Fixing "the game is decided on the first turn" syndrome

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.

**Talizvar**

OK, assuming the game is "decided on the first turn" is a fact and an actual problem:
- 6-7 edition tried to address it so that melee and auto-hit weapons could not happen on the first turn, some of those rules could be brought back.
- It is a HUGE advantage for an entire army to move, shoot and assault all together before the opponent has a chance to reply (that is why instant assault deep strikes were stopped as well, to allow opponent reaction). unit activation takes some of that pain away, this is why I play Bolt Action a fair bit for this very reason.
- Some mention needs to be made about how basic the terrain rules are and that increased ability to block line of sight to mitigate initial shooting would help.

I have played 40k since Rogue Trader and that I go / you go method of play has always bugged me from the standpoint of chess or battles in general: it just does not happen anywhere close to that way, it is something of an immersion breaker.
Not sure I am a fan of pure alternating squad activation, the little bit of random pulling from a bag has been a nail biter for some games.

**Lance845**

Since terrain rules are often mentioned here are some. Simple to use, highly impactful on the game. Even on a flat featureless rectangle. Not that anyone should be playing that way.

Lance845 wrote:
So this was originaly part of the Beyond the Gate of 40k project (Located here https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/733472.page ). I have had a few games that have utilized this recently and it works great so it should also work well in normal 40k. A lot of this is ripped from Beyond the Gates of Antares and then adapted to fit within the context of 8th 40k.

Line of Sight Rules

You can trace Line of Sight from any part of your model to any part of the target unit. For the purpose of targeting I recommend using 7ths targeting rules (I.E. wings, antennae, banners) do not count as a part of the model, meaning you cannot draw los from or too these bits. That is just my personal preference, do what you want.

Targeting Occupied Terrain Occupied Terrain is any terrain that has a unit within the terrain feature. Units that occupy a Terrain feature can see and be seen through it. Units that Occupy Terrain gain Cover from the terrain. A unit is considered to be occupying the terrain if all of it's models bases are at least partially within the terrain or meet it's other requirements. Models that do not have a base must be at least 50% within the terrain to be considered to Occupy it.

Intervening Terrain Intervening terrain is any terrain that sits between you and the target unit but is not occupied by the target unit. You can trace LoS over a single piece of Light terrain. A second piece of Light terrain and/or Dense terrain will block LoS normally. Targeting a unit over intervening Terrain confers a -1 to hit penalty.

High Ground If your unit is on a piece of raised terrain they may have high ground. A unit with high ground can ignore all terrain and los blocking terrain features when targeting units on a lower level so long as they can still actually trace line of sight to the unit. To repeat, you still need to be able to trace line of sight, but the target unit would gain no benefit from any intervening terrain. I personally use a lot of the Mantic Battlezones. So each layer up in my terrain is 3". So we use that 3" marker to determine height. Again, do what you want.

Intervening Units If you cannot trace LoS to your target unit without tracing a line through an enemy unit the intervening unit counts as Light Terrain. That means if your target unit is behind both an enemy unit and a piece of Light terrain that unit is untargetable because your LoS is blocked (just like 2 pieces of light terrain). For this you are counting the entire unit and the spaces between models as 1 object. You cannot trace LoS between models in the same unit to get around this. You would need to actually be able to trace LoS around the entire unit to not be effected by the unit.

Monsters, Vehicles, and Titanic When targeting any unit with the MONSTER or VEHICLE Keyword you ignore any intervening units when tracing Line of Sight treating them as Open Ground. When targeting any unit with the TITANIC keyword you ignore all intervening units and Light Terrain treating them as Open Ground. In addition treat all Dense Terrain as Light Terrain for the purpose of tracing LoS on TITANIC units.

Flier Units with the Flier battlefield role can be targeted freely treating all terrain and intervening units as Open Ground so long as you can still trace Line of Sight. Do the same for any LoW with the FLY Keyword.

Terrain

All terrain has 3 features.

1) Line of Sight
2) Cover
3) Difficulty

1] Line of Sight

There are 3 degrees of effect terrain has on LoS.

-Open Ground: No effect on LoS. This terrain piece can be shot over as though it was not there. Example: A water pool or river.

