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

[tinpact]

I don't know why wishlisting is being brought up...that seems to be the point of the thread, no?

 

But yes, I think initiative with variance could be fun, although I would probably have it rolled on a d3 instead of d6, and you would probably need to spread out Initiative values a little more so units aren't just I3/4/5/6.

 

Now, if I really wanted to get wacky, how about unit facings and turn speeds? Granted, this is probably more suitable for an Epic-scale game where you can more feasibly keep your units in formation. Still, I like the idea of flanking as an action with game-mechanical interactions rather than treating every unit as an omnidirectional threat blob.

[Beta galactosidase]

2 hours ago, Arkangilos said:

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.

 

a minimum unit of banshees and 12 Orks wipe each other out. Same points

 

 

1 hour ago, tinpact said:

you would probably need to spread out Initiative values a little more so units aren't just I3/4/5/6.

again there’s  this situation where a unit with i7 doesn’t really gain an advantage against most armies, and is only worth this stat if there is a model with i6 or 5 AND if it is likely to be in combat with that model AND if it can hurt that model.  It’s a very narrow set of circumstances and that makes it very hard to balance since it’s so niche.

 

you could say that the ideal I range, if you have initiative steps at all, is normal, slow, and fast. Ninth has normal slow and fast

[The Unseen]

Initiative's removal was a failure IMO, and seeing HH 2.0 with it and using it to key so many things off of it just make sense. Stratagems giving you a bit of extra movement work really well off of the Initiative stat. You do have to fiddle with it to make slower melee armies not suffer unduly, basically by making them either tough and/or numerous enough that they can happily live through most units hitting them first, but it would've definitely been better than having several iterations of an FaQ to explain how Fight First and Last interacted this edition. I do think that the rules that currently modify fight order should remain and do things with modifying initiative, and you can also bring back unwieldy. I'm not sure if you'd want to make simultaneous fights happen (as oldhammer and HH does it) or have units resolve their stuff with alternating activation's, but currently you have the ridiculous stuff of grots or literal zombies (I2 in the old rules) charging and fighting before wyches, primarchs, and slaanesh daemons (I6+).

[Xenith]

=][= The topic is called "If you could expand the statline, what would you add?". Please keep the discussion to statline based modifications to the game system that you think might tweak the 40k game rather than broader changes that you'd like to see. Similarly, keep discussion civil and constructive, please and thank you. =][=

 

That said, a good chunk of my gaming group started 40k with 8th ed, or 9th ed in lockdown and have seamless transitioned to HH with no issue including who attacks first in combat (objective higher number goes first). I'm the usual first port of call for rules questions, and I received none about attacking order in combat in HH, while it was a regular occurance in 40k.

 

One of the common ones was whether charging models with strike first go before models that just have strike first, and why. 

 

I hadn't realised initiative was so divisive, I'd generally assumed it was a better way of working things out. Maybe the WFB way of "chargers strike first, everything else at initiative" was a good way of doing it, you are still rewarded for the charge, but faster armies go before slower. 

 

Any other thoughts on statlines? From the title, the change doesn't have to be constructive, so thought experiments are possible? For me Inititive is the main one as it covered thingslike mental agility, sagacity etc. 

[Cleon]

It's not so much a statline change, but I'd stop treating vehicles as large infantry with the same statline and rules, but that's a much bigger conversation.

[Halandaar]

14 minutes ago, Xenith said:

I hadn't realised initiative was so divisive, I'd generally assumed it was a better way of working things out. 

 

It is a better way; nobody playing Heresy needs a flowchart to tell them who fights first. The whole back and forth of how 40k combat works is a mess; Initiative scores are completely straightforward; Unit with the highest initiative goes first, then work through units in descending order of initiative. Done.

 

Got Always Strikes First? You fight first even before Initiative 10 enemies. Enemy has Always Strikes First as well? The two negate each other and you're back to comparing Initiative scores. Both units have the same Initiative after that? They fight simultaneously (i.e. both sides make their attacks before any casualties are removed on either side). Easy. No arguments, no flowcharts.

 

It isn't "bloat" to (re)introduce a single statistic if that vastly simplifies the process of determining who strikes first in a combat.

