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.

Greetings, all! I've just come back from a brilliant tournament in Montreal, and a friend and I have been inspired to run a major tournament of our own in Toronto, probably in late 2008. I just wanted some technical advice on making the game as fun as possible.

1) One of the biggest complaints with 40k in general is the impact of 1st turn. In missions that don't use Escalation, what would you say to including Concealment as a mandatory rule? I like it 'cause it will only have an effect 1st turn.

2) Currently, there is little incentive in deploying 1st. In WHFB, the player who finishes deploying 1st gets +1 to the first turn roll. What if we incorporated this rule into 40k?

Comments welcome!

Zoned wrote:
2) Currently, there is little incentive in deploying 1st. In WHFB, the player who finishes deploying 1st gets +1 to the first turn roll. What if we incorporated this rule into 40k?

Chimming in to say how much I like the way fantasy does it - roll for side, the winner gets to either pick & claim the side with first deployment, or give it to the other side to do the same. Then +1 to the Big Roll for the first army deployed. Makes some sense as opposed to the Totally Random! 3 rolls in 40k.

In fact I may just make this a house rule for handling pre-game in 40k too ...

- Salvage

Every turn have the players roll for first move. Voila problem solved. Well not really but it sounds good.

Zoned wrote:Greetings, all! I've just come back from a brilliant tournament in Montreal, and a friend and I have been inspired to run a major tournament of our own in Toronto, probably in late 2008. I just wanted some technical advice on making the game as fun as possible.

1) One of the biggest complaints with 40k in general is the impact of 1st turn. In missions that don't use Escalation, what would you say to including Concealment as a mandatory rule? I like it 'cause it will only have an effect 1st turn.

2) Currently, there is little incentive in deploying 1st. In WHFB, the player who finishes deploying 1st gets +1 to the first turn roll. What if we incorporated this rule into 40k?

Comments welcome!

The +1 to finishing first really puts larger armies at a distinct disadvantage. Depending on what the mission is it can be better to go second. Objective based missions for example. You have an opportunity to jump in and grab it.
My opinion, and its just that so please take it for what its worth, is that neither of these two options help fix that issue.

I would suggest more terrain, varied terrain choices, trees, buildings, hills (the suggested 25% of the table in the BGB is a little too small in my opinion) and more objective based missions that don't rely on killing or getting the jump on your opponent

People are still under the impression that going first is always an advantage?

I have some drop pod marines (or any objective based mission) that would like to show you otherwise.

paidinfull wrote:
The +1 to finishing first really puts larger armies at a distinct disadvantage.

Aye, and the command & control elements of smaller more elite armies are able to direct the force with greater accuracy and ease, thereby having a (slightly) better chance of seizing the initiative and taking the upperhand. Take a grey knight strike force vs an ork horde and the distiniction is pretty clear, and would be reflected well on the table. Though I would want to see Guard specfically get some sort of C&C ability that negates the +1 for finishing deployment, as they have a much more developed command structure. And then there's nid synapse controlling everything at once, so no +1 for anybody there either. In which case there aren't too many hordes left beyond green ones

But, uh, I do agree with Mauleed, and I personally win more games going second than first - but I play more with second than first too.

- Salvage

The only problem I have with the first turn and going first is the effect that movement has on vehicles vulnerability. The fact that my skimmers start the first turn in park and are very vulnerable makes me want to go first most of the time. Unless the table has alot of terrain to hide behind.

Darrian

I usually let the other guy go first, just because I wanna see what their plans are, if they even have any

We said the player with the first turn has to roll for night fight.

play scenarios

problem solved.

Personally, I think it should be left as-is for effectiveness, but the roll possibly modified by the commander unit or army's strategy rating.

I always choose to go first if I can, as it means my Vindicator can get a shot off before it's targeted by every heavy weapon on the board in turn until it's destroyed or the cannon's missing.
It rarely survives into the second turn, never survives a battle intact, but often makes it's points back on a single shot or by simply absorbing fire.
Unless it gets railgunned straight off and blows up. :(

To paidinfull: The +1 for finishing first can put armies with multiple units at a disadvantage. However, such armies also have a greater innate advantage of seeing where the opposing army deploys and setting up units to counter them. The +1 for first turn doesn't solve all problems, but it makes choosing to deploy first or second with armies of similar unit count more interesting. It also makes Infiltrators and units that can always start in reserve more appealing too (since they don't count for the +1 for first turn.)

