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.

 Spellbound wrote:
I too feel like 6th edition comes down to first blood, and I really hate that.

I think first blood should go to the one that destroys a unit but doesn't lose a unit to the enemy on the following player turn. This way, both armies have a chance to kill something but until someone actually gets an upper hand tactically, no reward is given.

It may mean that first blood is not granted until the end of the game, but at least then both players can strive to do damage whenever possible and only when someone actually gains the upper hand (via doing damage and avoiding return damage, not a frickin' die roll) do they get rewarded for it.

It would also eliminate tricksy "I'm gonna seize initiative and blow you away!" lists that plan around always getting first blood.

How is playing for first blood different than going second on purpose to snatch objectives? Without first blood, there would be no reason to go first in an objective game.

I took second with perfect battle points in our monthly RTT and first blood was scored on turn 2, turn 3, and turn 2 respectively in my games, and none of them were within a single point as to make FB actually matter. I think people overreact to the first blood mechanic and allow it to effect their list construction and gameplay in a negative fashion.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
I too feel like 6th edition comes down to first blood, and I really hate that.

I think first blood should go to the one that destroys a unit but doesn't lose a unit to the enemy on the following player turn. This way, both armies have a chance to kill something but until someone actually gets an upper hand tactically, no reward is given.

It may mean that first blood is not granted until the end of the game, but at least then both players can strive to do damage whenever possible and only when someone actually gains the upper hand (via doing damage and avoiding return damage, not a frickin' die roll) do they get rewarded for it.

It would also eliminate tricksy "I'm gonna seize initiative and blow you away!" lists that plan around always getting first blood.

How is playing for first blood different than going second on purpose to snatch objectives? Without first blood, there would be no reason to go first in an objective game.

I took second with perfect battle points in our monthly RTT and first blood was scored on turn 2, turn 3, and turn 2 respectively in my games, and none of them were within a single point as to make FB actually matter. I think people overreact to the first blood mechanic and allow it to effect their list construction and gameplay in a negative fashion.

I totally agree. First Blood is over-rated. Most games I have are not close enough for secondaries to matter.

Also there are plenty of ways to get around that. If you play the Bay Area Open format with a primary book mission and secondary book mission, the BRB secondaries rarely come into play.

My friends and I in Seattle usually play the TSHFT format. The primary mission is the only one that determines the winner, the rest are just battle points. By making The Emperor's will a 3 objective mission, you remove a high chance for a tie.

If First Blood is what determines the majority of your games then you're playing in an environment where you're ok with that. There are countless ways to adjust the mission parameters to prevent it from happening.

I suppose you could house rule away first blood, but that doesn't change its significance. It's pretty easy to be able to force a draw on most games and if you build your army specifically to win on secondaries, you can win plenty of games just by building to win first blood.

I mean, I've had my fair share of games that were basically over turn 2 or 3, but those have largely been in cases where the luck discrepancy between the two players was pretty broad, and nothing, secondaries or no, was going to stop them from being tabled. Of course, you stand less of a chance of being tabled if you spend more of your points on good units, and less on worthless scoring units.

hyv3mynd wrote:Without first blood, there would be no reason to go first in an objective game.

This is completely untrue. Having the ability to prevent your opponents units from doing anything is huge, and casualties early in the game cascade down through the rest of the game as disadvantage.

Tell me just how useful going second is going to be if your opponent blows 1/3 of your army off the table at the top of turn 1? 40k is a game about killing units and, once you've beaten your opponent, sauntering on to objectives. Treating it any other way means that you're going to have lots of rag-tag units left at the end of the game meaning that it will devolve into a contesting-objectives fight, which means it will likely roll over to secondaries, which means whoever got first blood wins the game.

Spellbound wrote:I too feel like 6th edition comes down to first blood, and I really hate that.

It's been kind of funny to watch at the FLGS over the year 6th ed has been out. Slowly but surely, people have been pruning back troops choices until they have just enough to not lose on those few mission combinations where objectives actually matter, and have been putting the rest into support units - most notably those who don't give first blood. IG players moving towards russ spam, ravenwing players becoming deathwing players, demons going to hordes + MCs, etc.

It's almost like 4th edition, actually. The focus of your list is on lots of killing power and, more importantly, lots of by-unit durability. I know I'm not the only one noticing a gradual chiseling away at MSU armies either.

MarsNZ wrote:VotLW only counts by model, IC's do not share it with units they join. Not sure if I read this correctly but it seemed you were applying VotLW to the Bezerkers as well.

Oh no, you're right. I REALLY thought it was a unit with a model, like most upgrade special rules, not each model with the special rule. Don't I feel foolish.

At least this mistake only actually happened once (berzerkers vs. the vehicles), but it does raise more serious questions over list building, though. I liked it for my ICs quite a bit, but, on fearless units with lots of attacks, it does kind of raise the question of if its worth the cost...