-Light: Blocks LoS to some extent. You can draw Line of Sight over a single piece of light terrain. A unit cannot draw LoS over 2 pieces of light terrain. Barricades, grassy hills, light copse of trees, smaller ruins/

-Dense: Dense Terrain blocks LoS entirely. Dense cops of trees, ruined whole buildings.

2) Cover

All terrain has a cover value that is a bonus to your Sv roll (Ex. +1). This bonus is granted to any unit entirely within or meets the requirements of the terrain feature.

3) Difficulty

All terrain has a difficulty value. This value is a penalty to the Movement Value of any unit that enters or attempts to move through the terrain. It is possible the Difficulty of the terrain is a 0 meaning it does not impact movement at all. They may also have special considerations such as "Impassible to VEHICLES".

So for example, the baricades that make of a Aegis Defense Line and thus AGLs themselves would be

LoS: Light
Cover: +1 - The unit must be within 1" or within 1" of a model from their unit that is within 1" of the terrain to occupy the terrain. This unit only gains the benefit of cover from units targeting them from the opposite side of the terrain.
Difficulty: 1

Thus tracing LoS over these baracades would impose a -1 to hit to any unit that is not occupying it. Provides a +1 Sv bonus to any unit that is occupying it, and eat up 1" of Movement to cross over it.

Ruined Building could be.

LoS: Dense
Cover: +1
Difficulty: 1 non-INFANTRY

You could not target units on the other side of the building even if you could trace LoS. Units that occupy the terrain gain a +1 SV bonus and any noninfantry would loose 1" of movement by entering or trying to pass through the terrain. Driving some bikes over the rough surface of the ruins is hard on them and the ruins make navigating the landscape difficult for anything that is too big and/or lacking the dexterity that Infantry have.

In addition. I propose that Character Targeting is changed to make it so a character cannot be targeted with shooting if the character is not the closest visible unit and within 3" of another visible friendly unit. This way they need to maintain a semi unit coherency to keep their protection AND a closer unit behind some LoS blocking terrain won't save them.

Any unit with Sniper Weapon/rules will also ignore intervening units when tracing LoS.

**w1zard**

Stuff is too killy. TTK should be lowered for pretty much everything, or defenses should be raised across the board... it should be perfectly possible to end a game on turn 6 with half of your army still on the table.

Lowering killyness would mean that first turn charges no longer become "necessary" to make melee armies remotely viable, and removes the whole issue of "my super awesome model always gets deleted on turn 1 every game before it gets the chance to even fire".

**Eihnlazer**

stuff is too killy. Too many reroll's, double shooting actions, increased damage on plasma type things.

Too be fair, models have greatly enhanced mobility this edition as well. Doesn't completely save melee armies, but it does mean shooting heavy armies typically only have 2 turns before they get jumped on.

Just bring back night fight on the first turn.

Night Fighting: On the first battle round of a game roll a D6. On a 3+ night fighting is in effect. On a 1-2 night fighting takes place on the 5th and onward until the game is finished. During Night Fighting, you may only target units that are within 30" in the shooting phase unless you have the Sniper rule. If you have the sniper rule you roll 2d6 and may target units that many inch's further than 30".

This makes the first turn less killy for BOTH players and makes jockeying for position far more important on the first player turn, making the game more tactical and making parking lot shooting galleries basically useless on turn 1.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

I for one LOVE the idea of Chess style turns. You get one unit per turn, and in that turn you can do X. Shoot/Fight, move, or Psychic. Then you can decide if you want to charge. If you charge successfully, you can fight.

I think the Army per turn is killing this game. Half my army is dead by the time I get to do anything.

**techsoldaten**

Dissenting opinion here.

If a game can be decided first turn, there's no point dragging it out over several turns.

The mechanical changes we've seen - adding Prepared Positions, delaying deep strike, removing proper infiltration, etc - rarely affect outcomes and only satisfy a desire to increase the length of the game. First turn still gives an advantage, it just doesn't kick in as soon as it did before.

