Switch Theme:

First Turn Lethality, let's try to find a simple band-aid  [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
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Yes another one of those threads! Obviously it is a thing and the dynamic of why and how is a much larger picture, but let's set that aside a moment. Can we come up with a simple rule, as in a few sentences or less, to make it so the first round isn't so deadly? Something intuitive, that people can casually house-rule in without needing to explain or think about it too much.

I am considering the angle of a blanket offense debuff, but I am sure many of you fine folks could offer your own suggestions. Would something as simple as an extra -1 to hit (bypassing the normal limit to stack up to -2) for the player that goes first do the trick? Or perhaps half the ranges of all weapons for the entire first round?

Or a different angle; make all terrain block line of sight through it, regardless of size, round 1.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yes another one of those threads! Obviously it is a thing and the dynamic of why and how is a much larger picture, but let's set that aside a moment. Can we come up with a simple rule, as in a few sentences or less, to make it so the first round isn't so deadly? Something intuitive, that people can casually house-rule in without needing to explain or think about it too much.

I am considering the angle of a blanket offense debuff, but I am sure many of you fine folks could offer your own suggestions. Would something as simple as an extra -1 to hit (bypassing the normal limit to stack up to -2) for the player that goes first do the trick? Or perhaps half the ranges of all weapons for the entire first round?

Or a different angle; make all terrain block line of sight through it, regardless of size, round 1.

At least 25% of your PL must start the game as reinforcements and cannot arrive before the 2nd battle round.

I think nerfing long-ranged shooting is a bad idea unless you're simultaneously buffing it in the later turns, even with -1 to hit a melta unit can still put out solid damage turn 1, a missile launcher squad cannot.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







I don't think there's a simple band-aid patch to the game being too lethal when the lethality exists because every statline in the game is wrong. Any simple fix is absolutely going to miss things, hit some forces harder than others, and be generally buggy, but if you really wanted to you might reduce the AP of everything by one and give everyone -1 to hit outside half range like in Kill Team or WHFB, see what happens.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Not trying to tackle the big picture, JUST the first round. Nor does it need to be a full fix, just something simple to alleviate the problem without taking much effort to accommodate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yes another one of those threads! Obviously it is a thing and the dynamic of why and how is a much larger picture, but let's set that aside a moment. Can we come up with a simple rule, as in a few sentences or less, to make it so the first round isn't so deadly? Something intuitive, that people can casually house-rule in without needing to explain or think about it too much.

I am considering the angle of a blanket offense debuff, but I am sure many of you fine folks could offer your own suggestions. Would something as simple as an extra -1 to hit (bypassing the normal limit to stack up to -2) for the player that goes first do the trick? Or perhaps half the ranges of all weapons for the entire first round?

Or a different angle; make all terrain block line of sight through it, regardless of size, round 1.

At least 25% of your PL must start the game as reinforcements and cannot arrive before the 2nd battle round.

I think nerfing long-ranged shooting is a bad idea unless you're simultaneously buffing it in the later turns, even with -1 to hit a melta unit can still put out solid damage turn 1, a missile launcher squad cannot.
Hm, an interesting idea. How would that interact with normal reserves though?

TBH I am not sold on the idea of hit penalties because, like you said. But it IS a very simple thing to implement. What do you think about halving max ranges or all terrain blocking LoS?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/13 18:58:41


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







If you want to mitigate the first-turn advantage without doing anything about the game's overall lethality adding rules is going to make the game more complicated without actually fixing anything. I'd suggest trying to work on your terrain setup instead of adding rules.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






And if you are just here to crap on the idea without adding any useful input I would suggest you find another thread.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
At least 25% of your PL must start the game as reinforcements and cannot arrive before the 2nd battle round.
How would that interact with normal reserves though?

It would be normal reserves, in the same way you cannot have more than 50% of your PL as reinforcements you would be unable to put less than 25% of your PL as reinforcements. So instead of it being 0-50% it becomes 25-50%.

This ensures that no player can have more than 1500 points worth of models to attack and destroy enemy units with turn 1, however many models the last 500 points would usually destroy get to live a little longer.

You don't want someone to skirt the restriction by bringing out the remaining 500 points by using Drop Pod Devastators turn 1 so if I have 3 Drop Pods with Grav Devastators for 300*3 points I would only be able to deep strike 1 of the Drop Pods turn 1, that way I still have 600 points in reinforcements by the start of the second battle round.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/13 20:10:58


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And if you are just here to crap on the idea without adding any useful input I would suggest you find another thread.


