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.

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

What about units that defend themselves by being fast like Dire Avengers that aren't combat units? Do they have to become faux combat units and deliberately charge to "defend themselves" now?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What about units that defend themselves by being fast like Dire Avengers that aren't combat units? Do they have to become faux combat units and deliberately charge to "defend themselves" now?

No, they defense themselves by using their high Move to stay away from melee.

Because GWs lore ALSO says they are not exceptionally slow. Which sources are you cherry picking from? GWs lore says that tyranids are the ultimate threat to the entire galaxy (But also orks, and necrons, and chaos, while tau are unstopable in their expansion and the imperium is the only hope and the eldar are there too i guess.) and that a genestealer can slice through terminator armor like it's paper. So should all rending claws be AP5/ignores invul saves all the time? Would that make for a good game? It also says terminator armor is entirely impenetrable and can take hits better then actual SM tanks. Which ones right?

The game has to come first. Guided by, but not dictated to, by the fluff. The fluff is wildly inconsistent and makes for a terrible game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

What about units that defend themselves by being fast like Dire Avengers that aren't combat units? Do they have to become faux combat units and deliberately charge to "defend themselves" now?

No, they should have defensive abilities like invulnerable saves and to hit penalties that reflect them dodging out of the way.

Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What about units that defend themselves by being fast like Dire Avengers that aren't combat units? Do they have to become faux combat units and deliberately charge to "defend themselves" now?

No, they defense themselves by using their high Move to stay away from melee.

Oh? So they don't defend anything but themselves, then, because they have to retreat when the orks get close.

Lance845 wrote:Because GWs lore ALSO says they are not exceptionally slow. Which sources are you cherry picking from? GWs lore says that tyranids are the ultimate threat to the entire galaxy and that a genestealer can slice through terminator armor like it's paper. So should all rending claws be AP5/ignores invul saves all the time? Would that make for a good game? It also says terminator armor is entirely impenetrable and can take hits better then actual SM tanks. Which ones right?

The game has to come first. Guided by, but not dictated to, by the fluff. The fluff is wildly inconsistent and makes for a terrible game.

Write better fluff that isn't so inconsistent would be my first advice. If GW wants to set the game in the universe, make a universe suitable for a game to be set in.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

What about units that defend themselves by being fast like Dire Avengers that aren't combat units? Do they have to become faux combat units and deliberately charge to "defend themselves" now?

No, they should have defensive abilities like invulnerable saves and to hit penalties that reflect them dodging out of the way.

Those are terribly implemented in 9th.
An invuln will not help at all against orks with choppas, but will make them incredibly more durable against Howling Banshees. That's backwards to how Initiative would have helped them.
The lack of minuses to-hit stacking means that it isn't a valuable defensive buff against slow weapons like Power Klaws - which is also ass backwards to how Initiative would have helped them.

 Lance845 wrote:

Back before 8th I was working on a version of the game and I came up with a replacement for the initiative stat.

It worked where certain units/weapons could have a rule that amounts to "fast" or "slow".

There would essentially be 6 initiative steps.

1) Current players Fast.
2) Opponents Fast
3) Current players normal
4) Opponents normal.
5) Current players Slow
6) Opponents Slow.

So Tyranid Scything talons would be Fast and so Hormagaunts would tend to get to strike first unless it was the opponents turn and they were also fast (Eldar are the charge would strike first, tyranids on the charge would strike first).

Most weapons would be normal (Ork Choppa is a normal weapon. Orks charge a marine they strike first. Marine charges an ork they strike first).

And Slow weapons would drop to the bottom of the que (powerfists, crushing claws).

Now Necron Lychguard, preatorians, Overlords with their warscythes, flayed ones, etc... Ork Boyz and such... they wouldn't get fethed out of doing their thing when they charge on their own turn while the units and weapons that are supposed to be quicker can also do their thing.

The initiative attribute as was implemented is a problem and creates problems. This doesn't.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems like you could just take the old initiative system and add a line such that 'in any case where initiative values are tied, the units controlled by the active player go first.'

