Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Thursday, June 9, 2011

Fallacy 40k - First Turn


One of the biggest misnomers of the game not only today, but of all time, is that losing the roll-off to choose who goes first decides the game. This is absolute fudgemuffins. It is true some builds take great delight in getting the first turn and consistently winning who gets to choose who goes first is advantageous. As such, there are quite a few abilities across many armies which influence this but its important to remember this is influencing who gets to choose. And consistently getting to choose is a very powerful option to have. This is very different from "first turn = win." Let's break this down.

There are very few moments when you can dictate what your opponent does. Things such as tank shock, rage USR and psychic powers are some of the few and this is because such control over your opponent is a very powerful tool. Choosing who goes first falls into this category as well. There are some very obvious cases when you want to go second (i.e. against reserve based armies so you do not lose two whole shooting phases) and if you have an army where this is a common tactic against you (i.e. Daemons, Jumper BA, etc.), you being able to choose for your opponent to go first is a large advantage to have. In the end, being able to choose allows you to adapt to whatever army, mission or board you are playing on and this is what is important. Whether or not your army prefers to go first, there should be instances when you want to go 2nd (if not, change your list!) and therefore choosing who goes first is more important than who actually goes first.



With that out of the way let's look at the advantages of going first compared to going second.


Going First


The most obvious reason going first is advantageous is you get to do everything first. Your shooting phase (all of them, not just the first one) comes before your opponent's and your assault phase comes before there's too. You are more likely to have more options in any given movement phase, particularly the 1st couple, as the board is less cluttered.

If you are a shooting base army you'll get to get in your shooting before your opponent which can often lead to less firepower directed your way. You're highly unlikely to wipe your opponent off the board (or get even remotely close) as 5th edition has made things pretty durable (vehicle damage chart, 4+ cover prevelance, etc.) but you are able to get that first strike in, execute alpha strikes more readily and suppress/disrupt your opponent's plans before they get to do anything.

As a list more geared towards getting across the board or to midfield, you have clear lanes in which to do so and are therefore unlikely to be blocked in your own deployment zone by fast opponents. This not only allows you to close the distance to your opponent but ensure your army has cover the following turn (i.e. smoke launchers) and is the most advantageous position possible based upon the terrain. Any ranged firepower you have can also suppress/disrupt your opponent.

What this all boils down to is as the player going first, you can set the tone of the game early. This isn't to say you control the game but you can strongly influence where the battle will unfold and have the chance to get that first blow in.

Going Second


There are of course huge advantages to going to second. The biggest being you get to see what your opponent does and react first. Now reacting to your opponent is bad, you need to  be able to predict to an extent what your opponent is going to do (or wants to do) and be able to stop it. However, being able to see what your opponent does in a given turn before you means you  have extra knowledge with which to work. The obvious downside of this is they get to move/shoot/assault before you.

This advantage is seen most during deployment and allows for such  basics tactics as a refused flank (everything of yours is on on side) and split fire bases (split into two portions of your army, each equally far from your opponent), etc. You can ensure all of your vehicles and infantry will have cover during your opponent's first shooting phase and that your army is setup accordingly against your opponent (i.e. defense against alpha-strikes, far away from aggressive armies, etc.). This advantage is HUGE and often over-looked. I regularly give my opponent the first turn so I can see how they deploy. This allows me to better prepare my  battle plan and requires no guessing as to what my opponent may do with their deployment.

The other major advantage of going second is you do everything last. Say what? Ya, being able to move after your opponent is important for securing objectives (and table quarters) and can ensure you win games in your movement phase. Your reserves also come in later which is often very important when they come in early. Getting reserves in at the top of Turn 2 is often leaving them out to dry and unable to take maximum advantage of what they can do but that half a turn later makes all the difference.

Seizing the Initiative 


All of this is further balanced by seizing the initiative. That little 1 in 6 chance of taking advantage of an aggressive, going first deployment can really affect how a person deploys or changes the tides of battle. It's fairly uncommon, and even in lists with seizing advantages, isn't going to happen more often than not. This is an excellent balancing factor which can make giving your opponent the first turn a great proposition though if you are banking on seizing, it can be a dicey proposition if you fail.

Conclusion


Going first is great. Going second is also great. It all depends upon the matchup and the mission which results in being able to choose who goes first being very important. I'd much rather win the roll-off to be able to choose than go first all the time. In the end you need to weigh up the options of being able to react to your opponent and moving onto/tank shocking objectives last (going second) compared to getting that first punch in (going first). This will vary a lot depending upon your opponent and the mission so have some basic outlines of when you want to go first and when you would prefer to go second. That way when you win the roll-off, you can decide quickly without having to factor in a lot of information within a short time span.

Comments (17)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
As my primary army is an Armoured Battlegroup (or very tank-heavy Codex IG list when I can't use FW rules) I'd actually prefer going second, if not for the silly rule that all vehicles start the game as having been immobile.

Seems to me, any number of things that happen or don't happen "before the first turn" in WH40K 5th edition, would be pretty easy to fix by having them chosen during deployment: this tank has moved, this tank was standing still, these troops have gone-to-ground, etc.
2 replies · active 722 weeks ago
Agreed.