Try the long range to-hit penalty. I know it's not an explicit "on the first turn (stuff)" and will have a disproportionate effect on sub-12"-range weapons, but I still think it's probably a simpler and better solution to your problem than trying to write out something big and complicated that'll negate first-turn advantage without just turning it into second-turn advantage.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon






OKC, Oklahoma

If you take the view that the battle starts as the opposing forces are just entering the zone of action, then maybe a set of die rolls would work.
The idea is that as the forces enter the area, they do not "know" the enemy is there.
Each player would roll for each unit, make it an unmodifiable 4+ to "Spot the enemy". On a 4+ they can see and shoot (if in range). A lower roll means they failed to "Spot the enemy", and cannot shoot but can advance or other action. These rolls could be used for the first turn only.
This would work even in positive LOS situations.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/13 21:18:51


Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!

Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."

:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)

"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't think you'll have much luck finding a simple rule that decreases first turn lethality without and also improves the game overall. Like, if your only goal is to decrease lethality on turn 1, you could straight up say that models can't lose any wounds during the first battle round (for the sake of discussing an extreme). Then you'd end up with melee armies that basically get to charge the enemy without having been touched, daemon primarchs that are killing big chunks of your army before you can bring your guns to bear, etc. If you want to reduce turn 1 lethality, I don't think a "simple" change is going to be the "right" change.

That said, here are some pitches for your consideration:

1.) Staggered army arrivals. Similar to vict's idea. Here's a recent thread discussing the idea: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/798747.page

2.) Just lower the lethality of stuff in the game in general. Seriously. Marines probably don't need AP-2 bolters for half the game. We can lower the shots on some weapons, lower the AP and damage on others. Maybe bring back some version of the various limitations that used to be placed on rapid fire and heavy weapons back in the day. Lots of ways to lower overall lethality without specifically targeting the first turn.

3.) Some sort of Alternating Activations system. Doesn't actually decrease lethality, but it does let players go back and forth a bit more. I have a vague notion of a system where you assign X% of your points to "banners" and then take turns activating "banners" (similar to Apoc), but that's a discussion for another thread.

But none of those ideas are particularly simple, and a good solution is probably not a simple solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And now some critiques (read: me being a buzzkill and trying to shootdown the suggestions of others):

NinthMusketeer wrote: Would something as simple as an extra -1 to hit (bypassing the normal limit to stack up to -2) for the player that goes first do the trick? Or perhaps half the ranges of all weapons for the entire first round?

A to-hit penalty seems like it would just strongly favor turn 2 melee armies that are now going relatively unmolested on their way into prime charging position; especially if the melee army goes first. Plus, you'd have some armies/units that would be able to offset this more effectively than others. Tyranids and orks wouldn't be able to do much about it, for instance, but dark reapers would be unaffected, and admech could give themselves some to-hit bonuses so that they're relatively lethal compared to the other army. So this change seems like it would favor melee armies and armies with good to-hit buffs.

Halving range is awkward. My sniper rifles are suddenly only able to shoot about as far as a mid-ranged normal rifle. My lascannons and missile launchers are probably finding their targets as well as ever. My super speedy guns were already getting in close anyway and don't care as much. My pistols almost aren't allowed to shoot the melee unit that just landed in front of them in the first movement phase. My fire dragons become even worse than before, and my harlequins didn't have enough long-range dakka to care in the first place. Seems like it would impact armies really unevenly.


Or a different angle; make all terrain block line of sight through it, regardless of size, round 1.

On the tables I'm used to, this would be comparable to just straight up banning shooting on turn 1. If that's not the case for your tables, you might try playing a bit more terrain before looking to rule changes.

AnomanderRake wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And if you are just here to crap on the idea without adding any useful input I would suggest you find another thread.


Try the long range to-hit penalty. I know it's not an explicit "on the first turn (stuff)" and will have a disproportionate effect on sub-12"-range weapons, but I still think it's probably a simpler and better solution to your problem than trying to write out something big and complicated that'll negate first-turn advantage without just turning it into second-turn advantage.

