40K: Seizing the Initiative Makes No Sense

Lets talk about one of the oddest mechanics in 8th Edition and how to fix it.

When it was introduced a few editions ago the ability to Seize the Initiative, to steal the first turn, was a cool way to shake up games and help curb alpha striking. In 8th Edition however its been implemented with some mixed results and isn’t really working as intended, lets take a look at how and why.

The Basics

There are two main ways that Seizing works. In the more basic way, used in a lot of mission in the main rule book, players determine who goes first by number of drops. Then once deployment if finished, but before units that set up before the first turn are placed, the 2nd player can roll a dice and if they get a 6 they get to go first instead of the other one. Now in this situation seizing actually makes some sense, but this way of determining first turn had some weaknesses and so missions and tournaments have mostly moved away from it.

 

The 2nd way of working it, used my most of the updated missions in Chapter Approved and most tournaments is the one pictured above. Once the players have set up, but again before units that set up before the first turn are placed, the players roll off. The player who finished setting up first get +1 to this roll. The winner gets to pick the first player, and the second player can then roll a dice and on a 6+ steal the first turn.

Why This Doesn’t Make Sense

*Note I’m going to focus on the 2nd and now more common type of seizing*

So lets think about this for a moment here. The players roll off, and then, immediately the loser can force a sort of re-roll. Why? What does this accomplish? Realistically, aside from a brief moment of uncertainty it doesn’t accomplish anything. Nothing is placed or moved or risked between the initial roll and the re-roll. It’s a added pointless little bit of drama. In fact the only thing it really accomplishes is to mostly negate the +1 a player gets from setting up first. Overall I just feel like its a poorly implemented rule.

What Should Having This Rule Accomplish

So what should be the point of a seize the initiative rule? A rule like seizing the initiative should introduce an element of risk into the game. It should also help curb alpha strike lists. The main idea is that a player who knows they are going first can take advantage of that by setting up very aggressively. However a rule like seize means that there is always a chance the tables will get turned on them. A player who sets up very aggressively knowing they will get to go first who then loses the first turn can be in for a very nasty time. This makes the players have to choose between being a bit conservative and mitigating the damage done by a successful seize, and going all out with deployment.  It helps add choice and tactical depth to the game.

How To Fix It

To me there are two main ways we could fix the rule:

Option 1.

Players roll off to see who goes first before deployment. Then after deployment is finished the 2nd player may try to seize. This will produce the most dramatic results, as players will know from the start how they should set up, but can then get caught out later. The big danger with this is could help alpha strikers a bit since they would know before setting up they have a 5/6th chance of going first. Still it would make the rule a lot more relevant.

Option 2.

Players roll off to see who goes first after deployment just like now, the first to set up gets +1. Then before the game starts, but after all units that “infiltrate” have been set up, the 2nd player gets the chance to seize. To me this one works the best and would really add a lot to the game. Players would still have to be conservative during deployment since they wouldn’t know who was going first. However by moving the seize roll back, players with “infiltrators” would have to assess what risks they want to take with them. Do you want to set those Berserkers up right in front of the enemy line? Yes they could get a first turn charge, but if the enemy seizes they are dead. I think this would make the seize roll a more relevant roll in the game, without being super swingy.

Final Thoughts

Overall I am just not happy with the current most common way the seize the initiative rule works. I’ve proposed a few options to fix it, and I am sure there are others out there. Hopefully GW or TOs can find a way to make this rule more relevant and help add to the tactical aspect of the game.

So, does Seizing need to be fixed? If so how should they do it? Let us know down in the comments! 

  • Rainthezangoose

    Wait you don’t to seize at the start of the game and after deployment, that makes perfect sense and isn’t that how it used to be done?

    • ILikeToColourRed

      and still is done?

      • G Ullrich

        I think this is how it was back around 5th-7th, per the rules image above now it’s right after the initial roll off.

        • ILikeToColourRed

          The player who finishes setting up first can choose to take first or second turn

          how can this happen right after the roll off?