 Ailaros wrote:

zoat wrote:A question for you list: Where will you put your characters if you infiltrate all three big units?

I think deploying the lord with the infiltrating termies as you did is illegal (last paragraph of the Infiltrate entry in the rulebook).

Oh, you're right.

Hmm...

I suppose in this game it would have been all right, as I would have put the khorne lord way over to the left with the berzerkers, and he would have just hopped in with the termies turn 1, but that does present a rather serious problem. Either I'm going to have to have squads without HQs, or fewer infiltrating units, because I'm going to have to waste one of my D3 on also giving the HQ infiltration.

That or bring along an extra unit (like the havocs in this case) to house the ICs so that if everything else infiltrates, they can still at least deploy on the table in a squad.

Hmm, this is actually a rather tricky problem, though...

This has been a problem for me whenever I've tried to work a Huron list. Without characters infiltrating with the squads the options seem very limited. I'm never sure where Huron should go. I've considered putting Huron in a large cultist squad with 3 flamers so they can outflank and cause a lot of damage

 Ailaros wrote:
I suppose you could house rule away first blood, but that doesn't change its significance. It's pretty easy to be able to force a draw on most games and if you build your army specifically to win on secondaries, you can win plenty of games just by building to win first blood.

I mean, I've had my fair share of games that were basically over turn 2 or 3, but those have largely been in cases where the luck discrepancy between the two players was pretty broad, and nothing, secondaries or no, was going to stop them from being tabled. Of course, you stand less of a chance of being tabled if you spend more of your points on good units, and less on worthless scoring units.

hyv3mynd wrote:Without first blood, there would be no reason to go first in an objective game.

This is completely untrue. Having the ability to prevent your opponents units from doing anything is huge, and casualties early in the game cascade down through the rest of the game as disadvantage.

Tell me just how useful going second is going to be if your opponent blows 1/3 of your army off the table at the top of turn 1? 40k is a game about killing units and, once you've beaten your opponent, sauntering on to objectives. Treating it any other way means that you're going to have lots of rag-tag units left at the end of the game meaning that it will devolve into a contesting-objectives fight, which means it will likely roll over to secondaries, which means whoever got first blood wins the game.

Spellbound wrote:I too feel like 6th edition comes down to first blood, and I really hate that.

It's been kind of funny to watch at the FLGS over the year 6th ed has been out. Slowly but surely, people have been pruning back troops choices until they have just enough to not lose on those few mission combinations where objectives actually matter, and have been putting the rest into support units - most notably those who don't give first blood. IG players moving towards russ spam, ravenwing players becoming deathwing players, demons going to hordes + MCs, etc.

It's almost like 4th edition, actually. The focus of your list is on lots of killing power and, more importantly, lots of by-unit durability. I know I'm not the only one noticing a gradual chiseling away at MSU armies either.

MarsNZ wrote:VotLW only counts by model, IC's do not share it with units they join. Not sure if I read this correctly but it seemed you were applying VotLW to the Bezerkers as well.

Oh no, you're right. I REALLY thought it was a unit with a model, like most upgrade special rules, not each model with the special rule. Don't I feel foolish.

At least this mistake only actually happened once (berzerkers vs. the vehicles), but it does raise more serious questions over list building, though. I liked it for my ICs quite a bit, but, on fearless units with lots of attacks, it does kind of raise the question of if its worth the cost...

Will have to agree to disagree. I've never lost 1/3 of my army in the first turn since 6th dropped. If you're presented an army list, can pre-measure anything at any time, play on adequate terrain; and have the restraint to reserve key units when necessary, this just doesn't happen IME. In fact I cannot recall ever losing more than one unit during the first turn since 6th was released, let alone a large percentage of my army.

Seems like differences in local meta really. Around here, games almost always come down to first blood. We struggle to try for linebreaker so that we can get ties against those that got first blood against us. Seems there's not much other option.

And for some armies it just makes taking vehicles pointless. You took a rhino? You went second? Thanks for the free victory point.

Not all terrain blocks LOS and around here, being able to see 1/4 inch of hull around the corner of a building means you're visible and get a 5+ cover save, congrats.

Glad to Know Ailaros will still be making batreps. Unfortunately, he seems to have turned into some kind of heretic, so I will be rooting for all the Imperial (specifically IG players) he plays. CRUSH THIS TRAITOR!

In all seriousness, I will be eagerly looking forward to the new all foot lists coming out of his bat reps. But now someone has to pick up the mantle of dakka's resident IG batrep maker...

lol. Even if I'd lost all my soldiers or failed to get some objectives, it wouldn't matter, Khorne still wins. The only way to beat him is not to fight.

As for guard battle reports while I'm on hiatus, I'd ask gordy2000 nicely to make some more. I always liked his.