Rather than imposing a penalty one targets outside of half range, why not make it a penalty against targets outside of 15" or 18"? That way, you're functionally limiting long-ranged big guns and bolter discipline shots, but you're not penalizing units that already have to get super close to be effective. Debuff my bright lances rather than my fire dragons, basically. If this is meant to model the fog of war, I think it makes more sense to use a flat distance (like 18") rather than basing it on the scope of a gun a model happens to be carrying. I wouldn't think looking down a sniper rifle scope in the heat of battle would add to battlefield awareness.

While I still don't love this idea, it could be interesting to give some weapons a rule that lets them ignore the long-range penalty or even invert it. So a sniper rifle or artillery gun might take a -1 to hit up close but ignore the -1 to hit at a distance.

helgrenze wrote:If you take the view that the battle starts as the opposing forces are just entering the zone of action, then maybe a set of die rolls would work.
The idea is that as the forces enter the area, they do not "know" the enemy is there.
Each player would roll for each unit, make it an unmodifiable 4+ to "Spot the enemy". On a 4+ they can see and shoot (if in range). A lower roll means they failed to "Spot the enemy", and cannot shoot but can advance or other action. These rolls could be used for the first turn only.
This would work even in positive LOS situations.

While this would lower overall lethality, it wouldn't necessarily do so evenly. You'd have games where 75% of player A's units got to shoot, but only 10% of player B's units got to shoot simply because of lopsided rolls. I don't think this is a place where 40k would benefit from all-or-nothing dice rolls.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/13 22:14:19


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




One solution is to give "dug in units" (say, by going second, all units are dug in that are on the table) a neg 1 damage rule to a minimum of 1. That way it prevents ultra long range death on first turn. Do away with the cover save BS, which never has any effect on my saves.
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon






OKC, Oklahoma

Wyldhunt wrote:

helgrenze wrote:If you take the view that the battle starts as the opposing forces are just entering the zone of action, then maybe a set of die rolls would work.
The idea is that as the forces enter the area, they do not "know" the enemy is there.
Each player would roll for each unit, make it an unmodifiable 4+ to "Spot the enemy". On a 4+ they can see and shoot (if in range). A lower roll means they failed to "Spot the enemy", and cannot shoot but can advance or other action. These rolls could be used for the first turn only.
This would work even in positive LOS situations.

While this would lower overall lethality, it wouldn't necessarily do so evenly. You'd have games where 75% of player A's units got to shoot, but only 10% of player B's units got to shoot simply because of lopsided rolls. I don't think this is a place where 40k would benefit from all-or-nothing dice rolls.


I picked 4+ as that is basically a 50/50 roll. Yes, it could cause a balance issue but that is what random rolls do. Many games have been decided on good or bad die rolls.
The OP asked for "simple", this is simple., It cuts the lethality of shooting everything first round. Most games have between 10-20 units per side. Some units might "Spot the enemy" but may not be in a position (due to how the unit is kitted: short range weapons, melee.) to do anything. More effective weapons may not "Spot the enemy".

This idea is somewhat based on a scene from the film "The Longest Day". In the scene a unit of allied soldiers are on one side of a wall. There is a unit of German soldiers on the other side. They walk right past each other. Only after they are past does one of the Allied guys turn around and realize who they just walked past. There is a simple term for this...
"Fog of War".
This "rule" would simulate something like this.

Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!

Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."

:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)

"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Wyldhunt wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And if you are just here to crap on the idea without adding any useful input I would suggest you find another thread.


Try the long range to-hit penalty. I know it's not an explicit "on the first turn (stuff)" and will have a disproportionate effect on sub-12"-range weapons, but I still think it's probably a simpler and better solution to your problem than trying to write out something big and complicated that'll negate first-turn advantage without just turning it into second-turn advantage.

Rather than imposing a penalty one targets outside of half range, why not make it a penalty against targets outside of 15" or 18"? That way, you're functionally limiting long-ranged big guns and bolter discipline shots, but you're not penalizing units that already have to get super close to be effective. Debuff my bright lances rather than my fire dragons, basically. If this is meant to model the fog of war, I think it makes more sense to use a flat distance (like 18") rather than basing it on the scope of a gun a model happens to be carrying. I wouldn't think looking down a sniper rifle scope in the heat of battle would add to battlefield awareness.

While I still don't love this idea, it could be interesting to give some weapons a rule that lets them ignore the long-range penalty or even invert it. So a sniper rifle or artillery gun might take a -1 to hit up close but ignore the -1 to hit at a distance...