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Because GWs lore ALSO says they are not exceptionally slow. Which sources are you cherry picking from? GWs lore says that tyranids are the ultimate threat to the entire galaxy and that a genestealer can slice through terminator armor like it's paper. So should all rending claws be AP5/ignores invul saves all the time? Would that make for a good game? It also says terminator armor is entirely impenetrable and can take hits better then actual SM tanks. Which ones right?

The game has to come first. Guided by, but not dictated to, by the fluff. The fluff is wildly inconsistent and makes for a terrible game.

Write better fluff that isn't so inconsistent would be my first advice. If GW wants to set the game in the universe, make a universe suitable for a game to be set in.

Great. How does that apply now to this discussion?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Oh? So they don't defend anything but themselves, then, because they have to retreat when the orks get close.

Nice goal-shifting.

You asked about defending themselves, if you want to contest a melee unit in melee, then bring a melee unit.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because GWs lore ALSO says they are not exceptionally slow. Which sources are you cherry picking from? GWs lore says that tyranids are the ultimate threat to the entire galaxy (But also orks, and necrons, and chaos, while tau are unstopable in their expansion and the imperium is the only hope and the eldar are there too i guess.) and that a genestealer can slice through terminator armor like it's paper. So should all rending claws be AP5/ignores invul saves all the time? Would that make for a good game? It also says terminator armor is entirely impenetrable and can take hits better then actual SM tanks. Which ones right?

The game has to come first. Guided by, but not dictated to, by the fluff. The fluff is wildly inconsistent and makes for a terrible game.

Well, that's how genestealers worked in 3rd. And 3rd was a decent game. But I think GW needs a single reliable narrative to base the game off of, and make all the other fluff unreliable narration.

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Back before 8th I was working on a version of the game and I came up with a replacement for the initiative stat.

It worked where certain units/weapons could have a rule that amounts to "fast" or "slow".

There would essentially be 6 initiative steps.

1) Current players Fast.
2) Opponents Fast
3) Current players normal
4) Opponents normal.
5) Current players Slow
6) Opponents Slow.

So Tyranid Scything talons would be Fast and so Hormagaunts would tend to get to strike first unless it was the opponents turn and they were also fast (Eldar are the charge would strike first, tyranids on the charge would strike first).

Most weapons would be normal (Ork Choppa is a normal weapon. Orks charge a marine they strike first. Marine charges an ork they strike first).

And Slow weapons would drop to the bottom of the que (powerfists, crushing claws).

Now Necron Lychguard, preatorians, Overlords with their warscythes, flayed ones, etc... Ork Boyz and such... they wouldn't get fethed out of doing their thing when they charge on their own turn while the units and weapons that are supposed to be quicker can also do their thing.

The initiative attribute as was implemented is a problem and creates problems. This doesn't.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems like you could just take the old initiative system and add a line such that 'in any case where initiative values are tied, the units controlled by the active player go first.'

You are missing something. A necron Lychguard who charges a space marine fights last. Always. So did flayers btw. And wraiths. And their hover bikes. And destroyers.

It's not the same as adding in that line.

Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Oh? So they don't defend anything but themselves, then, because they have to retreat when the orks get close.

What is with your goalshifting?

You asked about defending themselves, if you want to contest a melee unit in melee, then bring a melee unit.

Well, I didn't think anyone would seriously suggest "run away" as a defensive tactic, so you're right, I didn't in my initial argument include "without fleeing".
I don't want to contest the melee unit in melee; I would plan to get any charged DA as much relief as I can, because they're not a melee unit. But Initiative used to be a defensive benefit available to otherwise not-melee units, that was removed and replaced with very little.

Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Because GWs lore ALSO says they are not exceptionally slow. Which sources are you cherry picking from? GWs lore says that tyranids are the ultimate threat to the entire galaxy and that a genestealer can slice through terminator armor like it's paper. So should all rending claws be AP5/ignores invul saves all the time? Would that make for a good game? It also says terminator armor is entirely impenetrable and can take hits better then actual SM tanks. Which ones right?