The real problem is the underlying mechanics of 8th edition - defense is overvalued, offense is undervalued, and 'heavy' just means more wounds. For many units - like Terminators - the cost per model is about twice that of normal infantry but both die the same way to low S, volume of fire assaults. For many weapons, the difference between wounding a tank and wounding infantry is 1 pip on the dice. This narrow defensive 'spectrum' often means target priority goes to anything in range instead of some optimal target.

Instead of these mechanical changes, maybe a way to address first turn advantage would be to focus on the wound chart. This ratio between S and T is very broad. Maybe you wound on 5s if the target's toughness is up to +2 of the weapon's S, otherwise it's 6s. That would instantly increase the durability of tougher units and make a disastrous alpha strike less common.

Another way to accomplish something similar would be to roll invulnerable saves on 2 dice, or make them re-rollable. Suddenly, there's this whole class of units that's more resistant to fire than the rest of the army, your opponent is going to have to think about whether to concentrate fire on them or just shoot at the softer targets.

That's my $0.02. More defensive variety is needed, not more rules.

**Talizvar**

I always felt GW was more "invested" in D6 mechanics so I rarely take a run at that, but it was a good point raised.
I have always been a fan of D10 just for the percentage and simple math that represents.
The extra granularity from a 16.67% chance for any given side result to a 10% helps a bit.

We are right now faced with a rather drastic wounding result with 8th edition: if you are +1 or -1 in the strength or toughness you can go from 2+ to 5+ very quickly.
Remember how it needed to be more a shift of 2 get one pip improvement?
Heavy bolters were "OK" but not great in prior editions, I find I like to use them much more for the capability to cost ratio in 8th, it seems silly otherwise.
This is why Autocannons were awesome before, they are good now but HB's compete much more for my points.
Equal strength / toughness seems more situational.
Double strength / toughness really is in the realm of you have nothing better to hit or for giggles.

The game IS more deadly so the first turn becomes all the more important to mitigate because it truly snowballs after that first round of shooting and assaults.

**OKorVesah**

I agree that the to wound chart is an issue. High toughness (or the armor system of being a vehicle) is much less protection (bolters can wound most vehicles on a 5+, when previously they couldn't at all, just for one example) and in the same vein, low strength can easily be compensated with volume of shots.

I personally don't think that a D10 system is feasible. 40k is built for big-ish to big armies. You just have to roll a lot of dice (even if you would reduce the number of dice to roll from the current ridiculous to something more reasonable). D10 is fine for small systems that care about granularity and actually have the required balance. When you roll 30+ dice a turn, D6 are much less trouble.

I also see another point why first turn is such a big issue: The table size. Basically, from the start of the game, every unit is within range of everything (often even in charge range). Increasing the table size would force players to move before they shoot/get shot, giving players control over when it happens and what shoots at them/what they can shoot at.

This would naturally require changing the prize ratio between melee units and ranged units and/or improving melee mechanics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: Please don't call me out about increased table size breaking the (non-existent) balance. Of course it does. But as I see it, the required rebalancing would be worth the result (no first turn wipe and higher impact of correct maneuvering).

**Lance845**

Rolling 30d10 is no more or less a hassle then rolling 30d6. Its exatcly the same.

The table size has a different issue. 4ft wide is as wide as you can get so an average adult can reach center table to move models without reaching, knocking gak over, and otherwise fething with terrain that may or may not be there.

Any further growth of the table makes it harder and harder for both player comfort and practicality for play. Its the rules that have to change. Not table size.

**blaktoof**

1.) alternate unit activation.

2.) models don't die until end of battle round to represent units are acting simultaneously in battle not taking turns killing each other.

**Wyldhunt**

OKorVesah wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: Please don't call me out about increased table size breaking the (non-existent) balance. Of course it does. But as I see it, the required rebalancing would be worth the result (no first turn wipe and higher impact of correct maneuvering).

Going to kind of call it out anyway. My main concern with a larger table size is that armies who have to cross the table to do work (khorne, many orks, many 'nids, daemons in general) would potentially spend even more time being out of their effective range. using a larger table with sufficient terrain might keep me from defanging my opponent's melee-heavy army on turn 1, but is it really that much of an improvement if it takes 3 turns of shooting without him charging instead of 1?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
1.) alternate unit activation.

2.) models don't die until end of battle round to represent units are acting simultaneously in battle not taking turns killing each other.

