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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You mean the guy who specifically brought up all the new units, including the obviously meh Outriders, might be trying to help GW sell something?

Nah man, he's legit. Did you see his stats?

I've always been baffled by the drive some companies have to make their games 'E-Sports'. I am double baffled that GW is copy pasting it. If it's supposed to be a joke, it's rather confusing and not particularly funny. I could swear just an edition or so ago the game was advertised as 'beer and snacks' or whatever, wasn't it? Could swear that excuse was being thrown around as a reason for why balance didn't matter or something, and now they want 'competitive balance' to be part of their marketing? Feels like someone really needs to pick a lane XD

I've always been baffled by the drive some companies have to make their games 'E-Sports'. I am double baffled that GW is copy pasting it. If it's supposed to be a joke, it's rather confusing and not particularly funny. I could swear just an edition or so ago the game was advertised as 'beer and snacks' or whatever, wasn't it? Could swear that excuse was being thrown around as a reason for why balance didn't matter or something, and now they want 'competitive balance' to be part of their marketing? Feels like someone really needs to pick a lane XD

I honestly don't think GW is trying to push the e-sport thing. I think they are just finally coming around to openly embracing the tourney scene and acknowledging its value, rather than shunning those players and acting as if they don't exist. They just haven't *quite* figured out the best way to do that yet. lol

a_typical_hero wrote:
I think a better change would be to move scoring points to the end of Player's 2 round for both sides.

That would completely and utterly break the game the other way, much much more then it is now.

I think the small table has a bigger impact on the power of first turn then when objectives are scored. Small table means more stuff is in range from the start and harder to put stuff out of range to protect it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I saw the inherent flaw to this edition the first game I set up to deploy. Like literally the first thing I said. Oh? Objectives scored at the start of the turn and the game length reduced to 5? Well that's 2 turns of scoring removed from the player going second.

I'm telling you. The way you fix this is make tabling a win and increase game length to 6 turns. Give the player going second a way to win if they logistically can't compete in the objective game due to the fact they have the first opportunity to be denied an objective.

No, feth having tabling as a wincon. I know youve got a hardon for blasting your opponents off the table but that would just make people bring lists that are 100% based on killing stuff. Which would make the already high lethality go even higher.

Dead units don't hold objectives very well

Whats your point?
Thats exactly why i think tabling shouldnt be part of the game as a wincon. Killing your opponent already is its own reward. Its the same reason why i disliked the kill/kill more bonuses because you were double dipping in your scoring.

I think the point he is trying to make is the same one I am trying to make. List wouldn't change in the slightest. You are already rewarded for killing.Tabling is a risky condition though and you would still likely have an advantage focusing on scoring objectives. The ability to win by table really helps the player going second if the player going first just keeps sacrificing units to hold objectives.

I disagree that focusing on scoring objectives gives an advantage if youre aiming to table your opponent. If there is a situation where your opponent has max pts yet he can still lose because his you castled in a corner of the map and blasted him, then whats the point of even trying for objectives?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I think a better change would be to move scoring points to the end of Player's 2 round for both sides.

That would completely and utterly break the game the other way, much much more then it is now.

I think the small table has a bigger impact on the power of first turn then when objectives are scored. Small table means more stuff is in range from the start and harder to put stuff out of range to protect it.

that would give more power to player 2 since a speedy army could just take his opponent off the objectives to deny him all his pts. Scoring at the start of your turn makes sense because each players can try and deny objectives from the other one. the problem is that the first player gets one more scoring opportunity and gets to take c ontrol of the map faster.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


GK can go second, especially the builds with a low model count. You hide your stuff and let your opponent come to you so you can get into combat with more stuff on turn one.

Personally, i'd rather go second no matter what army i play. Granted i do play with more terrain than tournaments usually use.

My expiriance playing, although does not come from tournaments, shows that If I go second two things happen. First my opponents swarm the primary objectives and I can't shift them, plus because they practicaly get free max secondaries playing vs GK, if I don't cripple their army real fast I will just lose on points. And that is assuming they are not an donkey-cave and start claiming that because my bases are just painted green , yellow and purple and non of my models have edge highlights they get extra 10VP.

