PDA

View Full Version : Seize The Initiative?



Geddonight
30-05-2008, 20:01
Heyyo, I caught a whiff of something in the 700+ post thread about how first turn mechanics work, but I lost it and can't seem to find it in that morass.

My understanding is that you dice off for who gets first turn (does that by chance use strategy rating?). I then read that the person who is slated to go second can try to "seize the initiative" on a d6 roll of 6 after setup and then go first. Can someone substantiate this?

AventineCrusader
30-05-2008, 20:04
Basically you roll one dice. The winner gets to pick sides, deploys his whole army first, then decides to go first or second. The other player may attempt to sieze the iniative from that player with a roll of a 6.

x-esiv-4c
30-05-2008, 20:05
Well this is a curious mechanic, I missed it.

Mandragola
30-05-2008, 20:42
It is in there, yes. I've seen it in the rulebook.

Just before you start the game, the guy who should go second may roll a dice. If he gets a 6 he actually goes first.

Geddonight
30-05-2008, 20:55
okay... thanks.

Man, that kinda messes up the mechanic. Granted, I suppose it's one way to negate the aggressiveness of 1st turn because there's still a chance the other guy goes.

Good to know.

Animatronica
30-05-2008, 20:57
i really like it, its a nice little rule and it will keep things fresh for those one in six games it happens in, it also encourages people who deploy first to be slightly careful rather than just full out

Atzcapotzalco
30-05-2008, 22:23
For my own part, I feel it's badly thought out when placed alongside scenarios which involve a balance where one player has the disadvantage of deploying his entire army first, in return for the advantage of having the first turn. A player who succeeds in "seizing the initiative" will therefore end up both with the massive advantage of first turn, *and* the advantage of deploying second, which between them basically amount to a crushing advantage.

The_Outsider
30-05-2008, 22:27
For my own part, I feel it's badly thought out when placed alongside scenarios which involve a balance where one player has the disadvantage of deploying his entire army first, in return for the advantage of having the first turn. A player who succeeds in "seizing the initiative" will therefore end up both with the massive advantage of first turn, *and* the advantage of deploying second, which between them basically amount to a crushing advantage.

Even if you don't roll a 6 whoever wins the die roll has a HUGE advantage.

Atzcapotzalco
30-05-2008, 22:42
The way the scenarios are written, each player has a huge advantage-they either get to deploy their entire army after seeing their opponent's deployment, or they get the first turn. But whichever advantage they have, their opponent has the other one, which creates something of a balance, albeit a possibly uneven one. This rule gives the second player the chance to get both huge advantages, with no drawback.

kozmo
30-05-2008, 23:07
The way the scenarios are written, each player has a huge advantage-they either get to deploy their entire army after seeing their opponent's deployment, or they get the first turn. But whichever advantage they have, their opponent has the other one, which creates something of a balance, albeit a possibly uneven one. This rule gives the second player the chance to get both huge advantages, with no drawback.

But to get both advantages, the second player must also deploy aggressively. When deploying second, I for one will not be counting on getting the 1 in 6 die roll to go first. I will still be deploying with the assumption that I go second - so I'll be behind cover or out of range or LOS of the most fearsome units. I think this rule will act to restrain the 1st player, but won't really change the plans of the 2nd.

Nurgling Chieftain
30-05-2008, 23:14
Incredibly, amazingly bad idea. It basically means there's a 1-in-6 chance that one player is totally screwed by both deployment and going second. This mechanic exists currently in the breakout scenario - and when that 1-in-6 happens, it's basically curtains for the poor attacker. I've seen it. It's totally retarded.


I will still be deploying with the assumption that I go second - so I'll be behind cover or out of range or LOS of the most fearsome units.Most players will either not do this (slow armies) or not be particularly inconvenienced by it (fast armies).

Smokedog
30-05-2008, 23:16
Its a game, sometimes people forget this...

Nurgling Chieftain
30-05-2008, 23:18
Its a game, sometimes people forget this...There are other games, sometimes people forget this...

Geddonight
30-05-2008, 23:33
Its a game, sometimes people forget this...

