Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think that whoever is forced to go second should straight up be able to decide if night fight is in effect...to even out and mitigate though not negate...the alpha strikers.

Any thoughts?

there is no Alpha strike problem that i am aware of, there is however a problem with players not useing the correct amount of terrain for a board and no LOS blocking terrain at all sometime, add both of these things and place your units accordingly and you should see less of this alpha strike malarky

Yay, replace the alpha strike 'problem' with a 'beta strike problem'.

I honestly don't think there is an "alpha strike problem". When I think of alpha strike, I think drop-podding sternguard or shunting GK, neither of which are that ridiculous and quite frankly are the only way some armies can cope with riptides or wave serpents. They are always a massive gamble and almost always sacrifice a unit. I don't think it needs a nerf.
Now, if you're talking about a long range shooting hit then you can hide first turn.

 curran12 wrote:
Yay, replace the alpha strike 'problem' with a 'beta strike problem'.

Actually no...the first player will always get to inflict damage first...therefore reducing the return fire coming back at them and giving them an edge for the remainder of the game...night fight doesn't eliminate this whatsoever...it does however reduce the probable damage you'll take from an alpha strike and your secondary strike...while still decreased in strength...should be able to do similar damage.

The second player deploys after. And also has a chance to sieze ini. Deploying after your opponent is a huge tactical advantage that can easilly mitigate the losses u're gona have on turn one. If u'r opponent can cripple your list turn one even after u've hidden all the key elements behind blos or in cover than something is wrong with either your lists or u're playing vs something like taudar. It's not a secret that such armies ignore tactics so nothing will help you anywayz. That's a ballancing problem of the codex and the problem of listbuilding and not the alpha-strike concept.

Just to point out that Tau, one of the most Alpha Strike oriented armies out there, has free or cheap night-fighting on almost all of its long range weapon platforms and can ignore cover on everything else.

So night fighting on turn 1 doesn't hinder them from delivering an Alpha Strike if they go first and helps them deliver it if they go second.

^ Exactly correct. Tau and Dark Eldar are arguably the armies built to alpha-strike the best and have Night Vision in spades, so all you are doing is limiting the weaker alphas.

You're approaching this as though getting the first turn is all that matters here. There are significant advantages and disadvantages to both such that I really don't consider it a problem at all.

Going first
- Get the first shots in, reduces incoming firepower
- Potential to destroy transports and leave passengers stranded
- Remove high-damage, low-resilience opponents before they get a shot in.
- Set up psychic combinations, smoke launchers etc.
- Much more likely to claim First Blood for a 1VP lead.

Going second
- React to the enemies deployment and set up countering units.
- Ability to abandon part of the battlefield and focus your efforts elsewhere
- You get the final turn and can move without any risk of counter. Turbo onto objectives, run your dudes out of cover, whatever you need to claim objectives. The enemy has no say in the matter.
- I guess it's also slightly easier to claim Linebreaker since your unit can't be shot away.

An alternating activation system would be far better in mitigating this as well as making the game more interesting and engaging for both players.

Make night fighting apply only on the first player's first turn.

It would reduce the amount of damage inflicted (usually) by the alpha and remove a restriction on the beta-strike allowing it to make up lost ground in the second player's first turn

Why not just say that casualties take effect between game turns, rather than during player turns?

I shoot and kill your tank during the top of turn 1, you get shots off with it at the bottom of turn 1, and then it is destroyed/wrecked/removed before the top of turn 2. Alpha strike problem is mitigated, and it better represents the fact that the game is representing continuous action between the two sides.

You would have to mark which units have been "killed", and you'd have to resolve issues like charges, but it could be an improvement.

 greyknight12 wrote:
I honestly don't think there is an "alpha strike problem". When I think of alpha strike, I think drop-podding sternguard or shunting GK, neither of which are that ridiculous and quite frankly are the only way some armies can cope with riptides or wave serpents. They are always a massive gamble and almost always sacrifice a unit. I don't think it needs a nerf.
Now, if you're talking about a long range shooting hit then you can hide first turn.

Sacrifice a sternguard unit to kill a single WS. I can tell you who is winning that exchange.

milo wrote:
Why not just say that casualties take effect between game turns, rather than during player turns?

I shoot and kill your tank during the top of turn 1, you get shots off with it at the bottom of turn 1, and then it is destroyed/wrecked/removed before the top of turn 2. Alpha strike problem is mitigated, and it better represents the fact that the game is representing continuous action between the two sides.

You would have to mark which units have been "killed", and you'd have to resolve issues like charges, but it could be an improvement.

Too much bookkeeping imo. You'd have to keep track of every model that was killed. Also, it would introduce weird tactical knowledge for the player going second because he preforms all his actions with the knowledge of which of them are going to take how many casualties. For example, if you knew your tank was going to be destroyed at the end of your turn you aren't going to be conservative trying to keep it in cover. You're going to shove it out in the open, try to shoot the juiciest target and park it next to some enemy blob so its explosion hits them.

Bravo strike, not beta >:c

JubbJubbz wrote:

milo wrote:
Why not just say that casualties take effect between game turns, rather than during player turns?

I shoot and kill your tank during the top of turn 1, you get shots off with it at the bottom of turn 1, and then it is destroyed/wrecked/removed before the top of turn 2. Alpha strike problem is mitigated, and it better represents the fact that the game is representing continuous action between the two sides.

You would have to mark which units have been "killed", and you'd have to resolve issues like charges, but it could be an improvement.

Too much bookkeeping imo. You'd have to keep track of every model that was killed. Also, it would introduce weird tactical knowledge for the player going second because he preforms all his actions with the knowledge of which of them are going to take how many casualties. For example, if you knew your tank was going to be destroyed at the end of your turn you aren't going to be conservative trying to keep it in cover. You're going to shove it out in the open, try to shoot the juiciest target and park it next to some enemy blob so its explosion hits them.

Yea that is a terrible and illogical idea. But what could be done is giving the second player some advantage too, for example the ability to counter-deploy.

Oh wait...

 Bobthehero wrote:
Bravo strike, not beta >:c

No, technically beta strike, because the Greeks came first


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wings of Purity wrote:

JubbJubbz wrote:

milo wrote:
Why not just say that casualties take effect between game turns, rather than during player turns?

I shoot and kill your tank during the top of turn 1, you get shots off with it at the bottom of turn 1, and then it is destroyed/wrecked/removed before the top of turn 2. Alpha strike problem is mitigated, and it better represents the fact that the game is representing continuous action between the two sides.

You would have to mark which units have been "killed", and you'd have to resolve issues like charges, but it could be an improvement.

Too much bookkeeping imo. You'd have to keep track of every model that was killed. Also, it would introduce weird tactical knowledge for the player going second because he preforms all his actions with the knowledge of which of them are going to take how many casualties. For example, if you knew your tank was going to be destroyed at the end of your turn you aren't going to be conservative trying to keep it in cover. You're going to shove it out in the open, try to shoot the juiciest target and park it next to some enemy blob so its explosion hits them.

Yea that is a terrible and illogical idea. But what could be done is giving the second player some advantage too, for example the ability to counter-deploy.

Oh wait...

I thinks its a great idea, this combined with alternating activiation is what I'm using in my Fan Big Rule Book