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.

So here's the thing: 40k has a balancing factor when it comes to who goes first. Going first is a big advantage, because you get a chance to kill stuff before your opponent can retaliate. To offset this, the player (or side in a multiplayer game) who goes first also has to set up first, which means the other player can put their units in an optimal position. It balances fairly decently.

But every game there's a one in six chance that this balance will be thrown entirely out of wack, and that the player who would normally have gone first will get hit with the double whammy of having to go second and having the other player in the optimal position to hurt his army, because the other player stole the initiative. This has thrown games I've been in personally on several occasions. If two players are about equal in army build and strategy, one having to set up first and go second is pretty much fatal. Even more so for me, since I like to field glass cannon armies that don't recover well from suddenly facing a first turn barrage that I didn't set up for (and yes, I could set everything in cover on the off -chance my opponent seized, but I would be hobbling my army's first turn advantage). The end result is that there's actually a DISADVANTAGE to choosing to go first. If you go second, there's no chance of getting hit with this double whammy right out of the gate.

It seems to me like, at least in competitive play, Seizing the Initiative should be done away with. It does nothing but unbalance the game, and doesn't contribute to the overall fun of the battle. Sure, the whole game hinging on one dice roll can be fun, but not when it's the very first dice roll, before the game has even begun.

Thoughts?

I agree that the rule can make or break a game and that unbalances things but instead of getting rid of it, it could be modded. Either the player who seizes has limited actions on his first turn or that there is a penalty to failing to seize the initiative.

Sounds like the problem is you're over-extending and putting yourself in a position where rolling a 6 is a fatal blow. Try not doing this anymore.

I have always, and will always, hate seize the initiative for exactly the reasons mentioned. It's an absurd advantage to give someone just for blindly rolling a 6 and I've never seen anything like it in any other war game I've played. I would not miss it at all if it were gone.

I think setting up second would be very powerful without steal the initiative. In games that aren't boardwipefests you also get to have the last turn, which is also very powerful.

It balances out hyper aggression by giving it a backfire chance.
It's easy to avoid seize risk by deploying conservatively.

Also, late deploys (scouts, moreso infiltrators, and mostly T1 reserves like drop pods) also migrate the "perfect counter deploy" case by making your deployment less clear cut.

There are ways to reduce the random punishment factor in thus aspect. You just choose not to use them and opt for maximum lethality.

Basically, it's a risk factor, you make a calculated risk by ignoring it, but it can be addressed. (some are better at it than others)

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
It's an absurd advantage to give someone just for blindly rolling a 6 and I've never seen anything like it in any other war game I've played.

Why have you deployed in a way that lets it be a huge advantage?

I think this is really the problem here: people feel that just because they won the roll to decide who goes first they should be entitled to use recklessly aggressive deployment strategies where they're hopelessly screwed if they don't get to go first. This is exactly why "seize the initiative" exists. If you're complaining about how your carefully constructed house of cards falls apart when your opponent rolls a 6 then the problem is with your poor strategic decisions, not the rule.

 fallinq wrote:
So here's the thing: 40k has a balancing factor when it comes to who goes first. Going first is a big advantage, because you get a chance to kill stuff before your opponent can retaliate. To offset this, the player (or side in a multiplayer game) who goes first also has to set up first, which means the other player can put their units in an optimal position. It balances fairly decently.

But every game there's a one in six chance that this balance will be thrown entirely out of wack, and that the player who would normally have gone first will get hit with the double whammy of having to go second and having the other player in the optimal position to hurt his army, because the other player stole the initiative. This has thrown games I've been in personally on several occasions. If two players are about equal in army build and strategy, one having to set up first and go second is pretty much fatal. Even more so for me, since I like to field glass cannon armies that don't recover well from suddenly facing a first turn barrage that I didn't set up for (and yes, I could set everything in cover on the off -chance my opponent seized, but I would be hobbling my army's first turn advantage). The end result is that there's actually a DISADVANTAGE to choosing to go first. If you go second, there's no chance of getting hit with this double whammy right out of the gate.

It seems to me like, at least in competitive play, Seizing the Initiative should be done away with. It does nothing but unbalance the game, and doesn't contribute to the overall fun of the battle. Sure, the whole game hinging on one dice roll can be fun, but not when it's the very first dice roll, before the game has even begun.

Thoughts?

Well adapt like everyone else has to do... Oh wait glass cannon army that forces the opponent to pack back all his toy soldiers in the box before the turn has ended... I doubt many people enjous having half their army blown away before first turn is over

Don't play glass type armies, if your having problems with someone stealing first turn. There are more then enough good armies that don't won't care if they go first or second.

I don't much like it either. It's just another random dice roll in a game of many random dice rolls.

Better to know who is going first and second rather than to dick over the first player for no reason.

 Tarvitz77 wrote:
Better to know who is going first and second rather than to dick over the first player for no reason.

I don't know why people keep repeating this myth that it's for no reason. There's a very specific reason for it: so you have to think about how aggressively you want to deploy instead of just throwing everything out in the open to maximize turn-1 shooting. That 1/6 chance of actually going second makes you think about the dangers of over-extending and leaving yourself open to a crippling counter-attack, and consider things like making sure your units have cover available.

