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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

But that isn't really attacking first, but striking more precisely/effectively while evading incoming attacks. After all, the biker is going to be swinging their weapons at the same time and thus the Harlequin needs to not only hit the Biker but also avoid being hit in turn.

Regarding initiative, another aspect is that the old system also allowed for weapons that strike slower than everything else.

It used to be that Power Fists, Thunder Hammers etc. were basically the strongest weapons available to infantry - but they had to strike after all other units. It was a significant drawback and one that meant there was often good reason to take alternative weapons.

The new versions of those weapons, with just -1 to hit, just isn't a significant drawback. Especially now that near enough every character is hitting on 2s and most other units are hitting on 3s, plus all the rerolls and other buffs that are available. Rather than being high-risk, high-reward, they've instead become negligible-risk, high-reward.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

Yeah, it's the same reason I miss stuff like Fleet on all non-Coven DE units or Corsairs and their Reckless Abandon ability. These traits go a long way towards making a faction feel fast and mobile on the battlefield, far more so than a mere +1M.

Please move the initiative discussion to another thread; it's not very relevant to this one.

 Tyran wrote:
But that isn't really attacking first, but striking more precisely/effectively while evading incoming attacks.

It's having the initiative. The harlequin will make his move before the biker can react, and then the biker will react, if she survives!

regarding initative, we could always make it work like it does in RPGs and having you roll for initative before a combat begins. roll 1d6, add your init score, winner fights first.

might make it more intreasting as you're often never going to be entirely sure whose going first in a combat. *shrugs* proably be problematic for that but it's 2:30 am here, and I'm coming up with dumb ideas when I should be sleeping

BrianDavion wrote:
regarding initative, we could always make it work like it does in RPGs and having you roll for initative before a combat begins. roll 1d6, add your init score, winner fights first.

might make it more intreasting as you're often never going to be entirely sure whose going first in a combat. *shrugs* proably be problematic for that but it's 2:30 am here, and I'm coming up with dumb ideas when I should be sleeping

isn't stupid if handled correctly, you could add in modifiers, f.e. when you attack add +1 to the result of the roll, melee focussed infantry could get an USR which grants another +1, etc .. Wouldn't even need be a difficult system.

Not Online!!! wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
regarding initative, we could always make it work like it does in RPGs and having you roll for initative before a combat begins. roll 1d6, add your init score, winner fights first.

might make it more intreasting as you're often never going to be entirely sure whose going first in a combat. *shrugs* proably be problematic for that but it's 2:30 am here, and I'm coming up with dumb ideas when I should be sleeping

isn't stupid if handled correctly, you could add in modifiers, f.e. when you attack add +1 to the result of the role, melee focussed infantry could get an USR which grants another +1, etc .. Wouldn't even need be a difficult system.

To use the earlier example of Orks, you could easily have 'ere we go give +2 Initiative when charging, for example.

You'd have too imo.

Not Online!!! wrote:
You'd have too imo.

Doesn't this just show its a silly mechanic?

Tyel wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You'd have too imo.

Doesn't this just show its a silly mechanic?

nay, it is a more granular mechanic, what is silly is the fact that we are in a completly binary system atm.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But that isn't really attacking first, but striking more precisely/effectively while evading incoming attacks.

It's having the initiative. The harlequin will make his move before the biker can react, and then the biker will react, if she survives!

Because fighting apparently is a sequence in which fighters take turns to attack each other./s

Yes I'm aware that as a tabletop game, such abstractions are necessary, but please don't try to sell me the idea that has anything to do with "realism".

Not Online!!! wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You'd have too imo.

Doesn't this just show its a silly mechanic?

nay, it is a more granular mechanic, what is silly is the fact that we are in a completly binary system atm.

I'd say the really silly part is that a unit fighting on one side of the battlefield somehow slows down a unit on the other side.

 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".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

Niiru 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".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

I actually agree on Move affecting charge distances.

 Tyran wrote:
Yes I'm aware that as a tabletop game, such abstractions are necessary, but please don't try to sell me the idea that has anything to do with "realism".

It has to do with being characterful. It has to do with making the things that make some units awesome in the lore (having insanely fast reflexes) matter in the tabletop. And having insanely fast reflexes is not something that should be made irrelevant by your opponent riding a bike. Right now, with your version of things, it totally is invalidated by riding a bike.

I apologize for possibly derailing this thread even further, but we still use initiative in our game.

Movement is armor save + Initiative in inches.

A unit (usually) still gets a bonus attack on the charge, and those attacks are always of the highest initiative. This way orks will still get a slew of attacks in before say the eldar get all their attacks, and then the orks finish with lower initiative attacks.

