The all powerful Initiative

Have you answered our survey about your preferred game size?
More details in this news item.

  • berti wrote:

    Ini is a great stat....but the value if ini doesn´t matter at all. It is enough to have 1 point more Ini than the given oponent to benefit from it.

    Combines with lightning reflexes and GW it tends to become a too important stat, because LR cancels out the INi modification of GW. And suddenly the Ini 5 white lion ncluding the GW malus, hits at the same time as a spear elf. The +1 to hit is by far surpassed by the strength bonus the GW delievers.

    For all the rest, Ini works as intended. But the lower your Ini get´s the less important the stat becomes, because you will hit last against most other oponents. Only fighting against regulart GW units INI has some worth then.

    In my opinion there is no need to rework InI. Only some issues with GW and lightning reflexes that seem to be unbalanced.
    you mention the "issue" with LR + GW but you just explained how the rules work. so what is the issue with LR+GW now?

    anyway, there are units without LR and GW that can hit just as hard but also bring durability to the table as such you need to present a way better argument than "LR + GW is too strong".

    conclusion, if GW+LR is too strong than so are those units that can do the same without LR+GW, especially if they are more durable, and I can name atleast 8 units without looking into the army books that can hit just as hard at very good Ini with just their sheer amount of attacks or simply due to high base stats.
  • I haven't read through the whole thread, but I do know I don't like the way Initiative feels right now. It makes the game more about match ups than maneuver. What do I really get for good placement that allows me to charge? +1 CR. There are few things in the game more frustrating to me than setting up a good charge, especially with cavalry, and getting nearly wiped out before I even get to swing to take advantage of my S bonus.

    I prefer the I charge I go first mechanic. It doesn't make a huge difference to blocks of infantry because of step up, but does give a bigger advantage in the first turn to cav. It also rewards good placement/maneuver which all units can take advantage of, meaning those units that have a big advantage in Init can still go first if played well.

    As things stand, there is almost no reason to charge with some units. With my infantry heavy armies, I prefer to be charged because it allows me to keep my battleline more cohesive.

    I also think the Init bonus for paired weapons should go away to the flank like parry does. Possibly all weapons bonuses go away to the flank to make flanks more important.
  • imperialengineer wrote:

    I also think the Init bonus for paired weapons should go away to the flank like parry does. Possibly all weapons bonuses go away to the flank to make flanks more important.
    That is actually a fantastic suggestion. No parry, no bonus strength, nothing. Only in the front. The units that suffer the least, are almost all very small units, and gets punished plenty for being flank charged to begin with (Rat Ogres comes to mind.)
  • So.. a bit of a lengthy one inc... (as usual?)

    CariadocThorne wrote:


    nmaier wrote:


    cptcosmic wrote:

    if the game had more depth then great weapons would get Ini bonus above anything that is not a lance knigt, unless you meant with "more depth" compensating insufficiencies in applied strategy and army list building
    Why should GW strike first? If ini is about speed and great weapons are cumbersome, why should they strike "above anything"?Doesn't make sense to me.
    The speed with heavy weapons is all about strength. So elves canceling the penalty doesn't make sense to me either. But that's just me being silly ;)
    Greatweapons have significant reach, so can strike before the opponent gets close enough to attack back.
    Elves are masters of grace and dexterity. Once their weapon is moving, their dexterity allows them to use the weapons momentum, flowing smoothly from one swing to the next. At least that's how I interpret it.

    Not to mention as initiative represents both acting and reacting quickly physically, and mentally, it allows you to better time where and when to strike, giving someone both the ability to side-step another weapon with reach and the ability to time a strike well.
    That is especially easy to picture in a charge where, whether charging or receiving, the distance between two combatants allows for timing of the swing of a great weapon to
    hit well out of reach from a shorter weapon or meeting up with something like a halberd or a spear to divert it, opening up for a strike.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Lion Guard are the perfect example, because they are resilient against shooting and are supposed to hunt monsters (they have TWO special rules for doing that) not elite infantry. They are the single most egregious example of a unit that is better against tough elites than they should be. Why would you not use them as the prime example? If people were arguing "okay, Lion Guard are a mistake, but what about other units?", then the conversation could move on, but apparently nobody is willing to cede even *that*.

