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.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Okay, so tell me this once again:
Why, when I have sacrificed the Strategic Initiative for the Tactical Initiative does my opponent have a 1 in 6 chance plus modifiers to take the Tactical initiative off me?
Can I gain a 1 in 6 plus modifiers chance to take the strategic initiative and redeploy my units? Or how about this:
Seize the Initiative: You can go first on a roll of a 6, but if you do make the roll then your opponent can instantly redeploy his entire army.

Look at how Infinity does this: Whichever player goes first can choose who deploys first and where (Strategic Initiative) or who goes first (Tactical Initiative).
The other player then chooses the remaining option.
So, say I choose to deploy second, here, then you can choose to go first.
Or if I choose to go first you can choose where you want to deploy and who goes first.

Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.

Okay then, then on a roll of a '6' plus modifiers let me redeploy my entire army, because my opponent might not have bothered with scouts.

Perhaps make the seize roll optional, say a roll of a one being not only does the other player still go first, but perhaps they get a free 6" move on anything mobile before turn one.

Add a bit of a risk to it

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Okay, so tell me this once again:
Why, when I have sacrificed the Strategic Initiative for the Tactical Initiative does my opponent have a 1 in 6 chance plus modifiers to take the Tactical initiative off me?
Can I gain a 1 in 6 plus modifiers chance to take the strategic initiative and redeploy my units? Or how about this:
Seize the Initiative: You can go first on a roll of a 6, but if you do make the roll then your opponent can instantly redeploy his entire army.

Look at how Infinity does this: Whichever player goes first can choose who deploys first and where (Strategic Initiative) or who goes first (Tactical Initiative).
The other player then chooses the remaining option.
So, say I choose to deploy second, here, then you can choose to go first.
Or if I choose to go first you can choose where you want to deploy and who goes first.

Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.

Okay then, then on a roll of a '6' plus modifiers let me redeploy my entire army, because my opponent might not have bothered with scouts.

Personally, I'd be thrilled to death if those stackable Seize Modifiers were on my Wolf Scouts rather than Bjorn, Heralds of the Great Wolf and Grimnar's War Council, I might actually find a use for them if that were the case.

We all know that there are many questionable rules in 40k. However, seize the initiative is in my opinion the worst rule in the book. I'd be willing to bet that it's gone and I don't expect to hear anyone complain about that.

You'd have to make like an ostrich, I'd kick up a stink.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.

So what is the "risk" of seizing? Can it backfire?

Seizing is a lucky bonus to allow second player to deploy not very carefully (because, unlike the first player, he know where every opposing unit is, except those in reserve...), and still alpha strike.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Coteaz no idea about his modifier - Can't be bothered looking it up.

Coteaz allows re-roll the seize for both players.

ITC Missions 1 opponent running SH/GMC +1

Dark Phoenix wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.

So what is the "risk" of seizing? Can it backfire?

Seizing is a lucky bonus to allow second player to deploy not very carefully (because, unlike the first player, he know where every opposing unit is, except those in reserve...), and still alpha strike.

If you deploy to take maximum advantage of the seize there is really quite a lot of risk. I always look at seize as less of a significant bonus to the second player, and more of a check on player 1.

I would like to see the Seize go away.

But the earlier mentioned command level system would be nice in place of the current system.
Actually even nicer would be a system were armylist gets assigned Swiftness score, based on unit choices. Like every unit either providing +0 or +X swiftness, or something. And the more swift army would get some deployment bonuses or something +X to who goes first roll or something.

But in general I would like to see 40k overhauled on many different levels, so I'm against most of the features of current system.

Breng77 wrote:

Dark Phoenix wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.

So what is the "risk" of seizing? Can it backfire?

Seizing is a lucky bonus to allow second player to deploy not very carefully (because, unlike the first player, he know where every opposing unit is, except those in reserve...), and still alpha strike.

If you deploy to take maximum advantage of the seize there is really quite a lot of risk. I always look at seize as less of a significant bonus to the second player, and more of a check on player 1.

agreed 100%. if the player going first puts nothing behind cover, 100% of army on the line ready to rush forward and then gets seized on that is just bad tactics. Even when I am setting up on a board as the attacking player I need to set up somewhat defensively using LOS blocking terrain to cover me from most angles where possible or at least get partial coverage from most possible angles of fire. otherwise I am ignoring a 17% chance to have my forces obliterated. I always saw seize the initiative as sort of a thematic the opposing general has discerned your tactics and battle plan and is ordering units to react before the would be attacker has a chance to implement their plan.