I'm in favor of both of those things in theory, but isn't #2 a little redundant with #1? Also, not being able to avoid relaliation by positioning at the edge of an enemy's unit range and then unloading into it is unfavorable for armies like drukhari. Their gimmick is basically all about playing cagey to kill a thing before it can retaliate efficiently.

**kodos**

Not really. There are rules for historicals that use alternate activations and end of battle round results.

For a SciFi game this can be a nice addition as all kind of Victory Points (killing units, scenario, cards, whatever) are counted at the end of the game turn and you need to think different as a "suicide" move of one unit to prevent others from further damage won't work.

Although for 40k, with melee heavy armies, it would work best being alternating phases, with a combined close combat phase at the end and a combined "moral" phase were points are counted and losses removed.

This would also not change too much from the classic rules.

**some bloke**

Lance845 wrote:
Rolling 30d10 is no more or less a hassle then rolling 30d6. Its exatcly the same.

The table size has a different issue. 4ft wide is as wide as you can get so an average adult can reach center table to move models without reaching, knocking gak over, and otherwise fething with terrain that may or may not be there.

Any further growth of the table makes it harder and harder for both player comfort and practicality for play. Its the rules that have to change. Not table size.

I agree on the table size, any larger than current becomes impractical.

Disagree on the 30D10 = 30D6 - purely because the top face of a D6 is proportionally larger than a D10, so it will take a slightly longer time to read a bucketful of D10's (thinking full orks squad charging). It could become a bit tiresome with rolling to hit, to wound, saves, and fnp.

I like the idea of increasing survivability. Finding a change to the rules which would allow it would bring back the use for transports to keep your army alive until it gets there. Hordes (nids) could be cheaper to reflect their dying-in-droves-ness.

I might suggest a table which goes through:

S<T/2 is 6+, target rerolls successful saves
S><T-1 is 6+
S=T-1 is 5+
S=T is 4+
S=T+1 is 3+
S>T+1 is 2+
S=>Tx2 is 2+, target rerolls successful saves

Maybe even just chuck a flat +1T on every unit, and +1S on all units strength (not guns). CC stays the same, and shooting becomes less powerful.

Or, add rules which reduce strength of guns over half range. Turn 1 becomes less powerful. some guns will need range increases.

**Sherrypie**

As a curious tidbit, the teaser article on the upcoming Apocalypse system mentions taking casualties from units / formations simultaneously at the end of the round. The idea certainly isn't unthinkable for GW, now to wait and see did they revamp the whole game to just be Epic with bigger models or what

**Lance845**

kodos wrote:

Although for 40k, with melee heavy armies, it would work best being alternating phases, with a combined close combat phase at the end and a combined "moral" phase were points are counted and losses removed.

This would also not change too much from the classic rules.

No. Absolutely not. The WORST idea. Worse than IGOUGO.

Orks vs Tau orks go first in movement. Orks move into position to change, Tau move back so they can't. Any ork unit in even remotely close to range to charge gets decimated by tau shooting. Any orks that survive to try to charge have a worse chance to be successful (because tau stepped back) and get shot AGAIN in overwatch.

Alternating phases would decimate any chance a melee army has.

**Fightingfirst**

So I would think the biggest change he could make to address alpha strike would be introducing alternative activation and perhaps going to a d10 system. However, outside of an edition change this will not happen.

What I think could be changed in the current edition though is:
-cover. Atm it is to simplistic and I think certain type of cover should add more of a buff. So light cover could be classed as just cover from view so it just provides a -1 to hit. Heavy cover provides both cover from view and cover from fire granting -1 to hit and +1 to save etc. Something along these lines could be used to add more survivability to armies.

-Los. I do think this needs further depth added. At the moment being able to hit a unit because you can see the slightest mm of gun barrel makes it very difficult to hide a unit.

-falling out of combat. I feel sorry for melee armies they get all that way into combat and the unit they charge just falls back and they are left open or they kill the unit and they are left open. There needs to be more of a punishment for falling out of combat. Also maybe a -1 to hit for the melee unit that charged to represent the confusion of the two sides disengaging.