    ...
    *facepalm*
    ...

    berti wrote:

    Ini is a great stat....but the value if ini doesn´t matter at all. It is enough to have 1 point more Ini than the given oponent to benefit from it.

    Combines with lightning reflexes and GW it tends to become a too important stat, because LR cancels out the INi modification of GW. And suddenly the Ini 5 white lion ncluding the GW malus, hits at the same time as a spear elf. The +1 to hit is by far surpassed by the strength bonus the GW delievers.

    For all the rest, Ini works as intended. But the lower your Ini get´s the less important the stat becomes, because you will hit last against most other oponents. Only fighting against regulart GW units INI has some worth then.

    In my opinion there is no need to rework InI. Only some issues with GW and lightning reflexes that seem to be unbalanced.

    The thing is...
    This isn't an issue to where a core mechanic needs to be reworked.
    Initiative on a model is paid for in premium by the models cost, that is the way initiative is balanced.
    Powerful combinations like for Executioners or Sword Masters where they have High WS, High S, and High I, see them dealing with returns such as having a high cost and an
    easily overcome defense.
    LG are an outlier comparatively and as such it is pointless in focusing on that to make a point as it by definition doesn't represent enough of the game to garner such broad, sweeping, changes.
    The lower your Ini gets the less important it becomes, but its also not reflected in the models cost to the same degree and instead the model is balanced with other stats, rules and equipment in mind to where, usually, the lower initiative is valued for the unit, the less the unit cares about hitting last.
    This might mean there are some things that the unit has problems with due to low initiative, there might be other units that are underperforming due to not being able to stand up to certain other units but that doesn't have anything to do with initiative at large or in any way indicate other units being broken.

    While I understand that your point isn't to remove or rebalance initiative specifically, I don't agree that the combination of LR and Great Weapons is unbalanced or as big of a problem as people make it out to be as it is limited to a small sub-section of units, of which only one is even remotely hard to deal with for any army.
    The reason why people keep bringing up the fact that you can't look at a unit, or one unit facing the other in straight up combat, in a vacuum is specifically because you lose out on so much of the variables that make up the game at large that the exercise becomes futile.

    When the army books are being balanced they are looked over for both external and internal balance. That is to say, that something like an Executioner having the stats, rules and cost that it has, isn't only affecting that one unit but the synergies to be found internally (throughout the book) come into play to make sure that they aren't broken regarding external balance (between different armies).
    So even me saying, yes the Executioner (as an example) is balanced because it costs X and has only T3 and Heavy Armor for protection. Is only a part of the balancing that has come into play there and to a lesser extent the fact that elves have a certain initiative and a certain defensive capability throughout is part of the same balance that on one end allows them to have special unit entries that combine Great Weapons and still get to strike faster than most units.

    imperialengineer wrote:

    I haven't read through the whole thread, but I do know I don't like the way Initiative feels right now. It makes the game more about match ups than maneuver. What do I really get for good placement that allows me to charge? +1 CR. There are few things in the game more frustrating to me than setting up a good charge, especially with cavalry, and getting nearly wiped out before I even get to swing to take advantage of my S bonus.

    I prefer the I charge I go first mechanic. It doesn't make a huge difference to blocks of infantry because of step up, but does give a bigger advantage in the first turn to cav. It also rewards good placement/maneuver which all units can take advantage of, meaning those units that have a big advantage in Init can still go first if played well.

    As things stand, there is almost no reason to charge with some units. With my infantry heavy armies, I prefer to be charged because it allows me to keep my battleline more cohesive.