I've thought about this a little bit... it doesn't have to be seize, but there needs to be a mechanic such that whoever deploys first does so without putting everything super far forward and out in the open.

I think a better solution would be one like I mentioned earlier where you have alternating unit or "battlegroup" activation with an initiative roll off at the start of each game turn for initiative. battle group would be my preference I think.

So you would roll off for deployment, winner either gets to choose sides and begin deployment, or deploy second. Then alternate deploying battlegroups - I deploy 1, then my opponent, until we are fully deployed.

At the start of turn 1 roll off, the winner gets to decide to either take the first activation, or pass it to his opponent.

Then alternate activating battlegroups, until all units have activated.

repeat roll off on turn 2.

I would invision turns looking like

1.)Activations of battle groups = move, psychic, shoot, charge.
2.) Resolve close combats
3.) End turn


An example of how battle groups might work would be.

Battlegroup ~ 250 points worth of units
Independent characters that join units activate as part of that unit's battlegroup.

Example
1500 point Dark Angels list

CAD
HQ = Interigator Chaplain ~200 points
HQ = Libby~100 points

Troops = Scouts ~50 points
Troops = Scouts ~50 points

Elites = Company Vets ~300 points
Elites = Dreadnaugt ~150 points
Elites = RW command ~250 points

Formation - RW attack squadron ~200 points
Formation - RW attack squadron ~200 points

Would be Broken down into No more than 6 groups of units each as close to 250 points as possible

So
BG1 = Company Vets
BG2 = RW Command Squad
BG3 = RW Attack Squadron1 + Scouts 1
BG4 = RW Attack Squadron2 + Scouts 2
BG5 = Dreadnaught + Libby
BG6 = Chaplain


So you would get 6 activations each turn at the start, if the chaplain joined a squad it would drop to 5.

So you might instead choose to organize like
BG1 = Company Vets
BG2 = RW Command Squad
BG3 = RW Attack Squadron1 + Scouts 1
BG4 = RW Attack Squadron2 + Scouts 2
BG5 = Dreadnaught + Libby
BG6 = Chaplain + Scouts 2

To have 6 activations unless something were to die.

Now you may have less activations if you had a 1000 point deathstar, but this means your opponent would have an advantage in activations.

This would make it very difficult to alpha strike an opponent.

the problem you then get is that alpha strike literally becomes the meta of the entire game. its bad enough right now where alpha strike pretty much rules the roost with little chance of another army archetype to carry the day against it. but taking away seize clads it in armour that you can never just remove

and honestly, if you brought magnus and didnt expect him to get focused down because hes literally insanely undercosted to the point where if you x1.5'd his cost hed still probably be undercosted (some would argue) thats your own fault. thats like forgetting your books and dice at home for the LVO and expecting to be allowed to compete.. thats not how that works.

honestly if anything this is a sign that magnus should maybe be treated as less of an auto include in your army because of the polarizing nature of the overpowered stuff like him or other mega units that tend to basically decide a game on turn 1. i mean if magnus lives to see turn 2 your almost always going to win that game, if he dies then your probably about to lose. makes your army a lot less "all your eggs on 1 basket"

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Dark Phoenix wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.

So what is the "risk" of seizing? Can it backfire?

Seizing is a lucky bonus to allow second player to deploy not very carefully (because, unlike the first player, he know where every opposing unit is, except those in reserve...), and still alpha strike.

If you deploy to take maximum advantage of the seize there is really quite a lot of risk. I always look at seize as less of a significant bonus to the second player, and more of a check on player 1.

agreed 100%. if the player going first puts nothing behind cover, 100% of army on the line ready to rush forward and then gets seized on that is just bad tactics. Even when I am setting up on a board as the attacking player I need to set up somewhat defensively using LOS blocking terrain to cover me from most angles where possible or at least get partial coverage from most possible angles of fire. otherwise I am ignoring a 17% chance to have my forces obliterated. I always saw seize the initiative as sort of a thematic the opposing general has discerned your tactics and battle plan and is ordering units to react before the would be attacker has a chance to implement their plan.

I really don't understand why the second player need such a big advantage.

First player have to deploy blindly, and get cover can be difficult, because you don't know where the enemy is. So the second player can deploy to force the first player to get cover in the first round, but 17% of the time, he can't even do that!

This wouldn't problem with alternating deployment, but here the first player have to deploy his whole army and hope for the best.