I said it before in the stats thread about the tournaments results, and I will say this again. Playing GK going first and going second is like playing two different armies, going second doesn't come even close to a fun game in which I have a chance to do much stuff.

that would give more power to player 2 since a speedy army could just take his opponent off the objectives to deny him all his pts. Scoring at the start of your turn makes sense because each players can try and deny objectives from the other one. the problem is that the first player gets one more scoring opportunity and gets to take c ontrol of the map faster.

Then maybe scoring every turn is a bad idea. Or there should be some sort of equalizer. Because right now the first player doesn't just get the option to be first on the objective and doing the first scoring, but also the last turn of the player going second isn't much of a thing besides doing stuff that gives points for killing stuff. Which in case of some slower armies or armies that took big loses means that it is sometimes not worth to play the second player 5th turn.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


GK can go second, especially the builds with a low model count. You hide your stuff and let your opponent come to you so you can get into combat with more stuff on turn one.

Personally, i'd rather go second no matter what army i play. Granted i do play with more terrain than tournaments usually use.

My expiriance playing, although does not come from tournaments, shows that If I go second two things happen. First my opponents swarm the primary objectives and I can't shift them, plus because they practicaly get free max secondaries playing vs GK, if I don't cripple their army real fast I will just lose on points. And that is assuming they are not an donkey-cave and start claiming that because my bases are just painted green , yellow and purple and non of my models have edge highlights they get extra 10VP.

I said it before in the stats thread about the tournaments results, and I will say this again. Playing GK going first and going second is like playing two different armies, going second doesn't come even close to a fun game in which I have a chance to do much stuff.

I play thousand sons. Its a similar thing where the army having its buffs on or not is a huge difference. I still mostly prefer to go second. Hiding my models isnt hard.

Also, ive never seen anyone claim the 10vp for the painting in all my games of 9th so far, even when playing against/with fully painted armies.

I don't think that 1ksons are comperable to GK that much. And hidding models maybe isn't always hard, but hidding them in a such a way that after 2 opponents turns your units get to do something impactful very much is. Plus sometimes there isn't much to do at all. I have yet to find a way of shifting 30 primaris with HQ support of 2 objectives in a 3 objective game.
Specialy when turn 2-3 are often the alfa strike ones. So it not like I can just go out in the open on my turn two and start plinking stuff with storm bolters.

Plus this is hardly a me problem. My army is neither optimised, nor is its player a top of the game tournament one. But the data from all the US tournament shows a very big difference between ratio when GK players go first and second. It is like 20% + difference. I think only tau have a bigger gap between win/lose ratios, but they are under 50% win rate anyway, so it is hard to compare to them anyway.

Karol wrote:
I don't think that 1ksons are comperable to GK that much. And hidding models maybe isn't always hard, but hidding them in a such a way that after 2 opponents turns your units get to do something impactful very much is. Plus sometimes there isn't much to do at all. I have yet to find a way of shifting 30 primaris with HQ support of 2 objectives in a 3 objective game.
Specialy when turn 2-3 are often the alfa strike ones. So it not like I can just go out in the open on my turn two and start plinking stuff with storm bolters.

Plus this is hardly a me problem. My army is neither optimised, nor is its player a top of the game tournament one. But the data from all the US tournament shows a very big difference between ratio when GK players go first and second. It is like 20% + difference. I think only tau have a bigger gap between win/lose ratios, but they are under 50% win rate anyway, so it is hard to compare to them anyway.

With the PA they are quite comparable, yes. We're both armies that are centered around buffing a unit to maximize damage with supporting HQs around them. You buff palading, we buff infiltrating rubrics. We even have Gate now so we can emulate your board presence.

that would give more power to player 2 since a speedy army could just take his opponent off the objectives to deny him all his pts. Scoring at the start of your turn makes sense because each players can try and deny objectives from the other one. the problem is that the first player gets one more scoring opportunity and gets to take c ontrol of the map faster.

No I don't think it would. Let's look at it. Right now, I go first. I run everything onto the objectives I want. Player two now has to get there and remove me. I just have to get there. So I score turn 2 and can keep him from scoring, thus setting up the snow-ball effect. Additionally, since the objectives are scored at the top of the turn, in the final turn, as "player 1", I can score my objectives and then leave them as needed to make sure my opponent can't do anything about it. He's potentially completely shut out of scoring that turn with no way to address it. That's going to happen occasionally regardless of where scoring happens, but it shouldn't happen BY DESIGN of the missions.

