If you could expand the statline, what would you add?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, Craig said:

I don't know what you'd call it but a number to signify how many times a unit can have a stratagem used on it per game. 

For example intercessors could have a value of 5 to signify that they can be affected by 5 friendly stratagems per game. A repulsor might have a value of 1 and a primarch a value of 0. This would prevent a lot of crazy combos and add a greater element of strategy to the game.

Sounds like more book keeping.

id rather just trash like 90% of strats including the reroll strat

 

39 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

Initiative is certainly the one I thought of first here, but I agree there needs to be some variation to it. Knowing that you are going to be getting hit first every single time in every single combat can potentially make melee a complete write-off for your army across the whole game and that's no fun for anybody.

I feel like most armies either it won’t make a difference at all (guard or tau) or the effect will be fairly balanced.

 

an I bonus for charging, wargear that debuffs I. 
For example if I is the same who ever charged goes first (after accounting for the charge buff) and goes first each fight phase. 
But once that charge buff wears off, after first round then the other squad would fight first since their I would now be higher.

it would require more thought be put into charges. Now as it stands charging a guard squad guarantees my guard get a chance to fight against any other unit, so if I know I’m going to get charged next turn and angron is going to wipe the squad, it’s a no brainer to charge him and just hope I knock off a wound or two before he hits back.

 

but this way a unit with high S and A stats, but mid I could potentially have a chance to fight first, and make a crippling attack, but a unit with high I and mid S and A stats then have the advantage of fighting first each following round making it a real question of if it’s worth it for a Smurf BGV squad to charge a dark eldar humunculus unit.

 

i hope I got my point through. Basically there should never be a scenario where using guard CSTs to charge a BA smash captain should ever be a good idea, but there are times when using some units to charge others should generally be a good idea, and sometimes charging another unit could be 50/50 depending on how your first round of combat goes.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Xenith]

3 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

This is just wishlisting.

 

Not really, this is a hypothetical discussion about expanding the range of characteristics a model has, what you might choose, and the impact it would have on the game. This is not a topic about solving existing issues within the game as it stands. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’m glad they got rid of initiative. Seriously the current system is not difficult to understand… a unit is in one of three states. Initiative now they’ve gotten rid of it, nor does it exist in AoS, would not be well received by a lot of players that started playing 8th edition and later. It also would unnecessarily slow the game down when there are different models with different values.

[Evil Eye]

4 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

I’m glad they got rid of initiative. Seriously the current system is not difficult to understand… a unit is in one of three states. Initiative now they’ve gotten rid of it, nor does it exist in AoS, would not be well received by a lot of players that started playing 8th edition and later. It also would unnecessarily slow the game down when there are different models with different values.

Personally I'm the exact opposite. Initiative makes perfect sense; some creatures are slower to react than others, and this should be represented. It's not hard to understand how it works and I'm pretty sure 99% of people who started with 8th or later will be fine adapting to it. As for those that don't, if someone can't understand a very simple "higher value strikes first" system then I'm not sure wargames are really meant for them, and catering to those people will just ruin the game for everyone else. Call it gatekeeping if you will, but no hobby can be suitable for every single person, regardless of good intent, and given that understanding Initiative is as simple as being able to count, I really don't think it's asking much of a player. The fact it adds more depth and flavour to gameplay whilst actually being simpler than the current system says a lot.

 

Still, seems you're getting your wish given they're removing T values now too. Before long, we'll have two stats; range and strength, with range being how far a unit can shoot and strength being the roll needed to auto-delete a model/unit.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

They won’t like it because it would introduce a disadvantage for them if they have a low initiative faction like Orks and Necrons were.

[Sothalor]

37 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

They won’t like it because it would introduce a disadvantage for them if they have a low initiative faction like Orks and Necrons were.

 

Alright... but how is that fundamentally different from any other stat with an average difference between factions?

 

Like, do Guard players feel bad that the average Strength of their Guardsman is 3 versus 4 for a Space Marine?

 

Or should Eldar players feel bad about a Guardian being Toughness 3 versus an Ork Boy being Toughness 4?