-turn order. If you roll off before deployment, the player with the least amount of units gets a plus one. The attacker then deploys first and then the defender deploys after. Then you can roll to seize. This might give the defender a bit of a better chance to hide units and avoid first turn alpha.

**Snake Tortoise**

I like the stratagem that provides cover on T1 for the player going second. I'd be inclined to extend that, and give the player going second +2 cover by default, and the player going first could have +1 cover. No stratagem required. Essentially a return to night fighting that is always in effect on T1

Alternatively minus to hit modifiers. Either way the first turn's shooting will be less lethal, and slightly help the player who goes second

**Lance845**

Fightingfirst wrote:So I would think the biggest change he could make to address alpha strike would be introducing alternative activation and perhaps going to a d10 system. However, outside of an edition change this will not happen.

What do you think is happening here? Do you think anything suggested on this forum is going to get introduced to the game officially?

Snake Tortoise wrote:I like the stratagem that provides cover on T1 for the player going second. I'd be inclined to extend that, and give the player going second +2 cover by default, and the player going first could have +1 cover. No stratagem required. Essentially a return to night fighting that is always in effect on T1

Alternatively minus to hit modifiers. Either way the first turn's shooting will be less lethal, and slightly help the player who goes second

Anything like that applied to the first player or the first turn only moves the goal posts. the first unrestricted turn becomes the turn with the advantage instead.

**Resipsa131**

Play games at 1750 points and use solid LOS terrain that blocks important units such as Pask, with Prepared positions on your infantry that's enough to keep your losses acceptable and move your opponents out of their LOS blocking terrain so that you can shoot them turn 1 if you go second.

**some bloke**

Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:So I would think the biggest change he could make to address alpha strike would be introducing alternative activation and perhaps going to a d10 system. However, outside of an edition change this will not happen.

What do you think is happening here? Do you think anything suggested on this forum is going to get introduced to the game officially?

We're trying to come up with the best ways to fix the issue, but also within the confines of the game itself. IE, if someone's solution was to just play bolt action, or change every aspect of the game to bolt action, it's not really fixing the game - it's playing a different one. Some of us like to try and devise systems which, if presented well, could in fact have a chance of getting into 40k. Even if we know it will never happen, it's a challenge within itself to produce the desired effects with minimal disruption to the game.

EG: transferring the game to a D10 based AA system without overwatch is basically rewriting the game - if you took the rules in isolation, without the 40k fluff, it wouldn't be distinguishable as 40k.
Taking the existing game and adding a rule that the armies must have 1/2 their points in reserves, bringing 1/4 of them on from player 2 turn 1, remains 40k. it also, mathematically, leaves the game balanced at turn 3. This isn't "Shifting the goalposts", as by turn 3, you will have selected targets, moved your models, positioned things - it could be anyone's game by then. if you're both still sat where you started, you're playing a boring game.

I'm not belittling your suggestions - I do agree that a D10 based AA game will have better balance than IGOUGO 40k. But, I also think that A) it wouldn't feel like 40k, and B) it would never have a chance of getting included in 40k, as the accessibility of D6 is a deciding factor, and there is so much work involved in (what is essentially) making a new game.

to put this in other terms: I want advice on fitting more luggage on a motorbike. Some people suggest panniers, or a luggage rack. Other suggest driving a car.

I genuinely believe that, if it was presented to the right people, a set of missions designed to use 40k as it is but to eliminate the turn 1 damage output would be included. I do not think, however you presented it, they would suddenly jump to D10 and AA.

**Lance845**

some bloke wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:So I would think the biggest change he could make to address alpha strike would be introducing alternative activation and perhaps going to a d10 system. However, outside of an edition change this will not happen.

What do you think is happening here? Do you think anything suggested on this forum is going to get introduced to the game officially?

We're trying to come up with the best ways to fix the issue, but also within the confines of the game itself. IE, if someone's solution was to just play bolt action, or change every aspect of the game to bolt action, it's not really fixing the game - it's playing a different one. Some of us like to try and devise systems which, if presented well, could in fact have a chance of getting into 40k. Even if we know it will never happen, it's a challenge within itself to produce the desired effects with minimal disruption to the game.