Aye... that it is. One in which we put a great deal of time, money, and effort. Poor mechanics or rules can really put a damper on the fun you get to have playing this beloved game. The rules also drastically change how the game is played. We all play to have fun, and for some of us, that fun comes not from rolling massive quantities of dice and chugging insane quantities of beer, but from a tight ruleset that allows a more tactical gameplay.

*shrug* This rule can be an inconvenience. I liked the idea of knowing who was going to go first. I'm not so keen on a 16% chance that my game could be seriously hampered because I came to the board with the wrong assumption about the opening act. If I know I'm getting second turn, I can try more defensive positionings which will protect my more fragile units from oncoming fire.

Of course, with TLOS it becomes harder for the person going second to actually hide said fragile units, but that's a different story.

Oneofmany
30-05-2008, 23:47
and when that 1-in-6 happens, it's basically curtains for the poor attacker. I've seen it. It's totally retarded.


So if we play 6 times you will try this and you will pull it of ones and win, no problem i will have won the other 5 times.



Of course, with TLOS it becomes harder for the person going second to actually hide said fragile units, but that's a different story.

I would say put the unit in reseve and let it come from al left or right table age.

Thanks Onen:cool:

The_Outsider
30-05-2008, 23:49
Of course, with TLOS it becomes harder for the person going second to actually hide said fragile units, but that's a different story.

However, thats the linchpin as to why it makes this rule so brutal. If you could hide going second is a mere inconvenience, but with TLOS it can be army crippling (especially against long ranged armies/fast assault armies).

Nurgling Chieftain
30-05-2008, 23:52
So if we play 6 times you will try this and you will pull it of ones and win, no problem i will have won the other 5.
There's no "try this", it just happens.

Mannheim
31-05-2008, 00:05
here is the EXACT way it works:

both players roll a die. the winner of the roll can choose one - either set up his whole army first and get to go first, or set up his whole army second and get to go second.

so whatever the die winner chooses, the player who is slated for going first deploys their entire force, then the player who is slated for going second deploys his whole force. then you dice off to see who deploys infiltrators first. then scout moves are made.

then, immediately before the first turn is supposed to begin, the player who is going to go second rolls a die - on a 6 he will go first instead.

The_Outsider
31-05-2008, 00:07
here is the EXACT way it works:

both players roll a die. the winner of the roll can choose one - either set up his whole army first and get to go first, or set up his whole army second and get to go second.

so whatever the die winner chooses, the player who is slated for going first deploys their entire force, then the player who is slated for going second deploys his whole force. then you dice off to see who deploys infiltrators first. then scout moves are made.

then, immediately before the first turn is supposed to begin, the player who is going to go second rolls a die - on a 6 he will go first instead.

FINALLY context.

Now in that case it DOES balance itself out as well as can be expected (the first turn advantage is an inherent flaw in the I-GO-YOU-GO system).

Oneofmany
31-05-2008, 00:09
However, thats the linchpin as to why it makes this rule so brutal. If you could hide going second is a mere inconvenience

In real life this will hapen to ,you make a battle plan ,you put your troops on the good spots,the time is set for the attack and then somthing happens what you did not anticipate the other armie attacks you whit your pants down.
It is not a funy rule, or a nice one ,it can happen.

Thanks One:cool:

DullMentalRacket
31-05-2008, 00:25
heh, no matter how hard they try they never seem to get missions right. Sounds like this one will be used about as much as kill points...

scarvet
31-05-2008, 01:58
Read it again, the problem is getting first turn And getting to see your opponents army deploy 1 in 6 time, and screw the 1st player major.

I have no problem with "Seize initiative" itself, but the deploy full army rule (if true)

Nurgling Chieftain
31-05-2008, 04:23
the winner of the roll can choose one...
That makes it a little better, but I still vastly prefer setting up knowing whether I'm going first or not.

Animatronica
04-06-2008, 12:26
the nice touch is that there is no order to deployment now as you have to deploy your full army, ive found this is actually quite helpful, as i am on of those people that will put a unit for HS or Troops down and then go oooh actually if only id put that a few more inches to the left or right to make space for such and such, its a subtle change but i like it.