  • barry sadler

    The article assumes the player who sets up first with the +1 wins, I’m pretty sure seize the initiative is very welcome to the first deployed who lost the roll off

    • 6Cobra

      No, it doesn’t necessarily assume that. It doesn’t matter who wins the roll off, the point is that immediately doing (essentially) another roll to possibly negate the roll off is pointless unless it has some actual effect on the game – and in the two seconds between the roll off and the STI roll nothing changes, nothing is risked or wagered. It is a pointless roll.

  • EwanPorteous

    I would make table deployment side and first turn with a simple dice roll. Both players roll a dice. Highest wins. keep rolling in case of a draw. Making it so players cannot predict who goes first will elevate the alpha strike problem this edition can have.

    • Muninwing

      better option (#3 above, dropped ball)

      players roll for first deployment. marine players choose to combat squad when deploying a unit (not as separate units).

      winner puts one unit down first. then, players alternate deployment. at any time, a player may declare the rest of their units otherwise deployed, if they have the proper rules and meet the proper requirements.

      first player to finish this way gets a +1 to first turn roll.

      certain HQs give pluses to first turn roll

      certain formations give pluses to first turn roll

      all these normal bonuses would be added up by the army builder program, and easily available before the game starts, all except who finishes first. so both players would know their numbers.

      then, roll a leadership test vs the general. add in the bonuses.

      how many did you win by? that’s how many units you can activate first. after you activate those, your opponent can activate one, and you alternate from there.

      so it’s a finite number created during list generation, a +1, and a simple test and compare.

  • ZeeLobby

    Eh. All seize does is takes an imbalanced game and throws in an additional randomizing factor. You throw in enough random and anyone can win. I personally think it should be replaced with asymmetric deployment or AA. But that’d require more work on GW’s part.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      AA does not require work. GW just has to decide whether you alternate activations per phase or you do everything a unit could do in a single turn.

      • ZeeLobby

        Other games that do AA well do more than that, usually to offset armies with more/less activations or even just the simple go first activation. I was about to say that GW would have to rebalance their units around it as well, as it does change the power level of units and mechanics, but all they’d really have to do is add balance at this point.

    • zeno666

      And we all know that GW is quite lazy as a company. So that just won’t happen.

  • AkulaK

    Here are some other solutions on how to fix it :

    – get rid of the Eldars entirely

    – include female Space Marines

    • euansmith

      I like your thinking.

      • I’m still not sure where their headed with that as a fix.
        Train wreck in the making.

        • Muninwing

          you need to look reeeealy close to see it. lean in, go on… it’s in the pixels…

          do you see?

          • I said something like that recently. lol

          • Spade McTrowel

            I need u 2 sho me de way.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Do you see? Where we are going you won’t need eyes!

          • Muninwing

            back to the future meets event horizon…

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Sounds even more horrifying.

      • AkulaK

        Yeah, Eldars are a plague of this community, harrassing those poor imperial citizens, wanting to get their legacy back, can you imagine ?

        • Pl4gu3 B4st4rd

          Nurgle is a plague. Eldars are cancer actually.

          • AkulaK

            I think AIDS fits them more 😀

          • Sybarite

            Can we stop calling them eldarS with an s? :p

          • Ryan Miller

            Aeldari? Aieldari? Knife eared bastards?

        • I see what you did there. 😉

    • zeno666

      Female space marines will happen

  • Arcangelo Daniaux

    Best solution : Just remove it in the mission using the +1.

  • J Mad

    The entire points is so you DON’T know who is going 1st…. If you knew who was going first for 100% certain, this will NOT fix alpha strike lists.

    • Randy Randalman

      I just fix alpha strike lists by beating them. They’re so predictable and all-or-nothing that it’s easy to counter and get a victory with plenty of time left in the round to go get food.

      • euansmith

        Hey, dude, I’ve not seen you post in ages. Have you been away? I hope you’ve been having a good time.

  • Luca Lacchini

    I honestly don’t get the point of the article.
    Changing the mechanic would give a sizeable advantage to alpha strike lists or curb them completely (thusly killing Assault armies or fast moving ones such as Dark Eldars) by making the procedure too much deterministic or too much randomized.
    Option 2 just makes infiltrators less useful/powerful, it doesn’t go really beyond that.

