Switch Theme:

Player going second allowed to place reserves in battleround 1  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut




I recently played three games with my new Sisters of Battle codex, all three of which I had the first turn, and after my second or third turn the games were effectively over. It got me thinking about the turn 1 advantage and that the major issue was that any of the units in reserve for player 2 just take too long to join the battle to really matter. If player 2 would be allowed to put any units in reserve (either through CP or datasheet abilities) in battleround 1, then both players only have to withstand one round of fire and melee before their reserves come in to reinforce their armies. It also gives a distinct advantage to going second. While it's nice you can score 15 VP at the end of battleround 5, that doesn't matter if the game is over after three turns. Going first keeps the same advantage of being able to deal out the first damage and get board control.

It seems to me like a rather elegant and simple solution to the first turn advantage. I have no idea though if this has been discussed or tried before. Are there any obvious issues that I'm missing that this change would cause?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





I’ve thought this too. I like the idea.

There’s every chance it would be too effective though and swing the balance of power to far in favour of going second, in which case we have the same problem just from the other side.
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut




I've considered that as well. But since you can't control who goes first or second, putting a lot in reserve in the hope of going second would then hurt quite a bit if you turn out to go first. That's the same now with glass canon lists that are optimized to take advantage of a hard hitting alpha strike in turn 1 but just melt if they go second. Such strategies have never been particularly successful I believe. So hopefully that is enough to mitigate the issue and move things to a more balancing approach between placing a lot in reserves (at a CP cost) and potentially not getting any reward when you go first.

I've sent an email to GW with this suggestion and offered the option to run this rule as a beta rule, similar to what they did with bolter discipline etc. That'd be the best way to find out if the proposed rule is in fact a net positive to the game. Anyone who likes the idea, I encourage you to do the same to increase the chance GW will take this suggestion seriously.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I've suggested such a thing in other threads. Here's my approach which I hope to playtest one day, when I have room for a gaming table again...

Spoiler:

I think that the easiest way to mitigate this is in the deployment rather than by adding rules to make shooting worse on turn 1. Here's my suggestion:

Both players start with 25% of their army on the board.
Roll to see who goes first.
Player 1 divides the rest of their army into two waves. The first wave cannot contain more than 50% of the power level/points of the remaining army. The second wave contains everything that's left.
Player 2 divides the rest of their army into three waves. The first two waves cannot contain more than 1/3 of the power level/points of the remaining army. The third wave contains everything that's left.

Player 1 has their turn with their 25%.
Player 2 gets wave 1 reinforcements and has turn 1 with what's left of their 25% + 25%
Player 1 gets wave 1 reinforcements and has turn 2 with what's left of their 25% +37.5%
Player 2 gets wave 2 reinforcements and has turn 2 with what's left of their 50% + 25%
Player 1 gets wave 2 reinforcements and has turn 3 with what's left of their 62.5% + 37.5%
Player 2 gets wave 3 reinforcements and has turn 3 with what's left of their 75% + 25%
Player 1 has turn 4
Player 2 has turn 4
Player 1 has turn 5
Player 2 has turn 5


So after turn 3, both players have deployed their whole army.

Player 1 has the advantage of shooting first with their 25%.
Player 2 has the advantage of bringing their last reinforcements on after player 1, so can position accordingly
Both players get 3 whole turns with their whole army (barring losses)


Assuming a lethality of 50% (random stab in the dark), so 1000pts of models can remove 500pts of models, then the approximate points on the board for a 2k game would be:

P1 Turn 1: 500pts
P2 Turn 1: 750pts (250 left + 500 reinforcements)
P1 Turn 2: 875pts (125 left + 750 reinforcements)
P2 Turn 2: 813pts (313 left + 500 reinforcements)
P1 Turn 3: 1219pts (469 left + 750 reinforcements)
P2 Turn 3: 1110pts (610 left + 500 reinforcements)
P1 Turn 4: 664pts
P2 Turn 4: 778pts
P1 Turn 5: 275pts
P2 Turn 5: 641pts

As opposed to the current all-down system with 50% lethality:

P1 T1: 2000pts
P2 T1: 1000pts (2000 - 1000)
P1 T2: 1500pts (2000 - 500)
P2 T2: 250pts (1000 - 750)
P1 T3: 1375pts (1500 - 125)
P2 T3: 0pts (250 - 688)


