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.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:While I agree with you that, in reality, the whole unit wouldn't strike first/last. In reality the whole unit wouldn't share the exact same stats. Some members wouldn't be as strong/tough/fast as others. It's a game and as such reality has to be put aside for game mechanics.

I don't think anyone minds a mass battle game giving every member of a unit an averaged BS instead of individually varying accuracy. But the idea of rolling to see if the entire unit gets to strike before or after the entire enemy unit seems to me like starting a shooting attack by making a single roll to see if everyone in the squad hits or everyone in the squad misses. Whether a combatant gets a swing in before their opponent seems like something that ought to be either resolved individually (in an RPG or skirmish game) or abstracted out (in a mass battle game). Especially in a game where melee attacks are very abstracted to begin with and we don't pair off combatants like in 2nd Ed.

Like I said before, part of the reason the Initiative stat hung around so long is because it was used to represent the combat force-multiplier of agility in a system that otherwise doesn't model speed as a defense. In LotR, you don't need an Initiative stat because having a high Fight stat is both an offensive and defensive bonus, and lets elves go toe-to-toe with Uruk-Hai without feeling like glass cannons.

vipoid wrote:I get what you're saying, but at the same time we literally have armies where every model has an invulnerable save, or a super-invulnerable save, or where every model is T7+ or where every model ignores AP-1.

I would also consider those problems, particularly with 40K's paradigm of building your list in a vacuum with no idea of what you're up against, and would prefer not to propagate what I would consider poor design.

vipoid wrote:I mean, I certainly wouldn't object to having the old system but with more ways to vary initiative. Even at the time, I repeatedly argued that the old cover mechanics were bonked (since, apart from anything else, not all models had high initiative to begin with). More of an aside at this point, but IMO charging through cover should have stripped your unit of the extra attack you used to get from charging, rather than stripping you of initiative. That would have been a relatively even bonus across all armies.

Anyway, even if a given army doesn't have much variance in base initiative values, there's no reason why it couldn't have wargear/relics, psychic powers etc. to add bonuses to the initiative values of units or reduce the initiative of enemy models. Plus you could get circumstantial bonuses, like +1I for charging.

I agree with all of that, especially changing cover to just deny the bonus normally afforded by charging. I don't think the Initiative stat was awful, but without many ways to vary it and with basically all the exception cases rendering it irrelevant, it could have been handled better. And I'm just not convinced that it's an optimal solution to any particular design problem.

 Tyran wrote:
I don't really see the need to go over 10 when most of the initiative values were between 1 and 6. If nothing else I believe that this is a system that needs to be condensed because of how inherently binary it is.

I do think that we need at least an increase across the board to have room especially downwards, or else any reductions at all would lead to the everything clustering at I 1 in practice anyway, or conversely clustering at I 10 with bonuses. Granted, it may not be necessary to go out of the 1-10 range if a lot of the boosts and reductions would cancel each other out in sum, but i have a gut feeling that more granularity would actually be good in this case, to not make e.g. +2 be that much better than +1. But that's a question of detail anyway.

I like the concept of Initiative, but it often just got to the boring one army always being able to strike before the other. I am unsure on the optimal solution to make it actually function in a way that makes both players happy.

As some have said, glass cannon units used to depend on striking first as otherwise they would melt instantly. Even holding off on casualties till the end of the phase would mean the enemy could strike and blend them. The only thing off the top of my head that can alleviate that somewhat is to actually make initiative add bonus to saves on the first round of combat - like getting 1 point better save per point of I difference. After the first round, if both units are still stuck in instead of dead or falling back, that bonus goes away as it turns into just a melee.

Alternatively, opposed initiative checks (die+I stat), but on a d6 that sounds kind of like a raw deal - something with I2 or I1 would still go last more than half the time it rolled a 6 vs something I4. Going the D&D route and chucking d20s to determine initiative might work - the higher I unit is still more likely to go first, but there is enough variability that lower I units can pull some surprises. Combine with some simple modifiers (+2 for charging, or +2 for a unit declared to be braced for charge, +2 for high ground) and there could be some nice variance.