Just for the record, I do agree that playing missions in 40k is essential in making the game interesting at all. But even when there are tables quarters/objectives to capture, getting first turn is still advantageous as you can destroy a significant portion of your opponents troops before he gets to respond. We play with ~25% terrain reccomendation. Even so, how many tournaments have you been to where the terrain was placed in an uneven manner, or missions had wacky deployment zones...etc? Some of this stuff we as organizers can control (such as pre-setting terrain, making sure there is a variety of terrain...etc,) but I also feel that the act of deploying terrain between players is also one of the strategic aspects of the game.

To mauleed: Going first isn't always advantageous, but I think most players would agree that it usually is. I would even argue that one of the perks of Drop Pod armies is that they don't care too much about the 1st turn roll. If this truly is a perk, this tells you that the roll for 1st turn has significant weight.

To Symbio Joe: Night Fight vs Concealment. Night Fight is harsher as horde armies (mass gaunts, boyz,) would always go first since there is little reprecussion in doing so. Concealment still makes moving first/shooting first as a good plan somewhat debateable.

I do like the idea of incorporating Strategy Ratings into the first turn roll. Doesn't seem like people are very happy with the idea of using mandatory Concealment though. Any reasons?

Zoned wrote:In missions that don't use Escalation, what would you say to including Concealment as a mandatory rule? I like it 'cause it will only have an effect 1st turn.

In our Revisited Project, we made Concealment a standard scenario special rule. In Gamma games it appears 1/2 of the time (it's rolled for before deployment), and in Omega games it appears 5/6th of the time.

Of course we removed Escalation as that rule is stupid...

BYE

Scenario driven, The attacker goes first. Problem solved.

Regular game, do what they always crow about, " Roll a D6" winner goes first", or Better yet, add a D6 roll to the commaders Initiative and call it a day...

I love going second with my necrons and Lysanderwing. These armies excel when going second.

For necrons, going second ensures you get the last word when it comes to WBB.

For lysander...going second is almost as needed as it is for necrons. Most of the force wont be in any sort of harm anyways due to the high amounts of termies DSing in, but the less time your opponents have to hit you the better for your army that is easily beat by attrition.

Going second is underrated and my preference.

Hellfury wrote:I love going second with my necrons and Lysanderwing. These armies excel when going second.

For necrons, going second ensures you get the last word when it comes to WBB.

For lysander...going second is almost as needed as it is for necrons. Most of the force wont be in any sort of harm anyways due to the high amounts of termies DSing in, but the less time your opponents have to hit you the better for your army that is easily beat by attrition.

Going second is underrated and my preference.

Not to jump the thread, but how have you been doing with Lysanderwing? I have talked to a few players who rave about it, but I'm still not convinced....Are that many assault cannons really that effective?

Its not that effective really, its just a fun army.
As VoodooBoyz once wrote: "Lysander is the R Kelly of space marines". And indeed it is when you piss 5 squads of termies at the same time down onto the battlefield.

But it is a very one trick pony army. Fun, but by no means top tier or even near top tier.

But like any army, if you know how to use it and to make the most of the mechanics of the game to your advantage (as in the subject of this thread) then you dont do too badly.

If it was deathwing with one heavy weapon per squad, it would be even less effective.

What jervis and many other newbs simply dont understand is that while assault cannon spam is a bad thing in general, on a purely termie force it is an equalizer.

To just go and give termies 1 heavy weapon per squad, straight across the board to all SM codicies, is merely shortsighted and pandering to morons.

There are certainly times when going first practically wins a game but I don't think it happens that often anymore.

- G

More terrain is the easiest fix - players are more able to hide things on the first turn.


As an aside, keep me informed about the tournament. I'll be moving to T.O. in August, so I'd definitely want to check it out.

I let my opponent go first most of the time.

I find that a lot of the stuff that I want to shoot at is hidden, and letting them go first brings them into play.

Also, when you have short range shooting like I have, most people advance om the first turn.

Going first is nice with Eldar - you don't lose all your Falcons/Wave Serpents/Vypers on the first turn before they can move.

Replace it with either a command activation system or a card activation system.

Blackmoor wrote:I let my opponent go first most of the time.

I find that a lot of the stuff that I want to shoot at is hidden, and letting them go first brings them into play.

Also, when you have short range shooting like I have, most people advance om the first turn.