It also allows people to react to changes on the table with regards to deployment, forces people to think about what's in each wave, as moving on is moving, and eradicates static gunline lists from the board entirely.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut




That may be a mathematically better approach, but it also looks very convoluted, on top of it being a rather significant change to the game as you suddenly play with only 500-1000 points on the table in the first turn. You never get to play your 2k army, instead you have several sub-armies that you get to use over the course of several turns. Looks like a rather different game to me and I cannot imagine GW ever implementing it.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Interesting! I like it a lot; it's essentially an extension of the way good cover forces players to deploy conservatively because they don't know if they'll get turn 1.

Reminds me a bit of this hack, too.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Would be easier if you are the guy going 2nd. All your units get a +1 to save first turn or something simple. Because you’re “coming into range” and not truly in the battle space yet. Something really simple like that would probably work well.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




STRATEGIC RESERVES – FOG OF WAR
When playing a game using the Fog of War rules, the rules for setting up Strategic Reserve units are modified as described below. These new rules apply regardless of any mission rules.
Where on the battlefield a Strategic Reserve unit is set up when it arrives depends on the turn in which the unit arrives, as described below.

  • In the first turn of the first battle round, no Strategic Reserve units can arrive.
  • Starting from the second turn of the first battle round, Strategic Reserve units that arrive can be set up wholly within 6" of any battlefield edge other than the enemy's battlefield edge. However, no model can be set up within 6" of the enemy’s deployment zone or battlefield edge.
  • Starting from the third battle round, Strategic Reserve units that arrive can be set up wholly within 6" of any battlefield edge. However, no model can be set up within the enemy's deployment zone.
  • All other rules for setting up Strategic Reserve units apply as normal.

    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/02 15:48:37


     
       
    Made in nl
    Regular Dakkanaut




    RevlidRas, I'm not sure what those Fog of War rules are meant to represent. Is it a proposed set of rules by yourself? The wording seems a bit odd and causes some confusion to me. Are turn 1 and 2 part of battleround 1? How about units entering from 'deep strike'? And why is the text for round 3 and 5 the same? I suppose the text for round 5 needs to be updated somehow.
       
    Made in gb
    Dakka Veteran




    Us3Less wrote:
    RevlidRas, I'm not sure what those Fog of War rules are meant to represent. Is it a proposed set of rules by yourself?
    Yeah, it's intended as a formalization of what you're proposing. Both players create and set up Strategic Reserves as normal, but the player who goes second can set them up (not within 6" of the enemy deployment zone or battlefield edge, to slow them down slightly) in the first battle round.

    Us3Less wrote:

    The wording seems a bit odd and causes some confusion to me. Are turn 1 and 2 part of battleround 1?
    Yes, the first turn is the first turn either player takes, which happens in the first battle round. The second turn is the second turn either player takes, which also happens in the first battle round.

    An alternate phrasing would, I suppose, be "the first turn of the first battle round", followed by just using the regular Reserves text.

    Us3Less wrote:
    How about units entering from 'deep strike'? And why is the text for round 3 and 5 the same? I suppose the text for round 5 needs to be updated somehow.
    Left Deep Strike out, and the turn 5 text was a copy-paste error.
       
    Made in nl
    Regular Dakkanaut




    RIght, somehow the turn/battleround thing with leaving out deep strike and the turn 5 copy paste error got me really confused. If my previous reply came off as rude, I apologize. I had forgotten about the different reserve rules for battlerounds 2 and 3, so It all didn't make so much sense, haha.

    Considering your post, isn't it easier to leave almost all current rules in places and add the rule that in the first battleround, the player going second is allowed to place units from reserve/deepstrike (following the same rules as currently apply in battleround 2)? Battlerounds 2 and 3 don't really need much additional clarification, perhaps for battleround 2 just a "both players" or so.

    Great you like the idea though. I really hope GW takes my/our feedback seriously!
       
    Made in us
    Twisting Tzeentch Horror





    I really agree with the army that goes second can deploy reserves on battle round 1 and the army going first has to wait until battle round 2. I think this would help with first turn advantage and is a simple fix.
       