I suppose another option is active player always goes first in combat, but in a pure IGOUGO system that would be a mess. But in a system with alternating activations, or group activations, or reaction actions, so that the opposing player can then react more on the fly to an assault, it could go okish. Been a few months since I played so might be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure OPR does that - charger goes first, defender can choose to fight or not fight, then if the defender is still alive the attacker falls back 3". Yeah that one unit got its big assault off, but now it might be out of position for the opponent to push a unit to counter it, etc.

Still not a great system, but a bit better than fight first/fight last rules.

I'd like to see all the granularity that is feasible with initiative and WS and all their implications, but to mitigate the resulting inherent (dis-)advantages by giving each faction certain "battle plans". Think Mont'ka and Kau'yon as they are described in universe: strategies that determine the general approach to battle determined by the player, depending on which faction they are facing.

Let's assume orks have a bad match-up against eldar in general, because eldar are faster, highly skilled and high-damage, so orks pretty much always get killed before they can retaliate, or lack the comparative WS/BS to get enough hits in when they manage to hit them. Knowing that they will be up against eldar, the ork player then might choose the battle plan "swamp em", which lowers initiative and/or WS values for outnumbered opponents in the vicinity. Now, Eldar cannot reliably blend ork boys to the same extent and need to take an approach that does not play as much into their faction-inherent advantage over orks on a conceptual level.

While I acknowledge that doing this across all the factions is a pretty big ask, it might be a way of addressing balance on a macro-level, with the actual units being the place where the fine-tuning is done.

 kurhanik wrote:

Alternatively, opposed initiative checks (die+I stat), but on a d6 that sounds kind of like a raw deal - something with I2 or I1 would still go last more than half the time it rolled a 6 vs something I4. Going the D&D route and chucking d20s to determine initiative might work - the higher I unit is still more likely to go first, but there is enough variability that lower I units can pull some surprises. Combine with some simple modifiers (+2 for charging, or +2 for a unit declared to be braced for charge, +2 for high ground) and there could be some nice variance.

See, I have to disagree on this point. I think the absolute worst thing you could do would be to have a system where the active player doesn't know whether or not the units he charges into combat will actually get to strike first. At least if your initiative is lower, you can plan for the fact that your unit will be taking some hits before it gets to swing. However, if initiative is rolled, then any fast, glass-cannon units will have a reasonable chance of losing their arbitrarily losing their central bonus and getting creamed before they get to strike.

 catbarf wrote:

I would also consider those problems, particularly with 40K's paradigm of building your list in a vacuum with no idea of what you're up against, and would prefer not to propagate what I would consider poor design.

That's fair.

 catbarf wrote:

I agree with all of that, especially changing cover to just deny the bonus normally afforded by charging. I don't think the Initiative stat was awful, but without many ways to vary it and with basically all the exception cases rendering it irrelevant, it could have been handled better. And I'm just not convinced that it's an optimal solution to any particular design problem.

I can understand that.

Tbh, 40k's combat is kinda weird in general, in that it basically takes place in a different timeframe, relative to everything else. In other games, the charging models get to strike first because they're the active models. Then surviving enemy models can strike in the enemy turn (or when individually activated in an AA game). 40k, though, allows an out-of-sequence retaliation before the enemy turn, which I think is the main reason this sort of thing becomes an issue.

 BertBert wrote:
I'd like to see all the granularity that is feasible with initiative and WS and all their implications, but to mitigate the resulting inherent (dis-)advantages by giving each faction certain "battle plans". Think Mont'ka and Kau'yon as they are described in universe: strategies that determine the general approach to battle determined by the player, depending on which faction they are facing.

Let's assume orks have a bad match-up against eldar in general, because eldar are faster, highly skilled and high-damage, so orks pretty much always get killed before they can retaliate, or lack the comparative WS/BS to get enough hits in when they manage to hit them. Knowing that they will be up against eldar, the ork player then might choose the battle plan "swamp em", which lowers initiative and/or WS values for outnumbered opponents in the vicinity. Now, Eldar cannot reliably blend ork boys to the same extent and need to take an approach that does not play as much into their faction-inherent advantage over orks on a conceptual level.

Just make custom missions, these mechanics might be neat instead of balance nightmares.

While I acknowledge that doing this across all the factions is a pretty big ask, it might be a way of addressing balance on a macro-level, with the actual units being the place where the fine-tuning is done.

You could address balance by having every model channel CP on a 6+ each turn and some models channeling more than once, but it'd be really silly to not just adjust pts.

