First turn win syndrome and my two cents.

[Wargamer]

Here's a thought inspired by a video I just watched, which comes from a tournament ruleset - what if the rules of the game were changed so that all ground floor ruins block line of sight? You can move through them freely, but if you want to shoot out of a ruin you need to move onto the upper floors.

I'd also add a change to TLoS so that you can only trace line of sight to / from the head or torso of a model, not limbs, banners or weapons.

[Rogue]

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.

.

It’s not quite that clear cut though. If you move second, you have the last turn, true, but with variable game length you only know when that will be if you run all the way to turn 7.

 

If I run all my guys out of cover and grab all the objectives at the end of turn five, I’m probably counting on it finishing then, otherwise I’m likely to get blown away in turn six.

 

Whereas going first is always going first. The start of the game is fixed; the end isn’t.

[Panzer]

 

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.

.

It’s not quite that clear cut though. If you move second, you have the last turn, true, but with variable game length you only know when that will be if you run all the way to turn 7.

 

If I run all my guys out of cover and grab all the objectives at the end of turn five, I’m probably counting on it finishing then, otherwise I’m likely to get blown away in turn six.

 

Whereas going first is always going first. The start of the game is fixed; the end isn’t.

 

 

Yeah but tournaments also have a time limit so when the call to finish the current round comes you know when it ends perfectly fine.

[Rogue]

Oh. Never played a tournament. Strictly garage games.

[Mileposter]

My group has been trying a slight variation out that's been making things feel balanced.

 

Whoever goes first has to have the deepstrike in their deployment zone. The player that goes second can deepstrike as normal.

 

It's made things feel balanced as far as first turn goes.

 

Also, personal opinion - all ruins ground floor block line of sight is the best way to play it.

[Claws and Effect]

Did GW not take into account how much the deep strike limitation affects melee focused armies that rely on it to get into position?

 

Because I've found that against any army that has units that can move quickly, by the second turn my assault units are effectively limited to my own deployment zone or close to it.

 

Having to make a 9" charge with those units is already limiting enough without giving my opponent free reign to block anywhere useful to deep strike in their first movement phase.

 

The fact that I play Deathwatch just adds to that problem. My model count is generally pretty low, so I can't block nearly as much of the board as a horde playing opponent.

 

I'd be fine with replacing -1 to hit modifiers that some armies get with the Jormungandr always count as in cover rule. In practice a 2+ save against AP0 would serve me better than a -1 to hit.

[Deadlight]

It feels like terrain density and placement is as important as list selection.

[BlackTriton]

The deepstrike beta rules are not perfect, but it is needed. Had it been a rule from the start, there would be a lot more exemption from it. There is no easy way to fix it now that is fair to codexes not writen with the rule in mind.

 

-1 to hit "tactics" does not necessary need to be changed or replaced as much as it needs to be unstackable with other similar effect.

Havins stackable -1 is ok when its part of the units + psychic/characters. The faction bonus push this too far.

[Ratherdashing]

I thought of something today that would negate the difference between first and second player almost entirely. It's a drastic change to the way 40k thinks, but without making you *play* drastically differently and without being as cumbersome as Alternating Activation could be.

 

Shooting phases are considered to happen "simultaneously". So you still have each player shoot all their guns, but when a model dies, you tip it on its side. It still dies at the end of the round, but his player gets to count him among the shooting models.

 

Obviously this would be murky with Close Combat the way it is now, so you might have to do P1 move, P2 move, P1 shoot, P2 shoot, P1 fight, P2 fight (or even give each player a charge phase and then one shared fight phase).

 

What do you guys think? It'd certainly fix the second player having half an army to shoot back with. Is there something I'm missing or do you think it could work?

 

(Obviously just speculation since it's a "new edition" type change and I doubt we'd ever see anything like it in the official rules)

[Azekai]

I thought of something today that would negate the difference between first and second player almost entirely. It's a drastic change to the way 40k thinks, but without making you *play* drastically differently and without being as cumbersome as Alternating Activation could be.

 

Shooting phases are considered to happen "simultaneously". So you still have each player shoot all their guns, but when a model dies, you tip it on its side. It still dies at the end of the round, but his player gets to count him among the shooting models.

