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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Initiative was fething stupid.

Why?

terennNash wrote:

In AoS the Battleline keyword is on the points sheet. Battleline is also heavily mutable as certain units can get Battleline keyword based off your Warlord.

i hope this mutability comes to 40k. imagine ork blood axes with kommandos as battle line instead of standard boys, or white scars with bikes etc

So we can get non-fluffy all bike scar armies again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Voss wrote:
Keywords : Monster?

Do the other Primmies have that?


Nothing quite like rules with a 2 month lifespan.

Still a "Beast" for 320 pts.

He's not quite as tough as Abbadon, who's wound locked. But with this "forestwalk" ability that is specifically NOT a "deepstrike", he can show up anywhere on the table (9" away from enemy) on turn 1, who also has re-rolls for charges.

He'd absolutely nuke a unit or two on one charge (11 -5ap 4d or 22 -3ap 2d).

No type of reinforcements, without explicit exception, can arrive on the first turn in Matched Play/Grand Tournament missions.

There's only one mission that I'm aware of that prohibits reinforcements on turn one. (I can't recall that misson at the moment).

But, things like Drop pod assaults and Lion's Forrestwalk ability (barring that one mission) should work on turn 1.

It's not scenario rule. It's battle pack rule. No reinforcement(unit not on table or transport) in t1.

That's also not deep strike specific rule as there" no deep strike but rnstead n+1 ways to put unit to reserve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Sooooo much better than just figuring out something like Initiative. /s

Binary non-scalable rules are so much better than granular comparative rules.

Yes, it's great fun to know who will get to strike first in combat under any circumstance during the select army stage of the game.

Yup. Just like knowing who has the best armour save. Or higher strength. Or better Weapon Skill.. .

You would need some serious rethink on orks though least it go back to their melee army getting chopped to death when they get to melee.

Lethality would need to drop by about 90%

All we can really take from the Lion's Datasheet is a couple abilities we might see in the new edition. These rules are just to hold us over for the next month or two, and that's assuming you get to actually buy him and get him built.

tneva82 wrote:
You would need some serious rethink on orks though least it go back to their melee army getting chopped to death when they get to melee.

Lethality would need to drop by about 90%

Not really. Combining the systems would be easy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Initiative was fething stupid.

Why?

It made combat pointless for many "melee" units.

Unless a unit charged, or we get some really in depth terrain rules, units should be fighting at the same time.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
It made combat pointless for many "melee" units.

And thus was unsolvable? You act like there's only two ways to do it, Initiative or no Initiative. The non-scaling first or last method right now is certainly worse than a granular system. Doesn't mean the granular system is perfect, but the idea that because isn't perfect it is therefore terrible, unworkable and unfixable is, well, laughable.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Unless a unit charged, or we get some really in depth terrain rules, units should be fighting at the same time.

Units don't fight at the same time now.

And, on that subject, why should units be fighting at the same time? Gretchin should be fighting at the same time as Harlequins? Custodes should be no faster in combat than Cultists?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You would need some serious rethink on orks though least it go back to their melee army getting chopped to death when they get to melee.

Lethality would need to drop by about 90%

Not really. Combining the systems would be easy.

Could be as simple as Initiative stat+1d6, bonus +1d6 if you charged this round.

Initiative was stupid because GW just used it like their current Fight First/Last rules and not because a granular system is bad

same way as Weaponskill was stupid because it was only used for hit on 3+ or 4+ which can be done much easier by directly writing this into the profile

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


And, on that subject, why should units be fighting at the same time? Gretchin should be fighting at the same time as Harlequins? Custodes should be no faster in combat than Cultists?

I dont disagree with you, but one might argue the number of attacks represent how fast a unit strike. The fact that units have different number of attacks somehow indicate that the assault phase is more of an ongoing sparring rather than one fast strike, and theoretically, both units should be able to make their attacks simultaneously.

 kodos wrote:
Initiative was stupid because GW just used it like their current Fight First/Last rules and not because a granular system is bad

same way as Weaponskill was stupid because it was only used for hit on 3+ or 4+ which can be done much easier by directly writing this into the profile

GW inventing a semi-useful system and rendering it basically useless by restricting themselves to a fraction of its possibility space happens literally every edition, AV was one example, Initiative was another one, Leadership... there were a few

 kodos wrote:
same way as Weaponskill was stupid because it was only used for hit on 3+ or 4+ which can be done much easier by directly writing this into the profile

No, I'd say having Gretchin or Cultists hitting Trajann, The Lion or a Bloodthirster as easily as they hit each other is more stupid than having a relative stat - whether the table that was used for comparison needed reviewing is a separate matter entirely.