So now, let's flip it - we score at the end of the full turn. I'm player 1. I still get to rush to objective, and he still has to "get there" but now, since we score at the same time, I no longer have that advantage of scoring, taking my turn to prevent player 2 from scoring, and then setting up additional scoring for the end game. Instead, we have to fight over those objectives. Obsec and timing suddenly matter much more and you can't be shut out of the scoring for a phase simply because you didn't go first.

I think the issue with the first turn win rate is that the "name of the game" has shifted, and the meta is still built around 8th edition expectations. I would assume that the 8th edition data that shows a closer to even win rate going 1st vs going 2nd was during a time when the meta was more developed.

Axxion51 wrote:
I think the issue with the first turn win rate is that the "name of the game" has shifted, and the meta is still built around 8th edition expectations. I would assume that the 8th edition data that shows a closer to even win rate going 1st vs going second was during a time when the meta was more developed.

During 8th it was a more settled meta but with 3 missions sets at the time and one of them showed minimal advantage to first second, other showed a slightly higher go first advantage.
The issue is 9th edition is seeming to be getting more first turn wins as players play more. Ie as the meta is solved it's getting worse not better.

Also the goon hamer stats covering the go first go second disparity by faction shows that the game as it stands it a mess and seems to be trending away from balance as the meta evolves not towards it.

During 8th it was a more settled meta but with 3 missions sets at the time and one of them showed minimal advantage to first second, other showed a slightly higher go first advantage.
The issue is 9th edition is seeming to be getting more first turn wins as players play more. Ie as the meta is solved it's getting worse not better.

Also the goon hamer stats covering the go first go second disparity by faction shows that the game as it stands it a mess and seems to be trending away from balance as the meta evolves not towards it.

Exactly. It's a pretty large upward trend. Plus, if you look at a lot of the lists used - many of them are NOT just "I brought my 8th ed list to a 9th ed game and tried to play the same game." A lot of the "But we need to shift our thinking" type responses ignore the fact that when people DID start picking up on the differences, that first turn advantage GREW rather than shrink.

Tycho wrote:

During 8th it was a more settled meta but with 3 missions sets at the time and one of them showed minimal advantage to first second, other showed a slightly higher go first advantage.
The issue is 9th edition is seeming to be getting more first turn wins as players play more. Ie as the meta is solved it's getting worse not better.

Also the goon hamer stats covering the go first go second disparity by faction shows that the game as it stands it a mess and seems to be trending away from balance as the meta evolves not towards it.

Exactly. It's a pretty large upward trend. Plus, if you look at a lot of the lists used - many of them are NOT just "I brought my 8th ed list to a 9th ed game and tried to play the same game." A lot of the "But we need to shift our thinking" type responses ignore the fact that when people DID start picking up on the differences, that first turn advantage GREW rather than shrink.

Thanks for this. I have only a few 1,000 point games under my belt in 9th so far, and I doubt we have what Nick would call the proper amount of terrain. I have noticed that the BRB doesn't give too many guidelines. Are these more dense terrain guidelines within the tournament pack?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You mean the guy who specifically brought up all the new units, including the obviously meh Outriders, might be trying to help GW sell something?

Nah man, he's legit. Did you see his stats?

OH gak I didn't even see that.

Thanks for this. I have only a few 1,000 point games under my belt in 9th so far, and I doubt we have what Nick would call the proper amount of terrain. I have noticed that the BRB doesn't give too many guidelines. Are these more dense terrain guidelines within the tournament pack?

Depends on which tournament pack I think? I haven't seen the newest one, but the one most tourneys will have used at this point generally recommends the same amount as the BRB. "You need more obscuring terrain" is another common refrain for those who don't think there is a turn 1 advantage. Honestly, in some cases that's actually true, but most of the time even this doesn't make a difference. The way turns are scored, combined with a significantly smaller board size is pretty much what is causing it.

