Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I dont claim to be a 40k guru, but it seems to me like often the guy who goes first should usually win.

Logic would dictate that if you go first, fire your guns, eliminate say 20% of the enemy, you have reduced your opponents ability to retaliate by 20% BEFORE they have had a chance to shoot at you. Thus in a 1000 point game, if you go first, you really are only going to face 800 points of incoming opponent fire.

Sure there are execptions with drop pod armies, CC armies etc. And of course the guy who gets last turn in the game can cap objectives. But in general, with so many shooty Eldar or Tau type armies out there, going 2nd seems like a pretty major disadvantage to me.

I may be wrong, I certainly welcome peoples thoughts and am happy to be enlightened as to how going 2nd can be an advantage.

In a tourney, it is generally easier to win by going last. In friendly games, it is more even, but it can be tilted one way or another by certain builds and missions. (necrons and eldar are great at going last, IG are pretty good at going first usually.

Also, night-fight usually puts a real damper on first turn damage

It really depends on your army and tactics.

DE really benefit from getting the first turn, as they like to get their licks in before they get creamed in response.

With my Orks i actually prefer having the second turn. My guns aren't going to be reaching the enemy on turn one anyway, and it also means i get the the bottom end of the turn, which makes it easier to objective-grab.

My Daemons really don't care overmuch. I can play either way.

And sometimes your opponent is all in drop pods, and sometimes he's deployed out of LoS, or maybe his threats aren't really affected by the particular long-range shooting you've got...there are too many variables, I think, to make many broad generalizations.

If your groups games are going too often towards the player who went first, maybe try changing up your lists or scenarios. Heavy objective games, for instance, can often favor the player who gets the LAST turn rather than the first.

It depends on match up, mission, and other variables. But according to Torrent of Fire Data, second turn actually has a much higher win percentage. True that's tournament play, so time limits and heavy objective counts are playing a huge factor, but still worth noting.

I play Eldar, and it really depends on who I am playing, and if night-fighting is in effect.

Going first means I get my jink saves, and psychic buffs up (fortune, forewarning). It also means I can use that first turn to shift my force away from the threats after my opponent has deployed.

Going second has huge advantages however. I can hide my important units in turn 1, before popping out to cause havoc in my turn. Units like jetbikes, swooping hawks, spiders, mantleseer are great at giving my opponents fits as I bet them into contest range of hig objectives, and he can't do anything about it.

I always prefer to go first against - other eldar (serpents v serpents), against Daemons (FMC's), in kill point games (no objectives).

I prefer to go second against - drop-pod armies, slow melee armies (nids, orks) large objective number games (scouring, etc).

Depends on match up, terrain, night fight, ability to ignore night fight and cover saves and mission.

Basically, going first does not necessarily equate to winning.

 scommy wrote:
I may be wrong, I certainly welcome peoples thoughts and am happy to be enlightened as to how going 2nd can be an advantage.

Tourney results show most people who go second win.

That's because you have the last turn to grab objectives.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Tourney results show most people who go second win.

That's because you have the last turn to grab objectives.

Second this. Besides going second means you deploy your men after you see his unit placement. So even if you are going against a heavy gunline IG or Tau you should be able to minimize his target selection with LOS terrain and cover.

 Panzer1944 wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Tourney results show most people who go second win.

That's because you have the last turn to grab objectives.

Second this. Besides going second means you deploy your men after you see his unit placement. So even if you are going against a heavy gunline IG or Tau you should be able to minimize his target selection with LOS terrain and cover.

I created my entire Eldar army around the idea of always trying to go second.

First doesn't really hurt me but I am always prepared.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
...

But then my Tyranids need first turn to put up their psychic defenses.