Second player just have to counter deploy, which is a big advantage, especially if you have a longer range (because you know you are out of range, but the enemy will be in yours), and if you are lucky, you gain the first turn, with no downside (risk = 0, reward = get the alpha strike)

Dark Phoenix wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Dark Phoenix wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Because nearly everything in 40k has a chance of going balls up, everything is risk and reward. If you get first deployment and don't consider the possibility that you might not get first play you've just suffered the tactical equivalent of being ambushed because you didn't post sentries.

So what is the "risk" of seizing? Can it backfire?

Seizing is a lucky bonus to allow second player to deploy not very carefully (because, unlike the first player, he know where every opposing unit is, except those in reserve...), and still alpha strike.

If you deploy to take maximum advantage of the seize there is really quite a lot of risk. I always look at seize as less of a significant bonus to the second player, and more of a check on player 1.

agreed 100%. if the player going first puts nothing behind cover, 100% of army on the line ready to rush forward and then gets seized on that is just bad tactics. Even when I am setting up on a board as the attacking player I need to set up somewhat defensively using LOS blocking terrain to cover me from most angles where possible or at least get partial coverage from most possible angles of fire. otherwise I am ignoring a 17% chance to have my forces obliterated. I always saw seize the initiative as sort of a thematic the opposing general has discerned your tactics and battle plan and is ordering units to react before the would be attacker has a chance to implement their plan.

I really don't understand why the second player need such a big advantage.

First player have to deploy blindly, and get cover can be difficult, because you don't know where the enemy is. So the second player can deploy to force the first player to get cover in the first round, but 17% of the time, he can't even do that!

This wouldn't problem with alternating deployment, but here the first player have to deploy his whole army and hope for the best.

Second player just have to counter deploy, which is a big advantage, especially if you have a longer range (because you know you are out of range, but the enemy will be in yours), and if you are lucky, you gain the first turn, with no downside (risk = 0, reward = get the alpha strike)

I have no issue with alternate deployment, just thinking how things are now.

as for not being able to defensively deploy I would argue that is easy when going first as you at leas know what your opponent has from initial discussion of armies. the idea of a defensive deploy for first player also requires there to be either plenty of terrain or LOS blocking terrain. obviously an open field will not work, but there is a reason tournaments have set terrain and plenty of LOS blocking things around.

personally UI plan on them seizing and get pleasantly surprised when they do not. I might expose rear armor of a vehicle to make sure a space marine placed devistators on a certain corner of their board where I will have an outflanker coming in later, or where a scout move unit will not have hard time getting a turn 2 assault.

because without seize there is absolutely no way to avoid some alpha strikes that exist in the game. It is really not that hard to get cover as the first player deploying if terrain is good. To some extent since many people play with even terrain getting first turn is somewhat mitigated, but if terrain is not symmetrical the first player may have a significant advantage in both deployment, and initiative.

Your range thing works both ways. If I know I have better range than you and am going first I can set up where I know you cannot get range to me and I will have range to you.

As for get the alpha strike, as player 2 you most likely cannot set up in an optimal alpha strike deployment because you are unlikely to go first. So it is rare, unless your opponent has over extended that seizing results in a huge alpha strike.

 Marmatag wrote:
I've thought about this a little bit... it doesn't have to be seize, but there needs to be a mechanic such that whoever deploys first does so without putting everything super far forward and out in the open.

Breng77 wrote:
I think a better solution would be one like I mentioned earlier where you have alternating unit or "battlegroup" activation with an initiative roll off at the start of each game turn for initiative. battle group would be my preference I think.

So you would roll off for deployment, winner either gets to choose sides and begin deployment, or deploy second. Then alternate deploying battlegroups - I deploy 1, then my opponent, until we are fully deployed.

At the start of turn 1 roll off, the winner gets to decide to either take the first activation, or pass it to his opponent.

For those who remember 4th Ed, that's pretty similar to how it was done. Each player took turns deploying a unit at a time, starting with Heavy Support, then Troops - Elites - HQ - Fast Attack, until both armies were completely deployed minus Reserves. Then they rolled off to see who goes first.

Not to mention that LOS worked differently, you couldn't see through a forest or other types of area terrain at all, so it was easier to block LOS to the other army. The deployment rules plus terrain rules helped mitigate the potential of first turn erasures. There's something to be said about the fact that 5th Ed. was the "Leafblower" edition.


The current set up obviously saves time, and Seize is there to encourage the first player from deploying super aggressively.

The old terrain rules were MUCH better. You can't see past a certain amount of stuff, period.

I did actually enjoy 4th ed's deployment and terrain rules