If your entire strategy is getting blown away by one dice roll before any guns even start firing, I think you need to re-assess your strategy.

Playing a glass cannon is one thing. But Glass Cannon =/= playing recklessly. I've seen a lot of glass cannon lists who deploy conservatively and then use their superior speed to maneuver into firing positions.


Oh and it was said above somewhere. There is a penalty to failing to seize the initiative. You go second.

I think the OP does need a slightly more robust strategy - you know there's a risk of that 6 coming up, so prepare for it, just like you'd prepare for different units you might face.

However, it's still an unnecessary random roll. There's no basis for it. Although it prevents relying solely on that glass cannon type deployment, it's still just random. It's not based on the quality of the general, strategy, army etc.

There is an advantage to knowing where your opponent has deployed (i.e. deploying second) and then getting to go first is huge. Would it be better to deploy one unit at a time per player (e.g. Player 1 deploys a unit, then P2 deploys a unit, then P1 deploys the second unit etc), so deployment is more even. Then roll off for who goes first? Or maybe P1 goes first on a 3+ (as they were slightly disadvantaged by placing the first unit).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It might even be more balanced to deploy thus:

P1: deploys one unit
P2: deploys two units
P1: deploys two units

Keep deploying 2 units at a time, so P2 can't just keep countering P1. 'deploying' would include stating a unit is in reserves.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tarvitz77 wrote:
Better to know who is going first and second rather than to dick over the first player for no reason.

I don't know why people keep repeating this myth that it's for no reason. There's a very specific reason for it: so you have to think about how aggressively you want to deploy instead of just throwing everything out in the open to maximize turn-1 shooting. That 1/6 chance of actually going second makes you think about the dangers of over-extending and leaving yourself open to a crippling counter-attack, and consider things like making sure your units have cover available.

I will concede that that is a good reason. I'm just not sure if it's good enough. The problem I have is that the rule enables the player going first to be penalised anyway, because even if you do deploy conservatively, your opponent gets to counter deploy you, with a chance of going first after that. The second player has no uncertainty. If he wants a chance at going first, he'll go for it, and if he'd rather go second, which has it's own advantages, he doesn't have to do anything.

But how do feel about rolling off to choose sides?
Objectives and terrain aren't symetrical...

A game based off dice is never going to be truly balanced.

Player that actually goes first is disadvantaged anyway, since they have to surive an extra turn on objectives and make it impossible for the opponent to sneak in and grab them.

Exception to this is kill point games, which are ludicrously unbalanced. Take more units for tactical purposes? That's ok, more points for me to gain and once I kill an equivalant amount of units I have, good luck trying to win.

Then how about you elect to make them deploy first. Thats your right from winning the roll off.

I would prefer it if the game worked more like Bolt Action, random activation of each unit until all units have been activated. Takes away from this sort of problem.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like the problem is you're over-extending and putting yourself in a position where rolling a 6 is a fatal blow. Try not doing this anymore.

^^ This.

Regardless if I have the first turn or not I always deploy defensively just in case he should be able to Seize the Initiative, its a really good practice to get into.

Right now, I wouldn't really want the rule to be changed. Maybe that's because I've had some pretty damn good luck with those rolls in the past 3 months or so. I honestly think that I've managed to seize the initiative over 50% of the times I've tried, no loaded dice. Maybe when my luck changes?

It encourages you to deploy defensively and no leave your ass hanging out since you are guaranteed first turn. Makes things more of a risk.

If you really don't like it, you could always add Coteaz onto your army to make the chances of your opponent seizing even smaller.

 Tarvitz77 wrote:
I don't much like it either. It's just another random dice roll in a game of many random dice rolls.

Better to know who is going first and second rather than to dick over the first player for no reason.

There are decisions you can make to mitigate it, even if that decision is 'always go balls to the wall, and just have an uphill battle for 1/6th of my games'. But if your decision is to go balls to the wall and have an uphill battle every 6th time don't blame the dice on the instances where you need to deal with he consequences of your deployment strategy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Whittlesey40k wrote:
There is an advantage to knowing where your opponent has deployed (i.e. deploying second) and then getting to go first is huge. Would it be better to deploy one unit at a time per player (e.g. Player 1 deploys a unit, then P2 deploys a unit, then P1 deploys the second unit etc), so deployment is more even. Then roll off for who goes first? Or maybe P1 goes first on a 3+ (as they were slightly disadvantaged by placing the first unit).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It might even be more balanced to deploy thus:

P1: deploys one unit
P2: deploys two units
P1: deploys two units

Keep deploying 2 units at a time, so P2 can't just keep countering P1. 'deploying' would include stating a unit is in reserves.

If StI didn't exist, then the current system would be very unfair. I suspect alternating deployment would have to be employed, but that significantly slows down deployment times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tarvitz77 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tarvitz77 wrote:
Better to know who is going first and second rather than to dick over the first player for no reason.