Churoc
04-06-2008, 13:31
I really like this mechanic. It encourages a flexible battleplan and army list. So... Be Prepared...or... Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.

don_mondo
04-06-2008, 14:04
So my question is how does the Witch hunter Liber Heresius (allows you to choose deployment zone on a LD roll instead of dicing off) affect this? And the Daemon Hinter Emperors Tarot?

And what about all the different redployment capabilities that several armies have?

Venerable Dred
04-06-2008, 14:09
So my question is how does the Witch hunter Liber Heresius (allows you to choose deployment zone on a LD roll instead of dicing off) affect this? And the Daemon Hinter Emperors Tarot?

And what about all the different redployment capabilities that several armies have?One can only hope that such questions will be covered by the 5th Edition FAQs.


Venerable Dred

Bloodknight
04-06-2008, 14:20
I really don't see that rule used in tournaments. You are already at a disadvantage by deploying first (because the 2nd player can do deployment tricks like refused flank while the 1st one cannot pull that off), so getting screwed over at the bgeinning of a game is just cruel.

Meriwether
04-06-2008, 14:48
I actually like it. There is far too much predictability as far as battle plans go in 40K, IMO.

Meri

pepe5454
04-06-2008, 19:48
I am not sure I like this rule combined with deploying your whole army at once. 1 in 6 times the one player gets an almost game winning advantage before the first turn even starts. Making your opponent deploy his whole army first then deploying yours in reaction to that then on top of that going first is a bit much. I have never liked games where the game was decided by that first roll of the die for who goes first but I am not sure this addresses that. Deploying the whole army first kind of addresses it by making the person who deploys 2nd get 2nd turn but then you throw that out the window one out of 6 games.

I guess it might change things up a bit though as you would deploy expecting to get 2nd turn so you might not be placed to take advantage of 1st turn. I think I will ask my brother if we can do this for the next few games and see how it turns out.

Charax
04-06-2008, 19:49
Probably the most fun rule since 2nd edition.

Bloodknight
04-06-2008, 20:16
As long as you translate "random" with fun. The sorry thing about it is that the GW guys usually do not manage to make random stuff desirable because they always include some serious duds. And this is IMO one of them.

ScytheSwathe
04-06-2008, 20:22
makes sense to me, otherwise scout heavy armies, like mine would have the massive advantage of potentially setting up first, then moving all my pathfinders/warwalkers into better position knowing that ive got the first turn. As pointed out it adds a risk forcing 'a more flexible list and battleplan'

Delmont
04-06-2008, 20:58
Well, I've been playing some 5th ed games, got around 6 of them in on Monday. The mechanic is there but not as game ending as people here are saying. I had it happen to me twice. Both times I still won the games. The sheer amount of cover saves you get, the fact that the guy going second can't plan his deployment to go first, and that the game is played for objectives not just killing everything makes the first turn not the all important factor it is getting played up as. All it really did is spice things up a bit and force me to change my initial battle plan. No big deal.

Marshal Augustine
04-06-2008, 21:49
i really like the "on a 6 the other player goes first" that will be nasty. But then again, I think that the missions are getting to be that much better. The gameplay, better, the hobby, better.

Partisan Rimmo
04-06-2008, 21:57
I think this mechanic will work well.

Deploying your army in its entirety first is a huge disadvantage. But going first is generaly exactly what people want. Pairing these up pretty much guarantees that there will be a roughly even situation between the players.

So what of seize the initiative? Don't look at the advantages of it, look at the incentives. Effectively, as long as the first players knows there's a CHANCE he won't go first, he won't go completely nuts and deploy his army ready to shoot everything dead instantly with no fear of retaliation. It means the first deployer has to have at least an element of caution in how he plans, even if he can still be quite aggressive. Otherwise, the game would get very predictable very quickly. One player would always position himself for max damage and the other would always try to hide. With seize the initiative, play like that becomes distinctly risky. If the first deployer deploys so that his enemy seizing the initiative is enough to destroy him, then, well, who's fault is that?

DullMentalRacket
04-06-2008, 22:08
you just know there'll be some guy out there who'll have weird luck and lose almost every one of these rolls every time he plays. Poor guy.