 

The variance and variety between factions is, I'd argue, part of the appeal in offering both different playstyles as well as thematic flavor.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

I’m glad they got rid of initiative. Seriously the current system is not difficult to understand… a unit is in one of three states. Initiative now they’ve gotten rid of it, nor does it exist in AoS, would not be well received by a lot of players that started playing 8th edition and later. It also would unnecessarily slow the game down when there are different models with different values.

Bro initiative is better than the current fight first/last flow chart needed for all the special rules.

it’s a very simple mechanic, and I have absolutely no clue why you think new players would have any problem with it.

49 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

They won’t like it because it would introduce a disadvantage for them if they have a low initiative faction like Orks and Necrons were.

Most necrons suck in melee any way.

 

Every stat creates inherent disadvantages, why is this one suddenly so unbearable?

[MARK0SIAN]

Definitely bring back initiative, the current system is ludicrously complex to the point where this has to exist:

https://www.goonhammer.com/ruleshammer-unusual-fight-phases-what-units-come-first-last-in-the-middle/

 

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

1 hour ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

They won’t like it because it would introduce a disadvantage for them if they have a low initiative faction like Orks and Necrons were.

I would much prefer for initiative to come back, as a Necrons player. Most Necron units should be slow—a warrior hitting an incubus first makes very little sense. (Now, Praetorians and Wraiths and things should be faster—our melee units should be freakishly fast, balanced by other stuff being slower and vulnerable.) And I have such a poor understanding/recall of how the current mechanics work at the moment that I end up asking my opponent how things go almost every game, which slows things down significantly. 

 

So bring back initiative, with the caveat I want some of our durability back (this ties in to my general complaints about how Reanimation Protocols work and isn’t strictly relevant). Change fight first/fight last rules to initiative buffs/debuffs, and make us a bit more durable to really sell the ‘old slow and nigh unkillable’ deal and I’d be perfectly happy. 

[gaurdian31]

I mean if we are going to bring back initiative then add it to shooting as well. I mean if you have faster reaction speed in close combat shouldn't that also translate to firing your guns as well? So higher initiatives would get to shoot first and then down the line. I mean in lore Space Marines can react and shoot faster than gaurdsmen so why shouldn't that be the case on the tabletop? We could make it so heavy weapons always fire last like powerfists always swing last.  I'm joking btw, I am glad that initiative is gone and I hope it stays gone. I think the current system is just fine. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Well with them getting rid of toughness, which translates directly to AoS, I don’t have anything to worry about really. 
 

The way the fight phase works now isn’t really complex, like I said a unit is always in one three states - fights first, normal or fights last.

 

"…but how is that fundamentally different from any other stat with an average difference between factions?

 

"Like, do Guard players feel bad that the average Strength of their Guardsman is 3 versus 4 for a Space Marine?

 

"Or should Eldar players feel bad about a Guardian being Toughness 3 versus an Ork Boy being Toughness 4?"

 

If it doesn’t exist then it doesn’t matter.

Edited February 7, 2023 by BLACK BLΠFLY

[Beta galactosidase]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

a very simple "higher value strikes first" system

no, a save.

 

I’d repurpose the Attack stat instead of adding a stat.  Like in the game Flames of War it is harder to hit a more veteran (higher attacks) infantry unit.  In 40k, an infantry unit with hunter A than its attacker gets a +1 save, or a 5+++.  Close combat saves resolve simultaneously.

 

There’s the agility stat: it is called Attacks, and the codexes for 2023 and 2024, which have already been written, all have attacks on their stat lines.  It’s an even easier roll out than Armour of Contempt.

 

most Eldar already have at least 2 attacks (kabalites) and many elites have 3.  So they get their agility in the form of this save, possibly an attacks buff for units that are currently too shooty to have gotten the 3A of banshees and scorpions.  
 