I suppose an out there alternative suggestion to initiative and fight first/last is:
You only fight on your own turn.

Quicker fight phases with less rolling.
Simpler fight phases with less forgetting (common one is forgetting to fight back).
Fight phase units would no longer do double the "actions" compared to shooting phase units.

You could also streamline and eliminate the Pile In and Consolidate moves down to probably just a single move.

I'm sure GW would find a way to make it a bloated confused mess by half way through 10th, but worth a shot?

EightFoldPath wrote:
I suppose an out there alternative suggestion to initiative and fight first/last is:
You only fight on your own turn.

Absolutely not. You just made the IGOUGO paradigm even WORSE.

 vipoid wrote:

Tbh, 40k's combat is kinda weird in general, in that it basically takes place in a different timeframe, relative to everything else. In other games, the charging models get to strike first because they're the active models. Then surviving enemy models can strike in the enemy turn (or when individually activated in an AA game). 40k, though, allows an out-of-sequence retaliation before the enemy turn, which I think is the main reason this sort of thing becomes an issue.

I think that's because a close combat is designed to potentially resolve itself in one round, and you want the 'reciever' to get a chance to strike before resolution.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I suppose an out there alternative suggestion to initiative and fight first/last is:
You only fight on your own turn.

Absolutely not. You just made the IGOUGO paradigm even WORSE.

I agree. The shooting phase is already quite uninteractive, not letting combatants hit back in melee sounds like a bad idea in general.

Tiberias wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I suppose an out there alternative suggestion to initiative and fight first/last is:
You only fight on your own turn.

Absolutely not. You just made the IGOUGO paradigm even WORSE.

I agree. The shooting phase is already quite uninteractive, not letting combatants hit back in melee sounds like a bad idea in general.

TBH, a firing back mechanic like in melee a fighting back mechanic, would probably do wonders for the game since it would make positioning matter even more nvm fire concentration and coordination.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I suppose an out there alternative suggestion to initiative and fight first/last is:
You only fight on your own turn.

Absolutely not. You just made the IGOUGO paradigm even WORSE.

I agree. The shooting phase is already quite uninteractive, not letting combatants hit back in melee sounds like a bad idea in general.

TBH, a firing back mechanic like in melee a fighting back mechanic, would probably do wonders for the game since it would make positioning matter even more nvm fire concentration and coordination.

See, this exists in HH 2.0 right now with the reactions, and all it does in my experience is force you to sacrifice units to eat the return fire then hit them with what you actually what to hit them with. Similar situation with Overwatch in the Assault phase making it difficult to charge anything without eating an entire shooting attack, which really hurts. It doesn't help that 2 out of the three basic warlord traits gives an extra use of one of these two reactions, depending on which one you take.

A proper return-fire mechanic really needs a type-of-unit limitation or some other way to prevent over-use. As it makes it difficult to deal with units that possess good shooting, especially at long-range. Especially if you want Overwatch in the same game.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I suppose an out there alternative suggestion to initiative and fight first/last is:
You only fight on your own turn.

Absolutely not. You just made the IGOUGO paradigm even WORSE.

I agree. The shooting phase is already quite uninteractive, not letting combatants hit back in melee sounds like a bad idea in general.

TBH, a firing back mechanic like in melee a fighting back mechanic, would probably do wonders for the game since it would make positioning matter even more nvm fire concentration and coordination.

See, this exists in HH 2.0 right now with the reactions, and all it does in my experience is force you to sacrifice units to eat the return fire then hit them with what you actually what to hit them with. Similar situation with Overwatch in the Assault phase making it difficult to charge anything without eating an entire shooting attack, which really hurts. It doesn't help that 2 out of the three basic warlord traits gives an extra use of one of these two reactions, depending on which one you take.

A proper return-fire mechanic really needs a type-of-unit limitation or some other way to prevent over-use. As it makes it difficult to deal with units that possess good shooting, especially at long-range. Especially if you want Overwatch in the same game.