The funny thing about the "moar terrain!!11" thing being pushed by GW is that their own books don't call for the amount of terrain they are claiming is necessary for a good game. It's like uh...ok, if you thought that, why didn't you actually say so in the book?

It very much reads like a post facto excuse for why the missions aren't performing in the real world the way they think they should be.

Tycho wrote:

that would give more power to player 2 since a speedy army could just take his opponent off the objectives to deny him all his pts. Scoring at the start of your turn makes sense because each players can try and deny objectives from the other one. the problem is that the first player gets one more scoring opportunity and gets to take c ontrol of the map faster.

No I don't think it would. Let's look at it. Right now, I go first. I run everything onto the objectives I want. Player two now has to get there and remove me. I just have to get there. So I score turn 2 and can keep him from scoring, thus setting up the snow-ball effect. Additionally, since the objectives are scored at the top of the turn, in the final turn, as "player 1", I can score my objectives and then leave them as needed to make sure my opponent can't do anything about it. He's potentially completely shut out of scoring that turn with no way to address it. That's going to happen occasionally regardless of where scoring happens, but it shouldn't happen BY DESIGN of the missions.

So now, let's flip it - we score at the end of the full turn. I'm player 1. I still get to rush to objective, and he still has to "get there" but now, since we score at the same time, I no longer have that advantage of scoring, taking my turn to prevent player 2 from scoring, and then setting up additional scoring for the end game. Instead, we have to fight over those objectives. Obsec and timing suddenly matter much more and you can't be shut out of the scoring for a phase simply because you didn't go first.

End of battle round scoring means player 2 can throw cheap worthless units that can't survive a stiff breeze onto objectives and score, aswell as deny his opponent scoring (through obsec) at practically no cost. While if he was going first he would never be able to hold an objective. Forcing player 1 to have to survive a round to score but not requiring it from player 2 is a HUGE imbalance that utterly dwarfs any advantage that may or may not exist in 9th now.

End of battle round scoring means player 2 can throw cheap worthless units that can't survive a stiff breeze onto objectives and score, aswell as deny his opponent scoring (through obsec) at practically no cost. While if he was going first he would never be able to hold an objective. Forcing player 1 to have to survive a round to score but not requiring it from player 2 is a HUGE imbalance that utterly dwarfs any advantage that may or may not exist in 9th now.

The scenario you laid out makes no sense unless player 1 just sat there and didn't claim anything? And if the scoring happens at the end of the full battle round then both players have a shot of scoring. As it is set up now, player 1 can claim his objectives and shut down the other player's ability to score them before player 2 has a chance to do anything at all. Scoring jointly at the end of the round prevents this from either player. Plus, the way it's laid out now, the way you seem to be arguing to keep, already has player 1 needing to survive the round. I don't think you've thought this through all the way?

that would give more power to player 2 since a speedy army could just take his opponent off the objectives to deny him all his pts. Scoring at the start of your turn makes sense because each players can try and deny objectives from the other one. the problem is that the first player gets one more scoring opportunity and gets to take c ontrol of the map faster.

Not exactly. The current system gives player 1 two additional chances. The first turn grab to set up the initial scoring PLUS being able to score turn 5 while preventing player 2 from scoring at all. The missions are designed so that there is literally no counter play in turn 5 if player 1 played well enough. Not because he dominated his opponent, but rather because he took advantage of a rule set that allows him to prevent the other player form getting points due to the luck of a die roll at the start of the game. Scoring at the end of the full round does not give "more advantage to player 2" imo. That same scenario happens NOW except that it has to happen because he's instantly behind on points because he went second with no way to counter it.

My first tweak would be to try scoring primary again at the end of the game. This gives the 2nd player a significant advantage in the last turn, instead of the current situation, where they have a significant disadvantage in both turn 1 and turn 5. I wouldn't be surprised if that change alone would deal with most or all the first-turn advantage right there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


You should read this post.

"This community has a fundamental problem with the interpretation and citations of statistics and data."
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/j799yq/this_community_has_a_fundamental_problem_with_the/

Yeah, no. This person that posted this is just mad they don't get 40k. If they were actually correct on this topic we would've been seeing more occasional toppings because of that "human element". 40k isn't complicated. There's only so much you can put on the human element.