 

Obviously this would be murky with Close Combat the way it is now, so you might have to do P1 move, P2 move, P1 shoot, P2 shoot, P1 fight, P2 fight (or even give each player a charge phase and then one shared fight phase).

 

What do you guys think? It'd certainly fix the second player having half an army to shoot back with. Is there something I'm missing or do you think it could work?

 

(Obviously just speculation since it's a "new edition" type change and I doubt we'd ever see anything like it in the official rules)

 

If you are just trading lots of long-range firepower, sure, it is a decent way to level the playing field. Biggest problem with this idea is that it does nothing to help non-shooty armies, which are already at a distinct disadvantage, given how deadly 8th ed is. 

[MARK0SIAN]

Part of the problem with first turn shooting is how destructive it is though. Having both armies shoot at the same time will just mean both sides lose a huge amount of models in the first turn instead of just one side.

 

Admittedly that’s obviously fairer but for me it’s not the direction I would want to go with a solution.

[Ratherdashing]

I agree. Whatever solution is implemented, it needs to be accompanied by either some sort of night fighting rule, and/or a reduction in the long range firepower available to any army.

[BlackTriton]

If we wanted to go simultaneous gameplay, the phases should be:

Alternating move phase.

Alternating psychic phase.

Alternating pick of units to shoot or charge (or both for pistol like weapon)

Alternating fight phase.

simultaneous moral phase.

End of turn.

 

Having the charge phase happening with the shooting phase allow more parity, since melee units are not excluded from a entire phase.

 

Big downside is how hard it is to keep track of units activation, you really need tocken (flag) to identify who is left to act, and a pass mechanic for the smaller army.

[Wargamer]

If 40K were to adopt an alternating system, it'd probably be best to go all-in and ditch distinct move/shoot/assault phases entirely.

 

Instead, you have a system of activations. Each unit is activated once per turn, and with a few exceptions (Enemy is out of units, or a "retain initiative" ability) you alternate activation. When a unit is activated it picks from a list of actions. For example...

• Move and advance.
• Move and shoot.
• Move and charge.
• Shoot and charge.
• Shoot with a +1 To Hit bonus.
• Charge with a +1 To Hit bonus.
• Hold ground (-1 modifier to Morale, +1 to hit with Overwatch).
• Disengage (move out of combat and shoot with -1 to hit, or fight with -1 to hit and then move out of combat).

I think this kind of reworking could lead to some interesting results.

[BlackTriton]

Thats actually even more interesting, I like it.

 

I dont know it makes a better game though.

[Wargamer]

Well in part, it rewards forward planning.

Because you are only going to reliably activate one unit at a time, your entire gameplan has to take that into account. You can't just go all-in on rush strategies; you need to consider what happens if the other guy isn't polite enough to just sit there and let you do your thing. Case in point might be an alpha-strike Deep Strike - after the first unit arrives, an enemy unit could counter-charge not only to tie the unit down, but force all subsequent Deep Strikes to deploy even further back from their desired target, denying them their prize.

[Quixus]

It would also make characters as they are right now much more vulnerable and less useful. If such a change was to be implemented I think we should go back to the IC rules.

[Wargamer]

One way to protect characters in such a format is to allow a character to activate alongside another unit. It would also increase the value of bodyguard units, which I for one rarely see in the field.

[Deathwalker]

One way to protect characters in such a format is to allow a character to activate alongside another unit. It would also increase the value of bodyguard units, which I for one rarely see in the field.

Yeah. Seeing the Sanguinor or lemartes hit and the supporting unit, (or the other way around) is just arse. All you would need is some kind of "embedded" rule where a character acts as part of a unit, which, by lore and rules should be the case. 

[Quixus]

One way to protect characters in such a format is to allow a character to activate alongside another unit. It would also increase the value of bodyguard units, which I for one rarely see in the field.

You don't?  I thought that placing  characters behind a unit which the character is supposed to buff and which screens him from enemy fire is SOP.

[BlackTriton]

He probably mean units with rule like "look out sir".

Space marine vet or deathshroud for exemple.

[Quixus]

He probably mean units with rule like "look out sir".

Space marine vet or deathshroud for exemple.

That is probably because of the way the rule is written currently. Exchanging an unsaved wound for a removed marine is rarely a good trade.