I don't know why people keep repeating this myth that it's for no reason. There's a very specific reason for it: so you have to think about how aggressively you want to deploy instead of just throwing everything out in the open to maximize turn-1 shooting. That 1/6 chance of actually going second makes you think about the dangers of over-extending and leaving yourself open to a crippling counter-attack, and consider things like making sure your units have cover available.

I will concede that that is a good reason. I'm just not sure if it's good enough. The problem I have is that the rule enables the player going first to be penalised anyway, because even if you do deploy conservatively, your opponent gets to counter deploy you, with a chance of going first after that. The second player has no uncertainty. If he wants a chance at going first, he'll go for it, and if he'd rather go second, which has it's own advantages, he doesn't have to do anything.

Yes your opponent gets to counter deploy you, but if STI happens that deployment won't be as effective for taking the first turn. So there is balance there.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like the problem is you're over-extending and putting yourself in a position where rolling a 6 is a fatal blow. Try not doing this anymore.

yeah STI doesnt make or break game, ive won games going second before plenty of times.

im thinking your running a biker spam list n getting butthurt when you deploy for going first and wind up going second and just get shelled by IG wyverns of some such thing

Is it game breaking? No. Has it cost me games? A couple. The games where it seems to have the biggest effect are against armies like Eldar/DEldar where their long range/mobility allow them to capitalize on STI more than other armies.

Colehkxix wrote:
I would prefer it if the game worked more like Bolt Action, random activation of each unit until all units have been activated. Takes away from this sort of problem.

The problem is bigger than StI; it's with the I-Go-You-Go game method.

 Peregrine wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
It's an absurd advantage to give someone just for blindly rolling a 6 and I've never seen anything like it in any other war game I've played.

Why have you deployed in a way that lets it be a huge advantage?

I think this is really the problem here: people feel that just because they won the roll to decide who goes first they should be entitled to use recklessly aggressive deployment strategies where they're hopelessly screwed if they don't get to go first. This is exactly why "seize the initiative" exists. If you're complaining about how your carefully constructed house of cards falls apart when your opponent rolls a 6 then the problem is with your poor strategic decisions, not the rule.

I've deployed in such a way to let it be a huge advantage because going first in 40K IS a huge advantage. I mean sure, you could deploy with stuff behind cover and out of sight in case your opponent wins the roll off, but there's a lot of crap in this game that really doesn't want to move before it gets to shoot so if you end up deploying that way you may as well have just elected to go second.

There is more than enough random in this game as it is, I really don't think it's necessary to include a die roll to steal first turn. Other, better war games do just fine without this mechanic.

I actually like STI, it forces me and my opponent to both think very carefully about how we want to deploy just in case the Initiative is stolen. If who goes first is a surefire thing than that pre-game element is lost.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
I've deployed in such a way to let it be a huge advantage because going first in 40K IS a huge advantage. I mean sure, you could deploy with stuff behind cover and out of sight in case your opponent wins the roll off, but there's a lot of crap in this game that really doesn't want to move before it gets to shoot so if you end up deploying that way you may as well have just elected to go second.

There is more than enough random in this game as it is, I really don't think it's necessary to include a die roll to steal first turn. Other, better war games do just fine without this mechanic.

Yes. alpha-striking is very powerful in 40k. Stealing the Initiative is a means of balancing out that alpha-strike by giving the second player the ability to turn the tables and forcing the first player to consider that risk when deploying.

Games are won and lost in how you deploy your army. If you deploy like an idiot, i.e. everything outside of cover in a gunline, then expect to lose if you get the Initiative stolen.

Last time I checked, ruins are open-air or have windows. Area terrain is basically a free 5+ save. If you aren't taking advantage of cover when deploying, even when going first, you're setting yourself up for getting shot off the board.

Yes, Warhammer 40k has a lot of random dice in its gameplay mechanics. This is actually a good thing, as the more random dice will over time produce more balanced results. Sure, random Warlord Traits/Psychic Powers/Warger/Special Rules are bad, but there isn't any problem with having a random chance of failure for any given roll in movement, shooting, and CC.

Area terrain doesn't exist in this edition, and you must be the first person on this forum I have seen that believes all of the random dice is a good thing. It's a terrible thing that removes player choice. Furthermore, if you honestly believe someone should expect to lose because of a random die roll right before the game begins, I will have to respectfully disagree. Winning the first turn roll off should be all that you need to get off that alpha strike in this game. Deploying second and going first is just stupidly good, and should never be allowed.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Player that actually goes first is disadvantaged anyway, since they have to surive an extra turn on objectives and make it impossible for the opponent to sneak in and grab them.

Exception to this is kill point games, which are ludicrously unbalanced. Take more units for tactical purposes? That's ok, more points for me to gain and once I kill an equivalant amount of units I have, good luck trying to win.

I agree in that going second has advantages on it's own post-deployment. Specially on objective games being able to deny/control objectives knowing your chances of the game ending is a HUGE advantage, you can move a lone survivor in a unit to mess up an otherwise secured objective and there is nothing the enemy can do about it.

This however I think has a lot less impact on the card missions where your objectives can't really be contested outside of your own turn.

That being said, yes this is a game that creates a random setting that allows to make stories of beating odds or being crushed by them.