    I also think the Init bonus for paired weapons should go away to the flank like parry does. Possibly all weapons bonuses go away to the flank to make flanks more important.
    Do you mean match ups as in different armies or between units, otherwise I thought that was a part of maneuvering.
    What you get for good placements that gives you the charge is that you get to dictate which unit goes into which or if two units go into the same combat or not etc. essentially you get to dictate the combat you want. And the less important that is to you, the less likely is your army relying on mitigating damage received through killing off enemy models as fast as possible.
    The changes you promote would have dire consequences for all the elven armies...
    While I can't decide whether I believe flank charges could use some added benefit or not, they are not pointless if you capitalize on the available bonuses there is to get: no supporting attacks, +2 CR for a full rank, loss of steadfast if you have 2 full ranks, no combat reform if you are attacking on two facings... I'm sure you know them but they are in no way insignificant.
  • @Rhaen
    I am talking about unit to unit match ups. You make a good point about maneuvering to get the match ups you want is important. However, I still think the benefits of being the one to charge(talking frontal charge) are minimal, and one of the biggest bonuses, strength bonus for cav, is significantly reduced by units with high init. reducing the high STR attacks.

    Mathematically, elves would take a hit with a change like this. But, they still get to maneuver and are some of the most maneuverable armies in the game. Right now, elves can be the laziest with maneuver and they're high init makes up for it.

    I don't believe the flank bonuses are insignificant, but I still don't think they are enough. But, I don't want to get too far off topic.

    @nmaier
    Yes troops can turn, but that argument could also be made for parry or the armor save suggestion you made above. To me the turn to face sounds like a combat reform.....
  • @imperialengineer
    Our differences in opinion on the value of being the one who charges aside.
    What you're mentioning about the elves mitigating the strength of a cavalry charge through initiative is exactly the point of their initiative.

    Mathematically, elves would take a significant hit to the point of, more than less, being completely reliant on being the one who charges (to at that point be equal to currently).
    Not to even think of going up against a chariot spam list or MMU/MSU cav lists...

    Right now, any elf player that is lazy in their maneuvering facing an opponent that isn't will lose due to their units getting into bad unit to unit match ups, but anyone sending their units into, or getting caught by, an elven blender unit that is unscathed will remember to not let it happen again if they can in the future.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Rhaen ().

  • First of all Id like to thank the creators and contributors of T9A. Ive been wargaming all kinds since 1989 and watched WHFB go from derided kids game to the worlds most popular tabletop game and an amazing example of the corporate business model applied to a hobby. After scanning all the options Im pleased to have chosen T9A. The sensible, non profit motivated balance makes up for the loss of official GW fluff and branding.

    Im interested in the discussions on WS and Initiative.
    At my local club there are 10 fantasy gamers. Four of those play Hi Elfs... I play Warriors, Ogres, Beasts and Dwarfs and went from exasperation to frustration to boredom at watching my expensive elites getting decimated without ever getting to swing.
    Ive been experimenting with two alternatives.
    The first is ignoring Initiative altogether and imagining that all in the mêlée are mixing it up simultaneously. Here WS becomes much more important, for surely with any martial art from boxing to kendo, speed and striking order is decided by skill and training?
    The other is by cross referencing Initiative on a table similar to WS v WS and S v T. The player whose turn it is rolls with modifiers for weapon type, charging etc. If he passes he strikes first, fails and strikes simultaneously, or last for a bad fail. This gives the slow guys at least a chance of fighting in round 1.
    Finally, we've been trying simultaneous game play, where the players alternate not turns but phases, even down to sharing each part of the phase:
    Player 1 moves a unit - player 2 moves a unit (this allows a "counter charge" response) until all units are moved. Similarly, shooting and magic are exchanged by both players in the same turn.
    With regard to the discussion of the place of Realism in fantasy gaming I feel that both armies acting simultaneously is more real than waiting for one to do everything before going into action. You just need some counters to help remind who has done what. Not that it matters -the biggest fantasy of all is common through all wargames: Two generals with a perfect, unimpeded God's eye view of the whole battlefield plus the exact disposition and state of not only his own, but all the enemies individual soldiers.
    CN