 

45 minutes ago, Xenith said:

Maybe the WFB way of "chargers strike first, everything else at initiative" was a good way of doing it, you are still rewarded for the charge, but faster armies go before slower. 

 

Chargers striking first wasn't a thing in WFB, at least not in 8th Edition; combats were always resolved in initiative order unless Always Strikes First or Always Strikes Last were involved. (The example given the WFB8 rulebook even describes a unit of Orc Boyz charging a unit of Dark Elves and then fighting second owing to their lower initiative).

 

But I agree with the general idea that chargers should gain something for being the ones initiating the combat; 40K's old extra attack isn't any use if you get chopped to bits before you can use them, and equally WFBs +1 Combat Result point doesn't change much if you were charging an Always Strikes First unit of Swordmasters. A bonus to initiative when you charge might be a good solution as it would tilt evenly matched fights in the charger's favour, or give lower initiative fighters a chance to go at the same time as a unit that would normally hit them first (or even before them if you make the bonus large enough).

 

2 hours ago, Xenith said:

Any other thoughts on statlines? From the title, the change doesn't have to be constructive, so thought experiments are possible? 

 

Something I've been musing over is the idea of Action Points, so instead of every unit being able to do every thing in every phase, they have to pick and choose what parts of the game they engage in. 

 

The baseline would be 3 (probably) which would allow everyone to Move, Shoot and Fight in a single round, much as they can now, if they wanted to. But then if you want to advance or take an objective or set up overwatch you have to start making sacrifices. Then specific units can have rules that allow them to use particular actions more than once (like Berserkers fighting twice, or Crisis Suits doing move-shoot-move and so on). It allows certain units to do their flavourful moves without it necessarily always being a flat-out advantage; you have to trade something for it.

 

Arguably this is bloat as it adds another layer to decision making throughout the whole game rather than having a standard turn sequence, and honestly probably works better as part of an entirely redesigned game (I've been working on it as part of an alternating-activations rewrite of the game)

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Halandaar said:

 

It is a better way; nobody playing Heresy needs a flowchart to tell them who fights first. The whole back and forth of how 40k combat works is a mess; Initiative scores are completely straightforward; Unit with the highest initiative goes first, then work through units in descending order of initiative. Done.

 

Got Always Strikes First? You fight first even before Initiative 10 enemies. Enemy has Always Strikes First as well? The two negate each other and you're back to comparing Initiative scores. Both units have the same Initiative after that? They fight simultaneously (i.e. both sides make their attacks before any casualties are removed on either side). Easy. No arguments, no flowcharts.

 

It isn't "bloat" to (re)introduce a single statistic if that vastly simplifies the process of determining who strikes first in a combat.

 

 

Chargers striking first wasn't a thing in WFB, at least not in 8th Edition; combats were always resolved in initiative order unless Always Strikes First or Always Strikes Last were involved. (The example given the WFB8 rulebook even describes a unit of Orc Boyz charging a unit of Dark Elves and then fighting second owing to their lower initiative).

 

But I agree with the general idea that chargers should gain something for being the ones initiating the combat; 40K's old extra attack isn't any use if you get chopped to bits before you can use them, and equally WFBs +1 Combat Result point doesn't change much if you were charging an Always Strikes First unit of Swordmasters. A bonus to initiative when you charge might be a good solution as it would tilt evenly matched fights in the charger's favour, or give lower initiative fighters a chance to go at the same time as a unit that would normally hit them first (or even before them if you make the bonus large enough).

 

 

Something I've been musing over is the idea of Action Points, so instead of every unit being able to do every thing in every phase, they have to pick and choose what parts of the game they engage in. 

 

The baseline would be 3 (probably) which would allow everyone to Move, Shoot and Fight in a single round, much as they can now, if they wanted to. But then if you want to advance or take an objective or set up overwatch you have to start making sacrifices. Then specific units can have rules that allow them to use particular actions more than once (like Berserkers fighting twice, or Crisis Suits doing move-shoot-move and so on). It allows certain units to do their flavourful moves without it necessarily always being a flat-out advantage; you have to trade something for it.

