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.

 TheKbob wrote:
Easy rule of thumb:

Standard mission type means going second is more likely to win. This trend was seen in 6E for tournaments using the typical "score at the end of the game" style missions. You get the last say, which can be more critical than the first volley.

Maelstrom mission type means going first is more likely to win. You'll get first right at scoring cards unimpeded, more so if you play something like Eldar which can do a bunch of things first turn to mess with your opponent thanks to ridiculous speaks of objective secured units (wave serpents, jetbikes).

I expect the trend from 6E with the standard book missions and the few experiments in controlled maelstrom missions to make this the case.

I have a feeling Eldar will lose a lot of their OS power when new Codex come around. I look at how nuts the Ork codex was before the new one came out. Scoring bikes and walkers was crazy in itself, scoring mega nobz or nobz? Not as crazy but still darn good. People might expect their ability to fiddle with FoC to fade into non existence soon, and rely on their actual troops.

 TheKbob wrote:
Easy rule of thumb:

Standard mission type means going second is more likely to win. This trend was seen in 6E for tournaments using the typical "score at the end of the game" style missions. You get the last say, which can be more critical than the first volley.

Maelstrom mission type means going first is more likely to win. You'll get first right at scoring cards unimpeded, more so if you play something like Eldar which can do a bunch of things first turn to mess with your opponent thanks to ridiculous speaks of objective secured units (wave serpents, jetbikes).

I expect the trend from 6E with the standard book missions and the few experiments in controlled maelstrom missions to make this the case.

Don't have the BRB with me, but IRC the maelstrom objectives are scored at the end of the game turn, making going second a really nice boon.

I would have to say probably not.

Recently played a 1500 pt. game with a friend (Chaos vs. Grey Knights.) I said he could go first as part of my strategy and in either the first or second turn he said the game would come down to when his flyer came in. It came in on the second but was still a close game.

Nah. Going first isn't that big of a deal.

But given Warhammers boring-stupid turn system if you know you're going second you might as well just set up, leave a friend there to make sure your opponent doesn't cheat, and go buy yourself a snack and go take a walk around downtown. Come back thirty minutes later and maybe your opponent will have finished his turn.

I've lost count how many games I've seen Tau armies win with a
top of turn 1 alpha strike. Its pretty lame, I generally steer clear of Tau players when dropping by for a fun game. All they do is castle up and play yahtzee.

 jreilly89 wrote:
So I've played and watch a couple games and for some armies it seems like being able to go first is mandatory for their victory. There are some games I feel I definitely would have won had I gone first. Do you have similar thoughts?

I always liked going last for end of game objective contesting/stealing.

With the Maelstrom rules, it's not as important, I guess.

Also, if you're getting pounded that hard on turn 1, your table probably needs a LOT more terrain.

Happy hunting!

 kronk wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Also, if you're getting pounded that hard on turn 1, your table probably needs a LOT more terrain.

Happy hunting!

Yep. I just really dislike Tau, but now I have a bunch of CC to shove in his face

Spoletta wrote:


Don't have the BRB with me, but IRC the maelstrom objectives are scored at the end of the game turn, making going second a really nice boon.

It is player turn, and only that player scores.

 Moktor wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Don't have the BRB with me, but IRC the maelstrom objectives are scored at the end of the game turn, making going second a really nice boon.

It is player turn, and only that player scores.

BAO has modified Maelstrom thats scored at the end of game turn but regular brb has, it on player turn.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: what many of the others have said.

A lot of variables based on mission, your army, their army, you list concept, etc.

But overall, NO.

Yep, I hate going first. Hate it a lot. Going second, I have lost a total of one time in 7th edition, and that was on a rules mistake that prevented me from winning. Going first, on the other hand, I have much less success.

Going second is a slight disadvantage because it wastes my markerlights for a turn due to snapfire, since I have to keep the pathfinders hidden until my turn. Mostly my army doesn't mind it though, since I run a lot of high sv units and throw everything not high sv in a box or behind los cover. A fun trick against non arty is to put pfinders and fwarriors in cover behind low cover and put a vehicle in front of that. Bam! DIY los block. D-Pods make killing anything with an AV brutal, especially when I get to deploy second. Always deploy your bawkses obscured or behind something.

I think going first has the obvious advantage because of First Blood being a victory point. Never really understood why that was worth a point.

The power of going first is often determined by the table, terrain, deployment, and what armies are there.

Sometimes the power of going second is more of an advantage towards winning.

Many armies can get away with deploying few things behind LOS blocking cover so the player going first has very little firing or none if they choose to try and go for first blood, often this ends with the player exposing themselves for the player going second to get first blood.

Depends on my list:

White Scar Bikes... yes... if I don't go first, I'm in a little trouble. Saturday I played in a 3 round tourney. 1st round I went second, lost primary and secondary missions (admittedly, without a poor dice roll and one stupid mistake on my part I might have been able to force a draw, but that's as good as it could have got). On the following two rounds I went first and took maximum points and 1 shy of maximum points. So yeah, going first was huge there.

Drop pods and gunlines... I want to go last. Let me make the last turn grabs/contests. It also forces my opponent to basically waste a turn trying to guess what I'm going to do to him.

Holistically second > first... but in something like a gun-line v gun-line game or a list built on a in close alpha strike, yeah, you want to go first.

 Lobukia wrote:
Depends on my list:

White Scar Bikes... yes... if I don't go first, I'm in a little trouble. Saturday I played in a 3 round tourney. 1st round I went second, lost primary and secondary missions (admittedly, without a poor dice roll and one stupid mistake on my part I might have been able to force a draw, but that's as good as it could have got). On the following two rounds I went first and took maximum points and 1 shy of maximum points. So yeah, going first was huge there.

Drop pods and gunlines... I want to go last. Let me make the last turn grabs/contests. It also forces my opponent to basically waste a turn trying to guess what I'm going to do to him.

Holistically second > first... but in something like a gun-line v gun-line game or a list built on a in close alpha strike, yeah, you want to go first.

QFT, I primarily play drop pod crimson fists, and if I go first I'm not using my first 4 pods to their utmost advantage. I want my opponent to have to worry about opening up a weak link anywhere in their defenses while trying to somehow do a little offense.

I've played only a few games, but I don't think it's mandatory.