I've played 40k (and fantasy, but that is not what this is about) for quite some time and I have to say that I am continually frustrated by the almighty power of going first. For some armies, it matters more than others of course, but it always bothers me. Sure it might not matter much if two assaulty armies are facing off, but it ALWAYS matters for super shooty armies like IG. With my IG the heavy weapons fire from one turn of shooting can kill off up to 1/3 of the opposing army. They are destroyed without the opportunity to do anything more. It ESPECIALLY matters if two super shooty armies are facing off. Basically the person who goes 2nd just has to fire back with as much as he can, but he'll be at a big disadvantage.

There seems to be a simple way to fix this problem, and I don't know why no one ever talks about it. Simply make the phases staggered between players so that it doesn't matter so much.

For example:
P1 moves
P2 moves
P1 fires
P2 fires
P1 assaults
P2 assaults

I read a previous thread that asked why so many people have disdain for 40k - here is one: way too much emphasis on who goes first. Because there is so much more long range shooting in 40k than in fantasy, who goes first matters much much more. Also, because most of the damage in 40k is done through shooting (dice rolling dependant- not controllable) instead of CC (movement dependant- controllable) more is left to chance than with fantasy. I think that simply staggering the phases would eliminate a lot of problems with the 40k battle system. Any thoughts?

I agree. A LotR style phase would be good for 40K. When i used to play, we had a house rule, in that all tanks were automaticcally hull down (could ony be glanced) on the 1st turn. Evened things up a lot, though my Crons didnt care too much lol.

I agree, and think a LOTR style turn would do wonders for 40k, but it would take alot of getting used to, and get ALOT of flak.

Ofcourse it would, people dont like change. BUT eventually they would realise it was a huge improvement.

I've read an article on this house rule in White Dwarf. They said some players prefered to play that way. They found that the more powerful units eg 3+ wounds or 2+ armour save guys should be left out as they become a lot harder to kill to the point where it is near impossable. This is because there is less chance to shoot, assult psyc or whatevrr them.

How would one then be able to count turns? I don't know much of how the lotr game is really played so I don't know how one would adapt it to 40k. If it's by squad count, then that would wreak havoc for armies with low squad numbers, not size, numbers. My 500 point army has 2 squads whereas my opponents usually have at least twice that.

While I agree to a point that staggered phases might help, perhaps there are some other factors that might even out the playing field.

1) terrain. I've discovered that well-made, cover-granting terrain does wonders for a second turn army. It is a problem at my gaming center, though, b/c the house terrain is kind of low-lying and generally lousy. I play witchhunters and tau, and so I know what it it like to desperately seek shelter in the event that I don't get first turn. This will make both players more conservative in their deployment. IG are great, but if they can't see you they can't shoot you. On that point, the game mechanics work well (if you try charging IG over a vast open plain with no cover, expect to be turned to burger).

2) People are simply too conservative with their deep striking. At my hobby center, I rarely see anybody do it. As for my Tau, I'm dropping them all the time (I'd say only about 1 in 8 times does it go sour). Pathfinders help, of course.

I've gone too long on a point to which I partially agree, though, so I'll stop

Umm, play with the concealment options from gamma missions then I suppose. That seems to balance things pretty decently. Either that or hide your units on turn 1. Or, play a mission that isn't 100% devoted to victory points such as table quarters, enemy deployment zones, or objectives: your gunline guard will have a tough time of getting to the enemy's board edge, and will be inconvenienced in having to go grab objectives. Besides, going second is actually a boon in those missions, as it allows you to hide something until the way end and grab an objective without any return fire.

In the past 9 games with my Orks I have gone first a whopping one time, and it didn't really make a giant amount of difference (all my valuable stuff was hidden anyways, and the rest of my guys were beyond the majority of the enemy guns). Best recommendation I can give is to just always assume your army is going 2nd and prepare for it accordingly.

i think this may have more to do with the current playing environment than the ruleset:

1. Many people don't play with enough terrain
2. There is a lot more units that can do seriuos damage at long range.
3. people playing bigger battles esp. Apocalypse are able to kill a lot more in a turn, and hence whittle away the oppositions return fire more.
4. the common stratagem for objectives has eveolved to be kill the oppostion dead even faster then go after the objective
5. Units n general are getting more 'powerful' and able to wipe out entire opposition units faster, leaving the no opportunity for counterattack (which 2nd turn ends up being).
6. high speed movement is becoming a standard requirement with jumpacks / bikes / transports, which gives the person going first to really dictate the direction of the battle.

A problem with you go then I go turns is that it actually makes counter-moving the key tactic - eg. you move in range to shoot /assault me then I move back out of range before the shooting / assaulting phase. which can often be a bit boring. it is also much slower game that way. if you ever play LotR you'd know what i mean.

It's a fun way to play, but does take substantially longer. It also breaks a lot of the way various units work and messes horribly with the balance in favor of shooting armies. Jump troops are supposed to be able to (and pay high pts costs to be able to) assault something within 18". When you change that to move 12, get shot to ribbons, then assault an additional 6, it really messes with the game. Similarly Tau suits pay the (well, in the designers opinion.. =) ) appropriately high cost to be able to jump shoot jump. When you change that to jump, shoot, get shot, jump, they are garbage.

(or even worse if you're p2, move 12, then get shot AND assaulted =) )

Well I for one with a shooty army prefer second turn against assault armies, I also make all of my strategies and planning on getting second turn since you have a 100% chance of getting second turn. I don't really think getting first turn decides the game but it is quite important to some armies, however this like said above is due to a several new trends like playing with very little terrain. Like It seems most people will play with 4 or 6 terrain peices max. I always have 1 ruined building of some sort , 2 -3 sets of trees , 2-4 hills , several barracades, some blocks of jungle. It gives a much nicer terrain feel to have more that 4 peices of arrea terrain, it's a variety of different types, it does'nt clutter up the table at all it's sapcious enough, and fire lanes actually start to matter. With more terrain on the board tactical strategy increases ALOT and first turn dependence goes way down.