    It ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    • euansmith

      It isn’t certainly less broken than one player getting an entire turn of shooting in before the opponent gets to react. 😉

      • stinkoman

        we should let all both players shoot. just mark the dead ones with counters and remove them at the end of the first battle round. …or before assaults. do the same for movement and assaults as well. everyone gets to swing. simultaneous play!

        or work some kind of initiative value in the shooting order like xwing 🙂

        • Kabal1te

          I am all for simultaneous play, battletech makes it work and it has worked for them well for longer than 40k has existed

          • marxlives

            that is a pretty good idea and they are both d6 systems.

          • zeno666

            Then again. Those guys actially knows how to write rules 🙂

        • vlad78

          Don’t ask GW rulewriters to think. If you read again every 40K edition, you’ll start to realize they stopped thinking right after the release of the 5th edition ruleset.

          • zeno666

            Very true. 8th edition rule section reads like some loose ideas from collected napkins.

        • euansmith

          Yeah, I would love a version of the Lord of the Rings game rules:

          Player one moves their units
          Player two moves their units
          Player one’s units all attack
          Player two’s units all attack
          Remove casualties.

          Charging into melee could be handled by giving melee weapons a “range” which is their charge distance.

          The only difference between shooting and melee would be that a charging unit would be moved in to contact with its target.

          There could be special “High Initiative” units that would maybe attack in a separate combat phase before everyone else.

  • vlad78

    The only sensible way to curb alpha strike is to integrate alternate activation, everything else doesn’t work.

    • NagaBaboon

      Functional cover rules would go some way to helping though

      • orionburn III

        Never thought I’d say this but I actually wish night fighting rules were more prevalent in 8th. I realize that doesn’t change a whole lot for armies that have opportunities to get into combat on T1 but between and modifiers to hit and cover being a bigger factor it would help.

        • euansmith

          How about; roll off, the loser deploys their army, the winner splits there army in two and than randomly determines which half they deploy, the remainder of the winner’s army comes in from Reserve in turn two or later? 🙂

          Or, the first player gets -1 to hit will everything for the first turn of shooting?

          Or Alternative activation? 😀

      • vlad78

        Functional cover rules would at least make it look like a wargame. That would be start.

    • Karru

      Nah, there are plenty of ways to actually reduce the effectiveness of Alpha Strikes without having to change 90% of the game by introducing Alternate Activation.

      Night Fighting from 5th edition is a good start, removing basically all abilities that allows people to move/advance/charge after movement phase is done as well as rules that give tons of extra movement in general so that you can close the gap in one turn, placing penalties for moving, such as the old 5th edition Rapid Fire Weapons system.

      The main problem of Alpha Striking being what it is right now is completely thanks to GW and no one else. It is not the players at fault, GW wants this to be the case. Bigger games take more time, time which not all players have. Bigger games have more models in it, so that means more profit for GW. The way to make bigger games faster is to make everything so lethal that the game ends at turn 2-3 after the Alpha Strike lands and the cleaning up is done.

      • vlad78

        You only need to change 5% of the game to introduce alternate activation. the 4-5-6-7th edition template works really well with it. And even 8th edition works with it even if it decreases the efficiency of areas effects which would be a small price to pay.

        Moreover even if you don’t like AA, all other solutions make less sense when simulating a battle. They all are band aids over a wooden legs designed solely to keep the imho obsolete yougoIgo. (which I know you prefer ;p).

        We already talked about this. Prior to 8th 90% of GW turn sequence rules were made to mitigate the effect of alpha strike which is totally insane and now they don’t even try which makes a really bad game imho.

        • Muninwing

          i posted this above..

          for a 40k-themed AA mechanic, it would be easy to achieve.