A flat range would work too; I'd instinctually want to try and keep the flat range quite short, 12" rather than 18", since that forces you to pay more attention to positioning and gives you less flexibility to keep cover while still shooting. Force players to make maneuvering trade-offs instead of just finding the optimal position and sitting there.

As to tying how the range penalties work to the weapon that's how Necromunda and 2e handled it, and it works great if you don't have a huge pool of weapons (like in, say, Necromunda), but once you try to scale it up you're just adding 2-4 extra columns to some already vast tables (depending on whether you want to do half/full or actually set specific short/long ranges). I started my initial attempt to port 40k models to the Necromunda rules using that system, but trying to do that to a table of 300+ guns gave me such a headache I gave up and did the accuracy modifiers as a weapon type keyword (either +1 to hit inside half range, -1 to hit outside half range, or no modifier) instead. (For reference the 9e SM book has ~200 guns by itself, though some of those are functional reprints.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/13 23:41:13


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:One solution is to give "dug in units" (say, by going second, all units are dug in that are on the table) a neg 1 damage rule to a minimum of 1. That way it prevents ultra long range death on first turn. Do away with the cover save BS, which never has any effect on my saves.

Are we talking -1 damage to a minimum of 1 or 0? Either way, I feel like this could have some problems. At -1 min1, you're not really offering any protection to armies with lots of 1 wound models, but you're offering tons of protection to marines, custodes, and lists with lots of monsters or vehicles. At -1 min0, you're talking about most anti-infantry weapons not being able to kill an infantry model on turn 1.

helgrenze wrote:
I picked 4+ as that is basically a 50/50 roll. Yes, it could cause a balance issue but that is what random rolls do. Many games have been decided on good or bad die rolls.
The OP asked for "simple", this is simple., It cuts the lethality of shooting everything first round. Most games have between 10-20 units per side. Some units might "Spot the enemy" but may not be in a position (due to how the unit is kitted: short range weapons, melee.) to do anything. More effective weapons may not "Spot the enemy".

This idea is somewhat based on a scene from the film "The Longest Day". In the scene a unit of allied soldiers are on one side of a wall. There is a unit of German soldiers on the other side. They walk right past each other. Only after they are past does one of the Allied guys turn around and realize who they just walked past. There is a simple term for this...
"Fog of War".
This "rule" would simulate something like this.

I get what you're going for, and I agree that this meets the criteria of being simple and lowering the lethality of turn 1. I'm just not sure it's a good change overall as it risks screwing one player over relative to the other via a relatively small number of dice rolls that are largely outside their control. If my dark reapers fail to notice the enemy but my opponent's obliterators or devastators or whatever don't, that could potentially screw me for the rest of the game. And there's not much I could do to mitigate that except lean even harder into MSU and plan around not exposing anything or shooting at all on turn 1.

Again, a simple rule to reduce turn 1 lethality would be to simply prevent all units from taking damage during the first battle round. It meets the criteria, but I wouldn't actually want to use that rule. :S

AnomanderRake wrote:
A flat range would work too; I'd instinctually want to try and keep the flat range quite short, 12" rather than 18", since that forces you to pay more attention to positioning and gives you less flexibility to keep cover while still shooting. Force players to make maneuvering trade-offs instead of just finding the optimal position and sitting there.

My thinking was that 18" is the cutoff for a lot of strength 3-5 assault weapons and is close enough that you have to risk getting charged on the following turn whereas 12" pretty much guarantees you'll get charged on the following turn. 18" is danger close but not suicide-close. So the long-range penalty would mostly act as impediment for the types of long-ranged weapons that tend to contribute the most to alpha strikes. Plus, you'd get a little more value out of some of those assault versions of guns that most armies ignore (pulse carbines, the Assault 3 intercessor gun, I think tesla might be 18" range, etc.) But yeah, the exact distance could absolutely be tested and adjusted.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




How did you misconstrue what I literally posted. To a minimum of 1. This would help a lot of armies that see their elite units and commanders get deleted off the board first turn. By units that can DS to 9", fire off stupidly powerful weapons, and then earn twice or three times their points, first turn. 40k has always had a major problem with 1st round knock outs, and 9th leaned hard into that.