 Dysartes wrote:

 kodos wrote:
same way as Weaponskill was stupid because it was only used for hit on 3+ or 4+ which can be done much easier by directly writing this into the profile

No, I'd say having Gretchin or Cultists hitting Trajann, The Lion or a Bloodthirster as easily as they hit each other is more stupid than having a relative stat - whether the table that was used for comparison needed reviewing is a separate matter entirely.

Tbf, hitting as a concept, is only a word in the rules. Effectively it is just a gate and the question is if it should be modifiable. On the one hand, imposing a minus 1 to hit could be considered, that the target as very good at blocking or evading attacks. But then, lets be honest, the things that make a model stronger than another is everything that comes after hitting, toughness gate, saves gate, FnP, the amount of wounds etc.

Honestly though, the amount of rules bloat around rerolls, rerolls of only certain numbers, rolling natural numbers, ignoring certain natural numbers, ignoring modified numbers and modifyiers in general is one of the reasons that it feels like it takes forever to just finish one phase of anything in 9th. Here's one for controversy:
Rules that affect the outcome of a diceroll, like rerolls or modifiers are terrible game design. It only obscures your odds and drags out the entire process. Instead every roll should only be made once and at all times you should know if it succeeds, by simply knowing your odds. If a roll modifyier does come, it should be rare and meaningful.
But since D6 is limited, we would need to switch to D12 at least to have a meaningful variety of outcomes. Example: 3+ with reroll on fails equals a 8/9 chance to succeed. That is roughly the same as 10/12 (actually a bit better). So instead of rerolls mechanics, you could say that Marines hit their target always on 5+ (D12), but the ones that have rerolls in their profile hit on 3+ (D12). Yes you would need a crazy amount of D12 dice, but the amount of attacks on the models is also a crazy metric at this point. Instead there should be less attacks and instead a higher focus on the possible outcomes of the dice and using the wounds and toughness in a larger spread.

But lets be honest though, its not going to happen. GW had 12+ years to use initative 1-10 and ended up using the values 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 10. I at least can not remember something that had initiative 7,8,9 and 5,6, were already only sparesly used. So we will always have an endless amount of modifers, modifiyng sources that are optional, mental gymanstics around whether or not one rule comes before another and wordplays around even more rules upon rules just to figure out if a roll is a success or not. We might as well change to a system where every unit gets to roll 6+ dice depending on profile and their success is measured in doubles, triples or if they are able to roll a street. (See AoS for an actual implementation of this) I for one just hope that 10th does not again end up in a situation, where a player will have to run an excel sheet on the side to track which profile values his units currently have.

TL: DR: Gw creates system and uses it instead like a brick, rather than a scale.

More news at 11, after you bought another rulebook fo course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Initiative was fething stupid.

Why?

You never played orks did you?

But i agree, initiative as a concept is actually something good. It's just gw doing a gw that made it insufferable in many cases.

Not Online!!! wrote:
TL: DR: Gw creates system and uses it instead like a brick, rather than a scale.

More news at 11, after you bought another rulebook fo course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Initiative was fething stupid.

Why?

You never played orks did you?

But i agree, initiative as a concept is actually something good. It's just gw doing a gw that made it insufferable in many cases.

I think WHFB had it right, before they screwed it up for 8th edition: Fight in Initiative order, but charging units go first.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You would need some serious rethink on orks though least it go back to their melee army getting chopped to death when they get to melee.

Lethality would need to drop by about 90%

Not really. Combining the systems would be easy.

Yes really. We had initiative. Orks had habit of getting chopped to death before they got to strike.

tneva82 wrote:
Yes really. We had initiative. Orks had habit of getting chopped to death before they got to strike.

Did you read the whole post, or only the bit where I said "Yes really" and then decided you just wanted to fight?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
TL: DR: Gw creates system and uses it instead like a brick, rather than a scale.

More news at 11, after you bought another rulebook fo course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Initiative was fething stupid.

Why?

You never played orks did you?

But i agree, initiative as a concept is actually something good. It's just gw doing a gw that made it insufferable in many cases.

