First turn win syndrome and my two cents.

[antique_nova]

I'm not sure if this should be in the homegrown section or not, but I was thinking about this and had a kind of epiphany.

 

I'm aware that there are games out there that have apparently overcome this problem, where games aren't determined by who gets first turn and the other just sits there like a lemon while they get wiped off the board, before they can anything.

 

I also don't know what the other games solutions are, so you'll have to tell me as I don't know which games have their own solutions.

 

However, what if instead of having player turn based games, that an extra stat be added onto every, for example. 

 

Response times:

 

For example, Eldar would have one of the fastest response times, while orks and necrons would have one of the slowest, because one is stupid, while the other is just old and slow...

 

However, their response time would increase depending on the situation. Such as orks would increase their response time by 1 during the combat phase, because they love chopping things up and that's when their adrenaline works overtime.

 

Warlords can increase the surrounding units response times by say 1 (some 2). So they become hyper alert, because of their closeness to the commander.

 

Phases are still in effect. I.e. all units must move first, before they can shoot and all units must have had a chance to shoot before charges are off.

 

For example, each player picks the unit with the higher response time. Then depending on which unit has the highest response times, it goes first.

 

If the units that both players pick have the same response times, then they roll a dice to see who goes first. 

 

However, once player 1 has moved his unit, he picks another and if its response time is equal to player 2's chosen unit, then they roll off again.

 

This time, player one must minus one to his roll (because he's already moved one unit more than the other player). This can accumulate. For example, if player 1 gets to move 4 units consecutively, then by the fifth time he rolls off to see if he can move a fifth unit that has the same response time as the player 2's chosen unit, it should be impossible. This is to prevent lucky dice rolls that allow one player to move or shoot with 5-6 units before player 2 can do anything.

 

Stratagems and special rules can be added to give units better response times. For example, Khorne bezerkers would increase their response time by 1 in the close combat phase to reflect their crazed bloodlust and adrenaline when near combat.

 

Or Eldar banshees who are declared to have a +1 to their response time D6 roll when competing against another enemy unit within 12" of equal response time in the combat phase, because of their howling shrieks which are very distracting.

 

The biggest problem with this would be keeping track of which units have already moved, shoot or engaged in close combat. It could slow down gameplay, because you're no longer moving your entire army at once, but piecemeal. However, it could be faster, because you're only concerned with moving one unit at a time, because you don't know if you'll win the next roll off if you and your opponents next nominated unit have the same response time.

 

 

OR

 

Every unit has a response time stats and you and your opponent picks whichever unit they want to use first or next and then you roll a D6 and add to it. Whoever has the highest score wins.

 

For example.

 

Eldar Banshees - RT 7

Space Marine - RT 6

 

Eldar rolls a 3, while the marine player rolls a 6.

 

Eldar Banshees - RT 7 + 3 = RT10

Space Marine - RT 6 + 6 = RT 12

 

That space marine unit gets to move first.

 

Then you and your opponent pick the next unit and it repeats, however the winning side this time has -1 to their roll, because they won the last dice off and this can accumulate. For example, if the marine player won 2 roll offs in a row, then his 3rd roll off, he'd have to minus 2 to his next dice off.

 

Other unit faction bonuses could be:

 

Slaneesh: +1 to all RT rolls for being so fast.

 

Tzeentch: +1 to all RT rolls during the psychic phase due to their psychic affinity and mastery.

 

Nurgle: If their RT total score ever equals another enemy unit, then they automatically lose due to their cumbering weight and slowness. However, if it's another Nurgle unit, then they reroll again until someone wins.

 

Khorne: +1 to all RT rolls during the fight phase. Because you know. Skulls for the skull throne!

 

What do you think?

[Deathwalker]

Isn't this essentially Initiative for the most part?

Yes, I can see you are moving it into other phases, and that's a intresting concept that GW has never really touched on. What you are doing is changing the turn based systems to "activations", which removes the turn based system insofar as a "my go, your go" system as it stands now. 

[Lexington]

Sounds like a lot of alternating activation systems that’ve come around through the years. Haven’t seen one in a while, but they were popular in the late 90’s. Check out Warzone or VOR: The Maelstrom for examples, if you’re interested!