          1. have things that give your list pluses to initiative (type of army, balancing mechanic, detachments, spent CP, etc)
          2. roll off for first placement. first one done gets a +1 to intitative
          3. both players roll vs general’s Leadership and add their pluses.

          compare the results of the roll. who won, and by how much? that’s how many units they get to activate.

          subsequent turns, who finished their activations first? they get a +1. add in certain goals achieve for VP maybe adding pluses (“if you meet your primary objective this turn, you get a +1 next turn” or something like that). roll off again, and start the activations.

          that way, each turn will be uncertain enough that overextension is a huge deal.

          also, it means that alphastrikes are highly unlikely, but as in real battles sometimes drastic surprises happen. i could have +5 to my roll and my opponent -2… and a Ld 2 higher… and i roll snakeeyes and they roll boxcars… and they would get only one activation before i did. but if rolls were opposite… i’d get 19 activations (probably the whole force) before they do, and it would play out like a UGOIGO round. still, the next round will probably not be the same.

          • vlad78

            Indeed but I’d rather not allow such a disproportion between activations even with such an unlikely roll. The variation is just too great and sometimes the losing side just won’t recover which ruins the game and makes thematic armies like drop pod lists absolutely boring to play with and against.

            Or you can even go the simplier road, one roll for initiative each turn same as in the rules with the exact same bonuses each edition provided and you just alternate the player who’s activating one units, it works too, armies having more units being balanced by the possibilites for elite armies to neutralize not yet activated units.

            No perfect system but each and every one of them is better than yougoIgo.

          • Muninwing

            drops and deepstrikes would still be activations.

            meaning that unless you had a huge success, a drop list would be a risk. instead, they might come in piecemeal.

            i also like the idea that a big swing is possible… followed by a swing the other way. imagine if your turn activated half your army, and in your eagerness to get going you make a really aggressive forward movement… but then roll poorly next turn and your opponent with the advantage cuts you down. experienced players will try to mitigate that risk, and that alone might detract from alphastrike plans.

  • NagaBaboon

    Now that you roll to find out who’s going first after all units are down I don’t really see the point in seize the intitiative at all

  • orionburn III

    The fix that seize needed was getting rid of the ability to use CP to reroll results in the set-up phase. Having that chance to reroll who places the first objective or the option to reroll on the deployment map, and then have the chance to seize twice (initially and then with a reroll) could seriously screw you over.

    The root of the problem is the abuse of alpha strikes. Trying to solve that by tweaking the seize rules is like spending your time fixing the rear view mirror on a car when your engine has thrown a rod.

    • TenDM

      Today I actually fixed the side mirrors on a car with an engine with a busted injector. So close.

      • orionburn III

        Maybe you should go to work for GW!

        • stinkoman

          or write game fix suggestions on BOLS.

  • I haven’t played a game in years where going second would ruin my chances of winning. No, my dice seem to decide just how badly I’ll lose.

    • stinkoman

      which is exactly why i cant play this game in tournaments.

      • I know what you mean. I played a few AoS tournaments last year after years of not going to tournaments and they were really fun. But we have a very fun crowd of gamers local to me. I quit going to tournaments years ago because they just stopped being fun. It was completely refreshing to play games with fun people. Sadly my lack of regular games and my dice remain in collusion against me…
        At least the other players were friendly. haha.

  • TenDM

    The reason seizing is there is because it’s fun. There’s no deep mechanical logic. It’s just a fun thing to do when the game starts that’s really disruptive to competitive play. Don’t try and fix it, just get rid of it when you’re playing seriously.

    It’s job definitely isn’t to curb alpha strikes. All it accomplishes in that department is to randomly make alpha strike lists not work. That’s sort of coin toss victory is no more fun than winning with an alpha strike.

    I’ve said it before but everyone hates the drop rule because they’re used to having a 50-50 chance at first turn. It’s always worked that way so we feel like it’s fair. That mentality needs to go. I shouldn’t get good odds just for showing up. I should have to sacrifice to go first. I should be able to build a list that always go second.
    Everyone hates alpha strike lists right now but it should be a legitimate strategy. It should have pros and cons instead of failing on a roll off followed by a six. All they need to do is give us an option to control first while list building and dull the blade of the first turn.

    • orionburn III

      My local group has debated on doing some games to go back to some 7th edition like rules and say that anything off the table can’t come in until T2 like the days of old, or the halve & round up drop pod rule. The risk/reward of reserves was something about 7th that I really liked.

      • TenDM

        That’s a pretty reasonable fix but I feel like coming in turn one with charges is too fun not to work. I was really hoping falling back would solve a lot of these problems. It’s just so hard when one player has an entire turn before the other player can do anything. Even at half strength it’s really strong.