    Made in us
    Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






    @ OP: first, how many points were these games you're basing your proposed rule on? Second, what is the terrain set up? Third, what is the size of the battlefield? Fourth, what was the overall 'EXP' difference between the players? Fifth, what kind of lists went against each other?

    It's really rather unlikely for turn 2 game set unless the game was engineered towards it. Something tells me you've played multiple rounds of unbalanced games.
       
    Made in nl
    Regular Dakkanaut




     skchsan wrote:
    @ OP: first, how many points were these games you're basing your proposed rule on? Second, what is the terrain set up? Third, what is the size of the battlefield? Fourth, what was the overall 'EXP' difference between the players? Fifth, what kind of lists went against each other?


    I played 1000, 1500 and 2000 points. Terrain was regular stuff, some dense, some obscuring, some craters. Not extremely packed, but plenty of terrain to do things with. Sizes of the board were minimum advized table size. I have more experience than the other players, but one of them not by much and finally, casual lists with a punch. Nothing hardcore competitive.

    Now that I've answered your questions, what will you do with the answers? Either the suggestion has merit, or it doesn't. My play experiences don't really matter in the end. I also watch and read plenty of battle reports, so I have more data than just my own experiences. These past three games just got me thinking about the first turn vs second turn and this was a solution I came up with, that in my view is quite elegant.

     skchsan wrote:
    It's really rather unlikely for turn 2 game set unless the game was engineered towards it. Something tells me you've played multiple rounds of unbalanced games.


    What do you base this on? I've seen plenty of games that were effectively decided by battleround 2, even some by 1. Sure, there's a chance if everything goes well for the player on the back foot, but even average luck just isn't cutting it. I'm not talking about games that were done in 2 battlerounds, but where one of the players is so much behind, either on points or on models left that the game is effectively done, bar some really skewed dice luck.

    To those finding it an interesting suggestion, I encourage you to send GW an email at 40kfaq@gwplc.com and ask them if they're willing to try this as a beta rule!
       
    Made in us
    Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






    Oh boy. The reluctance for constructive criticism is real here.

    If you're losing significant amount (say, more than 1/3) of your army in a single round, chances are they're attributed to:
    1. poor deployment
    2. lack of terrain density
    3. going against skew list/abuse of OP units
    4. you have a thematic list that forego competitiveness

    Us3Less wrote:
    I played 1000, 1500 and 2000 points. Terrain was regular stuff, some dense, some obscuring, some craters. Not extremely packed, but plenty of terrain to do things with.
    This doesn't tell us anything. In the BRB, there are examples of battlefield set ups. Can you tell us which one your games were most similar to?

    Us3Less wrote:
    Now that I've answered your questions, what will you do with the answers? Either the suggestion has merit, or it doesn't. My play experiences don't really matter in the end. I also watch and read plenty of battle reports, so I have more data than just my own experiences. These past three games just got me thinking about the first turn vs second turn and this was a solution I came up with, that in my view is quite elegant.
    And this tells me that you don't really care for what anyone says about your suggestion, except for lauding it for how great it is. Following,

    Us3Less wrote:
    I've seen plenty of games that were effectively decided by battleround 2, even some by 1. Sure, there's a chance if everything goes well for the player on the back foot, but even average luck just isn't cutting it. I'm not talking about games that were done in 2 battlerounds, but where one of the players is so much behind, either on points or on models left that the game is effectively done, bar some really skewed dice luck.
    And I don't believe that's how 'normal' games end up in 9th ed. I'm assuming you're the aggressor that put your opponent's in their seats in your opening top of turn 1, and that you want to give your opponent a fighting chance so that you can have more fun toying with your opponent (at least, that's what you're seemingly implying judging from your structure and tone). I can't help but shake the doubt that it was your opponent who deployed extremely poorly or you brought a skew list against their "nothing hardcore competitive" lists - ergo, the situation was engineered for a biased win. Maybe post some pictures of your games next time and we can discuss in more detail.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/08 14:32:13


     
       
    Made in nl
    Regular Dakkanaut




     skchsan wrote:
    Oh boy. The reluctance for constructive criticism is real here.


    I'm sorry, but what part of your first post was "constructive criticism"? Asking a series of questions in a rather passive-aggresive tone is in my book not constructive in any way. So yeah, you get a somewhat snarky reply. But let's move past that. I get from your replies that you don't like the idea, but you haven't said why. What would be wrong about equalizing the amount of turns your units spent in reserve? That's the core question of this topic. I'm happy to hear any answers to that question.

