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

[Evil Eye]

9 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

And you’re wrong, initiative had a huge impact which units won combats.

Seriously. You keep repeating this over and over and over but you haven't actually explained your point. How is this one stat any more "unfair" for a unit to excel in than any other stat? Why is striking first a bigger advantage than being able to hit at all? Why is it a bigger advantage than being more likely to wound, or to shrug off a blow?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Lol you’re the one repeating yourself…

[Special Officer Doofy]

Initiative going away (along with templates, AV and vehicle facings) is the only reason my brother, friends and I came back to the hobby in 8th. Not everyone would like to see initiative come back.

[Evil Eye]

1 minute ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Initiative going away (along with templates, AV and vehicle facings) is the only reason my brother, friends and I came back to the hobby in 8th. Not everyone would like to see initiative come back.

And it's one of the many reasons I and many others are engaging less and less with the hobby in its current state. So who should take priority?

[Special Officer Doofy]

8 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

And it's one of the many reasons I and many others are engaging less and less with the hobby in its current state. So who should take priority?

 

Well 8th was more popular than 7th, and it was removed. So I don't think removing it was detrimental to the game or its popularity.

 

Initiative (and AV) created non interactions that I think are unhealthy for the game. You could math it out in your head and a lower initiative unit would only be committing suicide by charging a higher initiative one.

 

They went away in 8th. 8th was more popular than its predecessors. Now that's not evidence that the removal of initiative made the game more popular, but it is evidence that removing things like initiative did not negatively effect the popularity of the game.

 

Not looking to argue, I truly wish everyone could have their way and play their own perfect version of the game, but we all know that isn't possible.

[Evil Eye]

5 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Well 8th was more popular than 7th, and it was removed. So I don't think removing it was detrimental to the game or its popularity.

I recall the removal of Initiative being one of the elements a lot of people disliked about 8th even back when it was considered a massive breath of fresh air after the bloated, overcomplicated imbalanced mess that was 7th. And I'd argue that currently, 9th is just as bad- if not WORSE- than 7th with none of 7th's benefits (notably in-depth customization options, which were to their credit quite impressive. Remember poor old Traitor Legions, the awesome supplement that lasted a few months before being totally invalidated?).

 

There's also the issue that popularity =/= quality. There's plenty of people that I think tabletop wargaming is not suited to and cannot be made to suit without compromising what makes it interesting/special, in much the same way as it would not be possible to make Street Fighter something I can reasonably engage with without alienating the core audience. What GW have done is traded core appeal for widespread/lowest common denominator popularity, which...isn't great.

 

As far as "non-interactions" go, not everything SHOULD be able to interact with everything else. A grot should not be scratching a Warlord. The solution is not to make the grot able to do so- it's to restrict the fielding of Warlords.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Evil Eye
Ninja'd.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

9 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

"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.

There’s several people posting in support of it, and like 2 people not supporting it…

Edited February 9, 2023 by Xenith
provocative language

[Special Officer Doofy]

7 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

I recall the removal of Initiative being one of the elements a lot of people disliked about 8th even back when it was considered a massive breath of fresh air after the bloated, overcomplicated imbalanced mess that was 7th. And I'd argue that currently, 9th is just as bad- if not WORSE- than 7th with none of 7th's benefits (notably in-depth customization options, which were to their credit quite impressive. Remember poor old Traitor Legions, the awesome supplement that lasted a few months before being totally invalidated?).

 

There's also the issue that popularity =/= quality. There's plenty of people that I think tabletop wargaming is not suited to and cannot be made to suit without compromising what makes it interesting/special, in much the same way as it would not be possible to make Street Fighter something I can reasonably engage with without alienating the core audience. What GW have done is traded core appeal for widespread/lowest common denominator popularity, which...isn't great.

 

As far as "non-interactions" go, not everything SHOULD be able to interact with everything else. A grot should not be scratching a Warlord. The solution is not to make the grot able to do so- it's to restrict the fielding of Warlords.

 

And that's all your opinion. I'm not going to argue your opinion. You're allowed to have it just like BBF and I are allowed to have ours. I'm just grateful GW sided with ours haha. I quit playing in 6th and for all of 7th because I didn't care for the "quality" of the game as you put it. Other people can take their turn and sit out an edition or two if they don't like it.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

13 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Well 8th was more popular than 7th, and it was removed. So I don't think removing it was detrimental to the game or its popularity.