Give every unit in the 2nd turn army -1 to all damage, and reduce DS to no movement or shooting first turn. That prevents Alpha Strikes, and honestly if you leave your characters and stuff out on your 2nd round, oh well. But either we get rid of IGOUGO, or we severely nerf 1st turn capability. +1 to an armor save is BS given how simple it is to get AP 2+ weapons now a days.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




The simplest idea would be to just bring back the old Prepared Positions stratagem. 2 CP and all units in your deployment zone count as being in Light Cover.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How did you misconstrue what I literally posted. To a minimum of 1.

*blink*
Apparently I need to get my eyes checked.


This would help a lot of armies that see their elite units and commanders get deleted off the board first turn.

But it wouldn't really help armies whose elite units don't consist of 1 Wound models, right? So I feel like this would end up being a big buff for things like marine armies while not helping out other armies. So it would buff marines and non-swarmy tyranids but not do a ton for lootas and most aspect warriors. That's not necessarily a deal breaker, but it does seem like a red flag.


By units that can DS to 9", fire off stupidly powerful weapons, and then earn twice or three times their points, first turn. 40k has always had a major problem with 1st round knock outs, and 9th leaned hard into that.

Give every unit in the 2nd turn army -1 to all damage, and reduce DS to no movement or shooting first turn. That prevents Alpha Strikes, and honestly if you leave your characters and stuff out on your 2nd round, oh well. But either we get rid of IGOUGO, or we severely nerf 1st turn capability. +1 to an armor save is BS given how simple it is to get AP 2+ weapons now a days.

I'm probably having a brain fart. Other than drop pod marines, grey knights, and warp spiders, what units can deepstrike turn 1? Da Jump'ing orks I guess, but I doubt that's what you're referring to. Sincere question: are turn 1 deepstrikers with 12" guns a big part of the current meta/a problem in need of solving? I was under the impression that you couldn't move after deepstriking (even via powers like warp time).

I agree that alpha strike is a problem and that +1 to saves isn't a great answer to it, but -1 D doesn't seem like the best fix either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jarms48 wrote:
The simplest idea would be to just bring back the old Prepared Positions stratagem. 2 CP and all units in your deployment zone count as being in Light Cover.


I agree with Fezzik on this one. Counting as being in light cover doesn't feel all that helpful in today's environment between the things that have good enough AP to mitigate it, things that ignore light cover completely, and the fact that being in light cover never really did much for some armeis (harlequins, daemons, to a lesser extent orkz) to begin with.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 01:43:09


 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

Remove all casualties at the end of the game turn. There.

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Nurglitch wrote:
Remove all casualties at the end of the game turn. There.
Feth melee armies, right?

Who cares if they get blown off the table turn one, before they can charge!

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Remove all casualties at the end of the game turn. There.
Feth melee armies, right?

Who cares if they get blown off the table turn one, before they can charge!

It's also not great for armies that can't take as much of a punch and normally rely on working angles and focusing down enemies before they can retaliate to trade well.
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon






OKC, Oklahoma

Wyldhunt I see your point, but turn it around. Is it any more fair if, on turn one, your dark reapers wipe his "obliterators or devastators or whatever"? Now your opponent has to make the same in game adjustments you would have.
My suggestion would effectively change how armies are built, more for versatility than relying on a one trick pony that becomes useless if the one special unit is removed.

Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!

Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."

:Nilla Marines: 2500
:Marine "Scouts": 2500 (Systemically Quarantined, Unsupported, Abhuman, Truncated Soldiers)

"On one side of me stand my Homeworld, Stronghold and Brotherhood; On the other, my ancestors. I cannot behave otherwise than honorably."
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 helgrenze wrote:
Wyldhunt I see your point, but turn it around. Is it any more fair if, on turn one, your dark reapers wipe his "obliterators or devastators or whatever"? Now your opponent has to make the same in game adjustments you would have.
My suggestion would effectively change how armies are built, more for versatility than relying on a one trick pony that becomes useless if the one special unit is removed.


Oh, I'm not denying that the initial problem (alpha striking) exists or saying that we shouldn't look for solutions to it. But if one player is making, "the same in game adjustments," before and after the proposed change, then we're basically ending up where we started but with more steps. (The more steps being the extra dice rolling to see if your shooting units randomly don't shoot on turn 1.)

