The most important dice rolls in a game are generally the strategy rolls at beginning of turn two and beginning of turn three, especially at 3,000 points. To reduce the impact of these rolls and the cut down on the luck factor how about the following addition to the rules:

1.6.3 Once you have successfully carried out an action with a formation, you may if you wish try to retain the initiative and take two actions in a row, except when you have just carried out the first action of the turn.

This would better even out the activations over the course of the turn. It would make the current "no-brainer" of going first on turns 2 and 3 more of a decision. I suspect going first would almost always be the right option still though which is why it might make sense to tone down the advantage.

I suspect the core rules aren't up for amendment but thought I'd float the idea.

Didn't you bring this up before? (That's not a criticism; I'm wondering if my deja vu is legitimate.)

I think this would mitigate some luck factor if you had armies that were close in SR.  However, it would negatively impact armies that are balanced based on having a very strong Strategy Rating.  They would no longer be able to count on the advantage of determining the strategic tempo.  Marines, for instance, can often generate a 3-4 activation run by getting an end-of-turn/beginning-of-turn combo in against most opponents and can usually count on a deepstrike combo of some kind.  I don't know about others, but I rely heavily on that and taking it away would hurt my play with marines substantially.

Conversely, it would really help some armies with low SR, like an all-teleporting/portal Necron.  It would effetively halve the enemy's ability to react before the Necron wave starts crashing into them.  Same for a Nid army with Genestealers and/or Lictors.

_________________
Neal

First time that I've brought it up. Not sure if someone else has brought it up previously.

It would certainly have a detrimental affect on armies with a high strategy rating. Unfortunately it's quite difficult to quantify exactly how much they rely on the ability to retain on first activation. However, if the selected list does indeed rely heavily on it, then they are essentially relying on getting lucky! The proposed change would therefore have the effect of not only reducing the luck element directly but reduce it indirectly by discouraging army selections that are likely to win or lose on the strategy roll!

I'm with Neal on this one; some armies are balanced by having a high strategy rating to allow them to pull off early turn manouvers, and some such as necrons are balanced by exactly the opposite; allowing the opponent to flee before you pounce.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Winning the SR is not as random as it might appear at first.  Because the "two dice opposed" creates a statistical bell curve, relatively small differences off of the "even" point cause pretty big changes in the odds.  There's very little luck factor in who wins those critical SR rolls if there is +2 or better difference in SR.  It's only a substantial luck factor if the armies are even or within 1 of each other on SR.

+0/first turn - 50%
+0/prior loss - 58%
+0/prior win  - 42%

+1/first turn - 68%
+1/prior loss - 72%
+1/prior win  - 58%

+2/first turn - 81%
+2/prior loss - 83%
+2/prior win  - 72%

+3/first turn - 90%
+3/prior loss - 92%
+3/prior win  - 83%

+4/first turn - 97%
+4/prior loss - 97%
+4/prior win  - 92%

I agree there are way too many variables in all available army strategies to give a quantitative analysis of whether a particular army really needs that strategy win to be successful.  However, you can easily start from the odds calculations to make qualitative judgments about how sound it is to risk a particular move than relies on winning SR.

The same kinds of factors can be evaluated based on Initiative values and the various activation/retain options.  

Looking at both those factors, it's pretty easy to determine that an army like Marines is balanced around the assumption that they will be able to win SR most of the time and be successful in retaining if desired.  Even though there's no way to quantify that likelihood as 5% or 10% of their overall ability relative to points value, it's clearly an across-the-board downgrade and would eventually require rebalancing the army.

_________________
Neal

Thanks for the numbers Neal.

I guess the current system exaggerates the difference in optimal tactics for each race which is probably a good thing as it adds to the character of the different armies and the general "feel" you get when using them, which is one of the things I enjoy about epic.

Strategy rating is extremely important in determining my playstyle with the various armies that I own.

In my opinion trying to take the initiative and taking chances with Luck make Epic fun.

Having an element of luck is a good thing and has been balanced well with the current lists.

For me the strategy of the game is setting up forces to be in a possition to take advantage of luck and to cope if rolls don't go your way.  I try and take the initiative by applying threats to my opponents and to try and get them reacting to me rather than the other way around.

_________________
Epic- A version of the game with even smaller models that is often dominated by titans which are vehicles the size of a large building and have the ability to pwn...everything. There is also infantry, whose only function in Epic is to provide valuable traction to Titans walking across snowy paths.

I try and take the initiative by applying threats to my opponents and to try and get them reacting to me rather than the other way around.