Was 8th more popular because of better marketing out reach, or because of rules? 
long term players will likely stick around regardless of rules changes or lore changes. Primaris tore the community apart yet 8th was as you noted very popular.

 

your argument is a strawman.

[Special Officer Doofy]

16 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Was 8th more popular because of better marketing out reach, or because of rules? 
long term players will likely stick around regardless of rules changes or lore changes. Primaris tore the community apart yet 8th was as you noted very popular.

 

your argument is a strawman.

 

What the hell are you even talking about? I even said the rules changing did not increase the popularity in the next post, but it did not decrease the popularity. You think the game magically got more popular by pissing "everyone" off by removing things like initiative and adding Primaris marines? Or maybe, just maybe, not as many people cared about those things like you and some vocal others do?

 

P.s. You and a few others on here love to throw around the strawman argument, I suggest you look up the definition. My statement that 8th was more popular than 7th so the removal of the rules was not detrimental to the popularity of the game is not a strawman argument. If you think there is a lack of evidence that the removal of initiative was not detrimental, well guess what. There is even less (none?) evidence that is was detrimental. The only fact we have is 8th was more popular than 7th. Do what you want with it and scream from the mountain tops, I don't care.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Special Officer Doofy

[Reskin]

As for the topic itself, as a Grey Knight player, I modelled halberds on most of my models when;

1. Halberds gave initiative

2. I had to pay for those upgrades, and now I'm left with wysiwyg. And now I desperately want to replace those and proxy other things on my units.

 

So I think my opinion might be valid when it comes to this topic.

 

Firstly, initiative was a great stat, my fragile, limited supply of units in my army got to strike first in most cases which lead to me not taking as much return damage from the enemy unit striking back. Loved it! That's awesome.

 

However in the grand scheme of things, from 6th and 7th edition that really meant diddly squat. And you can substitute that with any French word you like. I'm not allowed to..

 

I stopped playing in 6th and 7th not because of broken initiative, but because the game was filled with broken over powered, over bearing, suffocating rules, units and codex's. That initiative doesn't even enter the top 10 things.

 

In fact, those editions were so stuffin' terrible and traumatizing for me, I've tried hard to blank them out, so I cant even recall what I hated about them.

 

So in short;

initiative was cool, but 8th edition and subsequently 9th was a much needed breath of fresh air in terms of the overall base rules of the game.

Although I'm still not happy that my codex isn't the stuffin most powerful :D :D

 

I want my psychic phase back.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Reskin

[Arkangilos]

11 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

Anything prior to 8th edition obviously doesn’t count.

I don’t know how serious you are being, but you basically said, “evidence that some species are faster than other species doesn’t count”.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Xenith]

=][= Right, let's tone it down with the unsupported one line arguments, rhetoric and incorrect accusations of straw-manning. I'll be removing posts, keep it civil, constructive and on topic.

 

On another note, people have opinions, and their own internal preference, and there's virtually zero chance of making someone change their mind on the importance of an issue, as it's subjective - as we've seen, there's no point.

 

Let's put initiative to be for now, I think we've said all that needs to be said, and discuss other potential additions to the statline: what would you add and why.=][= 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Xenith

[Xenith]

22 hours ago, Halandaar said:

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. 

 

AP's is actully a decent idea, however it might work best with an alternating activation style game? We already kind of have that function in the game already - if you move and do an action, you cannot shoot or charge, so essentially you've used 2 AP. 2AP seems an industry standard and would force harder decisions, and reduce the power of units that can do everything - you can move and shoot, or move and fight, but not both. Some units would have the rofile ability to use the shoot action twice (currently permitted by stratagems in some cases) and some could fight twice (also permitted by strats). Command abilities could be swapped from rerolls (which remove fun from the game imo) to increasing AP? Heck, even command points could just be bonus AP that you get to spend over the course of the game, as opposed to a million strats. 

[Reskin]

Another thread just died. Thanks for nothing.

[Halandaar]

10 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

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. 

 

Equally, you have no idea how many people don't want initiative. People here posting against it is in no way indicative of the general consensus. Your point is valid, but it also cuts both ways.

 

10 hours ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

In this thread more have stated they are glad to see it go. 