The game has to come first. Guided by, but not dictated to, by the fluff. The fluff is wildly inconsistent and makes for a terrible game.

Write better fluff that isn't so inconsistent would be my first advice. If GW wants to set the game in the universe, make a universe suitable for a game to be set in.

Great. How does that apply now to this discussion?

It was a discussion about the philosophy of how the fluff should apply on the tabletop, right? The fluff should always be the determinator of tabletop interactions, and furthermore the fluff should be good enough to support a balanced game while doing so.

And I disagree entirely. The fluff should never be the determining factor. It should be A factor that points things in a direction but never at the expense of the game itself.

It's great that you want there to be balanced fluff. But there isn't. So what are you proposing we work with?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Well, I didn't think anyone would seriously suggest "run away" as a defensive tactic, so you're right, I didn't in my initial argument include "without fleeing".
I don't want to contest the melee unit in melee; I would plan to get any charged DA as much relief as I can, because they're not a melee unit. But Initiative used to be a defensive benefit available to otherwise not-melee units, that was removed and replaced with very little.

Initiative wasn't a defensive benefit, it was an offensive one. It didn't directly make units more durable, but it meant that they could get to kill a few of their attackers.

Any defensive benefit was just a consequence of the improved offense.

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

I don't think it works well. "Initiative" is having fast reflexes, not moving fast. An ork on a bike can move faster than an harlequin eldar. But the eldar STILL has faster reflexes.

Lance845 wrote:And I disagree entirely. The fluff should never be the determining factor. It should be A factor that points things in a direction but never at the expense of the game itself.

It's great that you want there to be balanced fluff. But there isn't. So what are you proposing we work with?

Right now? I'd say we don't have much of anything to work with, because the fluff is bad. We could go to your 3-step initiative system and say "active player takes ties" or we could go back to GW's 10 step initiative system and concept of simultaneity. Either one is "justified".

Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Well, I didn't think anyone would seriously suggest "run away" as a defensive tactic, so you're right, I didn't in my initial argument include "without fleeing".
I don't want to contest the melee unit in melee; I would plan to get any charged DA as much relief as I can, because they're not a melee unit. But Initiative used to be a defensive benefit available to otherwise not-melee units, that was removed and replaced with very little.

Initiative wasn't a defensive benefit, it was an offensive one. It didn't directly make units more durable, but it meant that they could get to kill a few of their attackers.

Any defensive benefit was just a consequence of the improved offense.

Killing attackers before they could swing is a defensive benefit. Killing them while they were swinging isn't, and certainly killing them after they swing isn't. Reducing the enemy's damage before they can apply it is a defense in itself.

The only reason it was an "offensive" benefit at all is that you killed the enemy before they killed any of you - only, that doesn't help at all except that it keeps more of your models alive. Initiative didn't affect damage output of a unit at all, except where it kept models alive that wouldn't otherwise swing. Do you know what we call something that keeps models alive? A defensive benefit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

That was sort of the point, though, right? Initiative acted as sort of a defensive stat for armies like Eldar, whose defense was speed. If Orks got in with Eldar, the Eldar could wipe out a few before they could swing, which protected the Eldar unit in a roundabout way. Now? Being fast gets you bupkis for defense. Or at least, gets you weird and inconsistent rules like LFR stratagem (did you know that only one unit of eldar can be fast per phase? the rest have to be slow) or bizarre invuln saves (wytches can dodge knives on a 4+ but not bullets, while Genestealers can dodge knives and bullets but only on a 5+).

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

So we're allowed to have an initiative mechanic... so long as no army is slower than any other army?

Step 1 in these kind of conversations is REMOVE FLUFF FROM YOUR HEAD. This is a game not a book so using fluff to justify something in the game is wrong because it inevitably leads to bad rules design.