I think WHFB had it right, before they screwed it up for 8th edition: Fight in Initiative order, but charging units go first.

This just sounds like the current system but with extra steps.

"Look - we have an entire initiative scale that you'll never get to use!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Unless a unit charged, or we get some really in depth terrain rules, units should be fighting at the same time.

Units don't fight at the same time now.

Yeah and I think it's stupid they don't.

Also why shouldn't they hit at the same time? You think in the swirling melee and shots and artillery shots all over the battlefield no distractions happen? Everything you're talking about in regards to speed is literally just asking for hit modifiers in melee. As you might have noticed, I'm for modifiers and stacking modifiers at that. Why not let Harlequins get a negative penalty to be hit in melee? That's a good idea!

But now you want not just a negative hit penalty (AKA everyone whining they want the WS chart back) but also for them to do everything first because "they're fast".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
TL: DR: Gw creates system and uses it instead like a brick, rather than a scale.

More news at 11, after you bought another rulebook fo course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Initiative was fething stupid.

Why?

You never played orks did you?

He obviously never played Necrons or any units that didn't have Frag Grenades or Daemons, etc. either.

Initiative made it entirely binary what was good because you NEEDED AP2 at higher Initiative or just be too tanky so you can swing anything at I1. It's dumb. The hit penalties for big power weapons was a good call.

Stacking modifiers seriously bad on d6. D20 sure, d6 no.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
He obviously never played Necrons or any units that didn't have Frag Grenades or Daemons, etc. either.

"If every assault unit got grenades, what would be the point of the charge into difficult terrain and fight at initiative 1 rule?"
Yes GW... what would be the point of this rather stupid rule?

I don't like a lot of their system, but HH's assault rules make sense to me - and I think imitative (sort of) works there.
But - and I know HH players will sometimes argue to the death on this - I think this works because its overwhelmingly Marines into Marines. EC getting +1 I on the charge is therefore something that can be measured as a boost over a baseline.

I think its far harder to balance across a roster of Eldar+Tyranids/Marines/Guard/Orks. Are the Orks going to just be terrible due to going last? Or are Eldar overpaying for higher initiative when lower initiative would have let them fight first anyway? If you are going to be fighting last anyway, do you just take all the heavy weapons because there's effectively no penalty (an issue in say WHFB)?

Personally chargers should fight first. That's the bonus of getting across the table and making a charge. This does make "always fight first" rules a bit redundant but I don't really mind that.

I have to say I much prefer the current system for deciding who fights when over initiative. It gives players a decision to make in the fight phase when you have multiple combats going on. Previously it was very binary.

What I would say is that melee seems so lethal currently that there's rarely any models left to fight back once the charging unit has fought which means actually those choices rarely materialize.

It only gives decision to make if non-active has 2cp for counter charge stratagem。

Now in aos where barring special rules it's back and forth makes multiple units charging riskier.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
He obviously never played Necrons...

Tomb Kings in Space, please. Necrons were fine at I4.

Commander Dante rules:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/11/commander-dante-is-back-and-burning-holes-in-heretics-with-his-new-datasheet

Now with extremely situational beam attack!

2nd ed used initiative as a tie breaker, although the combat resolution was relatively cumbersome.

For modern 40k you could do the following:

If one side has higher initiative they gain +1 A.

Initiative modifiers

+1 for charging
+1 for being in terrain
+1 outnumbering
+2 outnumbering the target 2:1
+3 outnumbering the target 3:1

That beam is unnecessarily convoluted, I hope they drop it in the tenth.

 Crimson wrote:
That beam is unnecessarily convoluted, I hope they drop it in the tenth.

I hate all rules that encourage or require micro-management of individual models' position on the table with a burning passion, so i'll agree

 Crimson wrote:
That beam is unnecessarily convoluted, I hope they drop it in the tenth.

Same. This feels like a last gasp of 'look how convoluted and pointless we can be, won't you be glad when we switch?'

It’s exactly the same as all the other beam weapons in the Tau and Squat codexes.

I kinda feel sorry for blood angel players tbh. Dante got leaked early and then GW had to do a “oops, here you go article “. Then nothing. Then he gets official release with the Lion and his rules are dropped one day after the Lions. Poor guy probably deserved better.
At least you’ll have better luck getting him compared to Farsight