 

This at least is just your personal bias and is demonstrably incorrect; up to this point 13 unique posters in this thread have supported the idea of Initiative returning in some capacity, while only 6 have stated they don't want it back. That's over two thirds in favour of Initiative (which would qualify as a supermajority in other contexts) among the people participating in the discussion.

 

9 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Initiative (and AV) created non interactions that I think are unhealthy for the game. You could math it out in your head and a lower initiative unit would only be committing suicide by charging a higher initiative one.

 

Every interaction between units involves you playing the statistics and "mathing it out" to determine the risk/reward of doing so. As it is now, if you're going in to a T6 unit with a 2+ save and all you've got is S3 punches hitting on 4's with 0AP, it's still potentially a suicidal charge and that's with no initiative involved. 

 

That said, even the idea that charging higher Initiative units is automatically bad doesn't hold up, because it's all the other statistics that determine the outcome. A squad of Guardians on the receiving end of your Intercessor charge might be hitting you first, but all they're doing is slapping you gently with 1 attack each at S3. That's not suicide just because they're higher initiative than you.

 

Anyway, I think there's a bit of a misconception in this thread that those of us proposing that Initiative returns want it back exactly as it was pre-8th Edition, which isn't necessarily the case. Nobody here is claiming the old initiative system was perfect and the fact that it wasn't really ever modifiable outside of a few edge cases is certainly a weakness. But that's why several people have proposed changes that give priority (or at least boosts) to charging units for the precise reason of allowing lower-initiative units to get the drop on higher-initiative ones in the right circumstances. For me a unit like Howling Banshees or Harlequins should be fighting first every time unless you can catch them out; it's thematic and frankly would allow some of their recent stat inflation to be rolled back a bit. 

 

Even if you don't want Initiative, there has to be a change to the way combat order is resolved because it is frankly a complete mess; you've got all-or-nothing rules that conflict without clear resolutions and a nonsensical situation where you want to resolve combats in a certain order so your best units fight first, and the rest just have to be sacrificed. It doesn't make any sense that your otherwise competent melee troops have to wait to be hit by their foes because you nominated a friendly squad half a mile away from them to fight first this turn, and I've yet to see anyone tackle that issue rather than just saying variations of "initiative bad"

Edited February 9, 2023 by Halandaar
Took a bit out after mod intervention.

[Halandaar]

25 minutes ago, Xenith said:

AP's is actully a decent idea, however it might work best with an alternating activation style game? We already kind of have that function in the game already - if you move and do an action, you cannot shoot or charge, so essentially you've used 2 AP. 2AP seems an industry standard and would force harder decisions, and reduce the power of units that can do everything - you can move and shoot, or move and fight, but not both. Some units would have the rofile ability to use the shoot action twice (currently permitted by stratagems in some cases) and some could fight twice (also permitted by strats). Command abilities could be swapped from rerolls (which remove fun from the game imo) to increasing AP? Heck, even command points could just be bonus AP that you get to spend over the course of the game, as opposed to a million strats. 

 

An alternating-activations version of 40K is what I've been working on when thinking about AP; and forcing harder decisions was exactly my intent, but the reason I went for 3 is because units in 40k can currently do 4 basic things in every turn; Move, Shoot, Charge, Fight. So you could start with a baseline AP of 4, make all of those actions cost 1AP each and you have the same total availability of actions as now, just codified a bit better. 

 

As you say, current 40k already involves a few tradeoffs; when you advance you can't shoot or charge, so it's effectively cost you 2 actions (shooting, charging) to do one action (advancing). Therefore Advance has an effective AP cost of 2. Same for Raise Banners or whatever; you have to sacrifice the ability to do 2 core things in your turn, so it has an AP cost of 2. But those units can still move AND fight. I wanted a system where there was a bit more decision making, like Psykers having to spend an AP to use a power meaning they had to give up something else (probably shooting?)

 

The complicated part not so much working out an AP cost of each thing you want a unit to be able to do, but things like which actions should prevent other actions from being taken even if you have the AP for both (i.e. Shooting preventing you from setting up Overwatch), which actions can only be performed before or after others (Hunker Down followed by Advance makes no sense) and stuff like that.