Azzy
05-06-2008, 03:17
Yeah, but there's nothing for except to point and laugh. :D

Gazak Blacktoof
05-06-2008, 10:49
That makes it a little better, but I still vastly prefer setting up knowing whether I'm going first or not.

Which is exactly why its there, to put you off balance.

If your group or specific opponent doesn't like the rule either then you can always agree not to use it.

Maharajah
05-06-2008, 10:58
I have no idea why people are whining so much about this. If you know there is a chance that you will get seriously boned by a random dice roll - TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN YOU SET UP!

If you're setting up first you are under NO obligation to set up aggressively. I don't think there is a rule in 5th Ed preventing you from using the grey stuff between your ears.

I think it's a good rule because it will encourage players to have contingency plans rather than just "I'm gonna bash 'em" plans.

esk34
05-06-2008, 11:14
I actually like this set up as it allows for a random element, however it is mostly set in stone as towhat will happen. I never liked the current system as you didn't know whether to be agressive or not when it came to deployment, as a bad roll would leave you sitting out in the open. Taking it in turns for deployment always annoyed me as well, as it pushes toward a reactiony deployment. This deployment action will alow for you to set up in a reasonanbly agressive fashion, or defesive type.
If the defensive player wins the roll he wil normally be out of position for a full on attack, and will pretty much waste first turn trying to reposition.

Melchor
05-06-2008, 11:15
Maharajah is right.

Is this rule isn't in place, the player who gets first turn will always deploy agressively and the player who gets to go second will always deploy defensively. With 'Seize the initiative' however, the player who goes first has to take this into account.

If you are completely 'boned' by losing the first turn, you've only got your deployment to blame... Take it into account and you'll probably be fine.

Brother Loki
05-06-2008, 12:36
I've rarely seen this 'first turn advantage' of which people speak. Most missions involve grabbing objectives at the end. How is going first helpful in that? I much prefer to go second in games like recon, secure and control etc. I don't know the 5th ed missions, bit I imagine the same will hold true to some extent.

Kirasu
05-06-2008, 15:16
Because going first can mean you're up 200pts when a shooting army can do 200pts worth of damage in the first turn

Rarely does going last give more of an advantage of making the opponent play with a handicap

neophryte
05-06-2008, 17:11
Wow you must not really have played against many super shooty armies. My iron warriors would be brutal if I got turn 1 - 4 pie plates (3 of which were indirect), and 6 oblits had the potential to absolutely destroy some armies on the top of turn 1. I stopped playing that list after beating my friend's white scars on the top of turn 1.

Rirekon
05-06-2008, 17:30
I really like the sound of this rule, one of the first changes I heartily approve of.

Melchor
06-06-2008, 10:26
Wow you must not really have played against many super shooty armies. My iron warriors would be brutal if I got turn 1 - 4 pie plates (3 of which were indirect), and 6 oblits had the potential to absolutely destroy some armies on the top of turn 1. I stopped playing that list after beating my friend's white scars on the top of turn 1.

I think we can all agree that IW were broken in the last codex... Now that we have a new Chaos 'Dex that's no longer the case so it isn't a relevant point anymore.

Sure, 1st turn gives you an advantage but it 5th that advantage will be balanced by the fact that your opponent has a chance to take that into account.
What's even better, the player who gets 1st turn has to keep in mind that there's a chance he'll lose his 1st turn. Any player worth his salt will set up with this in mind. If you don't take that into account and lose the game because of it you deserved to lose. Blaming that 'seize the initiative' roll won't help you either. It's not like you didn't know it could happen...

Meriwether
06-06-2008, 15:09
I like it in that it discourages 'all or nothing' setups. If you 'know' you're going first, that's a pretty big advantage, even if your opponent gets to set up second. If you then go all-out and your opponent gets a '6', that's a big oopsie for you -- you get caught with your pants down when the Indians come over the hill, Custer.

Meri

Partisan Rimmo
06-06-2008, 18:13
Right. And bear in mind that the player who will be attempting to 'Seize the Initiative' will not be deploying very offensively, so even if he is successful he will not be able to use it to the full extent.