Orks boyz will still be very weak as a unit and a list, even with an occasional save bonus 

 

58 minutes ago, Sothalor said:

 a Guardian being Toughness 3 versus an Ork Boy being Toughness 4

 

T5 most places these days

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

13 hours ago, gaurdian31 said:

I mean if we are going to bring back initiative then add it to shooting as well. I mean if you have faster reaction speed in close combat shouldn't that also translate to firing your guns as well? So higher initiatives would get to shoot first and then down the line. I mean in lore Space Marines can react and shoot faster than gaurdsmen so why shouldn't that be the case on the tabletop? We could make it so heavy weapons always fire last like powerfists always swing last.  I'm joking btw, I am glad that initiative is gone and I hope it stays gone. I think the current system is just fine. 

The whole game is essentially happening simultaneously each turn.

the sides aren’t taking turns shooting each.

This is a terrible strawman.

 

13 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Well with them getting rid of toughness, which translates directly to AoS, I don’t have anything to worry about really. 
 

The way the fight phase works now isn’t really complex, like I said a unit is always in one three states - fights first, normal or fights last.

 

"…but how is that fundamentally different from any other stat with an average difference between factions?

 

"Like, do Guard players feel bad that the average Strength of their Guardsman is 3 versus 4 for a Space Marine?

 

"Or should Eldar players feel bad about a Guardian being Toughness 3 versus an Ork Boy being Toughness 4?"

 

If it doesn’t exist then it doesn’t matter.

It matters if you’re going to make an argument based on that premise.

 

or can you not support and defend your statements?

 

you oversimplify the combat phase. There are fight first/last rules that contradict and now require an entire spreadsheet to understand and deconflict.

[gaurdian31]

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The whole game is essentially happening simultaneously each turn.

the sides aren’t taking turns shooting each.

This is a terrible strawman.

But that isn't how it plays out. Currently my whole army gets to shoot during the shoot phase and you have no reaction to it. Only close combat moves back and forth between players. If initiative returns then the back and forth is mostly lost as a higher initiative army will have all their units go first and then the defender gets to respond, though at least they get a response.  Again I am glad that initiative is gone as the players get to have more interaction during that phase outside of all my guys went first, pick up your army now since they are dead and don't get to fight back.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Just now, gaurdian31 said:

But that isn't how it plays out. Currently my whole army gets to shoot during the shoot phase and you have no reaction to it. Only close combat moves back and forth between players. If initiative returns then the back and forth is mostly lost as a higher initiative army will have all their units go first and then the defender gets to respond, though at least they get a response.  Again I am glad that initiative is gone as the players get to have more interaction during that phase outside of all my guys went first, pick up your army now since they are dead and don't get to fight back.

This is why I have proposed a casualty phase at the end of the turn.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Fights first and fights last don’t contradict and mean exactly what they say… simple really.

[gaurdian31]

10 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

This is why I have proposed a casualty phase at the end of the turn.

Did you propose that in a different thread? I'm not finding any mention of that in this one, unless I am reading right over it.

[Evil Eye]

The "Low Initiative units get punished" thing seems very easy to fix; scale back the lethality of the game and make slower units (Orks etc) tougher. Simple as. (T. Boss Bigfist, WAAAGH! Norf.) That, and the fact units capable of steamrolling such tough but low-I units are generally (supposed to be) quite elite. One on one a howling banshee positively embarrasses a slugga boy, but you're generally talking 5 banshees to 30 boyz.

 

Yes I'm sure some netlister in a tournament environment might max out on high-initiative units and gain an advantage, but spoiler alert, the vast majority of games  do not occur in such environments and any healthy gaming community will ostracize/dreadsock people who bring minmaxed netlists to a friendly game. No amount of mortal wound spam will be able to overcome being told to get lost/a pewter Dreadnought to the face.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 hours ago, gaurdian31 said:

Did you propose that in a different thread? I'm not finding any mention of that in this one, unless I am reading right over it.

Yes I have proposed that in other threads, and it’s something I’ve brought up a few times.

 

removing dead models at the end of the turn essentially removes the alpha strike, or at least allows for mutual alpha strikes at the very least.

13 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Fights first and fights last don’t contradict and mean exactly what they say… simple really.

Ok, have fun being a troll.