 

 

 

 

 

[Reskin]

11 hours ago, Halandaar said:

 

An alternating-activations version of 40K is what I've been working on when thinking about AP; and forcing harder decisions was exactly my intent, but the reason I went for 3 is because units in 40k can currently do 4 basic things in every turn; Move, Shoot, Charge, Fight. So you could start with a baseline AP of 4, make all of those actions cost 1AP each and you have the same total availability of actions as now, just codified a bit better. 

 

As you say, current 40k already involves a few tradeoffs; when you advance you can't shoot or charge, so it's effectively cost you 2 actions (shooting, charging) to do one action (advancing). Therefore Advance has an effective AP cost of 2. Same for Raise Banners or whatever; you have to sacrifice the ability to do 2 core things in your turn, so it has an AP cost of 2. But those units can still move AND fight. I wanted a system where there was a bit more decision making, like Psykers having to spend an AP to use a power meaning they had to give up something else (probably shooting?)

 

The complicated part not so much working out an AP cost of each thing you want a unit to be able to do, but things like which actions should prevent other actions from being taken even if you have the AP for both (i.e. Shooting preventing you from setting up Overwatch), which actions can only be performed before or after others (Hunker Down followed by Advance makes no sense) and stuff like that.

 

 

 

 

 

You want to nerf my whole army even more than it is? No thanks.

[Special Officer Doofy]

20 hours ago, Halandaar said:

up to this point 13 unique posters in this thread have supported the idea of Initiative returning in some capacity, while only 6 have stated they don't want it back. That's over two thirds in favour of Initiative (which would qualify as a supermajority in other contexts) among the people participating in the discussion.

 

Let's all be honest with our selves, 19 people is a tiny sample size of the forum, and the forum is a tiny sample size of the hobby (I don't know anyone else in person that uses this forum, a majority don't even know what it is). So it is not really evidence either way, but yes 13 > 6 haha

 

20 hours ago, Halandaar said:

Even if you don't want Initiative, there has to be a change to the way combat order is resolved because it is frankly a complete mess; you've got all-or-nothing rules that conflict without clear resolutions and a nonsensical situation where you want to resolve combats in a certain order so your best units fight first, and the rest just have to be sacrificed. It doesn't make any sense that your otherwise competent melee troops have to wait to be hit by their foes because you nominated a friendly squad half a mile away from them to fight first this turn, and I've yet to see anyone tackle that issue rather than just saying variations of "initiative bad"

 

Two things. First, I have never in my entire time in 40k from 8th on had any issue in figuring out the fight order, I can't believe it's a huge issue for people. Which for me implies that aspect doesn't warrant a change (personal opinion and experience, mind you). Second, trying to bring realism into 40k is a terrible idea (like the I can't swing this guy first because this other guy I want to swing first with example). Nothing in it is real, or remotely real. Here we are arguing about who and why should swing first when in the year 40k no one is going to be using swords when you can just blow up planets and melt tanks with handheld guns. Knights in space is a complete farce to begin with. Even in 2023 (although I served 2008-2012), there is little to no martial combat in modern militaries. So the idea of I'm not going to use my gun and just run up and swing a chainsword (really? A Blunt energy consuming saw sword?) is already kind of moot. I only voiced my opinion that I didn't want initiative back because of the whole 13 > 6 thing, and people actually thinking that a sample size that small means anything. Not trying to change anyone's opinion (as that often doesn't happen here or on the internet in general), was only voicing the other side for those few that think 20 voices matter. 

[Halandaar]

18 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Let's all be honest with our selves, 19 people is a tiny sample size of the forum, and the forum is a tiny sample size of the hobby (I don't know anyone else in person that uses this forum, a majority don't even know what it is). So it is not really evidence either way, but yes 13 > 6 haha

 

18 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

I only voiced my opinion that I didn't want initiative back because of the whole 13 > 6 thing, and people actually thinking that a sample size that small means anything.  

 

Just taking these two lines to say, at no point did I claim a sample of ~20 people was worth anything in statistical terms. It was a very simple refutation of BBF's claim that more people in that thread dislike Initiative than like it, which is demonstrably incorrect.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

Initiative is one of the things I'd like to see make a return, and would honestly be one of my top picks for a wish listing statline along with breaking tank armor into facings again. Guess that makes it 21 vs 7, but I will illaborate on why.