What the rule is is a moderating influence. It takes the edge off extreme deployment positions, whilst keeping the essence of them. I'm confident playtesting will justify it. And I'm sceptical of anyone who says first turn is not an advantage. I've used heavily deep striking armies that DO want to go second, and I've still seen the horrors of having all of your tanks turned to slag before they even do a thing. Getting the last movement phase is certainly useful, but its not useful enough to make getting the first turn no longer an advantage overall.

Hakkapelli
06-06-2008, 19:27
I'm on the side of people who likes this rule. It will force the person who deploys first to deploy more causiously because even if they are likely to get first tirn this might be that 1 in 6 game when your opponent will get lucky. And the person who goes 2nd will have a reason not to deploy his entire army where it can't do anything in case he gets the initiative.

There is even a historical incident that could represent succeding with this roll.
The brittish were about to go over the top at some WW1 battlefield (could have been Somme) when two german shells came in, hitting square by the ladders the main force were going to leave the trenches by (and thus were gathered close to) and scattered two batallions worth of brittish soldiers all over the belgian countryside.

Nurgling Chieftain
06-06-2008, 22:43
Taking away the ability to deploy "overconfidently" gets rid of a huge portion of the benefit of going first. The reality is that player two gets to set up his whole army in response to player one's setup, regardless of who goes first. This is an enormous advantage, IMO. There's no way that the first player can truly deploy "overconfidently" when his opponent isn't even on the board yet!

If player one has an assault army. but has to pull back on the off-chance he won't get ANY advantages at all, rather than having a balanced scenario, then the second player can do some truly broken corner deployments and basically ensure that HtH doesn't happen until far too late. If player one has a shooty army, then he simply bears the brunt of being completely out of position when the game starts, with no way to recoup that loss. In neither case can they legitimately risk the 5/6 chance that they WILL go first ruining their battle plan.

It was great that they finally made up for the first turn advantage. Now, they've basically put it back in and THEN SOME. Stupid, stupid, stupid game designers.

Lardidar
06-06-2008, 23:39
Over the long run I'm sure I will seize just as many as are seized from me ... so it will balance out.

Also it is you 'may' try to seize, you don't have to if you want to go 2nd.

I like the rule, its not game breaking and it will only happen now and then and even then it may be to your advantage.

Meriwether
07-06-2008, 13:45
It was great that they finally made up for the first turn advantage. Now, they've basically put it back in and THEN SOME. Stupid, stupid, stupid game designers.

It's funny, I feel almost exactly the opposite about this rule. *Both* players must be a little more conservative and a bit less balls-to-the-wall -- the defender because he most likely will not be going first, the offense because he has a chance that he might not. Both have to think a bit harder. This I like.

Meri

Master Jeridian
07-06-2008, 14:12
Why is it assumed all armies are equal in style and tactics?

99% of the time it is always better to go second if this rule is true.

Being able to deploy second is ridiculously powerful compared to the 'chance' to go first.

If you a shooty army and/or a mobile shooty army, going second is irrelevant- you can hide or deploy in cover as you always would in 4th Ed. But you can do this knowing exactly where the enemy fire lanes are, where they're scary unit is, their anti-tank, etc.

5/6 times they get turn 1- big frickin deal, your either hidden, or are sat in hard cover just like you would have been in 4th Ed.

1/6 times your in the perfect position to shoot them down. I don't know how many games you've played, but a Taudar army is always in a position to do damage turn 1, no matter how hidden. Similar with Marines and IG sat in cover.

If your a close combat rush army, I'd argue it's still better to go second- knowing where your enemy is, is huge. Rather than spreading your Orks and Nids across the entire board just for your opponent to castle on a flank when they deploy- you get to concentrate your force against them.

5/6 times they get turn 1- well, in 4th this happened half the time, yet somehow you survived. Because you had the numbers, etc to shrug off turn 1 damage.

1/6 times you get to go first having concentrated exactly where you want against the enemy.



So, put bluntly, going first is a death sentence. Not only must you deploy either across the board, or in the centre, whilst the enemy can line up shots and deploy exactly to deal with your army....but there's a chance they can go first as well, basically sealing the deal.

Gazak Blacktoof
07-06-2008, 17:03
Build some redudancy and resilience into your armies then. Less heavy and special weapons, more bodies.