That's not the point being made in the write-up at all. It outright says as much in the comments too. Did you read through it?

That post got agreements from top players including Richard Siegler himself, and even a person from the team who helps COLLECT the stats agreed with it and says they are being misused. It's also like the most upvoted post of all time by competitive players on that sub now. If you think all these people misunderstand 40k, but you and the stats are the ones that got things completely figured out because aye "40k is simple" (even though there's literally proof and examples that you're wrong in this belief inside the post itself), well then, you carry on thinking that.

To be honest, this seems much more like you didn't even properly read the article, and that you're just mad that your constant claim of 40k being so simple that the stats tell the whole story has been so thoroughly and completely disproved. If you genuinely think those two salty sentences you've written here are a more compelling argument than the pages of sound logical reasoning given to support the perspective given in the article, well that would probably be your biases speaking lol. You're on your own there.

Just p.s. very little of the argument in that write-up hinges on depth. Even if 40k is as simple as you seem to claim it is, there was a bunch of reasons given that would still hold true and have been been proven to be the case in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:

You forgot : " Wait and see!"

Ah yes - how could I forget! That inviolable bastion of logic, and the ever-present fall-back position of those who don't like inconvenient things. Like numbers, and stats and evidence and such ...

There’s numerous reasons why the first turn advantage may not be as strong as the statistic represents. You’d be silly to ignore Nick’s opinion based on “the stats” it doesn’t matter if the data size is 3000 or 3 million, the stats ignore a human element and how we approach the game / our knowledge of it.


^ that

And thus the cycle continues:

"There is no first turn advantage! Wait and see!"

Week 1 of tournaments yields something like 54% 1st turn advantage - "Hazzaah! No advantage! Just as we saw! The numbers prove it!"

Week 2 of tournaments yields a larger advantage - " ..."

Current stats show a clear advantage with the number worsening as the skill-gap narrows and a steady upward trend "There are many reasons why the numbers are wrong here! Listen to this man who hasn't played a tourney yet! On this website with a vested interest in there NOT being a 1st turn advantage! This is just like ... your opinion man!"

TL;DR:

Unbiased numbers > than the opinion of a man likely doing a paid advertisement ....

Nobody is saying to just believe Nick at face value with no explanation. Although if you've ever spoken to the guy, you'd know he has way more integrity than many of you are implying, but that's neither here nor there. The overall point is if you have a good reason to believe that 1st turn is overpowered (as it does seem many of you do), then by all means, especially if you can't see a valid counter argument to that reasoning, you know what, you're very probably right. The point is that the stats aren't a valid counter argument because so often are they flawed, and there's already been very practical reasons given as to why they could be in this case. I'm saying don't blindly believe statistics OR blindly believe a person because they are a known name, both are a flawed approach. Nick Nanavati is an excellent player and has gone directly against the grain of what the groupthink and the stats-quoters believed many times in the past and been later proven correct, so I'd be inclined to want to hear out his reasoning for why first turn isn't overpowered before dismissing it off hand, and basing my opinion from there as until I heard convincing logic it wouldn't change my opinion. I personally suspect there is a slight bit of a first turn advantage, though I also suspect that it's not as slanted as the stats would show for some of the reasons given - it's how we're currently approaching the game as players. Reading his explanation as to why he believes it, seems he is also of a similar opinion.

Haven't looked at the Goonhammer articles, so I don't know if this has been done, but it occurs to me that with sufficient raw data (and a sufficiently stable game, so as to rule out changes tot he game influencing things) you could run an analysis to see what influence player skill has.

At any tournament, round 1 should be completely (or almost completely) random when it comes to the pairings. Your "beer and pretzels" attendees are mixed in with your "hardcore WAAC donkey-cave" attendees, and everyone in between. This round makes up your baseline first turn win %.

Round 2 is where we may start to see performance influencing the first turn percentage. As a result, we can split the field into (roughly) three groups - both players won, both players drew (probably a small group), and both players lost. Not sure where you split games where one player is paired down, admittedly. Anyway, look at those three groups, and see if the first turn win % varies from the round 1 figure.