Spoiler: Mostly the tired ramblings of a nerd who should be sleeping. Feel free to disregard.
Spoiler:

I'm also not sure that the changes to list building you're talking about are an innately desirable goal. You're basically describing encouraging people to lean into MSU (multiple small units). That actually seems to already be the norm. Unless you're trying to maximize the efficiency of a buff (Guide on dark reapers for instance), you're generally better off taking multiple, smaller squads of a given unit instead of a single large unit for the added flexibility, possibly causing your opponent to overkill a single unit instead of having his attacks spill over onto the next model in the unit, avoiding making blasts stronger against you, etc.

Maybe I'm just not seeing what you're going for here. Currently, I occassionally field a 10 man squad of dire avengers in case I want to cast Guide or some sort of warlock buff on them. If each avenger squad has a 50% chance of randomly not being able to shoot on turn 1, I'll either field that 10 man squad as two squads of 5 instead, or I'll just change my playstyle so that I"m not exposing expensive, squishy eldar to return fire if there's a significant chance they won't get to hurt the thing I disembarked them to hurt. The former seems like a neutral thing or maybe even a bad thing if you like the idea of feeling comfortable fielding larger units in 40k. The latter seems kind of... gamey, artificial, and also you'd probably end up favoring factions/armies/units that have the durability to afford simply not doing any damage after giving up the protection of their terrain and transports.


I hope that made sense and didn't come across as rude. It's late here. Basically, randomly not being allowed to have your unit do its job seems annoying and not particularly interesting. It's one of the reasons we see those threads about abolishing random charges or making short charges guaranteed: because randomly not being allowed to stab things with your stabby unit (especially if it just left its transport/terrain to try to stab something) is a pretty feels-bad mechanic. Heck, I remember someone in one of those threads using, "How would you like it if there was a chance your shooting unit couldn't fire its guns," as a hyperbolic counterexample for why random charge distances are bad, and that's more or less what you're pitching here. ^_^; Randomly failable charges, but for guns.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 06:55:41


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't think additional hit penalties would work well because 9th's system caps the total penalty at -1 it would have some weird consequences, like making Dense Cover useless in the first round or make infantry with heavy weapons more mobile in turn 1 since they take the -1 penalty regardless of whether they move or not. I'm also not a fan of random dice rolls to decide who can shoot because it can lead to swingy gameplay just because one player managed to get the "correct" half of their army firing.

There are a couple of options it might be worth trying, some of which have been mentioned already.

1. Staggered army arrival. Either force players to put a certain percentage in reserve or have scenarios that remove some of the control a player has on placing forces. WHFB used to have a scenario that divided the deployment zone into a central zone and two smaller flank zones and then had you roll for each unit to see where it was set up. Similarly, it had a scenario were you had an Order of March and you had to deploy units in their assigned order, with each new unit needing to be closer to the flank edge than any already on the board. Both of these did an OK job of making deployment less prescriptive and disrupting standard set-ups, which forced players to think on their feet more.

2. Some kind of Fog of War mechanic that limits all ranges. I'd maybe go for 24" so that units deployed right on the deployment line can move forward slightly and engage while units deployed further back are more or less safe.

3. Linked to that, maybe a rule that also prevents any unit moving beyond the halfway point of the battlefield in turn 1 would help with some of the ridiculous movement ranges some units have now.

4. Completely radical idea: prevent any shooting at all in Battle Round 1. While on the surface this looks like it would just defer the alpha strike to turn 2 it allows both sides to take better advantage of cover and try to take objectives in the first turn, which may then change target priority in the first round of shooting. One of the reasons the alpha strike is so valuable in 40k is because on turn 1 you usually don't need to worry about shooting non-optimal targets to prevent your opponent scoring objectives so you can concentrate fire on the most valuable units. This proposal also allows both players to apply any defensive buffs to their armies from targeted abilities or psychic powers rather than further exacerbating the first-turn advantage by giving the first player that opportunity but not the second.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I think that the easiest way to mitigate this is in the deployment rather than by adding rules to make shooting worse on turn 1. Here's my suggestion:

Both players start with 25% of their army on the board.
Roll to see who goes first.
Player 1 divides the rest of their army into two waves. The first wave cannot contain more than 50% of the power level/points of the remaining army. The second wave contains everything that's left.
Player 2 divides the rest of their army into three waves. The first two waves cannot contain more than 1/3 of the power level/points of the remaining army. The third wave contains everything that's left.