LostTemplar
07-06-2008, 17:07
In the current rumoured ruleset/playtest/whatever, the system as it stands is similar to Infinity, except the First turn string of events.

I think its perfectly fine for the player who deploys all of his army, to be first, while the other player, who failed to have the most beneficial terrain (by the attacker's perspective), needs to contend with making his own forces placed suitably to counter the enemy push, as the entire army is seen deployed.

This would allow the attacker to actually retreat/reposition/advance dependign on how fearful, or unfearful he might be of the enemy's units. This also allows him to try and neutralize the strongest units, with fire/barrage/whatever means he can pull out of the proverbial hat.

However, here's the kick.

The attacker can't always rely on his advantage. Deploying first is, supposedly a minus. Going first, for any army with barrage weapons/line of sight, is a huge advantage. Much more than the deployment bonus, since true line of sight applies.

The second player, has advantages and disadvantages aswell. he may get shafted with terrain selection, but he will have the chance to counter his opponent's army placement, aswell as, 5 out of 6 times, rely on second turn (reactive perhaps). but there's the chance where he can neuter or seize the initiative (oh my), and actually do more damage then on return.

Of course, this is a bit pointless. In the end it depends on the objectives, on the forces in question and on how they have been deployed. Supposdely, this type of deployment forces you to consider, if you go first/terrain select, on how your advance will be done and what style of unitsn eed to be where to cover what.

the second player, on this style of deployment, is basically the attacker/ambusher, with his own troops/units poised with a general advance/neutralizing plan to counter the advance by the first player.

the seize the initiative only allows for a reversal of these roles, with the defender now becomign the attacker that activly destroys or tries to destroy, the enemy advance, whiel the enemy advance now becomes the defender with attemptign to gain terrain whiel beign attacked.

Afterall.

Isn't 5th ed supposedly about objectives and objective grabbing? ;)

Lord Inquisitor
25-06-2008, 22:07
Eh, I think it works out pretty well. I think as with most things about 5th, lets have a little faith, give it a try and see how well it works in practice.

Going first is ALWAYS a big advantage. You get to shoot his stuff first, before he gets to fire back. If you're playing 1,500 points, that means that if you kill 200-points worth of stuff on turn 1, he's only going to be attacking you with 1,300 points worth of stuff. Pretty simple. If you're an assault army, you get one move without being attacked.

So, we've had certain attepts to minimise this effect. Escalation tried, and just didn't work all that well. Apocalypse had the rather interesting idea of deploying first = first turn. Now there is an advantage to going second, which is to say you get to deploy second.

Presumably, sieze the initiative is, as people have said, there to prevent both players from being too sure about what's going to happen.

If I deploy first, I'm going to be fairly sure that I'm going to get the first turn, but need to not just deploy everything 12" forward in case my opponent siezes the initiative. That said, I'm almost always going to deploy my forces towards the middle of the board. If I deploy on one side or the other, the opponent can basically decide how close to put his troops and can entirely avoid my army (if shooty) or set up right opposite (if assaulty). If I deploy spread out, then my opponent can deploy to refuse one of my flanks. Ergo, I must deploy fairly bunched in the center, using as much cover without compromising my ability to make the most of the first turn.

If I'm deploying second, my options are more open. I can deploy on either flank (I'm obsessed with the refused flank maneuver in Fantasy, 5th ed makes it a particularly powerful strategy in 40k too), trying to bring the maximum to bear against a portion of my opponent's army, while the rest of his army has to redeploy. Alternatively, I can deploy directly opposite the enemy (if I want to assault them) or split at either side (to try and divide the enemy). I must deploy defensively, ideally able to move into position on turn 1 (whether I sieze the initiative or not).

The way I see it, sieze the initiative might be okay to keep players on their toes, but the issue I have with it is that the player that goes first has very limited deployment options. Seems to me that going second might be more of an advantage and that being able to sieze the initiative might just be the icing on the cake there.

Meriwether
25-06-2008, 22:24
Eh, I think it works out pretty well. I think as with most things about 5th, lets have a little faith, give it a try and see how well it works in practice.

HERETIC! BURN THE HERETIC! ;)

Meri