EG: transferring the game to a D10 based AA system without overwatch is basically rewriting the game - if you took the rules in isolation, without the 40k fluff, it wouldn't be distinguishable as 40k.
Taking the existing game and adding a rule that the armies must have 1/2 their points in reserves, bringing 1/4 of them on from player 2 turn 1, remains 40k. it also, mathematically, leaves the game balanced at turn 3. This isn't "Shifting the goalposts", as by turn 3, you will have selected targets, moved your models, positioned things - it could be anyone's game by then. if you're both still sat where you started, you're playing a boring game.

I'm not belittling your suggestions - I do agree that a D10 based AA game will have better balance than IGOUGO 40k. But, I also think that A) it wouldn't feel like 40k, and B) it would never have a chance of getting included in 40k, as the accessibility of D6 is a deciding factor, and there is so much work involved in (what is essentially) making a new game.

to put this in other terms: I want advice on fitting more luggage on a motorbike. Some people suggest panniers, or a luggage rack. Other suggest driving a car.

I genuinely believe that, if it was presented to the right people, a set of missions designed to use 40k as it is but to eliminate the turn 1 damage output would be included. I do not think, however you presented it, they would suddenly jump to D10 and AA.

Ok, so first, the point of my question is that Fightingfirst used the argument that "outside of a new edition that will not happen." That implies to me that s/he thinks that what we are doing here is coming up with ideas for actual publication by GW. Maybe I read it wrong. Hence the question/comment.

Second, if you want the least disruptive solution then keep brain storming. I have never seen any band aid patch over the actual problem that didn't create a cascade of other problems. You are welcome to them. I would be really interested to see some innovative ideas that might not create as many or (I don't think it's possible but I could be wrong) any problems. But there is a solution on the table now that just works. And it's AA.

I don't need it to be d10, or d12, or d6. There are 3 versions of the version of the game I play that used all 3 sizes of dice. mini d10s are easily available. ALMOST as easily available as d6s. d10s are crazy plentiful in all kinds of colors and sizes. 12s are harder but translate better from basic d6s. I have 100 mini d12 in 3 colors for my own games. But again, 10s and 6s are plentiful.

My suggestion is you stop theory crafting a lot of these ideas and start playing them. I have spent the last couple years creating, helping to create, and just looking for, and then testing all kinds of versions of 40k in all kinds of turn structures with all kinds of solutions to first turn issues. I am not speaking from a theory point of view. I am speaking from experience that comes from hundreds of hours of play test over that span. -1 to hit "night fighting" rules. Holding back reserves. You dilute or shift the problem but you don't eliminate it. You can make it more manageable but it's still there. You lesson it's impact so others don't notice as much or you just hand the advantage to player 2. Anyone "good" at the game will look at the mechanical structure, find the weakest points to exploit for the biggest advantages, and will capitalize on them. Some will argue that it's poor sportsmanship and others will say it's simply working within the confines of the rules you gave them and playing intelligently. Doesn't matter. If you provide the tools someone will use them.

**skchsan**

Simple step in the right direction is to make 1st turn fully random.

**Fightingfirst**

Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:So I would think the biggest change he could make to address alpha strike would be introducing alternative activation and perhaps going to a d10 system. However, outside of an edition change this will not happen.

What do you think is happening here? Do you think anything suggested on this forum is going to get introduced to the game officially?

Erm I am replying back to the thread title by putting forward my ideas that I think will fix first turn syndrome. You got a problem or something because you seem to be acting quite dickish towards me for no particular reason now this may have just been lost in translation. Or am I not allowed to state my view. I am under no illusion GW wont read this.

**Lance845**

Fightingfirst wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:So I would think the biggest change he could make to address alpha strike would be introducing alternative activation and perhaps going to a d10 system. However, outside of an edition change this will not happen.

What do you think is happening here? Do you think anything suggested on this forum is going to get introduced to the game officially?

Erm I am replying back to the thread title by putting forward my ideas that I think will fix first turn syndrome. You got a problem or something because you seem to be acting quite dickish towards me for no particular reason now this may have just been lost in translation. Or am I not allowed to state my view. I am under no illusion GW wont read this.

Lost in translation. Your statement included "outside of an edition change this will not happen" which i took to mean you thought any of this would see official rules or production. I was asking for clarity because that will NEVER happen.