 

12 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

The "Low Initiative units get punished" thing seems very easy to fix; scale back the lethality of the game and make slower units (Orks etc) tougher. Simple as. (T. Boss Bigfist, WAAAGH! Norf.) That, and the fact units capable of steamrolling such tough but low-I units are generally (supposed to be) quite elite. One on one a howling banshee positively embarrasses a slugga boy, but you're generally talking 5 banshees to 30 boyz.

 

Yes I'm sure some netlister in a tournament environment might max out on high-initiative units and gain an advantage, but spoiler alert, the vast majority of games  do not occur in such environments and any healthy gaming community will ostracize/dreadsock people who bring minmaxed netlists to a friendly game. No amount of mortal wound spam will be able to overcome being told to get lost/a pewter Dreadnought to the face.

Not to mention people already min/max their armies in every way possible currently.

 

but yeah it’s absolutely not nearly the problem people act like it is. There’s no reason my CST should be able to charge a marine captain and kill him outside of the most absolutely dumb luck. 
as it stands now if I charge a marine captain I only need good luck to kill him.

[Halandaar]

1 hour ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Fights first and fights last don’t contradict and mean exactly what they say… simple really.

 

I have a unit that says it always fights first. It is fighting against a unit that makes it's enemy fight last. When does my unit fight? 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

""Low Initiative units get punished" thing seems very easy to fix; scale back the lethality of the game and make slower units (Orks etc) tougher."

 

So you want more bloat then am I right? You push in the balloon and it bulges somewhere else. 

[Beta galactosidase]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

One on one a howling banshee positively embarrasses a slugga boy, but you're generally talking 5 banshees to 30 boyz.

and it’s a situation where initiative doesn’t add much, because it doesn’t scale with the number of enemies and help the banshees survive.  Also the boys are balanced against medium initiative enemies, so the banshees are paying a premium for this speed and not getting a benefit.

 

So yes I want faster creatures to have agility rules, it’s too bad that initiative steps don’t provide that. 

[Evil Eye]

49 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

So you want more bloat then am I right? You push in the balloon and it bulges somewhere else. 

That's...not bloat. That was how the game worked for years. The "bloat" came from piles of extra rules and formations and the like being tacked onto the underlying game. 8th and 9th suffer from bloat too; arguably, their more cut-back and simplified core rules mean that the system is even more prone to suffering from bloat than earlier systems. With older editions, the core rules were already equipped to deal with different "archetypes" of unit, and didn't need extra special rules added in the codex to explain the difference between every single unit. Compare "This unit has the FLY keyword, can enter the battlefield during the reserves phase with a successful d6 roll and can be placed anywhere on the table, etc etc" to "This unit is Jump Infantry (See Page X of the rulebook)".

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Orks are already tougher but a squad of Banshees or Incubi will just shred Ork Boys if they swing first. Dialing back the “lethality” seems like a lot more work would be involved , so it’s not really a simple solution.

Edited February 7, 2023 by BLACK BLΠFLY

[Arkangilos]

28 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Orks are already tougher but a squad of Banshees or Incubi will just shred Ork Boys if they swing first. Dialing back the “lethality” seems like a lot more work would be involved , so it’s not really a simple solution.

Well yes, and five banshees should be able to kill more Orks before the Orks finish them off. Now, should the banshees be able to wipe out an entire ork unit of 20? No. But should they kill quite a few prior to them dying? Yes.

 

I’m actually not opposed to Init affecting more than just combat, though.

 

In 5150 (two hour wargames), your units’ Rep determines if they reacted and if they could move. At beginning of turn you would roll for who would go (then it turned to a reaction system). The highest went first, but only the units with a Rep higher than the roll could go. I wouldn’t be opposed to initiative working the same.

 

If your unit spots another unit for the first time you’d roll for reaction, the winner gets to shoot first, then the receiving unit would react based on the results of the enemy shooting. (Pinned, fall back, shoot back, etc.).

 

If I were a wish listing man, I would actually like that to be a thing in 40k. It makes turns more fluid and more simultaneous.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Arkangilos