 

I don’t think this is a bad idea, necessarily, but it’d be difficult to implement well.

[old git]

Have a look at Bolt Action (WW2 skirmish from Warlord Games).

[Panzer]

The biggest problem is simply that 40k has too much firepower at too long range without any way to properly protect you from it.

[Deathwalker]

The biggest problem is simply that 40k has too much firepower at too long range without any way to properly protect you from it.

Agreed, but alternatively you could say that AP is so common as to make armour irrelevant.

 

Side question, should armour be treated like a FNP save against WOUNDS?

IE: I hit, I wound, I do D6 wounds and I get a save against each of those wounds rather than I hit, I wound, you failed your save, and I rolled a 6, so take 6?

[The Unseen]

 

 

The biggest problem is simply that 40k has too much firepower at too long range without any way to properly protect you from it.

Agreed, but alternatively you could say that AP is so common as to make armour irrelevant.

 

Side question, should armour be treated like a FNP save against WOUNDS?

IE: I hit, I wound, I do D6 wounds and I get a save against each of those wounds rather than I hit, I wound, you failed your save, and I rolled a 6, so take 6?

Would make tanks more consistent and probably tougher, would make 2 and 3 damage weapons ridiculously strong vs infantry.

Bad idea probably.

[M@verik115]

Bolt action's turn activation is awesome.
We need that.

[Kinstryfe]

I'm also not really sure what the best option is. Rather than a turn based activation system (only because I can see that both changing the whole game flow. Not a bad thing necessarily, but a huge change nonetheless.) I think maybe it could be addressed by fixing something they overlooked. Bringing back AP was a step in the right direction, but they neglected to have it work in both directions. The other big issue is being able to target anything you want except characters with impunity. It makes sense for some things like Artillery but it's kind of silly that a unit can, for example, shoot directly through two units of infantry to hit a unit right behind it. A couple things I'd recommend to make shooting a little less powerful first turn:

 

Cover: Give cover not only a save modifier but a positive AP modifier. Hiding in a building or the enemy is shooting thru ruins to hit you? Have all that junk in the way make the fire less effective at penetrating your armour. It could give a nice boost to some elite, heavily armored troops. Terminators, meganobs, etc could all have AP+1 to give them added resilience.

 

Screening: Give some sort of drawback in order to shoot through screening units to target other units of a similar size. Some units or weapons can bypass this like sniper weapons and indirect fire weapons, or some units may have skills to bypass this (certain vehicles maybe?), but just like you can screen units from close combat charges it should let you screen units from shooting. I don't know what would be appropriate. Penalty to hit, penalty to strength or AP, having to pass a check to see if you can get a clear shot? It would force a choice between an easy shot at the chaff upfront and a more difficult shot at a higher value target.

 

I'm sure they'd need some work, but it would definitely give some protection against first turn whoopings if you could actually deploy defensively and have it actually do something :-D

[Panzer]

Proper terrain rules would also go a long way I guess.

[Captain Idaho]

I do miss the limitation in attacking the nearest unit unless you pass a leadership roll. Would make vehicle leadership meaningful for most games.

 

If there isn't an alternating unit system (which I like but the game would need a new edition to work) then a simpler fix would be to limit first turn shooting in a similar manner to first turn drop assaults, introduced by an FAQ.

 

"On a player's first turn of the game all their units receive a -1 hit penalty in the shooting phase."

 

You can then have specific special rules in some unit entries that ignore it, like Scouts etc.

 

Proper terrain rules would also go a long way I guess.

Another simple fix I'd prefer like along side the suggestion above. Terrain should block line of sight more so people have to move to shoot. Make the game more dynamic and it might actually stop Cadians being the automatic choice for Astra Millitarum and give Marines a chance etc.

[Panzer]

I'm also not really sure what the best option is. Rather than a turn based activation system (only because I can see that both changing the whole game flow. Not a bad thing necessarily, but a huge change nonetheless.) I think maybe it could be addressed by fixing something they overlooked. Bringing back AP was a step in the right direction, but they neglected to have it work in both directions. The other big issue is being able to target anything you want except characters with impunity. It makes sense for some things like Artillery but it's kind of silly that a unit can, for example, shoot directly through two units of infantry to hit a unit right behind it. A couple things I'd recommend to make shooting a little less powerful first turn:

 

Cover: Give cover not only a save modifier but a positive AP modifier. Hiding in a building or the enemy is shooting thru ruins to hit you? Have all that junk in the way make the fire less effective at penetrating your armour. It could give a nice boost to some elite, heavily armored troops. Terminators, meganobs, etc could all have AP+1 to give them added resilience.

 

Screening: Give some sort of drawback in order to shoot through screening units to target other units of a similar size. Some units or weapons can bypass this like sniper weapons and indirect fire weapons, or some units may have skills to bypass this (certain vehicles maybe?), but just like you can screen units from close combat charges it should let you screen units from shooting. I don't know what would be appropriate. Penalty to hit, penalty to strength or AP, having to pass a check to see if you can get a clear shot? It would force a choice between an easy shot at the chaff upfront and a more difficult shot at a higher value target.

 

I'm sure they'd need some work, but it would definitely give some protection against first turn whoopings if you could actually deploy defensively and have it actually do something :-D

 

That's basically what cover already is tho. A debuff to the AP is exactly the same as a buff to the armor save. I agree on the shouting through other units tho. Cover is way too hard to get currently unless your whole board is nothing but ruins and forests. Just giving the unit the benefit of cover when you have to shoot through other enemy units.

[Quixus]

The biggest problem is simply that 40k has too much firepower at too long range without any way to properly protect you from it.

And those we did have were taken away.  Reserving much of your army and hiding the rest was a valid strategy before the deep strike nerf.

 

 

I'm also not really sure what the best option is. Rather than a turn based activation system (only because I can see that both changing the whole game flow. Not a bad thing necessarily, but a huge change nonetheless.) I think maybe it could be addressed by fixing something they overlooked. Bringing back AP was a step in the right direction, but they neglected to have it work in both directions. The other big issue is being able to target anything you want except characters with impunity. It makes sense for some things like Artillery but it's kind of silly that a unit can, for example, shoot directly through two units of infantry to hit a unit right behind it. A couple things I'd recommend to make shooting a little less powerful first turn:

 

Cover: Give cover not only a save modifier but a positive AP modifier. Hiding in a building or the enemy is shooting thru ruins to hit you? Have all that junk in the way make the fire less effective at penetrating your armour. It could give a nice boost to some elite, heavily armored troops. Terminators, meganobs, etc could all have AP+1 to give them added resilience.

 

Screening: Give some sort of drawback in order to shoot through screening units to target other units of a similar size. Some units or weapons can bypass this like sniper weapons and indirect fire weapons, or some units may have skills to bypass this (certain vehicles maybe?), but just like you can screen units from close combat charges it should let you screen units from shooting. I don't know what would be appropriate. Penalty to hit, penalty to strength or AP, having to pass a check to see if you can get a clear shot? It would force a choice between an easy shot at the chaff upfront and a more difficult shot at a higher value target.

 

I'm sure they'd need some work, but it would definitely give some protection against first turn whoopings if you could actually deploy defensively and have it actually do something :-D

 

That's basically what cover already is tho. A debuff to the AP is exactly the same as a buff to the armor save. I agree on the shouting through other units tho. Cover is way too hard to get currently unless your whole board is nothing but ruins and forests. Just giving the unit the benefit of cover when you have to shoot through other enemy units.

 

The difference is that AP can take a save away completely, a bonus to a roll cannot generate a roll were one wasn't possible before.

[Panzer]

 

The biggest problem is simply that 40k has too much firepower at too long range without any way to properly protect you from it.

And those we did have were taken away.  Reserving much of your army and hiding the rest was a valid strategy before the deep strike nerf.

 

 

I'm also not really sure what the best option is. Rather than a turn based activation system (only because I can see that both changing the whole game flow. Not a bad thing necessarily, but a huge change nonetheless.) I think maybe it could be addressed by fixing something they overlooked. Bringing back AP was a step in the right direction, but they neglected to have it work in both directions. The other big issue is being able to target anything you want except characters with impunity. It makes sense for some things like Artillery but it's kind of silly that a unit can, for example, shoot directly through two units of infantry to hit a unit right behind it. A couple things I'd recommend to make shooting a little less powerful first turn:

 

Cover: Give cover not only a save modifier but a positive AP modifier. Hiding in a building or the enemy is shooting thru ruins to hit you? Have all that junk in the way make the fire less effective at penetrating your armour. It could give a nice boost to some elite, heavily armored troops. Terminators, meganobs, etc could all have AP+1 to give them added resilience.

 

Screening: Give some sort of drawback in order to shoot through screening units to target other units of a similar size. Some units or weapons can bypass this like sniper weapons and indirect fire weapons, or some units may have skills to bypass this (certain vehicles maybe?), but just like you can screen units from close combat charges it should let you screen units from shooting. I don't know what would be appropriate. Penalty to hit, penalty to strength or AP, having to pass a check to see if you can get a clear shot? It would force a choice between an easy shot at the chaff upfront and a more difficult shot at a higher value target.

 

I'm sure they'd need some work, but it would definitely give some protection against first turn whoopings if you could actually deploy defensively and have it actually do something :-D

 

That's basically what cover already is tho. A debuff to the AP is exactly the same as a buff to the armor save. I agree on the shouting through other units tho. Cover is way too hard to get currently unless your whole board is nothing but ruins and forests. Just giving the unit the benefit of cover when you have to shoot through other enemy units.

 

The difference is that AP can take a save away completely, a bonus to a roll cannot generate a roll were one wasn't possible before.

 

 

There are very little units with a Sv characteristic of - and very little weapons with a AP characteristic of -. It's usually 0 for AP if they don't have any or 7+ for armor if they don't have any on their own and those can be modified.

[DreamIsCollapsing]

First turn for assault army is nerfed after the big FAQ.

 

First turn for shooting army should be nerfed by considering all units as moving (even if they stay still in the first mouvement phase), representing units taking place on the battlefield.

Don't know if this would solve all the first turn problems. But maybee if an astra/Tau gunline had -1 for shoot on all his heavy weapons on the first shooting phase..

[Panzer]

First turn for shooting got nerfed as well but only for close ranged shooting like Plasma bombs and such.

[shandwen]

I would honestly like an alternating activation or a dice bag pull to activate. It has it's downsides (the random factor can kill) but it would bring a bit of realization that both sides act at the same time rather than showing one side s standing still and being murdered.

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m not convinced by a rule like -1 to hit on the first turn. Firstly it sounds more like treating the symptom than the cause but more importantly it could also devastate armies who go second.

 

If you’re a gun line army like guard you could be facing plenty of assault armies who will have absolutely no problem being in combat with you by turn 2. If the assault army go first, the guard army will have one shooting phase in which to hurt them before they close and they’ll only be hitting on 5s for that shooting phase. It could be even worse if the assault army rushes up in rhinos and pops smoke. It means the guard will only be hitting on 6s.

 

The best solution to first turn shooting I’ve found is simply loads of terrain which uses ITC rules to block site in ruins. Unfortunately, this does tend to turn every match into a pseudo city fight which is a bit boring!

[Captain Idaho]

Astra Millitarum are head an shoulders above the competitive level of most armies. I think they can afford to use some Guardsmen squads as screens to assaults.

 

So I have no sympathy there.

[Beams]

Astra Millitarum are head an shoulders above the competitive level of most armies. I think they can afford to use some Guardsmen squads as screens to assaults.

 

So I have no sympathy there.

Guard by themselves are not the best army. Guard supporting Custodes or Celestine or space marines? Yeah, sure. But guard by themselves isn't doing great, and a rule that makes them get an additional -1 to hit, on top of any -1 to hits tthat already exist is stupid.

 

Eldar can easily get -2 on some units, meaning a guard player can't even shoot an elder Ranger(cloak guys?) On the first turn. That's not even getting into how much this would kill any chance of a shooty Ork army.

[MARK0SIAN]

Astra Millitarum are head an shoulders above the competitive level of most armies. I think they can afford to use some Guardsmen squads as screens to assaults.

 

So I have no sympathy there.

A pure guard army is no way head and shoulders above other armies competitively! They’re good but they’re not head and shoulders above by any stretch!

 

But even if they were, you could replace the word Guard with Tau in my example and the result would still be the same. Suppose there were a codex that was just utterly dominating everything, Just because a rule would negatively impact that codex does not automatically make it a good rule. A bad rule is a bad rule and to dismiss the complaints against it just because you don’t like the army it would affect seems short sighted.

[antique_nova]

 

Astra Millitarum are head an shoulders above the competitive level of most armies. I think they can afford to use some Guardsmen squads as screens to assaults.

 

So I have no sympathy there.

Guard by themselves are not the best army. Guard supporting Custodes or Celestine or space marines? Yeah, sure. But guard by themselves isn't doing great, and a rule that makes them get an additional -1 to hit, on top of any -1 to hits tthat already exist is stupid.

 

Eldar can easily get -2 on some units, meaning a guard player can't even shoot an elder Ranger(cloak guys?) On the first turn. That's not even getting into how much this would kill any chance of a shooty Ork army.

 

 

I disagree here. Guard by themselves beats any army combo in the game. However, it's only 1 guard list. My list! I'm biased in my opinion, because it's my list ofc, but I've been play testing it a lot and am going to a GT in under a month to prove it works.

 

When I look at how other people have been using guard, I just face palm. Maybe that's why they haven't been doing great?

[Panzer]

 

 

Astra Millitarum are head an shoulders above the competitive level of most armies. I think they can afford to use some Guardsmen squads as screens to assaults.

 

So I have no sympathy there.

Guard by themselves are not the best army. Guard supporting Custodes or Celestine or space marines? Yeah, sure. But guard by themselves isn't doing great, and a rule that makes them get an additional -1 to hit, on top of any -1 to hits tthat already exist is stupid.

 

Eldar can easily get -2 on some units, meaning a guard player can't even shoot an elder Ranger(cloak guys?) On the first turn. That's not even getting into how much this would kill any chance of a shooty Ork army.

 

 

I disagree here. Guard by themselves beats any army combo in the game. However, it's only 1 guard list. My list! I'm biased in my opinion, because it's my list ofc, but I've been play testing it a lot and am going to a GT in under a month to prove it works.

 

When I look at how other people have been using guard, I just face palm. Maybe that's why they haven't been doing great?

 

 

Big words. We'll see how it works out for you. :D

[antique_nova]

The biggest problem is simply that 40k has too much firepower at too long range without any way to properly protect you from it.

 

I don't think it's a problem at all. Because it's reflecting war and in this case against long range weapons, the best defense is a good offense.

 

 

 

Astra Millitarum are head an shoulders above the competitive level of most armies. I think they can afford to use some Guardsmen squads as screens to assaults.

 

So I have no sympathy there.

Guard by themselves are not the best army. Guard supporting Custodes or Celestine or space marines? Yeah, sure. But guard by themselves isn't doing great, and a rule that makes them get an additional -1 to hit, on top of any -1 to hits tthat already exist is stupid.

 

Eldar can easily get -2 on some units, meaning a guard player can't even shoot an elder Ranger(cloak guys?) On the first turn. That's not even getting into how much this would kill any chance of a shooty Ork army.

 

 

I disagree here. Guard by themselves beats any army combo in the game. However, it's only 1 guard list. My list! I'm biased in my opinion, because it's my list ofc, but I've been play testing it a lot and am going to a GT in under a month to prove it works.

 

When I look at how other people have been using guard, I just face palm. Maybe that's why they haven't been doing great?

 

 

Big words. We'll see how it works out for you.

 

More like big tanks! :P

[Panzer]

 

The biggest problem is simply that 40k has too much firepower at too long range without any way to properly protect you from it.

 

 

I don't think it's a problem at all. Because it's reflecting war and in this case against long range weapons, the best defense is a good offense.

That's not how things work tho.

War also doesn't have any kind of “equivalent armys facing off“ system like 40k has with points. War has many more different factors to affect the outcome of a battle, especially to determine who gets the drop on who and then it's legit that the army that has the element of surprise gets to wreck the enemy army. And last but not least war is being held in real-time and not turn by turn (bolt action is the closest we could get but still far away from it).

It's game that's supposed to be balanced and fun for everyone and not a 1 turn simulation of one army getting the drop on another to end things quickly.