Rinse and repeat for the following rounds - I'd lean towards keeping games split into three bands, along the lines of "winning more than losing", "average performance", and "losing more than winning", and see how those figures change round on round. I'll let someone else figure out breakpoints for those bands

After all, in theory winning multiple games should be a sign of player skill, right?

 Dysartes wrote:
Haven't looked at the Goonhammer articles, so I don't know if this has been done, but it occurs to me that with sufficient raw data (and a sufficiently stable game, so as to rule out changes tot he game influencing things) you could run an analysis to see what influence player skill has.

At any tournament, round 1 should be completely (or almost completely) random when it comes to the pairings. Your "beer and pretzels" attendees are mixed in with your "hardcore WAAC donkey-cave" attendees, and everyone in between. This round makes up your baseline first turn win %.

Round 2 is where we may start to see performance influencing the first turn percentage. As a result, we can split the field into (roughly) three groups - both players won, both players drew (probably a small group), and both players lost. Not sure where you split games where one player is paired down, admittedly. Anyway, look at those three groups, and see if the first turn win % varies from the round 1 figure.

Rinse and repeat for the following rounds - I'd lean towards keeping games split into three bands, along the lines of "winning more than losing", "average performance", and "losing more than winning", and see how those figures change round on round. I'll let someone else figure out breakpoints for those bands

After all, in theory winning multiple games should be a sign of player skill, right?

Careful, that sounds like it'd make for a decent player score card.

Truthfully you have to look at the stats they're presenting, for example:



As you can see, he's high in early game and in late game... or he's nearly finished loading. I'm not sure. But either one is good!

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Although if you've ever spoken to the guy, you'd know he has way more integrity than many of you are implying, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't know enough about the competitive scene to comment on the rest of your post, but I will say this. Unless we hear of an imminent lawsuit from him, I'd say that the article I'm about 90% sure GW wrote for him tells me everything I need to know about his "integrity".

Tycho wrote:

End of battle round scoring means player 2 can throw cheap worthless units that can't survive a stiff breeze onto objectives and score, aswell as deny his opponent scoring (through obsec) at practically no cost. While if he was going first he would never be able to hold an objective. Forcing player 1 to have to survive a round to score but not requiring it from player 2 is a HUGE imbalance that utterly dwarfs any advantage that may or may not exist in 9th now.

The scenario you laid out makes no sense unless player 1 just sat there and didn't claim anything? And if the scoring happens at the end of the full battle round then both players have a shot of scoring. As it is set up now, player 1 can claim his objectives and shut down the other player's ability to score them before player 2 has a chance to do anything at all. Scoring jointly at the end of the round prevents this from either player. Plus, the way it's laid out now, the way you seem to be arguing to keep, already has player 1 needing to survive the round. I don't think you've thought this through all the way?

that would give more power to player 2 since a speedy army could just take his opponent off the objectives to deny him all his pts. Scoring at the start of your turn makes sense because each players can try and deny objectives from the other one. the problem is that the first player gets one more scoring opportunity and gets to take c ontrol of the map faster.

Not exactly. The current system gives player 1 two additional chances. The first turn grab to set up the initial scoring PLUS being able to score turn 5 while preventing player 2 from scoring at all. The missions are designed so that there is literally no counter play in turn 5 if player 1 played well enough. Not because he dominated his opponent, but rather because he took advantage of a rule set that allows him to prevent the other player form getting points due to the luck of a die roll at the start of the game. Scoring at the end of the full round does not give "more advantage to player 2" imo. That same scenario happens NOW except that it has to happen because he's instantly behind on points because he went second with no way to counter it.

If there is only 1 set of objectives in no mans land (like Scorched Earth, Vital Intel, Surround and Destroy, Battlelines) then someone is always going to get on them first and make the other player remove them (and have to survive himself). This won't change by moving scoring to end of turn.

In the missions if objectives for each side in no-mans land (Retrieval, Scouring, Overrun) both player 1 and 2 move on to objectives on their half and both have to survive a turn currently. In your system player 2 would score with no counterplay from player 1 since he scores right after his own turn.

