Switch Theme:

Bringing Back Simplified Initiative - I Probably Stole This Idea  [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
Fixture of Dakka





Pretty sure I'm just parroting something someone has suggested in the past, but I don't recall this exact variation being pitched.

So. Initiative. Back in the day, it was the stat that decided what order units activated in the fight phase, and units with the same initiative resolved their attacks simultaneously. It had its cons and was understandably ditched, but it also had its upsides. Some of which I miss.
Cons:
* Slow armies like orks and necrons basically always swung last when playing against fast armies like eldar.
* These days, most units don't receive a bonus for charging other than getting to swing first. Ditching "chargers swing first" risks removing one of the main incentives for charging.

Pros:
* It was a way to represent the speed of fast units without just giving them an extra inch of Movement.
* Units swinging simultaneously could result in units tearing into each other even as they died. I kind of find this preferable to that thing that currently happens where one elite melee unit tears apart another while receiving no casualties of their own because they got the charge off.

Here's my pitch:
* Pretty much all units have initiative 0. Or Initiative 1 or 5 or whatever. The specific number doesn't matter. The important thing is that most units start at the same number.
* Some things modify your initiative. Charging gives you +1. Setting to Defend gives you +1. Being a Slaaneshi daemon gives you +1. Psychic powers that reduce your movement might give you -1 Initiative. You get the idea.
* In the Fight phase, rather than alternating starting with chargers the way we do now, you'd instead fight with all units at each initiative step, remove casualties at the end of that step, and then repeat for the next lowest initiative step until everyone swings.

Example 1: My kroot charge your marines. My kroot get +1 to initiative, so I'll swing with all of my kroot before you swing with your marines.
Example 2: My kroot charge your marines who set to defend. My kroot get +1 to initiative, and so do your marines. Our units will swing at the same time and rip into each other; your marines won't politely stand there getting stabbed waiting their turn.
Example 3: My kroot charge your daemonettes who set to defend. My kroot get +1 to initiative, but your daemonettes get +2 (1 from setting to defend and 1 from being Slaaneshi). Your daemonettes' superhuman speed and grace allows them to swing first, functionally acting as a form of aggressive defense.

Possible Add-Ons:
* You might not get +1 init for charging if you go through difficult terrain.
* You could possibly make the overwatch stratagem 0CP if it came with an initiative penalty. Maybe not.
* Make unwieldy weapons like power fists an initiative penalty instead of a to-hit penalty? Seems appropriate; reintroduces mixed initiative values within a unit which might get complicated.

The key thing here is that you'd need to avoid making it too easy to get access to stacking initiative modifiers. The goal here is for everyone to end up with initiative scores within 1 point of each other so that decisions like charging, setting to defend, taking an initiative buff/debuff option, etc. all contribute towards who gets to swing when. Charging should let the charger swing first against slow enemies and strike simultaneously with fast enemies. Setting to Defend should let you swing simultaneously against similarly fast enemies or swing before similarly fast enemies if they charged through difficult terrain.

What we DON'T want is eldar and marines always swinging before necrons and orks.

Thoughts? Too complicated? Not enough payoff to be worth the bookkeeping?


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




This honestly seems like an excellent idea to solving the convoluted fight first/fight last rules of the game. It seems simple and would not only simplify readings of those rules but also add depth to the game. Though I honestly prefer the too hit penalty to Power Fist weapons. The weapon adds a bunch of weight to the end of your arm, it'll still go where you want it to go, it'll just be slower and harder to maneuver, but at the same time, an Ork Nob or a Terminator won't be so slowed by using one that they'll be fighting at a lower initiative step, more like the enemy has a few more fractions of a second to avoid the incoming blow which is what I picture regarding the too hit penalties. The weapon is heavy and thus is difficult to use in a fast melee.