 

Arguably this is bloat as it adds another layer to decision making throughout the whole game rather than having a standard turn sequence, and honestly probably works better as part of an entirely redesigned game (I've been working on it as part of an alternating-activations rewrite of the game)

Action points sounds like a lot of book keeping…

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Intitate would add more bloat - plus it is inherently unfair.

[Halandaar]

34 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Action points sounds like a lot of book keeping…

 

 

Anyway, it's less a serious proposition for 40K as it stands and more of an element of a completely hypothetical game system. As I said.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Halandaar

[Halandaar]

2 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Intitate would add more bloat

 

Doesn't matter how many times you say it, it isn't true.

 

And how is it an unfair stat? Is it also inherently unfair that a Marine has higher toughness than a Guardsman, or that a Terminator has a higher armour save than an Aspect Warrior?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’ve already stated why it’s unfair. That’s why I repeat myself here.

[Halandaar]

4 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

I’ve already stated why it’s unfair. That’s why I repeat myself here.

 

You have yet to respond to anyone asking why every other stat in the game is not unfair if it favours one army or unit over another. The idea that Initiative is different from them in that regard is... strange to say the least.

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

I’ve already stated why it’s unfair. That’s why I repeat myself here.

You have never stated why it’s unfair, or at least why it’s any more unfair than any other stat any way.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Some of the things I’ve already said:

 

"I wonder how Ork players feel about that and I’m sure Banshees and Incubi will love shredding your Marines irregardless if you charged them.

 

"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.

 

"Orks are already tougher but a squad of Banshees or Incubi will just shred Ork Boys if they swing first."

 

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who started playing during 8th or 9th… they will not like having a disadvantage that didn’t exist before. And currently nobody runs squad of 20 Ork boys so don’t strawman that one.

 

Bloat will come in form of adding additional rules to support initiative:

 

Frag and plasma grenades for example when charging into terrain.

 

Unwieldy (e.g., powerfists always fight last).

 

Psychic powers…

 

Furious charge…

 

etc.

 

It’s not as simple as just adding the stat to data sheets which in and of itself would require a lot of work. Some say Orks are slow but really there’s nothing in the lore to support that claim.

Edited February 8, 2023 by BLACK BLΠFLY

[Arkangilos]

9 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

irregardless

 

11 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

It’s not as simple as just adding the stat to data sheets which in and of itself would require a lot of work. Some say Orks are slow but really there’s nothing in the lore to support that claim.

When we say slow we don’t mean compared to Joe, we mean compared to SM and Eldar, and that is supported.

[Dumah]

I'd rather see stats reduced, not expanded, for a more streamlined experience. For instance, how about removing Toughness? Oh wait...

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

35 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

 

When we say slow we don’t mean compared to Joe, we mean compared to SM and Eldar, and that is supported.

How about some actual references ?

[Arkangilos]

4 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

How about some actual references ?

Come on man… you know… the thing.

 

lol I can’t give any right now. Unless you count the video game Space Marine or back when armies had initiative. Or all the armies that attack first and aren’t Orks.

 

 

[Evil Eye]

59 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who started playing during 8th or 9th… they will not like having a disadvantage that didn’t exist before. And currently nobody runs squad of 20 Ork boys so don’t strawman that one.

And plenty of people that played before the removal of Initiative didn't like its removal. What's your point? As for "nobody runs squads of 20 Orks", [citation needed].

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Some of the things I’ve already said:

 

"I wonder how Ork players feel about that and I’m sure Banshees and Incubi will love shredding your Marines irregardless if you charged them.

 

"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.

 

"Orks are already tougher but a squad of Banshees or Incubi will just shred Ork Boys if they swing first."

 

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who started playing during 8th or 9th… they will not like having a disadvantage that didn’t exist before. And currently nobody runs squad of 20 Ork boys so don’t strawman that one.

 

Bloat will come in form of adding additional rules to support initiative:

 

Frag and plasma grenades for example when charging into terrain.

 

Unwieldy (e.g., powerfists always fight last).

 

Psychic powers…

 

Furious charge…

 

etc.

 

It’s not as simple as just adding the stat to data sheets which in and of itself would require a lot of work. Some say Orks are slow but really there’s nothing in the lore to support that claim.