It works pretty well for us.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Yes I'm aware that as a tabletop game, such abstractions are necessary, but please don't try to sell me the idea that has anything to do with "realism".

It has to do with being characterful. It has to do with making the things that make some units awesome in the lore (having insanely fast reflexes) matter in the tabletop. And having insanely fast reflexes is not something that should be made irrelevant by your opponent riding a bike. Right now, with your version of things, it totally is invalidated by riding a bike.

It's not irrelevant, after all those units usually have an invulnerable save to represent evading the attack.

And I really like that my genestealers have an invulnerable save, as they are already very fragile even with it.

 Tyran wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Yes I'm aware that as a tabletop game, such abstractions are necessary, but please don't try to sell me the idea that has anything to do with "realism".

It has to do with being characterful. It has to do with making the things that make some units awesome in the lore (having insanely fast reflexes) matter in the tabletop. And having insanely fast reflexes is not something that should be made irrelevant by your opponent riding a bike. Right now, with your version of things, it totally is invalidated by riding a bike.

It's not irrelevant, after all those units usually have an invulnerable save to represent evading the attack.

And I really like that my genestealers have an invulnerable save, as they are already very fragile even with it.

Dodges shouldn't work vs blasts, but that's asking too much of system, I know. Clearly, genestealer reflexes should be completely identical to a force field.

Niiru 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".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

I´d agree, it feels very wrong for my Termies to DS in, get a charge off and in between that and pile in/consolidating move further than they normally would have over 2 turns.

Niiru 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".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

custodes aren't lumbering, they have a movement profile of 6.

but I agree it feels odd that speed doesn't affect advance and charge rolls.

 Castozor wrote:

Niiru 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".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

I´d agree, it feels very wrong for my Termies to DS in, get a charge off and in between that and pile in/consolidating move further than they normally would have over 2 turns.

It's almost as though the random charge distance is totally wonky for a game mechanic!

 Castozor wrote:

Niiru 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".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

I´d agree, it feels very wrong for my Termies to DS in, get a charge off and in between that and pile in/consolidating move further than they normally would have over 2 turns.

It's also silly that units charge further than they run - so giving up your shooting and assault just to run gets you M+d6", but stopping to shoot and then stopping again to charge gets you M+2d6" plus potentially another 3" pile-in and then another 3" consolidate.

 Tyran wrote:
And I really like that my genestealers have an invulnerable save, as they are already very fragile even with it.

Invulnerable save and FNP save are another business entirely lol.
They just work so weird, and don't represent anything really.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
And I really like that my genestealers have an invulnerable save, as they are already very fragile even with it.

Invulnerable save and FNP save are another business entirely lol.
They just work so weird, and don't represent anything really.

Then how are you planning to represent dodging bullets? that is a staple of "superhuman reflexes" in the lore.

 Tyran wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
And I really like that my genestealers have an invulnerable save, as they are already very fragile even with it.

Invulnerable save and FNP save are another business entirely lol.
They just work so weird, and don't represent anything really.

Then how are you planning to represent dodging bullets? that is a staple of "superhuman reflexes" in the lore.

Just have it not work vs blasts and such.

 Tyran wrote:
Then how are you planning to represent dodging bullets? that is a staple of "superhuman reflexes" in the lore.

Some mutually exclusive ideas off the top of my head:
-Implement dodge saves exclusively as FNPs, not invulns, so that armor is still taken into account.
-Don't allow it to work vs Blast weapons.
-Have Blast weapons force rerolls of the dodge save.
-Represent dodging as a penalty to hit. Preferably with an exception to, or abolishment of, the hard to-hit cap.
-Fix the problem by creating a defensive stat that represents difficulty to hit, so we can finally resolve these wonky mechanics in a consistent way.

Just to get back on the main point a bit.

Can Generalist units be good in 40k, specifically in regards to Tac/Intercessors.

yes. The issue I see with them is that they should have to pay for being a generalist unit though. GW has a long history of incorrectly doing this and I can already here the usual suspects when it comes to Space Marine White Knights furiously typing.

For Orkz, Killakanz were considered to be a "generalist" unit. They had ok shooting and were equipped with a Kan klaw which used to be a bit worse than a PK but is now basically a bit better. The issue is that Killakanz are BS4+ and WS5+ The cheapest variant you can have is 50pts and has a big shoota which makes little use out of its superior BS of 4 because 3 S5 no AP 1D shots aren't exactly frightening. Their durability is their only strong point T5, 5W 3+ save. Shooting at fellow orkz, a Kan averages .83 dead ork boyz a turn, in CC they average .83 dead ork boyz a turn. To earn back its points killing orkz a Kan would need 7.5 turns at range or 7.5 turns in CC
Kanz are a generalist unit that is clearly over priced.