Essentially you could parry with a power sword, as it is a well balanced weapon and can turn a slash or thrust into a parry as needed, a Power Fist because its so unwieldy that once it commits you have to carry out the swing. Though the initiative penalty does make a certain amount of sense. I just personally picture those weapons as very commitment heavy weapons that almost force their wielder to follow through the attack before they can adjust to the enemy's movement.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






It's superficially similar to one of my suggestions, itself similar to other posts made recently before I posted the thread. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/798117.page

I don't think two melee units meeting up and decimating each other is a good thing, being able to have your melee unit survive mostly unscated after killing a unit seems like a good thing, having a unit destroy several units one after another seems like a cool thing to have happen.

You also have the problem of having to remember casualties if for example Carnifex + Hormagaunts charge Vanguard Veterans on Nid turn and then in following turn they all fight simultaneously. Piling in and consolidation also changes a lot with simultaneous damage resolution.
   
Made in us
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Italy

I like the idea quite a bit, I always enjoyed Initiative pre-8th and I find the current fight resolution system needlessly convoluted, especially when it comes to "Fight First" but not really abilities.

My quick and dirty Initiative house rule for 8th was keep the old Init Stats but it only applies to subsequent combats, whoever charges still goes first.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Bringing back the old Init stats is the one of the worst possible things we can bring back to the game. Basically there is one-and-only-one reason to bring it back, and that is because you play(ed) a high-init army and you don't want other players to go before you as it's basically bringing back auto-win.

Simply put, try it. Play a game where your opponent plays a melee army (like Drukhari), and has an ability that turns off your charging, and then always goes first in HtH. You'll get massacred in every fight phase. When you bring back Init, Init becomes the only thing that matters, especially with how lethal 9th is.

The way GW has done melee in 9th is almost exactly what you're describing without your complexity, as GW's is worded badly, but is even more simple:

- Everybody is initiative 0
- Charging/FightFirst/etc. is +1 to a max of 1
- Fight last is -1 to a max of -1.
- Units on the same initiative fight alternating between the players.

And with "going at the same time", we have a huge problem about how we you resolve pile-in and consolidation? Alternating? That's what we have today that you're trying to get rid of. Init? See Above. We're just adding complexity to a fairly simple system. Honestly, while not perfect, I think it's the best system so far.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





panzerfront14 wrote:This honestly seems like an excellent idea to solving the convoluted fight first/fight last rules of the game. It seems simple and would not only simplify readings of those rules but also add depth to the game. Though I honestly prefer the too hit penalty to Power Fist weapons.

Thanks! And that's fair. I think I agree that a to-hit penalty is a better fit for something like a power fist. Your points are well-reasoned.

vict0988 wrote:
I don't think two melee units meeting up and decimating each other is a good thing, being able to have your melee unit survive mostly unscated after killing a unit seems like a good thing, having a unit destroy several units one after another seems like a cool thing to have happen.

See, and I feel like having your melee unit go unscathed after charging one of the deadliest enemy melee units in the galaxy is doing the charged unit a real injustice. It's weird that a sufficiently large squad of genestealers can charge a squad of vanguard vets and walk away without a single tyranid casualty, right?

Then again, maybe that's more a matter of "eliteness" or "stabbery" rather than something that should be addressed by initiative.


You also have the problem of having to remember casualties if for example Carnifex + Hormagaunts charge Vanguard Veterans on Nid turn and then in following turn they all fight simultaneously.

I don't follow. How do the casualties come into play there?

Piling in and consolidation also changes a lot with simultaneous damage resolution.

That's a very good point that really should have occurred to me. I guess you could alternate pile-ins starting with the player whose turn it is. Or just let the player whose turn it is do all their pile-ins first. But neither of those feels great. Hmm...

The Red Hobbit wrote:I like the idea quite a bit, I always enjoyed Initiative pre-8th and I find the current fight resolution system needlessly convoluted, especially when it comes to "Fight First" but not really abilities.

Thanks! And agreed.

My quick and dirty Initiative house rule for 8th was keep the old Init Stats but it only applies to subsequent combats, whoever charges still goes first.

