Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
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.
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.
I'm Solid Snake...also, I'm a Primarch.
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.
The rep button () is your friend!
Be off-topic and visit www.theopia.com
Space Wolves (500) 6-0-3
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 =) )
Last edited by InquisitorAffe; March 27th, 2008 at 02:03.