In my experience it does exactly what Not Online said. I pay considerable attention to what I'm shooting, with what I'm shooting it with, and the positioning involved (mostly taking into account range + cover). Also the sequencing of the shooting (usually the Pinning stuff goes first). And I definitely don't do what you described. Shooting a "lesser" unit first in hopes that your opponent wastes their Reaction so that you can freely shoot with the unit "you actually want to hit them with" only works if your opponent isn't smart enough to realize that's what you're doing. Otherwise, they'll just hold the Reaction for the "better" unit.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
I suppose an out there alternative suggestion to initiative and fight first/last is:
You only fight on your own turn.

Absolutely not. You just made the IGOUGO paradigm even WORSE.

I agree. The shooting phase is already quite uninteractive, not letting combatants hit back in melee sounds like a bad idea in general.

TBH, a firing back mechanic like in melee a fighting back mechanic, would probably do wonders for the game since it would make positioning matter even more nvm fire concentration and coordination.

See, this exists in HH 2.0 right now with the reactions, and all it does in my experience is force you to sacrifice units to eat the return fire then hit them with what you actually what to hit them with. Similar situation with Overwatch in the Assault phase making it difficult to charge anything without eating an entire shooting attack, which really hurts. It doesn't help that 2 out of the three basic warlord traits gives an extra use of one of these two reactions, depending on which one you take.

A proper return-fire mechanic really needs a type-of-unit limitation or some other way to prevent over-use. As it makes it difficult to deal with units that possess good shooting, especially at long-range. Especially if you want Overwatch in the same game.

In my experience it does exactly what Not Online said. I pay considerable attention to what I'm shooting, with what I'm shooting it with, and the positioning involved (mostly taking into account range + cover). Also the sequencing of the shooting (usually the Pinning stuff goes first). And I definitely don't do what you described. Shooting a "lesser" unit first in hopes that your opponent wastes their Reaction so that you can freely shoot with the unit "you actually want to hit them with" only works if your opponent isn't smart enough to realize that's what you're doing. Otherwise, they'll just hold the Reaction for the "better" unit.

TBH, my experience about the reactions so far is that A: certain weapons are too cheap and the corresponding returnfire too plentifull, i thnk there should be a bonus for an attacker just like in melee, in thise case one could add a supression effect light f.e. and lower the return firing unit's bs by 1. B: reactions being this limited don't successfully break up the IGOUGO structure enough.

Why not alternating phases?

 Blndmage wrote:
Why not alternating phases?

Mostly if you have melee units vs melee units you can not charge units in even numbers or they essensially charge you. Happened all the time in 8th edtion when my genstealers charge my opponent orks. I essentually payed a premium to be fast and engage and just threw them away for free once I tryed top charge 2 things in one turn.

Just bring back initiative, there can then be rules that buff or debuff a unit’s initiative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
There are some things I'll wax nostalgic about from older editions, but the Initiative stat isn't one of them. As useful as it was to certain armies, like Eldar being able to rely on offense as their best defense by usually hitting first, it was also frustrating for armies like Orks that ought to be melee-focused but got crippled by striking last. It was one of those things that was frustrating to play with, because it applied to your whole army, with limited means to overcome.

The current system is fairly straightforward at its core, but GW has in typical GW fashion made it drastically overcomplicated by piling bespoke special mechanics onto a core one, rather than building the mechanic from the outset to support those special cases. I think you could marginally rewrite it to be more intuitive without drastically changing how it works.

Something like:
-Any unit which charges receives an Initiative token.
-Any unit which is in Engagement Range at the start of the Fight phase receives an Initiative token.
-Any unit with a 'Fight First' ability adds an Initiative token.
-Any unit with a 'Enemy Fights Last' ability removes an Initiative token from the appropriate unit.

And then you fight in order of initiative tokens, units with the most to units with the least. Within each 'step', alternate back and forth as in the current system. You could add in more effects that add or take away initiative, like cover or grenades or whatever, since now they're just straightforward +1s and -1s rather than exception cases that need to be resolved by canceling out with existing effects.

Orks aren’t a melee army. Their a weight of attack army. Are they better than guard and tau at melee? Sure but that’s not saying much.
Guard are supposed to be a shooting army but only have a 50% hit rate, that hurts what guard is supposed to be! That makes me mad!

Initiative is a perfectly good method of doing combat.

I don't see a reason why in combat all attacks shouldn't be resolved at the same time, forgoing ugoigo. Roll up all hits (hopefully based on WSvsWS) wounds (SvsT) and wait for your opponent to do the same before saves are thrown. Then remove models at the same time and pile in.