The problem with initiative was it was a MAJOR blow in combat a lot of the time, enough to make it functionally useless to charge certain enemy units. So you had slow melee units like Ork boyz, slowly walking up the field of battle, than, when they finally get close enough to charge the enemy, they were hit by overwatch and THAN they got hit by the enemy who got to strike first. I have rather unkind memories of charging a SM squad that had a pair of flamers in it, getting hit by a bunch of auto-hit over watch shots, getting peppered by bolters and than finally getting into combat, just to have my ork boyz decimated by the combination of Overwatch AND getting hit by the enemy first.

So you had a CC oriented unit getting beaten by a non-CC oriented unit because that faction had baseline initiative of 4 where as Orkz I believe were 2. It only got worse when GW added in the "Duel" mechanic. Basically every Ork nob died to some random sgt with a Power Sword or hell, even a Chainsword.

"Step 1 in these kind of conversations is REMOVE FLUFF FROM YOUR HEAD. This is a game not a book so using fluff to justify something in the game is wrong because it inevitably leads to bad rules design."

I want to agree with this, but to many, many players this is the selling point of the entire game. I don't think its that easy, nor is it satisfying to have the game so divorced from the purported "reality".

Sounds like problems with the Challenges and Overwatch than problems with initiative purely, since those kinds of critiques didn't happen in editions without either of those things that still had Initiative....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SecondTime wrote:
"Step 1 in these kind of conversations is REMOVE FLUFF FROM YOUR HEAD. This is a game not a book so using fluff to justify something in the game is wrong because it inevitably leads to bad rules design."

I want to agree with this, but to many, many players this is the selling point of the entire game. I don't think its that easy, nor is it satisfying to have the game so divorced from the purported "reality".

Agreed. If I am just playing the game for the game, I'll give up on 40k and go play something satisfying for its mechanics alone.

It's not impossible to make generalist units good. I remember getting a lot of flexible use out of my mechanized CSM's in 5E, running 4 units of ten in my 2k list. They really were pretty capable at outfighting units they couldn't outshoot and outshooting things they couldn't outfight.

Generalist units can be good when given the right tools and mechanics.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I don't think it works well. "Initiative" is having fast reflexes, not moving fast. An ork on a bike can move faster than an harlequin eldar. But the eldar STILL has faster reflexes.

While you are right, "moving fast" is what matters when it comes to attacking first, while reflexes has more to do with evading.

A Harlequin should not hit before a charging bike, because the sheer momentum advantage the bike has.

Although you could argue that reflexes should be considered in WS, and a return to pre-8th WS chart.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Killing attackers before they could swing is a defensive benefit. Killing them while they were swinging isn't, and certainly killing them after they swing isn't. Reducing the enemy's damage before they can apply it is a defense in itself.

The only reason it was an "offensive" benefit at all is that you killed the enemy before they killed any of you - only, that doesn't help at all except that it keeps more of your models alive. Initiative didn't affect damage output of a unit at all, except where it kept models alive that wouldn't otherwise swing. Do you know what we call something that keeps models alive? A defensive benefit.

No, it is an offensive one, after all you are attacking, you are killing. There is nothing defensive about that aside of the good old "the best defense is a good offense".

 Tyran wrote:
No, it is an offensive one, after all you are attacking, you are killing. There is nothing defensive about that aside of the good old "the best defense is a good offense".

I see where you're coming from, but the ONLY benefit of initiative is it killed them before they killed me, thusly keeping more of me alive. It had no other benefit than keeping people alive who otherwise would be dead. That's defense.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I see where you're coming from, but the ONLY benefit of initiative is it killed them before they killed me, thusly keeping more of me alive.

The issue is that using that logic, a Tau gunline is similarly just "defense", after all it is only killing the enemy before they get the chance to kill them. Any act of killing in warfare is defensive using that logic.

It had no other benefit than keeping people alive who otherwise would be dead. That's defense.

And this is blatantly false, as the primary benefit is killing the other first.

Moreover, this defensive benefit is only relevant if the charging unit is relatively weak.

If 5 Eldar Guardians get charged by 30 orks, defensively speaking initiative doesn't matter, those 5 Eldars are dead.