    • euansmith

      How about the players have a bidding war saying how much of their force they will leave off table for the first turn. Anything used in this way would have to “walk-on” from the player’s table edge. Not a big handicap for some fast moving armies I guess.

      And “fun” is a great point; well said.

      • TenDM

        I was thinking bidding command points but that works too. Definitely make it so players can’t use CP or Strats on the very first turn. I’d like to play a match where characters can be targeted on the second players first turn and auras don’t work.
        How about if the player who gets second turn gains Prepared – This unit can fall back without penalty and fire at +1 BS during the controllers first turn? Usually games nerf the first turn, but buffing the second would mean an alpha striking player would really have to know how to handle their units post-strike.

        • euansmith

          Ooh, yeah, command points could be a nice, simple and clean resource to bid with; though it would favour factions that can farm command points with their list building, I guess.

        • orionburn III

          I used to hate the night fighting rule in 7th but that’s something our group has discussed. Just implementing a -1 to shoot at everything on turn 1. That at least softens some shooting. Running my Nids against my buddy’s Tau list is brutal when he goes first. It cracks me up when people say you just need more LOS blocking terrain. With a horde army that’s way easier said than done.

          • Drpx

            My 50 Dark Reapers say hi.

          • orionburn III

            :::180 shot unit of Devilgants waves back:::

        • 40KstillRulesTheTT

          Bidding CPs to go first and alpha strike seems good to me, but then kill points for each unit needs to be in every mission so as brigades and such CP heavy builds do not gain too much of an advantage

    • stinkoman

      i always like the original Apoc rules for deployment where you bid a time block for set up. lower bid wins but only gets that amount of time to set up. but they go first. other player gets the amount they bid as well. all else comes in reserves (walks in from the table edge or deepstrike if they can).

      maybe you can scale it down for regular games and still have a requirement of min % of your army to deploy. would also speed the game up as i find deployment takes forever for some reason.

  • Don’t try to fix alpha strike. Its designed to be as powerful as it is on purpose. Thats what the designers want. Fast games that end right away. AOS is similar.

    • Commissar Molotov

      Those bastards!

    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      After saying this one thousand times in different comment sections, one would think All bols readers now know your point of view on alphastriking. Is it your personal crusade my friend ? We get it. Stop repeating.

      • Hey if its apt and belongs, I’ll post it. People are complaining about alpha striking and offering ways to “fix it”. I think thats a fools errand because the devs want it this way. As do a large number of people. So the comment fits in with the response to people complaining about it.

        So long as people complain about alpha strike on the forums, I’ll comment and remind them that the devs and tournament players responsible for the rulesets current incarnation wanted it this way. Especially since most people haven’t seen that comment, and aren’t counting 😉

        • GreyPanthers

          I was always under the impression that the game was designed to push models and product otherwise why would anyone move past the indexes? 40k is far from being balanced or developed for a tournament setting, though this doesn’t stop people from playing it competitively.

          • I wasn’t involved in the development process so I only have what I have read or heard. However, from what I heard, the tournament communty was very actively a part of the development and testing process, and one of the things complained about was melee armies were weak and needed the ability to get into combat turn 1.

            And here we are today.

            Its definitely not balanced or really tournament capable IMO as well, but thats why from what I understand and have read we are where we are.

          • GreyPanthers

            It’s funny how you speak so matter of fact about the development process yet admit that you were not involved in it. If the player base doesn’t call to attention what they feel is an issue how will it ever be addressed or considered for future mechanic tweaks in the game?

            Outside of a few event organizers having access to the 8th ed rules prior to it’s release I don’t think they played a major part in influencing the major mechanics of the game. Most of those same people who play tested it have also been pretty vocal about some “broken” or “unbalanced” stuff. I can’t help but stretch my head here.

          • Because there have been people involvedwith testing that have said the alpha strike deal was intended and was something the devs intended to speed up the game because it was relayed to them as such.

            Coupled with the many comments a day on how alpha is needed yes i speak matter of factly because it makes sense and there is data to back it up.