 Gibblets wrote:
I don't see a reason why in combat all attacks shouldn't be resolved at the same time, forgoing ugoigo. Roll up all hits (hopefully based on WSvsWS) wounds (SvsT) and wait for your opponent to do the same before saves are thrown. Then remove models at the same time and pile in.

Because a lot of melee units are designed with the assumption that they'll strike before their opponent.

It would also make "glass hammer" units exceptionally unattractive. If there's no chance they can cause damage to the enemy (thereby lessening the return attacks) then why bring them over tougher choices?

 Gibblets wrote:
I don't see a reason why in combat all attacks shouldn't be resolved at the same time, forgoing ugoigo. Roll up all hits (hopefully based on WSvsWS) wounds (SvsT) and wait for your opponent to do the same before saves are thrown. Then remove models at the same time and pile in.

Ditto for shooting then. It doesn't make sense to have the damage phases resolved drastically different.

Charging units should get some bonus in melee. Target units should be able to overwatch. Melee should be simultaneous. That said, it should be a good-on-good series of attacks. Where there are different S, T, Saves, AP, etc. Assign highest S attacks to highest T defenders. I need to think that process through a bit, but that would be my concept.

ArmyC83 wrote:
Charging units should get some bonus in melee. Target units should be able to overwatch. Melee should be simultaneous.

So if I'm playing Dark Elday - an army that relies on speed and on striking before the enemy - the opponent first gets free shooting at my fragile troops and then also gets to strike simultaneously with them.

Why would I ever bother?

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Orks aren’t a melee army. Their a weight of attack army. Are they better than guard and tau at melee? Sure but that’s not saying much.
Guard are supposed to be a shooting army but only have a 50% hit rate, that hurts what guard is supposed to be! That makes me mad!

Initiative is a perfectly good method of doing combat.

Correct, Orkz are not a melee army. You are incorrect though that they are a "Weight of attack" army. Orkz used to be the "Horde" army, and then they became the "Melee" army, then in 8th they became a shooting only army before holding the line a bit with a horde build designed to hold objectives and not much else, in 9th they became a shooting/vehicle army before going back to Melee.

Basically Orkz are whatever the muppet designing them at GW decides they are that edition/period of time.

But in 9th, the one thing they will never be without a drastic rule change is a Weight of attack army. GW hamstrung horde armies entirely, GW then went on to screw over most core mechanics of the Ork army. At the moment a unit of 10 boyz isn't even really playable, and they are one of the few units with a decent # of attacks for their points value. ATM my standout unit in CC with a good # of attacks is Kommandos and on a WAAAGH turn they each get 4 attacks. While that isn't bad, its definitely not like the old days where a unit of 30 ork boyz could get up to 5-6 attacks each with +1 to hit and fight twice.

As far as Initiative goes...no thanks, that rule sucked horribly and just made the game easier for power armored factions and a few outliers. If my glass cannon Orkz get into CC on a charge, I shouldn't lose half them before they get to swing.

10 boyz vs 10 Marines currently. If orkz charge they get 30 attacks, 20 hits, 10 wounds and do 3.33dmg for 1.6 dead Marines.
Using Initiative: Those 10 Marines get 20 attacks, 14 hits(ish) 7 wounds and 6 dead Orkz, orkz swing back on their charge phase and do 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds and 1.33dmg. So a CC oriented unit charges a utility unit and loses 60% before getting to swing...no thanks.

I mean, do you remember the Feth show that was "Duels"? where a Sgt could challenge another Sgt or equivalent character to a duel in the middle of a fight and if they refused they couldn't attack? That boiled down to every faction getting to kill the Ork nob before the Nob could do anything because the Nob always had to fight last.

 vipoid wrote:

ArmyC83 wrote:
Charging units should get some bonus in melee. Target units should be able to overwatch. Melee should be simultaneous.

So if I'm playing Dark Elday - an army that relies on speed and on striking before the enemy - the opponent first gets free shooting at my fragile troops and then also gets to strike simultaneously with them.

Why would I ever bother?

Dark Eldar have vehicles and coven units to soak up overwatch, so that can be mitigated. As for the simultaneous melee, I'm also heavily against it as it negates an entire tactical dimension.

I can just imagine all the whining if they brought back initiative… especially newer players that never used it.