Tacs/intercessor on the other hand are a generalist unit that is clearly under priced.

For an Intercessor to make back its points shooting at orkz it would take 3.7 turns. In CC it would take 3 turns.

I don't think Intercessors/tacs are drastically under priced, I think a 4ish point increase would put them in a good spot. Likewise I think a 5pt decrease on Kanz with some kind of additional buff, like losing their morale rule and a major buff to Big shoota's would put them in a good spot.

Long story short, yes a generalist unit can be good and competitive. The issue we have right now is that tacs/intercessors are not generalist units, they are pt for pt beating units one on one who excel in only 1 aspect of the game. Specifically, Intercessors beat firewarriors in a duel at range, and beat Genestealers in a duel in CC. Point for point not model for model. So if intercessors are beating these dedicated units, they are not a generalist unit, they are either a dual specialist unit that is under priced or a generalist unit that is under priced/over performing. So either a nerf in stats/weapons or a points increase is warranted.

And yes I fully acknowledge that we are barely into 9th and only 2 factions have their codexs. But I just highly doubt GW will buff every other basic infantry/troops unit to a comparable level.

SemperMortis wrote:
Just to get back on the main point a bit.

Can Generalist units be good in 40k, specifically in regards to Tac/Intercessors.

yes. The issue I see with them is that they should have to pay for being a generalist unit though. GW has a long history of incorrectly doing this and I can already here the usual suspects when it comes to Space Marine White Knights furiously typing.

For Orkz, Killakanz were considered to be a "generalist" unit. They had ok shooting and were equipped with a Kan klaw which used to be a bit worse than a PK but is now basically a bit better. The issue is that Killakanz are BS4+ and WS5+ The cheapest variant you can have is 50pts and has a big shoota which makes little use out of its superior BS of 4 because 3 S5 no AP 1D shots aren't exactly frightening. Their durability is their only strong point T5, 5W 3+ save. Shooting at fellow orkz, a Kan averages .83 dead ork boyz a turn, in CC they average .83 dead ork boyz a turn. To earn back its points killing orkz a Kan would need 7.5 turns at range or 7.5 turns in CC
Kanz are a generalist unit that is clearly over priced.

If you look at this through the lens of past editions then you can see the reverse. A time when Tac Marines were bad and Kanz were underpriced and thus good.

The point on which this argument rests is if a generalist unit can be good without simply costing too little? By good let's look at 2009 era Boyz which were good enough to be taken in numbers and yet not good enough to be the only unit in their list. Also, their base stat line was used on other units in those lists with Burnas and Lootas being taken alongside them. Meanwhile, prior to late 8th edition, Space Marines have never done this because the few times their MEQ profile was good it was only good on a small number of units with that profile which were spammed while other units with that profile were taken in minimum squads or not taken at all. This is because paying a tax for stats that don't synergize with a unit's core role makes for a balance nightmare.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

If you look at this through the lens of past editions then you can see the reverse. A time when Tac Marines were bad and Kanz were underpriced and thus good.

The point on which this argument rests is if a generalist unit can be good without simply costing too little? By good let's look at 2009 era Boyz which were good enough to be taken in numbers and yet not good enough to be the only unit in their list. Also, their base stat line was used on other units in those lists with Burnas and Lootas being taken alongside them. Meanwhile, prior to late 8th edition, Space Marines have never done this because the few times their MEQ profile was good it was only good on a small number of units with that profile which were spammed while other units with that profile were taken in minimum squads or not taken at all. This is because paying a tax for stats that don't synergize with a unit's core role makes for a balance nightmare.

Nothing you just said counters any point I make, unless you are arguing that since kanz used to be good (5th-6th edition) that its ok for them to be god awful generalists for 7th, 8th and probably 9th.

Simply put, I think Generalist units can be appropriately priced, but at the moment, the SM codex doesn't contain any. Hell, aggressors technically fall into the generalist list because they are great at shooting and pretty damn good in melee but are relatively cheap.

SemperMortis wrote:
Nothing you just said counters any point I make, unless you are arguing that since kanz used to be good (5th-6th edition) that its ok for them to be god awful generalists for 7th, 8th and probably 9th.

Simply put, I think Generalist units can be appropriately priced, but at the moment, the SM codex doesn't contain any. Hell, aggressors technically fall into the generalist list because they are great at shooting and pretty damn good in melee but are relatively cheap.

Let's ask this then, if we 'balance' Space Marines by increasing their points costs that's not going to fix them. It's going to remove them from tournament play where they're already completely fine, and then it's going to mean they get to enjoy being dunked on by the next flavour of the month army that gets overturned and 'ruins' casual play.