And now with that clarity i dont see what difference it makes wether it takes an edition change or not. If the intent is to change whatever to whatever makes for the best most fun game then why not do that?

**r_squared**

Just mulling it over in my head and thought about a change to deployment. If you roll off to see who goes first, whoever does so deploys their entire army first. Then once they've deployed, whoever goes second can then deploy their whole army.
That could help to mitigate alpha strike somewhat, and also give pause to anyone thinking of taking turn one as their would be a definite, strategic advantage to deploying second, seeing what your opponent is upto, then deploying to your best advantage.

**Snake Tortoise**

Lance845 wrote:

Snake Tortoise wrote:I like the stratagem that provides cover on T1 for the player going second. I'd be inclined to extend that, and give the player going second +2 cover by default, and the player going first could have +1 cover. No stratagem required. Essentially a return to night fighting that is always in effect on T1

Alternatively minus to hit modifiers. Either way the first turn's shooting will be less lethal, and slightly help the player who goes second

Anything like that applied to the first player or the first turn only moves the goal posts. the first unrestricted turn becomes the turn with the advantage instead.

The first unrestricted turn is then the second turn. By which time the player going second can have done slightly more shooting damage on turn 1 and moved their assault/close range shooting elements nearer the opponent with fewer casualties. A little of help for the person starting second can have a cascade effect for the rest of the game. Moving the goal posts is the intention

**kodos**

Lance845 wrote:
kodos wrote:

Although for 40k, with melee heavy armies, it would work best being alternating phases, with a combined close combat phase at the end and a combined "moral" phase were points are counted and losses removed.

This would also not change too much from the classic rules.

No. Absolutely not. The WORST idea. Worse than IGOUGO.

Orks vs Tau orks go first in movement. Orks move into position to change, Tau move back so they can't. Any ork unit in even remotely close to range to charge gets decimated by tau shooting. Any orks that survive to try to charge have a worse chance to be successful (because tau stepped back) and get shot AGAIN in overwatch.

Alternating phases would decimate any chance a melee army has.

Taking that example, it will be always this way no matter if you alternate activations, alternate phases or alternate turns

One player moves, the other one shoots and if too many die no model will be there to charge in the next turn.

There is no way any kind of system can change this as long as the shooting army can shoot with everything at the melee army from turn 1.
This also means lack of LOS blocking Terrain and pure movement from the Orc player.

But you need to explain how this can be worse than alternating turns.

As the Tau Player moves everything, shoot with everything, and than the Orc player moves, shoots, is out of charge range and the Tau player moves+shoots again.
Or the Orc player goes first, moves, shoots, is out of Charge range, than the Tau Player moves, shoots and so on

VS

The Tau player moves, the Orc player moves out of LOS, into Cover, Tau player shoots, Orc player shoots.

If the Orc player moves first, going into the open hoping that the Tau player is stupid enough to stay exactly were he is or moves even closer, I don't know if this is an argument against alternating phases but such tactical challenging rules are not working for 40k

**Sherrypie**

Kodos, the problem they are talking about is the negation of the normal double move with charges.

If you alternate whole activations, the orc player gets to move, shoot and charge with one or more units. If you alternate phases, the orcs move and then the tau move before charges happen, thus hurting melee armies disproportionately unless they have the numbers and means to always trap and surround the other force completely. We've seen how GW changed charging in Kill Team for this exact reason.

**kodos**

My point is, solving melee is not related to solving Alpha Strike

Solving one can help the other but both have unique problems that have not 1 combined solution.

As changing how charge and overwatch work will help melee, as will increase CC mortality.

But this does not change Alpha Strike and need to happen independent from solving that problem

**OKorVesah**

Solving melee matters. As of now, I usually have 1 to 2 turns, before my opponent gets into melee, one more if I get first turn.

That means with first turn, I get about 50% more shots in, than without, which makes first turn (alpha strike) very important.

Given that I have so few turns to annihilate my opponent, (with a shooty army you basically (should have) lost, if a non-negligible army gets into CC) this requires ridiculous shooting power to even give me a chance. One turn more or less with that ridiculous shooting power makes a large difference.