Actually, going second has always been stronger than going first, this edition probably favours having the last turn more than any other. Having the last chance to grab/contest objectives is far more important than killing stuff - its what actually wins you the game. The other side of the problem is that while you can build armies which are designed to cripple people turn 1 and decide the game early these armies are usually much weaker if they don't go first (i.e Dark Eldar) and any time they don't get a decisive first hit in the army falls over in return. You have always been able to reactively deploy to counter people (refuse a flank etc, was trickier when deployment was by unit rather than by army, but still possible) but in 6th being able to premeasure means you can now be certain you can avoid the worst of your opponents shooting if you are going second (in fact I would say the majority of the time I see First Blood go to the person going second). This combines well with the changes to the Nightfight rules, as killing stuff with a 2+ cover save is tricky. Also the separation of the roll for selecting sides and choice of first turn/deployment order means that you don't instantly get the worse side of the table if you want to go second.

If you're playing on a table with proper line of sight blocking terrain, going second is usually better. You can react to your opponent's deployment, and being able to take/deny objectives is such an game changer.

its more "If you steal the initiative, you win" than anything else.

9/10, least for me, if the initiative was stolen from you .... you lost. I hate that rule because it puts your deployment against you. And if you deploy expecting it, and it doesnt happen, youre hurt even more than going 2nd.

to be honest? my Blood angels usually want second turn tbh. as vs other assault armies we will then prob get the charge. This also allows me to hide my units in LoS terrain from enemy shooty shooty for his first turn (usuallly added to night fighting makes turn 1 shooting almost non existent around here.)

As other have said, it is not clear cut, each game will favour a different starting turn to another depending on many factors.

As a Ravenwing player though, I always want the first turn. It allows me to hit first with my Devstation bikers, which have a high likelihood of removing a few squads in the first turn, lets my attack bikes get cheeky half range melta shots off on enemy armour before they have a change to move and perhaps most importantly gives the whole army their jink saves.

In many ways I dislike how much this kind of list benefits from (needs?) the first turn. At the same time I still feel cheap when my MM attack bike gets to scout-move-shoot and pop a landraider on the first turn.

Going first is sometimes a disadvantage. You deploy first, so you opponent has full opportunity to deploy to minimize your incoming fire lanes and maximize their own. If they're not taking this huge advantage then they're handicapping themselves. You can minimize heavy weapon fire lanes some times, set up in cover to force armour and heavy weapon teams to have to move to get a shot at you.

You have an opportunity when deploying second to overload one side of the board, which I think is usually one of the best tactics anyone can do in 40k when all units deploy at the start of a game.

You line up your top two units on the side of the board with your opponents weakest units, leave your 3rd best unit and possibly some supporting fire to hamper his strong side for 1 or 2 turns, and this simple tactic usually makes all the difference.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 scommy wrote:
I may be wrong, I certainly welcome peoples thoughts and am happy to be enlightened as to how going 2nd can be an advantage.

Tourney results show most people who go second win.

That's because you have the last turn to grab objectives.

The biggest question I'd have regarding going by tourney results are the amount of games that are not coming to a natural conclusion. I know this has been a fairly contentious issue an trying to correct the issue. If the game only goes 4 or even 5 turns and there is no roll for random game length, then going second will be paramount as most 6th edition missions are objective based.

Not stating I discount the tourney results completely, but will point out not having to roll for random game length can dramatically change the outcome of a game.

That's really dependent on the players. I would say in at least half of my games at tourneys the game 'end naturally'.

I do run across the guy who occasionally has to ponder where and how to place everything, and has no playing skills -- but most players are actually trying to play a game.

Like the bad apples in the barrel, they tend to spoil it for a lot of people.

Can someone expand a bit on the last-turn objective grabbing?

I certainly understand the theory, but surely the fact that you don't know when the last turn is (thanks to the random game length) puts a bit of a kink in this idea?

- Make a dash on turn 5 and you've got a 2/3 chance that there's another turn for the enemy to kill you.
- Go for it on turn 6, and it's a 1/2 chance that there's another turn - and a 1/3 chance you've missed your opportunity.
- On turn 7 you're safe to make your run - but if you wait this long there's a 2/3 chance that the game will already be over.

For me having the first turn is vastly preferable for two man reasons. Firstly, it gives me a much better chance for First Blood, and secondly it gets my bikes and speeders moving for that all-important jink save.