None of those things explains how I is more unfair than any other stat, or unfair at all really.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

How about some actual references ?

I mean you’re either not really up to par for this topic or you’re trolling…

 

weren’t you complaining that orks used to have bad initiative while that stat existed?

there’s an actual reference. They’re slow, from the mental stand point for sure, they don’t seem to have any actual training in melee.

Mentally slow means poor reaction time, that’s bad in a melee fight.

lack of real martial arts training leads to poor technique and form, these things lead to inefficient and slower (or longer) movements and techniques.

 

did you not play space marine? They seemed quite a bit slower than Titus in that…I havent seen or play DoW in years but I would bet they’re slower than marines, and definitely than eldar in that.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It is just hilarious you would accuse me of trolling.

 

Anyways why are you so hung up on initiative? Is that the only thing you can think of to bloat the stat line ?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

It is just hilarious you would accuse me of trolling.

 

Anyways why are you so hung up on initiative? Is that the only thing you can think of to bloat the stat line ?

I’m just waiting you to actually support your claims in some logical manner.

[Evil Eye]

4 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

So you’re okay going with the selfish option. 

How is me wanting a system that I and many, many others prefer any more "selfish" than someone else wanting a system they prefer? I guarantee you that bringing back Initiative would please or have no impact on far, far more people than it would actually upset in any way, shape or form.

 

At the end of the day, bringing back an older mechanic is no different to adding a completely new one re: newcomers- either way, when a new edition rolls in, they're going to have to learn new stuff and forget what they already knew. Whether that's a totally original mechanic or something brought back from the pre-8th days doesn't really matter; it's still unfamiliar to newer players.

 

Now personally I would agree that the "Charger strikes first in first round, subsequent rounds use Initiative" system of WHFB would possibly work better than the old pure-initiative system; it gives slower units a chance to get the drop on faster ones whilst still giving high-Initiative units a benefit in combat. Note, however, this still keeps the stat a thing.

 

The really funny thing is that Initiative was never a super critical stat outside of some outlying cases. To use one very specific example that I'm fairly familiar with (4E Tyranids), Carnifexes had a poor I stat of 2 (capable of being raised to a whopping 3 with adrenal glands, woooo!) but were still really, really scary. Especially given you could biomorph them to have an extra wound and T7, and anything that they hit in close combat would be liquefied. Oh, and in Synapse range they were immune to Instant Death too. Likewise, back when the Mark of Slaanesh gave an extra I point, if you were taking the MoS you weren't doing it for the I bonus; you were doing it for the extra fun stuff you could take like sonic weapons. I do seem to recall 5th added some low-I punishing nonsense but then again, the armies that had access to this usually had far worse (JOTWW anyone?) and 5th was when the rot started to set in with 40K (and also around the time the tourney scene really flared up...).

 

TLDR: Initiative is no more unfair than any other stat, and isn't even an especially critical stat anyway. I'd argue WS was a much more important stat for combat; even if you're going first, if you can't hit anything you're SOL!

 

 

Anyway.

 

On topic, one idea I did have was bringing back Willpower/"Psychic Skill" as a separate stat from Leadership for the purposes of psychic tests. This could represent things like Weirdboyz, who are all too eager to cave some skulls in with MIND BULLETS DAKKA and unlikely to be scared easily, but are also somewhat likely to mess it up due to being barely in control of their powers. Likewise, a sorcerer of Tzeentch might be very, very good at turning people into spawn, but also might be a bit of a coward. You could also use this for non-psychic units for the purposes of resisting psychic powers; maybe the Tau, being as they are barely present in the Warp, would have a decent resistance to psychic attacks despite not necessarily being especially zealous. I'm not entirely sure if it's a distinction important enough for 40K-scale games but for something like Kill Team with a more individual-focused approach, maybe?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

"How is me wanting a system that I and many, many others prefer any more "selfish" than someone else wanting a system they prefer? I guarantee you that bringing back Initiative would please or have no impact on far, far more people than it would actually upset in any way, shape or form."

 

You have no idea how many people want initiative. A few people here posting in favor of it is in no way indicative of the general consensus. In this thread more have stated they are glad to see it go. And you’re wrong, initiative had a huge impact which units won combats.