Player 1 has their turn with their 25%.
Player 2 gets wave 1 reinforcements and has turn 1 with what's left of their 25% + 25%
Player 1 gets wave 1 reinforcements and has turn 2 with what's left of their 25% +37.5%
Player 2 gets wave 2 reinforcements and has turn 2 with what's left of their 50% + 25%
Player 1 gets wave 2 reinforcements and has turn 3 with what's left of their 62.5% + 37.5%
Player 2 gets wave 3 reinforcements and has turn 3 with what's left of their 75% + 25%
Player 1 has turn 4
Player 2 has turn 4
Player 1 has turn 5
Player 2 has turn 5


So after turn 3, both players have deployed their whole army.

Player 1 has the advantage of shooting first with their 25%.
Player 2 has the advantage of bringing their last reinforcements on after player 1, so can position accordingly
Both players get 3 whole turns with their whole army (barring losses)


Assuming a lethality of 50% (random stab in the dark), so 1000pts of models can remove 500pts of models, then the approximate points on the board for a 2k game would be:

P1 Turn 1: 500pts
P2 Turn 1: 750pts (250 left + 500 reinforcements)
P1 Turn 2: 875pts (125 left + 750 reinforcements)
P2 Turn 2: 813pts (313 left + 500 reinforcements)
P1 Turn 3: 1219pts (469 left + 750 reinforcements)
P2 Turn 3: 1110pts (610 left + 500 reinforcements)
P1 Turn 4: 664pts
P2 Turn 4: 778pts
P1 Turn 5: 275pts
P2 Turn 5: 641pts

As opposed to the current all-down system with 50% lethality:

P1 T1: 2000pts
P2 T1: 1000pts (2000 - 1000)
P1 T2: 1500pts (2000 - 500)
P2 T2: 250pts (1000 - 750)
P1 T3: 1375pts (1500 - 125)
P2 T3: 0pts (250 - 688)


It also allows people to react to changes on the table with regards to deployment, forces people to think about what's in each wave, as moving on is moving, and eradicates static gunline lists from the board entirely.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Avoid power creep, easy fix. Turn 1 high lethality not an issue anymore.


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Blackie wrote:
Avoid power creep, easy fix. Turn 1 high lethality not an issue anymore.


Power creep is where the newest release is more powerful than the previous. How does removing this fix anything? if you lock it down at 25% lethality, you still get 2000pts blasting away for player 1 and 1500pts left for player 2. It'll still keep turn 1 as being overly lethal for player 1.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

If you play real WYSIWYG TAC lists without the cheesiest combos that codexes could offer lethality isn't really high. It's lower or in line with most of the editions really.

I play with and vs optimized lists but typically nothing tournament level and I haven't found turn 1 lethality to be an issue really.

Unfortunatly rules bloat and the thousand datasheets and interactions between them will alwyas offer unintented over the top combos, that's the nature of the beast. I don't think that adding a rule for turn 1, to mitigate the fact that a player gets to play with the entire army and other doesn't, solves anything.

Maybe the correct fix could be something related to the missions, where the player that goes 2nd has higher chances to score at the end of the turn.


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Weird Shower thought:

1. Re-format the entire game around D10s. Adds a much less punishing return if the RNG is dialed up.

2. Make overwatch style "Reaction" attacks that can be "triggered" when entering 24" on the first turn, at full BS. You can't move in the preceeding turn, and you "prepare ambush" or something. Any unit that enters 24" gets a full BS salvo from that unit. It really enforces the "Don't just charage across the board turn 1" style of play.
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

Wyldhunt wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Remove all casualties at the end of the game turn. There.
Feth melee armies, right?

Who cares if they get blown off the table turn one, before they can charge!

It's also not great for armies that can't take as much of a punch and normally rely on working angles and focusing down enemies before they can retaliate to trade well.

Nah, it works in Apocalypse.

   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Anvil Industry did a game called "Afterlife", I never got a chance to play it but it seemed pretty cool.

One of the mechanics in that game was the concept of a "Firefight", I think I've seen this sort of thing occur in some ww2 historicals as well.

Essentially, when a unit was shot at, they had the option to return fire at the same time. They could only do it once per turn though, and I believe it had some other penalties.

Incidently, Afterlife didn't have a melee system, melee weapons were effectively just guns with really short range.

Implementing this would be a way to reduce the effect of first turn shooting. But now we're getting into Alternating Activation territory, which is where this mechanic really shined.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: