First turn win syndrome and my two cents.

[Beams]

I really like the current cover. Last editions cover never mattered to me, but this edition I live and die in cover for a 2+ save.

[Kisada]

As an owner of an Imperial Fist army ... I fully support better cover rules 

[Canadian_F_H]

I've thought for years the game would go better by alternating phases...

 

I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, I assault you assault back to move... etc.

[Kisada]

I've thought for years the game would go better by alternating phases...

 

I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, I assault you assault back to move... etc.

 

Interesting but then moving second is pretty powerful no?  Being able to move your key unit out of range or out of LOS after seeing where your opponent moved but before he got a chance to shoot.

[solarisqc]

I've thought for years the game would go better by alternating phases...

 

I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, I assault you assault back to move... etc.

I always like to change the game phase to be more realistic and realist;

 

turn 1

player 1 move or assault

player 2 shoot/overwatch

assault phase

player 2 move or assault

player 1 shoot/overwatch

assault phase

 

turn 2

...

 

The game will be alot more tactical, stay behind cover to protect your unit, if you want to advance you need to give target option. Transport will be more usefull to protect unit inside from shooting or tank in general as a moving cover for unit behind.

 

With a ruleset like that, assault unit will have option to move foward behind mobile cover (transport/tank) until a final charge move and shooting unit will be able to cover large area of the battlefield

 

If both army hide in deployment, first player will have the choice of going in the open and can shoot anyone that go out of cover after, or move to cover and take strategic point in the battlefield. If both army stay in the open, first player have the choice of moving behind cover to not be shoot at, or move foward but be expose to shooting. The biggest advantage of going first in this kind of game will be to choose the kind of engagement you will have with the ennemy.

 

This kind of turn sequence will completly remove the first turn win issue we have now.

[TheTrans]

Half all gun ranges (movement will also need a rejigg then also). Will actually require people to move. the 24" basic infantry rifle on a 6x4 board may of worked back when cover and moving did things.. but those days are no more..

That or just verbatim steal the Bolt Action unit activation process. 

[kombatwombat]

I like the idea of the player who goes first gets -1 to Hit for their first turn, but the player who goes second has no penalty.

 

I reckon we can go further though. Make the rule that whoever has first turn counts as having already moved their full Movement stat. So they can still Advance, shoot (at -1 for Heavy weapons) and Charge if they’re able, but they can’t move onto objectives, can’t get a first turn Charge (generally), and shoot with a penalty for their biggest guns. The player who goes first can do whatever they like, but they’ve weathered a round of shooting already. It makes it a genuine choice of whether to go first, get a round of weakened shooting in but can’t move for objectives or try to charge first turn, or to go second, weather the storm and then get to act normally.

[Redtoof]

Not sure if removing movement is a good call, a traditional non-reserves melee army with little shooting would be heavily penalised for going first. Otherwise yes, pretty much that.

[Panzer]

Aside from your moevement idea simply not working with the current rules (advancing is not seperate from moving, it's simply adding d6 to your movement range) I also don't think it's a good idea in the first place.

You can't pile too many penalties on going first or the situation simply gets reversed and going second will be the way to go to win games.

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree with sfPanzer, it can’t be a case of penalising whoever goes first too heavily or it will just be a case of reversing the problem rather than solving it. Counting as already having moved is too great a penalty for the player who gets first turn, especially as it’s not always the players choice if he goes first or second.

[Quixus]

You think that is too much of a penalty? it is only -1 and there are several options that do not require to hit rolls or can be offset by other abilities.

 

I do think though that penalizing going first is not addressing the problem. the problem is an armies ability to cripple the opponent in one turn of shooting. So rather than delaying the problem until turn 2 you should buff melee and mitigate shooting in general.

[Panzer]

You think that is too much of a penalty? it is only -1 and there are several options that do not require to hit rolls or can be offset by other abilities.

 

I do think though that penalizing going first is not addressing the problem. the problem is an armies ability to cripple the opponent in one turn of shooting. So rather than delaying the problem until turn 2 you should buff melee and mitigate shooting in general.

 

We've been replying to the post from kombatwombat where he mentioned way more than just the -1 to-hit for the player who goes first.

[Quixus]

Ah oK, that is indeed a bit much.

[kombatwombat]

Okie doke, if that’s too much, how about the player who goes first, in their first turn, each unit can choose to move or shoot with counting as already having moved?

 

Being able to shoot first is a colossal advantage. This reduces the effectiveness of the first player’s big guns first turn so they can’t just blow the second player off the table. It still leaves their Rapid Fire/Assault weapons to shoot, and you can forego shooting to move some units up the board. Assault armies can give up their shooting to get a move on, while Gunline armies can choose to give up some of their massive alpha strike advantage to get into position. Balanced TAC armies - which are what the game should be balanced around IMO - can choose to go second to be able to move and shoot their shorter ranged guns and shoot their bigger stuff at full effect, or go first and choose to move or shoot on a unit by unit basis.

[Panzer]

Why adding even more to the -1 anyway? -1 is already plenty for shooty armies, especially when it gets stacked with faction/unit specific -1 effects.

I really don't see the need to add even more penalties without knowing whether the -1 would already do the trick on its own or not.

[kombatwombat]

Because I don’t think it will be enough.

 

Remember that going first also means your opponent only has one turn to shoot at your stuff / react before deep strikers arrive. Thinking of my own army, even with my proposed change I still couldn’t think of a situation where I would ever want to go second. The turns are balanced if, and only if, you have a genuinely hard time deciding whether to go first or second.

 

But I’ll concede that we should try out the lesser penalty before the greater one.

[Deathwalker]

An odd thought, but how about troops (foot troops and bikers/cavalry) have half weapon range if they go first, and vehicles suffer -1 to hit due to first turn "fog of war"? I would like to have had it as a flat 1/2 range but some weapon ranges would make that a useless effect. 

[MARK0SIAN]

I think we’ve got to be careful with the -1 to hit modifiers. For me to support it there would have to be a caveat that your shots could not be modified further by any means. Now this would cause a problem because it would invalidate a lot of faction traits like Raven Guard who already have -1 to hit.

 

My problem is that you could easily have a situation where an Ork army literally could not hit their opponent and someone like guard and tau could only hit them on 6s or if they’re Eldar could not hit them at all. At which point all you’ve done is basically switched around which player really got first turn

[Deathwalker]

I think we’ve got to be careful with the -1 to hit modifiers. For me to support it there would have to be a caveat that your shots could not be modified further by any means. Now this would cause a problem because it would invalidate a lot of faction traits like Raven Guard who already have -1 to hit.

My problem is that you could easily have a situation where an Ork army literally could not hit their opponent and someone like guard and tau could only hit them on 6s or if they’re Eldar could not hit them at all. At which point all you’ve done is basically switched around which player really got first turn

1: Given that my idea only restricts it to vehicles, I'm not sure that's as much of a problem, big guns miss ALL the time in real warfare until the get good targeting info. Ork -vehicles- might not be able to hit the side of a barn in T1, and IG would find it really difficult to land a shot on a bunch of stealthy dudes with their tanks, but better trained troops can still hit effectively. Realistically though, most horde-ish armies are going second anyway.

 

2: T1 for hordes gives greater board control and can seriously limit, or cripple elite army DS ability. IF the elite army gives up that board control to avoid T1 penalties, that now becomes a tactical choice, rather than them never considering it because they can wipe you with impunity. Do I accept hitting on 4+ or 5+ if I move to get those shots off as a marine vehicle in first turn, or only having 12" range with my bolters, or do I have enough "in the field" to counter the problems of going first?

 

It's a random idea, it would need work, granted.

[Panzer]

Because I don’t think it will be enough.

 

Remember that going first also means your opponent only has one turn to shoot at your stuff / react before deep strikers arrive. Thinking of my own army, even with my proposed change I still couldn’t think of a situation where I would ever want to go second. The turns are balanced if, and only if, you have a genuinely hard time deciding whether to go first or second.

 

But I’ll concede that we should try out the lesser penalty before the greater one.

 

Don't forget that going first also means you give your opponent the last turn where he's free to move units, score and deal with your guys without having to worry about any retaliation because the game ends after that turn. It's something many people forget and that often turns a game around. The only problem is going that far into the game without getting wiped turn 1.

An odd thought, but how about troops (foot troops and bikers/cavalry) have half weapon range if they go first, and vehicles suffer -1 to hit due to first turn "fog of war"? I would like to have had it as a flat 1/2 range but some weapon ranges would make that a useless effect. 

 

We really don't need even more reasons for people to not take Troops. Unless you were talking about Infantry and not Troop choices. Then it would be fine I guess tho I don't exactly see the reason for a differenciation there.

[Deathwalker]

Well, I was more speaking to "light troops" such as infantry, bikes and cavalry. No, I was not talking about "troops choice" as they exist in the force organization chart.

[Panzer]

Well then please don't use the term "troops". It's a term with a specific meaning within the rules. ;)

So you're basically talking about non-vehicles and non-monsters. I still don't see the reason for a differentiation there. Halving the range of such units is often synonymous with saying they can't shoot at all turn 1 or in case of heavy weaponry like Lascannons on Devastators it would mean they can still reach out to the opponents army without any penalty (36" is plenty to destroy some tanks or Mortarion etc.). I guess tho that's what you meant with it makes no sense with some weapon ranges so I won't go too much into detail there. Bottom line is that it's not really a good solution and most likely worse than the flat -1 we were talking about earlier.

[Deathwalker]

Troops choice is specific, troops is not.

Also Lascannons have not had a range of 72" for a good long time, I don't know where you are pulling 36" from for a lascannon at half range...………..

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I think we’ve got to be careful with the -1 to hit modifiers. For me to support it there would have to be a caveat that your shots could not be modified further by any means. Now this would cause a problem because it would invalidate a lot of faction traits like Raven Guard who already have -1 to hit.

My problem is that you could easily have a situation where an Ork army literally could not hit their opponent and someone like guard and tau could only hit them on 6s or if they’re Eldar could not hit them at all. At which point all you’ve done is basically switched around which player really got first turn

1: Given that my idea only restricts it to vehicles, I'm not sure that's as much of a problem, big guns miss ALL the time in real warfare until the get good targeting info. Ork -vehicles- might not be able to hit the side of a barn in T1, and IG would find it really difficult to land a shot on a bunch of stealthy dudes with their tanks, but better trained troops can still hit effectively. Realistically though, most horde-ish armies are going second anyway.

 

2: T1 for hordes gives greater board control and can seriously limit, or cripple elite army DS ability. IF the elite army gives up that board control to avoid T1 penalties, that now becomes a tactical choice, rather than them never considering it because they can wipe you with impunity. Do I accept hitting on 4+ or 5+ if I move to get those shots off as a marine vehicle in first turn, or only having 12" range with my bolters, or do I have enough "in the field" to counter the problems of going first?

 

It's a random idea, it would need work, granted.

Yeah, there’s no easy quick fix sadly. I’m not against your idea in principle, I just wouldn’t want the hit modifier to stack with other ones. A large part of that is because a lot of vehicle weapons already have a lot of randomness associated with them, they’re a random number of shots with random damage and it’s also random whether you hit with it or not.

 

Also we must always remember that a lot of these changes will affect players who, 50% of the time, won’t be able to decide whether they’re going first or second.

[Panzer]

Troops choice is specific, troops is not.

Also Lascannons have not had a range of 72" for a good long time, I don't know where you are pulling 36" from for a lascannon at half range...………..

 

Sigh why not just accept that it's confusing to use that term if you don't mean what it stands for in the rules. 

 

Honest mistake there with the Lascannons. I've been playing only Primaris Marines or T'au lately.