I think I like that! Although, does it work well for armies with high initiative but low durability? I'd be a little surprised if genestealers, daemonettes, or incubi managed to survive in melee (without getting charged by a unit that could finish them off) long enough for it to matter. Also, how do you determine who piles in first at a given initiative step?

brainpsyk wrote:Bringing back the old Init stats is the one of the worst possible things we can bring back to the game.

Good news. I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested we do that. The closest thing I see is The Red Hobbit suggesting utilizing the old initiative values to determine fight order in subsequent turns, but keeping the "chargers swing first" rule really changes up what that means.

Basically there is one-and-only-one reason to bring it back, and that is because you play(ed) a high-init army and you don't want other players to go before you as it's basically bringing back auto-win.

Those auto-win 7th edition dark eldar, am I right?

Simply put, try it. Play a game where your opponent plays a melee army (like Drukhari), and has an ability that turns off your charging, and then always goes first in HtH. You'll get massacred in every fight phase. When you bring back Init, Init becomes the only thing that matters, especially with how lethal 9th is.

I mean, again, no one is suggesting what you're describing. But even if they were, do you really feel that something like striking scorpions are suddenly going to be winning melee against assault intercessors and bladeguard because they get to swing their two S4 AP0 D1 attacks first?

The way GW has done melee in 9th is almost exactly what you're describing without your complexity, as GW's is worded badly, but is even more simple:

- Everybody is initiative 0
- Charging/FightFirst/etc. is +1 to a max of 1
- Fight last is -1 to a max of -1.
- Units on the same initiative fight alternating between the players.

And with "going at the same time", we have a huge problem about how we you resolve pile-in and consolidation? Alternating? That's what we have today that you're trying to get rid of. Init? See Above. We're just adding complexity to a fairly simple system.

Fair points here. I don't know if allowing initiative modifiers to stack is necessarily adding that much complexity. Especially as you and other posters in this thread seem to agree that the current wording for various strike first/last rules is kind of messy. But seeing it broken down like that, I guess my main question is whether or not being able to stack bonuses and minuses to your "initiative" (for lack of a better word) would be worthwhile. I'm kind of leaning away towards "No." It gives a little room for expressing how fast/how much momentum units have in the fight phase, but maybe that isn't valuable enough on its own to be worth it.

I do like the idea of this creating more simultaneous exchanges, but that's probably better handled by a return to comparing Weapon Skill values or something. In the past, I've pitched labeling sufficiently skilled melee combatants with two tiers of keywords that basically let them swing before they're removed as casualties IF they're killed by models of lower "rank." (Ex: Lucius is Tier 2. Vanguard Vets are Tier 1. Cultists are Tier 0. If vanguard vets kill cultists, the cultists just die as normal. If Vanguard Vets kill Lucius, he gets to attack before he dies because he's too cool to die without getting his licks in.) It wasn't a very popular suggestion though.

Honestly, while not perfect, I think it's the best system so far.

I agree. What we have now beats the old initiative system. It also isn't perfect, and considering possible improvements is an enjoyable exercise. Do you have any suggestions on how the current system might be improved?


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Wyldhunt wrote:

Those auto-win 7th edition dark eldar, am I right?

I mean, again, no one is suggesting what you're describing. But even if they were, do you really feel that something like striking scorpions are suddenly going to be winning melee against assault intercessors and bladeguard because they get to swing their two S4 AP0 D1 attacks first?


You have 2 irrelevant examples. Army lethality in 7th has no bearing in 9th, and the Eldar haven't been updated yet. I'm talking current 9th edition Incubi & Wyches with 9th edition lethality with I5 vs {insert any army here} with I4/3/2/1.


Wyldhunt wrote:

Honestly, while not perfect, I think it's the best system so far.

I agree. What we have now beats the old initiative system. It also isn't perfect, and considering possible improvements is an enjoyable exercise. Do you have any suggestions on how the current system might be improved?