I think that 6th edition should allow for the use of Smoke Launchers in the Deployment Phase
OR
The 4rth ed rule of "Concealment" should always be in effect.
+1
I don't agree with the statement in the article that you can always get cover when going second. Even though we always use 25% cover around here it can still be hard to hide all the tanks in a mech list. I'd love to be able to pop smoke and get flat-out cover saves in deployment.
Nice work Kirby. I am going to have to start coming on here more often. I like going first if using a shooty or assault army to make sure I get those assaults in quicker or shoot something to pieces before it shoots me. All my armies (Guard, Angels, Tyranids & Orks) I like going first for reasons already mentioned, though Guard and Angels I don't mind going second.

Going second is pretty cool where you can react to your opponent and I wouldn't say that's a bad thing. If your opponent has deployed say Vendettas on one flank deploy something tough over there to asborb those lascannons (armour 14) which is a good reaction. Though, predicting opponents moves is more important. Second is also useful for reserves, there's a big difference to going first and getting reserves turn 2 and going second and getting reserves turn 2. Also handy in objective games as you know what you have to do and no possible threat of been shot off the objective etc.
Refused flank I used to do with my Ork Battlewagon list and lets face it you have to! Angels I either do refused flank or split fire base, I tend to do split fire base if going first. Refused flank is pretty awesome when going second as the opponent tends to 'randomly' deploy and you can counter that leaving many things out of battle for several turns.

I think, at the end of it I'm with you. I'd rather win the roll off and chose to go first or second rather then let the opponent dictate. Sometimes letting a opponent go first and you go second can be extremely handy i.e let a assault army go first so it can move closer to your guns.
My Eldar mech list wants second turn in objective scenarios, as tank shocking objectives is pretty much what they do.
1 reply · active 722 weeks ago
This, but with orks. Ask kirby, he was livid when I got second in our game.
Nice article. It reminds me of good old Warzone where you had to make such choices every turn. In fact it reminds me of one thing which 40K is lacking - alternate activation of units during game turn. Which unit to activate first? Is it better to wait for opponent or act first in this situation? Ehh...
I love the advantages of 2nd, but I hate the fact that Seize exists in this game.
I don't understand why Seizing is even in the game to start with. Can someone explain that? Having all the advantages of 1st turn and half the advantages of going 2nd just because you randomly rolled a 6 is... moronic...
4 replies · active 722 weeks ago
Because of the way the rest of the game is structured, many people bought into the fallacy that going first was the be-all and end-all of the game... so they whined about having to go second, instead of learning how to deal with it. GW decided to throw them a bone. Now, they still whine.
You shouldn't be getting all the advantages of first.
If you deployed second, you are not set up in a gunline, right?
so by seizing, you won't be able to fire without moving. By doing that, you are reducing your output.

Which can make seizing inferior to going either first or second naturally. As people seize willy nilly *Oooh, I can roll a dice for something, what did I win?* they can often get themselves out of position, cannot truly capitalise on the benefits of going first, and threw away the benefits of going second.

Some lists, such as Tau or Deldar, seize much better due to manoeuvrability and long range shooting. Others don't do as well.

You won't have half the advantages of deploying second, unless you foe has deployed badly, as you set up to deflect damage, not swoop on a 1/6 die roll.

Thoughts?
"If you deployed second, you are not set up in a gunline, right?"

You shouldn't be set up in a gunline in the first place, assuming you mean "Gunline" as the army archetype (because it's terrible). If you mean "Deployed to maximise your lanes of fire while taking advantage of cover" when you use the word "gunline" then you should be doing that whether you go first or second.

"You set up to deflect damage, not swoop on a 1/6 die roll. "

But going first after deploying second grants you greater control over deflecting damage, because in addition to controlling what fire lanes are open and available to both players, you have a full movement phase in which you can move even more effectively into your cover, or advance into terrain that was outside your deployment zone. You can also pop smoke and turbo-boost if cover is lacking.

You minimise your opponents damage output in two ways when you seize: By deploying outside his established fire lanes and by supressing/killing his guns. Normally the game is balanced because you can only have ONE of those two advantages. You either get the first round of shooting OR you react to how he deployed his tri-Las Pred/Devastators/Whatever. Having both advantages given to one player just because he rolled a 6 is arbitrary and pointless.
Siezing is in the game to make people think more about deployment. Because that chance exists, both players have to make sure they are in a good position to strike the enemy without leaving themselves exposed.
Going 2nd is better - you can have the final move to claim objectives (66%of games) and you can react to enemy deployment by reserving everything. Going first isn't that great really...
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Unless in your first turn of shooting you manage to supress a Land Raider and destroy a Storm Raven, in which case your opponent is shooting with 500pts less of army than you are (for example). The point of going first is that you have 100% of your firepower available. The larger the gap you can open up between that 100% and your opponents percentage, the more control you have over the course of the game. Basic maths tells us that in a contest of 10 Marines vs 10 Marines, the unit who gets to shoot first wins.
Your list should be prepared to go first or second and be ok with that if you want to win a GT. A reason pure shooting is a poor choice is what do you do if you go second vs another heavy shooting list? Terrain is getting better in the major events but if you are playing somewhere that doesn't have great resources than you need to be prepared to frequently go into reserves when going second against lists like IG.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...