Additionally I play GSC, a deepstriking glass cannon army. 9th edition has been difficult since I am trying to claim objectives with basically guardsmen. If we score at the end of battle round and I go 2nd I can just deepstrike an Acolye squad next to you, charge your unit holding an objective (7" charge is pretty reliable) and take it from you while scoring with 0 possible counterplay from you. That you then kill the unit in your turn and again claim the objective doesn't matter, because I can do the exact same thing again next turn. With again no real counterplay.

Or take Tyranids, they can run up 10 hormagants 16"+2d6 (thanks to double move stratagem) and stand on your objective with a bunch of obsec, they score with no counter play, denying you points and you can kill them in your turn but it doesn't matter because they already scored. If they are Kraken they can do another 8"+2d6 with a 2nd unit per turn.
I'm sure other armies could do similar things, I just don't know their statagems well enough to tell you.

Player 1 getting to shoot twice before player 2 scores is definitely a thing tho and a likely problem. Same with player 1 having no need to care about objectives in his final turn and player 2 basically having no final turn outside of secondaries.

Its a tough problem to solve. Giving an extra scoring at the end of the game for Primary's would give both players something to fight over (and keep objectives) in the final turn but then player 2 gets to score at the end without answer. Might be the best solution off the top of my head. The 'free' scoring being balanced by the first turn disadvantage.

Another option would be to let player 2 score at the end of his first turn (again no counter play option) so there are no 2 shooting phases before his first scoring and let player 1 score at the end of the game, but that just moves the final turn 1 issue to player 2.
Or heck Player 1 doesn't start to score until turn 3 but gets to score at the end of the game.

I think a lot of it boils down to ranges being to long in 40k. especially with the smaller table. I would ideally want ranges to be so that player 1 in his first turn is out of range for almost all of his guns, even after having moved forward. So player 1 moves forward onto objectives in his first turn and is mostly out of range. Player 2 moves forward and is now in range. So player 1 gets to move and score first but player 2 gets to shoot first. Both players get shot at once before scoring.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Although if you've ever spoken to the guy, you'd know he has way more integrity than many of you are implying, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't know enough about the competitive scene to comment on the rest of your post, but I will say this. Unless we hear of an imminent lawsuit from him, I'd say that the article I'm about 90% sure GW wrote for him tells me everything I need to know about his "integrity".

The article on WHC doesn't read much different from things has written or said in the past. He always had this "the game is a great puzzle you just need to solve" attitude (and he was wrong about it often enough) and he rarely, if ever, called out the issues with the game because those issues are usually just one more tool that helps you win games.
He also is a professional, so him not slamming GW on the first interview they ever do with him is just natural.

Maybe the 2ed player should get a special 2ed player secondary or be able to take one extra, but that would probably require a rewrite of all secondaries, so will never happen within the same edition.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Although if you've ever spoken to the guy, you'd know he has way more integrity than many of you are implying, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't know enough about the competitive scene to comment on the rest of your post, but I will say this. Unless we hear of an imminent lawsuit from him, I'd say that the article I'm about 90% sure GW wrote for him tells me everything I need to know about his "integrity".

The article on WHC doesn't read much different from things has written or said in the past. He always had this "the game is a great puzzle you just need to solve" attitude (and he was wrong about it often enough) and he rarely, if ever, called out the issues with the game because those issues are usually just one more tool that helps you win games.
He also is a professional, so him not slamming GW on the first interview they ever do with him is just natural.

You guys are so hilariously out of touch with who this person is but speak with full confidence about this identity you've invented for him, since he's a big bad pro player.

He was on live yesterday, outspokenly criticising GW for their contributions to this very article. Which is way more than others would do. What do you actually expect him to jump on WHC and start bitching about Eradicators OP and GW needs price drops? They aren't gonna print that lol. There's nobody who wants to grow the hobby more than Nick Nanavati does he works so hard to improve and build the community, you guys are such jerks on here lol

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truthfully you have to look at the stats they're presenting, for example:



As you can see, he's high in early game and in late game... or he's nearly finished loading. I'm not sure. But either one is good!

This post is one of the funniest I've read in a long time on dakka, thank you!

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truthfully you have to look at the stats they're presenting, for example:



As you can see, he's high in early game and in late game... or he's nearly finished loading. I'm not sure. But either one is good!

This post is one of the funniest I've read in a long time on dakka, thank you!

But what happens when he finishes loading? O.o