The only thing I would change right now is toning down HtH lethality a bit. It's so powerful that it would be tough to gauge the effects of any rule changes. Having said that, HtH still needs to be better than shooting because it makes for a more interesting game. But with 2 HtH phases per shooting phase, toning down HtH by 15-20% it would take away the overwhelming advantage HtH has (I play IG, Space Wolves and am picking up Drukhari for a 3rd non-imperial army).
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

brainpsyk wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:

Those auto-win 7th edition dark eldar, am I right?

I mean, again, no one is suggesting what you're describing. But even if they were, do you really feel that something like striking scorpions are suddenly going to be winning melee against assault intercessors and bladeguard because they get to swing their two S4 AP0 D1 attacks first?


You have 2 irrelevant examples. Army lethality in 7th has no bearing in 9th, and the Eldar haven't been updated yet. I'm talking current 9th edition Incubi & Wyches with 9th edition lethality with I5 vs {insert any army here} with I4/3/2/1.


Wyldhunt wrote:

Honestly, while not perfect, I think it's the best system so far.

I agree. What we have now beats the old initiative system. It also isn't perfect, and considering possible improvements is an enjoyable exercise. Do you have any suggestions on how the current system might be improved?


The only thing I would change right now is toning down HtH lethality a bit. It's so powerful that it would be tough to gauge the effects of any rule changes. Having said that, HtH still needs to be better than shooting because it makes for a more interesting game. But with 2 HtH phases per shooting phase, toning down HtH by 15-20% it would take away the overwhelming advantage HtH has (I play IG, Space Wolves and am picking up Drukhari for a 3rd non-imperial army).
Good thing Wyld isn't suggesting just bringing back the old Init stat, then.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






6 Genestealers and a wounded Carnifex fight simultaneously with 5 VanVets. Carnifex kills 1 and wounds one but you don't remove casualties, Carnifex cannot consolidate because it is in base contact. Genestealers kill 2 and cannot consolidate. VanVets kill Carnifex and cannot consolidate. VanVets in melee with Genestealers are removed as casualties, the last one is no longer in combat.

20 Genestealers charging a small unit of VanVets are going to destroy them without casualties in your system as well. I don't think that's a problem. 20 Guardians deep striking down and destroying a unit of Guardsmen without taking casualties isn't an issue either. I don't think elite melee units are owed kills before they die. Maybe that's a special rule a select few units should have, but I don't like it as a core or common rule.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






I had a similar system.

It was basically 3 initiative steps.

Quick
Normal
Slow

The person whos turn it is always acts first in their given initiative step.

Power fists/Crushing Claws are slow.

Scything Talons are Quick.

Certain units might be Quick instead of just wargear.


So if I am playing nids a Carnifex with Scytal would be Quick and always attack first against a Normal unit, or first against a Quick unit if it's my turn.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Lance845 wrote:
I had a similar system.

It was basically 3 initiative steps.

Quick
Normal
Slow

The person whos turn it is always acts first in their given initiative step.

Power fists/Crushing Claws are slow.

Scything Talons are Quick.

Certain units might be Quick instead of just wargear.


So if I am playing nids a Carnifex with Scytal would be Quick and always attack first against a Normal unit, or first against a Quick unit if it's my turn.

That seems like a good middle-ground. Did you allow things like charging, difficult terrain, etc. to impact initiative? Or was it mostly just decisions made during list building?


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Italy

Yeah that sounds nice and simple, I like it. Perhaps Charging could improve speed by a category and difficult terrain could lower it by a category for most weapons, but certain weapons will always be slow/quick.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






We were using terrain rules from a different system. So it doesn't really apply. But i wouldn't bother having it do pluses or minuses. I would have it be terrain allows you to go first in your bracket when its not your turn.

So a normal charges a normal behind a ADL. The defending player goes first.

A quick charges a normal behind a ADL, the quick still goes first.

And the powerfist still stands alone at the bottom.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: