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 do everything in my power to convince my opponents that I prefer the alpha strike, when in reality my army cries out to move second.

I play Necrons, and so I do not fear an alpha strike as I carry Solar Pulses, which seriously mitigate any damage dealt to me. Likewise, I keep my army mobile in its build so that I do not have to worry about being assaulted on the first or even second turn, usually. And with the generally 24" bubble of Necrons, going second is preferable, as my opponent will usually spend the first turn just moving into my kill range.

And in going second, I carry in my army two units with VoDs that I try to warp into objectives in order to contest them at the end of the game, sometimes stealing victory from what should have been a draw.

So as much as I love my alpha strikes, I do far more damage going second. Unless I face Tau. I can't let their broadsides have even a single turn unchallenged.

EDIT: spelling.

A good commander in this game knows that being able to read how your enemy will attack and how to counter is in essence the very basis of combat. however a clever rebuttal to this is to feint ignorance and go first letting the enemy prey on weaknesses and units which seem to be vulnerable only to punish them for taking the bait, I myself love to use a counter to tactical analysis.

it does cut both ways... i make sure to use all elements needed to get my enemy where i want them.

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:A good commander in this game knows that being able to read how your enemy will attack and how to counter is in essence the very basis of combat.

It's kind of funny, because the Sun Tsu quote at the beginning was basically saying the exact opposite of this. It is the weak commander who reacts, it is the strong commander who never has to (because his opponent is always having to react to him).

Ailaros wrote:42%?

Half the time the dice roll for 1st turn is lost and 1/6 times for stealing the init comes to just under 42% if you are planning an alpha strike.

Ailaros wrote:

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:A good commander in this game knows that being able to read how your enemy will attack and how to counter is in essence the very basis of combat.

It's kind of funny, because the Sun Tsu quote at the beginning was basically saying the exact opposite of this. It is the weak commander who reacts, it is the strong commander who never has to (because his opponent is always having to react to him).

Instinct vs conscious thought go achieve victory, I'd say you are splitting hairs in my statement though as it's impossible to 'not react'

I always choose to go second if I can.

* With a mainly reserves army the opponent then loses 2 not 1 turn of shooting
* If I do deploy I can choose this based on their deployment and not having to deploy blind
* having the last turn on objective missions is priceless - especially when using tervigons as troops

You want to win the roll though to choose the deployment zone though as terrain can make a huge difference.

schadenfreude wrote:

Ailaros wrote:42%?

Half the time the dice roll for 1st turn is lost and 1/6 times for stealing the init comes to just under 42% if you are planning an alpha strike.

But isn't the extra 8% cancelled out by the fact that about 8% of the time *you* steal the initiative and go first after being given second turn?

I think it's actually still 50%, even with initiative-stealing taken into account.

More and more I'm liking going first. More and more my army list choices are including units with the scout usr. Being able to "kneecap" an opponent and kill transports is huge. I can then dictate the game to him as they walk. Night fight is not a problem either when you are 6-12 inches close. I also usually have 1-3 seach lights there too. Hitting vehicles in assualt before they get to move is too fun!!.

Sample marine list I'm running has 2 units of scouts in mm storms. It also has an Ironclad in a drop pod.
My Sisters of Battle, the list that opened my eyes to Scout, is running 3 units of Dominions in twin linked mm immolators.



Having my opponent react to my moves is priceless. Dictating the flow of the game is important. Going first usaually means controling the middle first too. Priceless.

As a Daemon player I always like going second. Nothing like making your opponent waste an entire turn. The best part is that most opponents choose to go first which is exactly what I want.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

Ailaros wrote:42%?

Half the time the dice roll for 1st turn is lost and 1/6 times for stealing the init comes to just under 42% if you are planning an alpha strike.

But isn't the extra 8% cancelled out by the fact that about 8% of the time *you* steal the initiative and go first after being given second turn?

I think it's actually still 50%, even with initiative-stealing taken into account.

They are separate rolls, so you can't lump them into one percentile like that because one roll is conditional upon another. ie. its 50% to go first then 16% for the loser to seize. You can't split the difference because only the loser gets the chance to seize conditional upon losing.

Red Corsair wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

Ailaros wrote:42%?

Half the time the dice roll for 1st turn is lost and 1/6 times for stealing the init comes to just under 42% if you are planning an alpha strike.

But isn't the extra 8% cancelled out by the fact that about 8% of the time *you* steal the initiative and go first after being given second turn?

I think it's actually still 50%, even with initiative-stealing taken into account.

They are separate rolls, so you can't lump them into one percentile like that because one roll is conditional upon another. ie. its 50% to go first then 16% for the loser to seize. You can't split the difference because only the loser gets the chance to seize conditional upon losing.

Right, that's where the 8% comes from. As I understand it, this is the correct way to calculate probabilities on rerolls.

If you start out wanting to go first, you get it 50% of the time on the rolloff. That's the easy part.

Of the 50% that you win, in 16% of those instances your opponent will seize the initiative. Since the reroll only happens 50% of the time (when you win the first roll), that's only 8% of the total rolloffs over all that your opponent takes it away from you--50% of the 16%. So your total percent chance of going first, in Shadenfreude's calculation--is 42%.

I think this is pretty basic probability math for how to calculate die rolls that are contingent on other die rolls. This is how it's done for twin-linked weapons and Ld test rerolls.

But what I'm saying in addition to Schadenfreude's calculation, there's also the possibility that you--the player who wants to go first--will lose the rolloff and get stuck with second turn. Then you will seize the initiative and wind up with first turn anyway. The percentage chance of this happening for any given rolloff is, in fact, 8%.

So overall, your odds of getting first turn and then being seized are the same as your odds of getting second turn and seizing, so they cancel out. Even with the seizing rule, your odds of getting to go first if that's what you want are 50%.

It really depends on the strength of the army. For my Mech Tau, going first could mean the difference between making Tranport units foot-sloggers or having less manuevering space. When my Stalking Tigers were still up and about, second turn was better, because Mechanized units are usually drawn to the middle of the table and prime targets for outflanking Setinels with Autocannons.

ruminator wrote:* With a mainly reserves army the opponent then loses 2 not 1 turn of shooting

Certainly it makes sense to go second with an all-reserves army, but I would like to note that while your opponent loses 1 more turn of shooting than you, your opponent gets to deploy and move twice before you even get to deploy. Certainly this is ameliorated with hypermobile armies like eldar, but it's still a real drawback.

By the time you arrive, it's very possible that your opponent controls the entire field upon your arrival (especially if your reserve rolls go very poorly), which will make it an uphill battle, to say the least.

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote: it's impossible to 'not react'

Sure, but when you're proactive, you only need to react to what your opponent has left to force on you once he's done reacting. If you are able to get your opponent to be entirely reactive, then you won't ever, in fact, need to react. That's what Sun Tsu is saying when he says that he can defend a position with no more than a line in the sand. If your opponent can't attack you, then you don't need to defend.

I mean, more often than not, this is exactly why new 40k players tend to lose (other than wretched list composition). Newer players are more likely to be cautious, which means it's easy to just rush forward and push them into a corner. The more they react, the less they act, which means the less you need to react, which means the more you can act. By the end of the game, you've limited your opponent's moves to just reactions - you've limited his actions to the point of whichever he chooses, you still win.

This is why Imotehk is so powerful...
I can allow you to deploy, and based on how you deploy, I can choose to steal on a 4+ or not (unless you are Orks). Forget the Lightning... this is the real power of the Stormlord.

Anpu-adom wrote:This is why Imotehk is so powerful...
I can allow you to deploy, and based on how you deploy, I can choose to steal on a 4+ or not (unless you are Orks). Forget the Lightning... this is the real power of the Stormlord.

I agree. I think this ability is worth about the 90 points Imotekh is otherwise overpriced.

Mysticaria wrote:@Jihallah,

Sorry, the 2-pages of Sun Tsu quotes in front of the question threw me off a little. If this thread is just about going first or second, why quote so much Sun Tsu and why bold text those areas that you did? It seemed like you were trying to point out that going second has some support from The Art of War.

If the question is just about going first of second, the answer is pretty simple... depends on the army. Some armies are designed to go second (daemons, all reserve, etc..). There are others, the ones that deploy the majority of their forces on the table, that always want to go first (leafblower, etc..). Then there are the more rare, flexible armies, that can operate either way. Not every army can do this well, and not every player can design an army that does this well, but that seems to be the epitome of a flexible army. The Blood Angel army listed above is a good example of this type of army.

-Myst

Yes, I am looking for people's opinions on first and second- yes I realize this is a choice depending on the army. But here's the thing- I don't play every army. I don't have mates that play every army. I don't have people in my local area that play every permutation of every army; there are armies which I will potentially have to face in the future, either lists/strategies I've heard about or read people discussing, but I don't get to play vs them. So I'm trying to find out more about the competition, in a sense.
The other thing is...look at this thread. No one is saying "take this unit to win!" or "use this unit, will totally do the job for you!" The closest to that is "Imohtek is worth his points just for his 4+ initiative steal". People are talking about tactics. Instead of comparing units, or telling the OP to change his list and go buy a bunch of models they don't have so they can win, people are considering tactics. Not "How do I beat XXX army?" "unit YYY is smashing me! How do I beat it???" or "How do I beat X with Y???" "What equipment do I give my sarge", which comes to why I posted all that Sun Tzu- because It's a wealth of information which alot of posters here 1) might not have read 2) might not have analyzed, whilst I'm quite aware there are people who have- Take Ailaros, who picked up on my personal fav of what I posted-

Ailaros wrote:Actually, I think the most important part of this whole text block you quoted is...

Sun Tsu wrote:"If I wish to engage, the enemy... Cannot avoid the engagement;
I attack that which He is obliged To rescue.

This is more or less the essence of field command, at least in 40k. Good players are able to make it so that their opponents can't follow their own plans. When the most reasonable thing your opponent can do is what you want them to (using sacrificial units, they HAVE to deal with, threatening an objective, rather than a unit, etc.), then you're doing your job on the field.

I'm willing to bet there is a person out there who hasn't read the Art of War, or who isn't a armchair general like Ailaros or myself, who read this and thought it was interesting. In which case, Good. Job complete. I got at least one fool on dakka to think about tactics whilst reading the tactics forum, even if it is briefly.

God damn christmas time, I have to work again. I'll be back and hopefully can actually post something

Jihallah wrote:I'm willing to bet there is a person out there who hasn't read the Art of War, or who isn't a armchair general like Ailaros or myself

Lol, what about wretched fools like us for whom both is true?

You know, you'd think for how much thought has been put into fieldcraft, mankind would have come up with an easier way to explain it...

Ailaros wrote:
You know, you'd think for how much thought has been put into fieldcraft, mankind would have come up with an easier way to explain it...

"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more."
"Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable."
George S. Patton

sometimes you just need to know where to look

EDIT:




I really like this clip from Revolver, it really puts a different perspective on strategy. Or maybe you thought like this all along. You can definitely apply this to 40K and if you can actually pull it off... you're in business!

EDIT 2:

Here are a couple of quotes from Dune...

"When your opponent fears you, then's the moment when you give the fear its own rein, give it the time to work on him. Let it become terror. The terrified man fights himself. Eventually, he attacks in desperation. That is the most dangerous moment, but the terrified man can be trusted usually to make a fatal mistake. You are being trained here to detect these mistakes and use them"

Strategy is a funny thing, but it seems that the best strategies allow the opponent to defeat himself. Of course Sun Tzu is good, but I think it glosses over a lot of the psychological aspects inherent in strategy.

Ailaros wrote:You know, you'd think for how much thought has been put into fieldcraft, mankind would have come up with an easier way to explain it...

Do you think a bunch of cryptic maxims is the only and the best text book in tactics, especially to inform 40k tactics?

Fieldcraft is something different entirely.

MFletch wrote:Do you think a bunch of cryptic maxims is the only and the best text book in tactics, especially to inform 40k tactics?

I don't think anyone is saying that; but just to be clear, are you saying The Art of War is just "a bunch of cryptic maxims"?
I don't think that anything in the Art of war is 'cryptic', it's all pretty plainly stated.

Akaean wrote: I really like this clip from Revolver, it really puts a different perspective on strategy.

If anything is a 'bunch of cryptic maxims' it's that scene; mainly meaningless pseudo-platitudes strung together to sound like they meant something.


I don't think that dismissing Sun Tzu benefits you nearly as much as reading Sun Tzu.
Also on the required reading list for 40k, "A Book of Five Rings", "Sixteen Strategies of Zhuge Liang", and "On War" by Carl von Clausewitz.

junk wrote:

Akaean wrote: I really like this clip from Revolver, it really puts a different perspective on strategy.

If anything is a 'bunch of cryptic maxims' it's that scene; mainly meaningless pseudo-platitudes strung together to sound like they meant something.

The idea is simple enough, I've seen it used and talked about in 40K as well. Some of Fritz's videos actually use a very similar technique when he talks about Guardian Jetbikes.

Lets say there is a tactical space marine squad. I shoot at them from 12 inches with a Guardian Jetbike Squad, then scoot back 6 inches because Eldar Jetbikes are fun. The space marine can fire one shot and remain stationary, or they can move 6 inches and fire 2 shots in rapid fire. They need to use rapid fire to ultimately win the fire fight, of course they have the choice to do either. If he moves 6 inches to rapid fire. Guess what, the eldar player just "moved" a unit of space marines. Sure the Jetbikes will take some sever damage, but you also got to move an enemy unit 6 inches in the direction of your choosing. the question then becomes if you can get your opponents to move units how you want them, how do you capitalize on that?

Granted there are a lot of variables in a full game, but its still a useful trick, and illustrates the ideas well.

The concepts of baiting and trapping, and using a 'force' are solid and sound strategies. The random bunk like 'The more sophisticated the game, the more sophisticated the opponent' and 'the bigger the environment, the easier the opponent is to control', and similar crap is just irritating.

junk wrote:The concepts of baiting and trapping, and using a 'force' are solid and sound strategies. The random bunk like 'The more sophisticated the game, the more sophisticated the opponent' and 'the bigger the environment, the easier the opponent is to control', and similar crap is just irritating.

Amen to that brother, most the people who say that think themselves unbeatable. I just want to think I am but i know the horrible truth! Ultimately it's just knowing how to play the game and realizing most aspects than Orks, Nids, BA & SW rush while IG, Tau & Eldar Wait. These misconceptions are quickly obtained but rarely correct once you play enough games you start to see the patterns hopefully you play a forgiving enough army that you can have a learning curve in each match while trying to master your army.

Knowing some of the finer points like who has the advantage in set ups is harder to grasp and I respect that it took me forever to figure it out but you just need to stay focused on wanting to learn from a mistake after you make it, this the reason i prefer friendly games because you tend to learn more than you would with someone who is by the book and naggy, at least I do (normally i want to punch the dude out is why).

junk wrote:I don't think that anything in the Art of war is 'cryptic', it's all pretty plainly stated.

The five elements (water, fire, wood, metal, earth) are not always equally predominant;
the four seasons make way for each other in turn.
There are short days and long; the moon has its periods of waning and waxing.

A good example would be the passage at the start of this thread about no form and no sound. He is trying to describe Guerrilla warfare. Which is damn impressive, I think in War and Peace Tolstoy claims it was created by the retreat of Napoleon from Moscow. Communist leaders also seem to think the idea was theirs.
A modern text book would go to great lengths to describe clearly how and why to direct a Guerrilla campaign, here we are limited to a few bon mots. I'd rather have the full description than just a vague outline

The example of this passage then seems to connect to 40k as above about going second by taking phrases out the passage. But your opponent knows your list and should know your codex well enough, so to be without form and sound?
How the passage could be read more faithfully: why not try Guerrilla tactics, so let us play DoA BA list

I go second on a regular basis. Especially with my guard as then I am able to choose the fire arcs that allow me to reduce casualty rates. Something I've noticed is that players who've played stealer lists seem to get shell shock and castle in the centre of their deployment

Since I shifted to playing an army that can play effectively from full reserve, I've become a bigger and bigger fan of going second.

Once in a while, I even get someone who assumes I'll drop my entire army and deploys in a weird fashion that can't effectively attack on the first turn. Then I get to deploy everything except the Vanguards and start assaulting on the 2nd turn rather than the 3rd.

Either way, regaining the initiative after conceding it by going second is always a tough thing to do. It tends to require extremely aggressive and well thought out play that puts an opponent into a situation where he has to start reacting, while simultaneously reacting to contain the effects of the last turn.

I deploy as defensively as possible while maintaining as much offensive capability as I can... going first or second means little to me. Sure, I am flying around in paper airplanes... that makes speeding into a combat ready position much easier. All the same, I don't really care much if I go first or second. I'm still going to take your people as slaves.

With my Eldar always first turn - you have to cut your oponent quick, if not you are in a world of hurt. Orks you need to counter deploy or you wont get thr right troops in the right faces so second every time.

I go first or second ( given the chance ) depending on what army I play, for example against khorne demons I'll go second so I can get my army where it is needed which is easy with dark eldar. However, against tank armies I will go first and destroy some tanks with dark lances, blasters etc...
So in my opinion there is no reason to say 'I always go second' as that could give you a disadvantage.

Personally with whatever army I use, I like to run a relatively balanced Take All Comers list that's a good mix of vehicles, shooting and CC units (the exception being my Tau because well.. Tau), that's happy going first or second.

I also tend to deploy in a fairly similar manner whether I'm going first or second as even if I go first I work on the assumption that my opponent will steal the initiative, deploying in or behind cover, generally I'll have enough vehicles that I can move into a decent firing position at will.

By denying my opponent early targets and forcing them to move into the open I both reduce casulties and maximise my targets.

Alternatively leaving something relatively hardy / 'scary' in 'plain sight' to force enemy units into a set firing arc is good.

Either way forcing your opponent to play your game is generally key.