Hmmm something else I jsut realized that could be the cause of the problem is'nt the core mechanics but its the lists players are making. Nowadays people are into very very tournement style lists which infact are very unbalanced... I'm still not a fan of fluff lists or prefectly balanced armies but in truth the game was'nt designed to having 'exploit' type lists or extremely unbalanced armies.

Sure, there have been times where I cursed having the second turn, but generally that was on a "crappy board". As a few have said already, maybe a greater investment of time and/or money is needed to enhance the terrain pool. Believe me when I tell you there's been a big difference in games at my house since I bought the Imperial City box. Let's just say that the old cardboard terrain we used previously made first turn a very big deal.

I think that while the 25% terrain for the board guideline is good, I heavily advise that about half of that block Line of Sight. That way, you can hide units to avoid getting shot up first turn, and fast melee units don't have too much cover if they get first turn. Makes ya maneuver.

I know this can't always be the case, but the best board setups are usually at the hands of a third party.

And no offense to anyone here, but I can't count the number of times that I've observed a player's "second-turn bad luck" was really an issue of bad deployment.

I agree with the Inquisitor - that style of play is going to make shooting armies better rather than weaken them. Basically, your opponent is going to have the opportunity to shoot any assault units before they get into close-combat.

One way you might balance this turn system is by having P1 go first on the first round, then let P2 go first the second round and alternate back and forth.

I think the best strategy (and probably some of the best advice I've ever been given when it comes to 40k) is "Plan your deployment and strategy as though you are going second."

Easy to do, but works wonders.

Try it this way:

Players role for initiative. The Winner picks a unit and “activates” it. Activated units can move then shoot, or shoot then move, or move twice, or shoot twice. Then Player2 picks a unit and “activates” it. And so on until all units are Activated. Players than role for initiative for the assault phase. The Winner picks a unit and assaults. The assault is resolved. P2 then picks a unit and assaults. The assault is resolved. And so on until all assaults are resolved. That marks the end of the turn.

Try it this way:

Players role for initiative. The Winner picks a unit and “activates” it. Activated units can move then shoot, or shoot then move, or move twice, or shoot twice. Then Player2 picks a unit and “activates” it. And so on until all units are Activated. Players than role for initiative for the assault phase. The Winner picks a unit and assaults. The assault is resolved. P2 then picks a unit and assaults. The assault is resolved. And so on until all assaults are resolved. That marks the end of the turn.

Ugh... I could'nt stand taking 15 hours to play a 1000 point game, that sort of system once again makes shooting armies way way too powerful with being able to shoot twice and would take ages to even play the smallest game.

Honestly the rules for turns are fine how they are, just use a good variety of terrain and a plentiful amount. Don't plan your deployment and tactics for first turn plan on it NEVER happening cause when playing sets of games it wont likely happen. The best dice advice I've ever been told was that 'dice have no memory' You can't count on well I did'nt first turn this time, but I deffinately will next time or the time after that etc etc.

Ugh... I could'nt stand taking 15 hours to play a 1000 point game, that sort of system once again makes shooting armies way way too powerful with being able to shoot twice and would take ages to even play the smallest game.

Well, speaking as someone who has actually played it that way I can say it doesn’t take any longer than the standard game. And it doesn’t favor shooters either. After all you can move twice too. And yes, use a good variety of terrain and a plentiful amount.

Of course eliminating the first-turn bonus is only the icing on the cake. The real benefit to activation is the tactical depth it adds to the game. You have to decide what to move and when. You also feel involves at all times, hanging on every role, reacting to every move. In the standard game I typically lose interest while my opponent leisurely moves, shoots, assaults. Boring!

My group has used activation for year. Try it yourself. Once you do you’ll never go back.

Well, speaking as someone who has actually played it that way I can say it doesn’t take any longer than the standard game. And it doesn’t favor shooters either. After all you can move twice too. And yes, use a good variety of terrain and a plentiful amount.

Of course eliminating the first-turn bonus is only the icing on the cake. The real benefit to activation is the tactical depth it adds to the game. You have to decide what to move and when. You also feel involves at all times, hanging on every role, reacting to every move. In the standard game I typically lose interest while my opponent leisurely moves, shoots, assaults. Boring!

My group has used activation for year. Try it yourself. Once you do you’ll never go back.

Interesting... sorry about coming off in that sort of way, its just the way it was worded made me think the turns would take a long time. I myself really enjoy the turn system but hey if it does'nt work for you I congratulate you for making your own system ,getting away from official rules and changing them to get the most enjoyment out of it for you.

The 40K rulebook is very clear. Games are designed to be played on boards with 25% terrain coverage, with large percentages of sight-blocking terrain, a large subset of which can and should be area terrain. Unless you play on boards like those shown in the rulebook, the game will begin unbalanced, in favor of one of the armies involved.

Without a good board, deployment falls off the tactical map. And deployment is always an important part to winning a game. I agree with the statement above that "bad 2nd turn luck" is often a case of "poor deployment". Deployment isn't "pre-game", it is part of the game. But you can't take advantage of that unless you have terrain.

Terrain is the key differentiating feature between 40K tactics and WHFB tactics. In 40K, the tactical depth of the game depends almost entirely on the terrain layout of the game board. This is in contrast to WHFB, where the tactical depth of the game depends almost entirely on the inherent abilities of the units being deployed, chief among those abilities being maneuverability.