But they may manage to kill a few orks before dying under the old initiative rules, and that is a purely offensive benefit.

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I see where you're coming from, but the ONLY benefit of initiative is it killed them before they killed me, thusly keeping more of me alive.

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is that using that logic, a Tau gunline is similarly just "defense", after all it is only killing the enemy before they get the chance to kill them. Any act of killing in warfare is defensive using that logic.

Not at all! Offense is the act of finding someone and killing them for some other reason (e.g. an objective) and defense is killing them because if you don't kill them, they kill you. A Tau gunline is defending itself when it shoots a closely approaching melee unit, and is conducting offense when it shoots a fairly harmless unit across the board to remove it from an objective.

Obviously.

It had no other benefit than keeping people alive who otherwise would be dead. That's defense.

And this is blatantly false, as the primary benefit is killing the other first.

Yes but why does killing the other first matter? Killing him last is the same as killing him first - except in the first case, you are guaranteed to be still alive at the end.

 Tyran wrote:
Moreover, this defensive benefit is only relevant if the charging unit is relatively weak.

Well, defenses shouldn't be flawless. They should fail sometimes, especially against strong attacks.

 Tyran wrote:
If 5 Eldar Guardians get charged by 30 orks, defensively speaking initiative doesn't matter, those 5 Eldars are dead.

In which case, their higher initiative stat failed to protect them, which is fine. Their armor save could fail to protect them too, that doesn't mean it's not a defensive stat.

 Tyran wrote:
But they may manage to kill a few orks before dying under the old initiative rules, and that is a purely offensive benefit.

No it isn't, not really. If I step into your house to steal your TV, and you shoot me in the chest with a shotgun, you were defending yourself (well, your stuff), even if I died doing it. If I have a buddy who subsequently steals your TV, that doesn't suddenly mean you murdered me offensively, that just means your defense failed.

I am not sure what you mean by generalist unit. But I asume you mean the 'red mage' problem. In final fantasy the red mage was a melee/wizard hybrid. This can be seen in similar units in other RPG's as well. Essentially what the game designer aims to do is to make a unit that is duel class. So you take half of the stats from the warrior, and half of the stats from the wizards and you add them together for a new hybrid clas. This often leads to a very underperforming class that is not good at anything.

The solution to this in the abstract is to not make it 50% worse, make it around 75% ot 80% worse in both fighter and melee. Generalist classes/units should not be priced for the sum of their parts. Because when you have a focused clas/unit you are getting a premium product that performs very well.

The 8th edition tyranid warrior was a good example of a unit that functioned OK at this. It had T4, 3W, 4+ save. Could fight just OK, and shoot OK. To summarice it was not good at anything. But since it could do very many things a littlebit you where OK to pay around 25 points for it.

In theory a generalist unit does not need to be bad, you just need to get a lot more then what you pay for with a focused unit. I do not know if this is a Space Marine problem. Space Marines have so many different flavours and such a dence codex they can pretty much be build how ever you want. This eats up a lot of designspace, but that is another discussion. Propperly costed a generalist unit should be able to be wellbalansed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Not at all! Offense is the act of finding someone and killing them for some other reason (e.g. an objective) and defense is killing them because if you don't kill them, they kill you. A Tau gunline is defending itself when it shoots a closely approaching melee unit, and is conducting offense when it shoots a fairly harmless unit across the board to remove it from an objective.

Obviously.

So under this logic, a Genestealer unit charging Fire Warriors is defense? After all it is killing them so they cannot shoot anymore.

Yes but why does killing the other first matter? Killing him last is the same as killing him first - except in the first case, you are guaranteed to be still alive at the end.

And in the last you are not guaranteed to kill them.

Which btw is the other side of this argument, that melee units with a high initiative are offensively better, specially against other melee units.

Their armor save could fail to protect them too, that doesn't mean it's not a defensive stat.

Last time I checked, armor saves do not kill other models.