This has also been my experience. Most of the regular people I play will bait you into taking the first turn with one or two units while the rest of their army is hidden. Then you are exposed and take it on the chin when their turn comes around. Games between two good players usually come down to who can spring a bigger trap on the other.

Move and shoot is a way of life around here though. Static gun lines just get destroyed. The Tau, Drop Pod, IG drop troops, etc.. players saw to that.

Daydream

I've only played AT-43 once, but I like their method of handling initiative:

1. Roll each turn to see who gets to go first
2. Alternating activation vs. IGOUGO
3. Units cards placed in sequence they're going to be activated.
4. Leadership points can be spent to either change the initiative roll and/or unit sequence, or place the unit on overwatch.

I could see a similar system for 40k, using strategy ratings and/or the LD of the commander. I'm sure there are flaws and ways to abuse the system, but there's potential there...

syr8766 wrote:I've only played AT-43 once, but I like their method of handling initiative:

1. Roll each turn to see who gets to go first
2. Alternating activation vs. IGOUGO
3. Units cards placed in sequence they're going to be activated.
4. Leadership points can be spent to either change the initiative roll and/or unit sequence, or place the unit on overwatch.

I could see a similar system for 40k, using strategy ratings and/or the LD of the commander. I'm sure there are flaws and ways to abuse the system, but there's potential there...

Those are all very interesting, but remember that 40k has been dumbed down for the masses, so something like that will never happen.

Blackmoor wrote:

syr8766 wrote:I've only played AT-43 once, but I like their method of handling initiative:

1. Roll each turn to see who gets to go first
2. Alternating activation vs. IGOUGO
3. Units cards placed in sequence they're going to be activated.
4. Leadership points can be spent to either change the initiative roll and/or unit sequence, or place the unit on overwatch.

I could see a similar system for 40k, using strategy ratings and/or the LD of the commander. I'm sure there are flaws and ways to abuse the system, but there's potential there...

Those are all very interesting, but remember that 40k has been dumbed down for the masses, so something like that will never happen.

When comparing 40K rules to AT-43 I have to pipe in.

In comparison, 40K isnt dumbed down, they are just plain stupid. AT-43 is far simpler than 40K and yet, its rules are fathoms above the quality of 40K. AT-43 even manages to bring overwatch into the game and not make it broken. GW should stop staring at their second edition as if it will be the answer to their woes regarding pants rules for 40K and start looking elsewhere for a new idea that actually works better than what they have been trying to wrestle with for the las 20years.

GW have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they just simply cannot write a competent ruleset for their skirmish sci-fi game.

Between the awesome models of 40K and the very intelligent rules of AT-43, we have a winner.

Who goes first isn't a problem as long as terrain covers 25% of the board and the players can place it.

The problem is preset terrain in deployment zones, not who goes first.

The reason I like both Starship Troopers and AT-43 more than 40K is simple. The rules for either are far superior.

In AT-43, each player lays out his unit cards in the order they will be activated, and then you take turns. You activate your first unit, and do everything with that unit. Then you opponent activates his first unit. If a unit happens to get attacked in close combat, it doesn't fight back, or even run away, until you activate it. Command points not only allow you to activate a unit and perform special actions (like taking cover), you can also spend command points to activate units out of order.

In Starship Troopers, you have two actions. You can move/shoot, shoot/move, move/move/ or shoot/shoot- and there are special actions as well. However, if you do something to the enemy, he can react to it. If MI shoot at a unit of bugs, the bugs can charge in. If the bugs get close to the MI, the MI can beat feet- or shoot the approaching bugs. But you only get one reaction, so if you shoot when the first bug unit gets close, you won't be able to do anything when the second bug unit charges into close combat.

I haven't played 40K in several years, so I can't debate the merits of concealment vs. objectives. But what if you changed the order of operations? What about you move, I shoot, you assault; I move, you shoot, I assault? I think that would completely change the dynamic of the game.

Hellfury wrote:
GW should stop staring at their second edition as if it will be the answer to their woes regarding pants rules for 40K and start looking elsewhere for a new idea that actually works better than what they have been trying to wrestle with for the las 20years.

They won't. That's why Andy Chambers left, and went to work on SST.

fellblade wrote:

Hellfury wrote:
GW should stop staring at their second edition as if it will be the answer to their woes regarding pants rules for 40K and start looking elsewhere for a new idea that actually works better than what they have been trying to wrestle with for the las 20years.

They won't. That's why Andy Chambers left, and went to work on SST.

Which is a neat system. too bad the models are pants.