 

I currently play Khorne Daemons, Snakebites, World Eaters, Black Templars, and Custodes. Those are listed in order of how much shooting they have access to, and none of my armies have psychers. The orcs could, but I don't play with one. As a result, I find that the vast majority of my work gets done in the fight phase across every army I play. I live or die by my ability to get stuck in, and by what I can do after I get there.

 

Problem is, melee is harder than shooting or psychic. You can't usually kill units 24 inches apart from one another while also getting buffs from a central character. You have to go to the opponent, so they have a lot more control over the placement of fights than they would vs a shooting army. You aren't garanteed to make it into melee, where as shooting you are garanteed the attempt if they're within range and visible. It's a lot of hoops to jump through only for every army in the game to be able to interrupt you for 2 CP, and many armies having other ways to get fight first. And that isn't even mentioning the abilities that force fights last. So it's harder to get there, harder to get buffs, and easier for your opponent to interrupt.

 

Mixing Initiative back into the mechanics would allow the armies who rely almost entirely on the fight phase to have more stability. For example, if every army got a bonus to Initiative when charging, and the fights first rules were just a bonus to initiative, melee armies could still potentially out initiative them on the charge but not otherwise. Fights Last could get changed to an Initiative penalty, and then Khorne Daemons might get a rule that let them ignore any or all modifiers to their Initiative while Slaanesh units just get a flat higher stat. There's a lot more space to play in with this system that would help in balancing these armies without just adjusting up their Attack stat and AP.

[spessmarine]

I support initiative returning because, looking at aos and 40k together, gw likes their fight ordering abilities and initiative makes it easier to understand just who strikes first when you are both supposed to strike first

[Arkangilos]

58 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Second, trying to bring realism into 40k is a terrible idea (like the I can't swing this guy first because this other guy I want to swing first with example). Nothing in it is real, or remotely real.

This has always been one of the stupidest cop out answers I have ever seen in any discussion.

 

Yeah, it’s not real. That doesn’t mean we can’t want more immersive and plausible things. 
 

It is like those swords twice the size of the person holding it in FF games. “But it’s not real! And these other swords that aren’t nearly as big are also oversized!” Who the heck cares, I don’t like those, and it breaks my suspension of disbelief. 
 

Initiative exists in real world, and in the lore. To ask for it, despite the setting being “unrealistic” isn’t about wanting it to be as realistic as possible, it is about wanting what is somewhat realistically depicted in lore to be represented.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 hour ago, Halandaar said:

Just taking these two lines to say, at no point did I claim a sample of ~20 people was worth anything in statistical terms. It was a very simple refutation of BBF's claim that more people in that thread dislike Initiative than like it, which is demonstrably incorrect.

 

Oh yeah your good. I know you don't think that a sample size that small means much, you were proving a point which was correct to BBF. My statement was a general statement, just using your numbers.

 

29 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

This has always been one of the stupidest cop out answers I have ever seen in any discussion.

 

Yeah, it’s not real. That doesn’t mean we can’t want more immersive and plausible things. 
 

It is like those swords twice the size of the person holding it in FF games. “But it’s not real! And these other swords that aren’t nearly as big are also oversized!” Who the heck cares, I don’t like those, and it breaks my suspension of disbelief. 
 

Initiative exists in real world, and in the lore. To ask for it, despite the setting being “unrealistic” isn’t about wanting it to be as realistic as possible, it is about wanting what is somewhat realistically depicted in lore to be represented.

 

I don't care? If so much of the setting and game is so out there and unrealistic (or undefined, none of us can see 38,000 years into the future), I don't care if one other tiny aspect is also unrealistic. And what you think is more realistic and what I think is more realistic is also an opinion and not fact. And FF is off topic, but if it bothers you I recommend you don't play the game.

 

Alternate activation will be the closest GW could hope to get closer to real life, and even then that is still terrible representation of real time. It would be a crazy leap forward for the game for better or worse though.

[Arkangilos]

4 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

And FF is off topic, but if it bothers you I recommend you don't play the game.

 

Wow, totally missed the point. It was an example to say, “just because the game is fantasy doesn’t mean realism can’t be an argument”.

 

5 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

I don't care?

You care enough to reply ;)

 

Honestly the ones that are getting the most defensive here are the ones who want initiative to stay gone.