No it isn't, not really. If I step into your house to steal your TV, and you shoot me in the chest with a shotgun, you were defending yourself (well, your stuff), even if I died doing it. If I have a buddy who subsequently steals your TV, that doesn't suddenly mean you murdered me offensively, that just means your defense failed.

Bringing a legal concept that is only applicable in the US (and not in all US states) in a discussion about tabletop gameplay is just grasping at straws, and that's all I will say on the matter because I don't want to bring politics into this.

But fine, if you want your Eldar Guardians to attack before the Orks so much, then charge with them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If I step into your house to steal your TV, and you shoot me in the chest with a shotgun, you were defending yourself (well, your stuff), even if I died doing it.

Reminds me of this thread:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/784718.page

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Not at all! Offense is the act of finding someone and killing them for some other reason (e.g. an objective) and defense is killing them because if you don't kill them, they kill you. A Tau gunline is defending itself when it shoots a closely approaching melee unit, and is conducting offense when it shoots a fairly harmless unit across the board to remove it from an objective.

Obviously.

So under this logic, a Genestealer unit charging Fire Warriors is defense? After all it is killing them so they cannot shoot anymore.

Yes but why does killing the other first matter? Killing him last is the same as killing him first - except in the first case, you are guaranteed to be still alive at the end.

And in the last you are not guaranteed to kill them.

Which btw is the other side of this argument, that melee units with a high initiative are offensively better, specially against other melee units.

Their armor save could fail to protect them too, that doesn't mean it's not a defensive stat.

Last time I checked, armor saves do not kill other models.

No it isn't, not really. If I step into your house to steal your TV, and you shoot me in the chest with a shotgun, you were defending yourself (well, your stuff), even if I died doing it. If I have a buddy who subsequently steals your TV, that doesn't suddenly mean you murdered me offensively, that just means your defense failed.

Bringing a legal concept that is only applicable in the US (and not in all US states) in a discussion about tabletop gameplay is just grasping at straws, and that's all I will say on the matter because I don't want to bring politics into this.

But fine, if you want your Eldar Guardians to attack before the Orks so much, then charge with them.

Who cares?

The point is Dire Avengers used to have more utility in close combat that didn't involve just running away.

Speaking of running away, the old Battle Focus rules sure did a lot for Eldar infantry in a way that an extra inch of movement really doesn't.

 Tyran wrote:
A Harlequin should not hit before a charging bike, because the sheer momentum advantage the bike has.

Absolutely disagree. If the biker has slower reflexes and less agility, the only thing that could help him strike first would be higher reach (that only Death Korp riders have, afaik, not bikers, who don't get lance).
The harlequin doesn't need momentum, all she needs to do is put her weapons where the biker is going and use the biker's momentum against her. And since the harlequin has better reflexes than the biker, she will be able to react if the biker move quicker than the biker can react to her own movement.

Remember, the whole charge concept means nothing, it's an artifact of sequential turns. In reality, it's two warriors both going at each other, and one of them will simply move into attacking position quickly.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Absolutely disagree. If the biker has slower reflexes and less agility, the only thing that could help him strike first would be higher reach (that only Death Korp riders have, afaik, not bikers, who don't get lance).
The harlequin doesn't need momentum, all she needs to do is put her weapons where the biker is going and use the biker's momentum against her. And since the harlequin has better reflexes than the biker, she will be able to react if the biker move quicker than the biker can react to her own movement.

Remember, the whole charge concept means nothing, it's an artifact of sequential turns. In reality, it's two warriors both going at each other, and one of them will simply move into attacking position quickly.

Reflexes and speed are different things, after all one has to do with the ability of the nervous system to process information and react to it, while speed is about displacement over time and has more to do with force and mass. (Because Newton)

Thus better reflexes don't really make you faster, but make your speed more effective.

 Tyran wrote:
Thus better reflexes don't really make you faster, but make your speed more effective.

And that's why you'll strike first. You don't need to be moving fast to hit first, you need to be the one that reacted faster to where the other was going.
If anything, being in a bike impairs your capacity to react.