(Anyone else puzzled by this? Does every single model stop moving just as they get into range of the enemy, then start again? Why can't you count models as having moved at the start of the game?)

In a tourney, you very often know when the last turn is, which makes the balance tilt heavily towards the player going last in tourney matches.

In friendlies with no time limit, it is much less certain

 Hedgehog wrote:
Can someone expand a bit on the last-turn objective grabbing?

Its simply the fact that you get to react to your opponent that makes it valuable. You might not know exactly when the game ends, but you still have far more certainty than the player going first. Remember that you don't have to contest/claim every objectives - the advantage of having the last turn means that you know EXACTLY what you need to do to get the win (or in tournament type situations exactly what you need to do to win by enough to get you a placing or similar). If you have the first turn then you not only have to work out what you need to do to win, you also have to work out what you have to do to counter your opponents moves so you have to think about redundancy, probabilities and a range of other stuff. On turn 5 I'm not going to over commit to getting a big win (unless I'm getting crushed but have a chance to steal a win if it ends at 5 - which again is far more likely going second), I'll contest what I can and grab one more objective than my opponent by running a troop unit onto it while keeping the rest of my troops as safe as possible. That means that turn 6 and 7 I can do the same thing again.

I made my raven guard with going second as a must

I usually prefer to go second. But stealing the initiative and going first -when- your opponent -expected- you to go second is better than going first. Simply because you counter deploy and then strike.

 labmouse42 wrote:
That's really dependent on the players. I would say in at least half of my games at tourneys the game 'end naturally'.

I do run across the guy who occasionally has to ponder where and how to place everything, and has no playing skills -- but most players are actually trying to play a game.

Like the bad apples in the barrel, they tend to spoil it for a lot of people.

Approximately half of your games not ending naturally is exactly my point about relying on the tourney stats.

I think this changes drastically with experience and setting. I play on the living room floor with my buddy, and our terrain tends to be books and binders, pieces of paper to indicate area terrain- the board doesn't have the difficult sight lines of a nice gaming table, so his tau wreck me if he gets first turn.

I'm also just beginning to understand how to place units in response. Should my battlewagon be place close to his crisis suits, so it can zoom up and threaten them? Or as far away as possible, so they can't kill it? Does my mob of Boyz go in the open, so it can run up the field faster, or behind cover so I get saves?

I imagine with more experience this would be clear, but as it is I don't have the knowledge to take full advantage of second turn placement.

This hinges on having appropriate LOS blocking terrain. Without it, even seeing a micron of a unit allows your opponent to annihalate forces. Especially since there is a lot of night-fighting/ cover ignoring units available.

Tau and Eldar get a great deal of benefit from going first. They can overwhelm their opponents who arent completely hidden, and they are mobile enough to react to placement regardless of who places first.

I think this is the reason they are winning so much more often lately.

Generally you want to go first in kill point games, second in objective games.

If your stuff is getting blasted off the board on turn 1, you need to deploy them differently, probably. You're going to need to realize stuff dies when it gets shot. You can avoid this by being out of LOS and out of range.

Hilariously, when I would play against GK players, I would always be just over 30 inches away, so they could move up, shoot nothing, and let me have my turn.

 juraigamer wrote:
Hilariously, when I would play against GK players, I would always be just over 30 inches away, so they could move up, shoot nothing, and let me have my turn.

So why didn't they just scout, outflank, deepstrike around you?

Mark_Autarch wrote:
Without it, even seeing a micron of a unit allows your opponent to annihalate forces.

You can only kill what you can see now in 6e. Not sure if your inferring this or what your statement was, but if you only see a "micron" of a unit, which is more than likely just 1 model in a unit, you will only kill that 1 model. No more invisible bullets like in 5e

If you already knew this then disregard.

 ductvader wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Hilariously, when I would play against GK players, I would always be just over 30 inches away, so they could move up, shoot nothing, and let me have my turn.

So why didn't they just scout, outflank, deepstrike around you?

Because piecemealing your forces is a good way to get tabled.