    • Muninwing

      a game where i have lost before i have started is not only no fun, it’s boring.

      it’s the kind of thing that makes players leave.

    • Nyyppä

      Also means that going first is too good ant here’s no real way around it.

      • I don’t disagree. The entire concept is hugely flawed how they have it now. Thats why for years I have always talked against alpha strike, but was often shouted down.

        • Nyyppä

          Let me guess, the people shouting you down are the ones using them.

          • Its hard to remember all of the random internet guys screaming “git gud” as a response to a complaint about alpha strike, but I’d guess more than likely yeah.

            The alpha strike back and forth has been going on forums since third edition if not before. People have wanted full on alpha strike like we have now for over a decade.

          • Nyyppä

            Peoplelike to win even if they are bad at the actual game and those people need AS to be strong. Attrition is rarely won by the person with less skill.

            Games that are decided before the first turn is over. Oh joy. So much fun.

  • ROMKnight

    The chance to seize does negate the +1 player 1 might get from deploying first… Unless he loses the roll off, then it helps him maintain that +1.

  • Chaos_United_8

    – Turn off the lights so there is complete darkness
    – Players set up
    – There is a coin toss and a call
    – Play game

    • stinkoman

      *bumps table* dammit, my model just hit the ground!

      • Chaos_United_8

        And just like that, 40K evolved a Dexterity mechanic!

  • Drpx

    You know what would shake up the game and curb alpha striking? Alternate freaking activation.

    • stinkoman

      better yet, throw initiative back in and use that during the battle round, not just assault. much like x-wing and pilot skill. you would need a larger range of initiative values. but this might make some armies stronger than others (like space marines always going first over Tau in the shooting phase)

      • Muninwing

        i’m not convinced about just init… it means that all eldar armies are always alphastrikers.

        it also means that all turns unfold in the same order.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Too cumbersome.

      • EnTyme

        And just like that, Eldar never have to lose a match again!

  • Luca Battisti

    Probability of going first (including +1s, seize the initiative, etc.)
    56,45 % if you finished deploying first
    43,55 % otherwise.

    Why does it make sense to keep the roll for steal the initiative separated instead of having the advantage of being the first to end deployment just being the ability to win tie-breaks automatically (58,33 % probability, a mere 1,88% more)?

    The answer is design space. By having seize the initiative roll you can have abilities that care about the seize the ability roll.
    E.g.: “when you roll seize the initiative with Vect add +1 to the result” or “if the opponent manages to seize the initiative against Pedro Kantor you may have him instead reroll the dice (of course the limit for just one reroll still applies)”. Which would change the probabilities in a way hard to represent otherwise as long as we stick to the d6.

    • euansmith

      That’s a smart comment.

  • defensive

    How about something more direct?
    Players roll a dice before deployment, with no modifiers.
    Whoever wins gets to pick who sets up their entire army first.
    The second player deploys everything after that.

    Then, the player who set up first, gets the first turn. None of this random chance to seize.

    This way, players can deploy knowing whether they are going to be on the attack, or to prepare for a strike.
    Armies aren’t going to be half destroyed by turn one, because of one bad roll not giving them alpha strike.

    • euansmith

      That would be good. It would represent the attacker (player one) being in a disadvantageous position to the defender (player two), but having the advantage of the initiative. Also the end of the last turn would reflect the inherent advantage the defender has in holding and retaking the contested ground. Combined with a decent amount of cover, I think this idea could be winner winner chicken dinner.

    • Muninwing

      the qualifier here is that deep strike would need to be either unuseable in turn one, or would need to have some form of qualifier.

      i cannot deploy preparing for an assault if you get to counter that with an assault that appears everywhere and counters my efforts, so a deepstriking alphastrike still wins.

  • Dragon2928

    Or just drop seize altogether, replacing it entirely with the “+1” to the roll mechanic as standard. Seizing accomplishes nothing except to give someone a huge advantage from no other factor than dumb luck.

    • euansmith

      Apparently, Napoleon was a big fan of dumb luck in his generals 😀

  • SacTownBrian

    Maybe I’m confused by the rules but doesn’t infiltrate happen during deployment? Is this supposed to be roll to seize in relation to the scout move?

  • Tijmen

    *bumps table* dammit, my model just hit the ground!

  • 40KstillRulesTheTT

    Just get rid of it, it has no purpose anymore and is just one of the many superfluous dice rolls afflicting this game, just like dragon2928 said

  • ellobouk

    hasn’t seizing been in since like 4th or 5th?

    Why are saying it’s a problem now?

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      5th

      • ellobouk

        Again… and that makes it a problem suddenly 3 editions later?

        • Matthew Pomeroy

          it was a problem (and so annoying I never used it ) then, its much more of a problem now due to that first turn being far more catastrophic for the other player.

  • Michael Morefield

    It does not really matter, there is not enough ways to reduce damage from 1st turn shooting. Going first is to powerful in 40k. I wish we had the numbers but from personal experience the game is over after the who goes is determined.

    • TenDM

      Yeah. Right now there isn’t that much difference between an alpha strike and simply getting the first turn. Even without an alpha strike list if I get turn one and I’m even slightly efficient about getting range on you then I’m going to hammer you.

  • Greg Betchart

    Or alt activation of units

  • Nyyppä

    Rolling for who goes first before deployment is good.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Seize the initiative is important because it makes the player going first think about his deployment and how “committed” he is to deploying in the open.

    The real problem is that the game put way too large a focus on going first. Alternating activation would mitigate this issue.

  • Sybarite

    Could we just get rid of infiltrating Khorne Berzerkers?

  • eMtoN

    At this point I think Seize should be removed.

    Alternate unit activation seems to be best but until that happens, just get rid of Seize.

  • Mike Forrey

    Nobody would really care if this rule didn’t exist if Alpha Strike wasn’t a real threat. Of course the whole Alpha Strike scenario could be alleviated if we had some REAL cover rules. You know ones that actually added a modifier to hit instead of the worthless thing it does currently in 8th edition.

  • Blackfel

    Instead of using Seize the Initiative, let’s do away with both the Alpha Strike AND Seize the Initiative altogether, by giving both sides an opportunity to Alpha Strike.

    Here’s how to fix the problem of the inherent unfairness of an Alpha Strike: in the first turn, mark all destroyed units with something to show they’ve been destroyed. Then, during the second player’s turn, allow all destroyed units to act at full strength before removing them from the table at the end of the turn. At the beginning of the second turn, both sides remove all of their destroyed units, and then play the game as normal. That way, both sides have an Alpha Strike, and everyone is happy.

    • Marco Marantz

      What you are advocating is called a simultaneous turn which is one option. Alternating action is another. Alternating turns are another (but this still allows one person to Alpha Strike). Simultaneous is most fair but a bit more confusing. I proposed both to GW toward the end of 7th Ed when it was clear the rules needed to change. Both are better than the current system.

      • Blackfel

        I understand the terminology, but aside from the first turn, the game would remain unchanged. I think alternating turns takes the idea too far, and really would be disruptive and confusing. Just give both sides the opportunity to fight for one turn with their deployed forces, undamaged and undepleted, then carry on with a normal game.

        • Marco Marantz

          I really dont see the point of not continuing simultaneous turns thereafter. Alternating turns is not confusing. EPIC 40K used alternating turns as have other GW games. EPIC used handy order counters but an average 40K game still had less units than what was an average EPIC game. I tested games of 8th ed using alternating activation before i quit. I dont understand why GW persisted with I-GO-U-GO other than being stubborn. Its a better game.

  • Marco Marantz

    Half this article is fluff that is irrelevant. You could have done without the Basics – whatever way deployments are done you arrive at a seize roll. this is done to add some randomness.hat said Seizing is stupid and only exists because of the antiquated, terrible and unfair I-GO-U_GO mechanic 40K uses.

  • Kinsman

    News flash! It didn’t make sense in any edition. We skip it.

  • zeno666

    And with Codex Daemons GW gave Magnus and Mortarion the tools to deep strike.
    Hey ho, more alpha strike and beeing immune to shooting for a turn! 😛

  • GravesDisease

    Seize is ignored if the winning roll off player goes second, which if you design a list around beta striking would be preferable.