    The turn 1 advantage (or having the the first turn in battleround 2) is not only observed by me in these three games I played. There's plenty of talk about it online and even GW admitted it when they tried some balancing with how the primary is scored. The games I played just got me thinking and the suggestion I made was a solution I thought was interesting. But since I am not a dedicated tournament player, I was curious to hear if there are any objections to the idea that I haven't thought about, for example just because I have a limited experience with competitive 40k.

    The games I played were just matched play games played at someone's home. We can dive into the details of the games, but that's a tangent I'd rather not pursue. My suggestion to reduce the (perceived) turn 1 advantage stands on itself. Still, to give a short reply to your doubts, yeah, my opponents probably could have deployed better (and so could I). I'm confident that the lists were as balanced as they could be in 40k though, because we discussed the lists prior to the games and made sure they were not skewed one way or the other.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/08 18:50:02


     
       
    Made in gb
    Stalwart Tribune





    Simple fix: player who goes second can bring strategic reserves on from their own board edge or if the models can deep strike then in their own deployment zone in turn 1 (they can still use reserves as normal turn 2 onwards).

    it keeps things fairly simple, and basically allows you to keep units safe for the first turn of shooting. due to it being strategic reserves you also can't hide your entire army either so there are some choices that would need to be made, and it also costs CP to do so.

    Praise the Omnissiah

    About 4k of .

    Imperial Knights (Valiant, Warden & Armigers)

    Some Misc. Imperium units etc. Assassins...

    About 2k of  
       
    Made in nl
    Regular Dakkanaut




     The Forgemaster wrote:
    Simple fix: player who goes second can bring strategic reserves on from their own board edge or if the models can deep strike then in their own deployment zone in turn 1 (they can still use reserves as normal turn 2 onwards).

    it keeps things fairly simple, and basically allows you to keep units safe for the first turn of shooting. due to it being strategic reserves you also can't hide your entire army either so there are some choices that would need to be made, and it also costs CP to do so.


    That's a very interesting suggestion. If people feel/think that allowing 'full' deepstrike battleround 1 for player two would be too powerful, this seems like the perfect middle ground. I'd say, send an email to GW about that .
       
    Made in gb
    Fresh-Faced New User




     The Forgemaster wrote:
    Simple fix: player who goes second can bring strategic reserves on from their own board edge or if the models can deep strike then in their own deployment zone in turn 1 (they can still use reserves as normal turn 2 onwards).

    it keeps things fairly simple, and basically allows you to keep units safe for the first turn of shooting. due to it being strategic reserves you also can't hide your entire army either so there are some choices that would need to be made, and it also costs CP to do so.


    Maybe also place some kind of limit on how much you can reinforce in T1 in this fashion? say 25% of your total army value as suggested above? maybe some extra CP cost involved?
       
    Made in gb
    Preparing the Invasion of Terra






    It seems like this is a problem only if the player going second has a significant portion of their army as Reserves. At most I'm putting 1, maybe 2 units out of about 15 in reserve and I'm not getting deleted off the board on the first turn. Is your opponent running majority Reserves lists?
    I also agree with the questions skchsan posted. You can't make a post in Proposed Rules and just expect everyone to agree with you off the bat.
       
    Made in gb
    Fresh-Faced New User




     Gert wrote:
    It seems like this is a problem only if the player going second has a significant portion of their army as Reserves. At most I'm putting 1, maybe 2 units out of about 15 in reserve and I'm not getting deleted off the board on the first turn. Is your opponent running majority Reserves lists?
    I also agree with the questions skchsan posted. You can't make a post in Proposed Rules and just expect everyone to agree with you off the bat.


    If you allowed people to do with with as much as they'd like then really I think you'd see it being abused and everyone having lots of reverses knowing they can potentially introduce them in their turn one if they go second.

    I could see it more as a kind of rule were you allow it for just 1-2 units, stuff that would otherwise be a really obvious target in T1 but would be seriously handicapped being off the board and the rest of any reserves would have to be used in T2 or latter as normal.

    That might add a bit more diversity to lists, espeically tanks.

    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/25 11:30:57


     
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
    Go to: