, you can’t re-roll a re-roll and I’d probably cost it higher that the command re-roll, maybe 2 CPs, maybe 3 CPs.

    I like the idea of Command Points and Startegens, I just think it isn’t working well and the whole system needs to be overhauled.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/29 17:14:21


     
       
    Made in us
    Horrific Hive Tyrant






    Command points and stratagems have inflated the issue but the issue still existed in 7th and 6th before CP existed.

    Curbing their impact goes a long way towards returning everything to just as bad as it was when we were all using indexes. Which is still a gak show.


    These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

     JohnHwangDD wrote:

    The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

    Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

     
       
    Made in fi
    Dakka Veteran






     some bloke wrote:
    I think that IGOUGO is far to engrained in the way 40k works to be removed. Auras and psychic powers would become nearly useless if it went over to AA - a complete rewrite of most special abilities would be needed.



    It's not. Auras, buffs, orders and whatevers work just fine in AA. It doesn't have to go one unit at the time, either: our house rules use a varying amount of units that take their whole turn at a time (usually 1-4, because damn Guard has units on the table). Psychic powers last until the end of the round, so if you want good buffs you better use your early activations on some witchcraft. Or you could wait to see what the opposition does.
    Auras are the same, except you have to think about placement and movement more than just plopping down everything where you want it.

    Tactics, that.

    Heavily converted tall scaled 30k / 40k loyalist Death Guard blog here, C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page
    Now with titans! Legio Favilla walks! 
       
    Made in gb
    Regular Dakkanaut




     some bloke wrote:
    I think that IGOUGO is far to engrained in the way 40k works to be removed. Auras and psychic powers would become nearly useless if it went over to AA - a complete rewrite of most special abilities would be needed.
    Not if you adopt the Kill Team method, where one player moves/charges, the other player moves/charges, and then alternating activations kicks in.

    Or do it by Detachment. Fiddle with Command Benefits and maximum Detachment numbers, and make it so that one player acts with all the models in one Detachment, then another player acts with all the models in one of their Detachments, and so on.

    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/29 21:05:34


     
       
    Made in us
    Horrific Hive Tyrant






    Or just expand the heroic intervention rule.

    If you activate a unit within 3" of a character you can activate 1 character unit that is within range as well. If you activate a unit that is within 3" of a unit that is capable of protecting that unit you may activate 1 Protector unit that is within range as well. Add PROTECTOR keyword to lychguard, drones etc etc...

    Now you can activate a unit of necron warrior, a cryptek, and the lychguard protecting said cryptek.

    Or a hive tyrant and it's tyrant guard.

    Or Tau firewarriors, the cadre fireblade, and the accelerator drone that were buffing them.

    It's easy enough.


    These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

     JohnHwangDD wrote:

    The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

    Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

     
       
    Made in gb
    Dakka Veteran






     Sherrypie wrote:
     some bloke wrote:
    I think that IGOUGO is far to engrained in the way 40k works to be removed. Auras and psychic powers would become nearly useless if it went over to AA - a complete rewrite of most special abilities would be needed.



    It's not. Auras, buffs, orders and whatevers work just fine in AA. It doesn't have to go one unit at the time, either: our house rules use a varying amount of units that take their whole turn at a time (usually 1-4, because damn Guard has units on the table). Psychic powers last until the end of the round, so if you want good buffs you better use your early activations on some witchcraft. Or you could wait to see what the opposition does.
    Auras are the same, except you have to think about placement and movement more than just plopping down everything where you want it.

    Tactics, that.


    I can see it working if you can move multiple units - I was thinking of one unit at a time, where you can either move a unit out of buff range, or move a character to the front - neither of which are a good idea!

    rewrites and AA and command point caps etc aside, I did mathematically prove above that, by not allowing either side their full force for turn 1, you can actually balance out the first-turn advantage quite well, within the scope of the game - it would only take a small addition to the matched play rules to change it to only allow you 1/2 of your army on deployment, and start bringing quarters of your army on from player 2 turn 1.

    Whilst putting in AA and capping CP to eliminate soup (which GW views as "making people buy less models, books etc.) is all good wishlisting, it's not going to happen in reality. GW just won't do it. Making reinforcements compulsory, perhaps even for a set of 6 missions you can choose to use for more balanced play, leaving the existing ones be, is actually a possibility. it would also make different units more viable, so would make people buy more models, which is the only incentive GW will listen to.

    4th Edition Orks in 7th, W/D/L 5/0/0 
       
    Made in us
    Horrific Hive Tyrant






    Lets be honest. Nothing in the proposed rule section is anything GW is ever going to do.

    You don't come here looking for solutions to become official rules. You come here to suggest and refine house rules to enhance your own playtime. Thats it.


    These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

     JohnHwangDD wrote:

    The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

    Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

     
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
    Go to: