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've noticed amongst friends and fellow gamers that, unless they have a specific reason to go second, most people prefer to go first. Indeed, alot of people it seems look at it in a very negative light, like something bad has just happened. I know its a fair mouthful, but I'll quote some Sun Tzu here-

"The skilful Warrior attacks
So that the enemy
Cannot defend;
He defends
So that the enemy
Cannot attack.

Oh, Subtlety of subtleties!
Without form!
Oh, mystery of mysteries!
Without sound!
He is master of
His enemy's fate.

He advances
Irresistibly
Attacking emptiness

He retreats,
Eluding pursuit,
Too swift
To be overtaken"

Then it gets really interesting

"If I wish to engage,
Then the enemy,
For all his high ramparts
And deep moat,
Cannot avoid the engagement;
I attack that which
He is obliged
To rescue.

If I do not wish to engage,
I can hold my ground
with nothing more than a line
Drawn around it.
The enemy cannot
Engage me
In combat,
I distract him
In a different direction

His form is visible,
But I am
Formless,
I am concentrated
He is divided

I am concentrated
Into one,
He is divided
Into ten.
I am
Ten
To his one;
Many
Against
His few.

Attack few with many,
And my opponent
Will be weak.

The place I intend to attack
Must not be known;
If it is unknown,
The enemy will have to
Reinforce many place,
But I shall attack
Few.

By reinforcing his vanguard,
He weakens his rear;
By reinforcing his rear,
He weakens his vanguard.
By reinforcing his right flank,
He weakens his left;
By reinforcing his left,
He weakens his right.
By reinforcing every part,
He weakens every part

Weakness
Stems from
Preparing against attack.
Strength
Stems from
Obliging the enemy
To prepare against an attack"

So what can we learn from this 2000+ year old military manual that we can apply to 40k? I find the strongest point the to be counter-deployment. In a pitched battle, an opponent may make the mistake of spreading his forces across his deployment zone. This enables you to deny him the flank- a popular tactic is to "anchor" a flank, to deny the opponents use of that area, or to attempt a sort-of Bulls horn maneuver, generally more of a "come into the teeth of my guns" than "pin them down with Impi and flank and encircle the buggers" . If the opponent anchors both flanks, he has reinforced every part. Attacking few with many, by heavily assaulting the weaker of the two flanks, means the other flank is cut off from the real battle, denying their ability to impact on the game, allowing you to concentrate your many against the few at the flank, and then move into the middle.

For me, counter-deploying is just as advantageous as choosing my side of the board. Now, in 40k we have a bunch of different factors that can impede this, of course- Armies built around alpha strikes whose alpha strike you'd rather not eat, a table with a horrible bias towards one deployment zone, or you yourself have a alpha strike army. This also might be due to my admitted bias too, playing mech armies and having a strong philosophy of flexibility in my armies- and I play daemons, which is a whole different cup o' tea

I would like to hear some folk's opinions on going 2nd, counter deployment, and the choice when you win the roll off- when do you choose to go first and pick your side, or force the opponent to go first? and why? I am more interested in hearing the opinions of "normal" armies, not things like full drop pod SM lists etc, but please, do share

Honestly, I'll always go 2nd, given the chance. Counter-deployment is key for me, I'll try to hide my units behind LOS blocking terrain, or neutralize a dangerous unit by deploying far away from it. More importantly, if I go 2nd then that means I'm going to get the last turn, and that can change the outcome of the game.

This is exactly the reason why I think people underestimate reactive deployment - and the reason commanders that allow you a bonus to seize initiative are so valuable.

I think it is summed up fairly well by

"To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."

Deploying first, while it lets you secure key strategic points, loses it's advantage if your opponent denies you the benefit of those points.

The new Necron codex provides a number of tools unavailable to other armies that convey a massive strategic advantage; Grand Illusion, Solar Pulse, and Imotekh's seize/night fight. In fact, the necrons have so many ways to affect the grand strategy of the game, that, IMO, it makes up for any percieved deficiencies in their units.

Grey Knights also have an advantage in this regard, by having the ability to deep strike their entire army and use warp quake to prevent deep strike; along with a balance of shooting and assault that sits on a razors edge.

Drop pod generals know the importance of taking advantage of your enemies' deployment, even if they haven't read Art of War. If you're drawn to drop pod armies, it's likely because you see the truth in this.

The same reasoning works against daemons, because they have limited defensive options due to the restrictions of their deployment mechanism. A consequence being that Daemons are always unpredictable.

Tau will always benefit from reactive deployment as a condition of the fact they are more effective at long range than most other armies, I'll rarely choose first turn with my tau.

Agreed; that some armies force you to play with a fixed strategy, with a static optimal deployment, and rely on massive resilience or pure aggression to win. I.E. Venom Spam Dark eldar are the horse archers of 40k; Mech-guard are the heavy cavalry; both favor specific deployment styles.

my blood angels army is a hybrid list... jump marines, baal predators, a storm raven, and 2 heavy predators.

I'm every bit as effective coming in from reserves as I am advancing behind my main tank line. If I go second, I'll just outflank the baals, deepstrike the infantry, and bring the tanks / stormraven in from my edge moving flat out to catch up to the main assault force.

Horst wrote:my blood angels army is a hybrid list... jump marines, baal predators, a storm raven, and 2 heavy predators.

I'm every bit as effective coming in from reserves as I am advancing behind my main tank line. If I go second, I'll just outflank the baals, deepstrike the infantry, and bring the tanks / stormraven in from my edge moving flat out to catch up to the main assault force.

THAT sounds flexible! Good to see people advocating the 2nd turn deployment.

Would anyone agree with the idea, that an army that wants to go first and feels the need to go first is an inflexible force that's at a disadvantage? I don't play Alpha strike armies, but it seems you want some flex in such an army.

Jihallah wrote:
Would anyone agree with the idea, that an army that wants to go first and feels the need to go first is an inflexible force that's at a disadvantage? I don't play Alpha strike armies, but it seems you want some flex in such an army.

A good alpha strike list requires flexibility in order to actually achieve the alpha strike; just because you have an alpha strike list, doesn't mean you can only win via alpha strike; if it NEEDS the alpha strike to pull out the W, then yes, it is at a disadvantage - but an alpha strike list that has either extreme mobility or strong long range shooting can be applied well in direct aggression, or surgical strikes.

You can have alpha strike reserve lists as well.

3 squads of 10 vanguard, for example, is something I'd consider an alpha strike.

As an Eldar player, I know well the value of deploying 2nd. With high mobility, good long and mid range shooting and an Autarch commander, I can play all sorts of tactical games. My favourite is deploying everything in reserve, although that largely depends on what sort of army I'm playing. For instance, I wouldn't want to let a specially assaulty army control the mid of the board, unless they can't afford to split up(like a Battlewagon spam Orks) and I have the speed to outrun them.

One of the reasons I like 40k is that its games are equal parts shrewd list-building, clever deploying(at the start and throughout the game) and luck. Games against competent opponents are won by recognizing an error in your opponent's list or tactics and capitalizing on that error, creating a situation where your opponent just doesn't have a counter to the situation you've created. Even the best generals will sometimes make mistakes, but that in itself matters little if their opponents don't notice.

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.

This is especially true for units and weapons that have to have really good circumstances to really shine.

Anyways, as for going second and Sun Tsu. The problem here is that it cuts both ways. Yes, if you go second, you get to react to your opponent's deployment, but at the same time, your first turn is going to be spent reacting to your opponent's first turn. What you gain by being able to react to your opponent's deployment, you lose by being forced to react to your opponent's movement phase. Your opponent dictates the tempo and direction early game. After all, your opponent is getting first crack at attacking you in places you are obliged to rescue. He also gets first crack at your stuff with long-range shooting, which means you might well find yourself having to react to his shooting phase as well.

Yes, the deployment phase is important, but it's not all that much more important than the first turn of the game. At best, you're talking about a wash, and worse if your opponent is really fast.

The same tends to trickle down to other things as well. Yes, going second means your reserves come in after his do, but the trade off is that their reserves get to attack you pre-emptively, and you're forced to react. For example, perhaps you would have liked to deepstrike something near something else, but because of your opponent's actions, you're forced to deepstrike next to his deepstrikers instead. Likewise, going second means you get to sneak onto objectives at the end of the game, but because your opponent got to move first, it's more likely that you're going to have to sneak onto your own objective in a defensive, reactionary manner.

Defense and reactivity can be powerful tools, but certainly so is taking the initiative and controlling both gravity and tempo of a battle early on.

If anything, the whole "formless offense" thing of Sun Tsu is really just saying "take deepstrikers and outflankers", much moreso than "take the bottom of turn 1 rather than the top".

On a personal note, I always take turn 1 where I can get it. I'm smart enough not to spread my forces out farther than I can adequately concentrate them by turn 3, for example, so deployment shenannigans don't bother me too much. Plus, on objectives games it's not like you don't know exactly which parts of the board are going to be of strategic value (and thus where your opponent will be deploying, even with second deployment). Even without much in the way of long-range firepower, being able to move my troops up so that the fighting happens on THEIR side of the board, and generally forcing my opponent to react to me has more than made up for any advantages of deploying second.

There are a few exceptions of course. For example, if I'm going all-reserve, I'll want my opponent to take the first turn, or if my opponent is a chronic all-reserver, I'll try to force him to take the top of one so that I'll get an extra turn to engage. Otherwise, unless I've got some specific trick up my sleeve (which happens on rare occasion), going first is always better.

If it weren't, there wouldn't be a "Seize the initiative" rule.

Against eldar or other jumpy armies I always go second. Otherwise I have no way getting those last turn objective grabbers away from objectives.

I prefer to go second as it's really more of an advantage over going first from how I see it. Though I mostly learnt and practiced strategy by using Eldar and they seem to love going second.

It truely depends on your army comp, the army comp of your opponenent, and the terrain on the table. Sometimes, the terrain itself will force you to want to go first, simply to take advantage of terrain (cover,fire-lanes, etc.), or perhaps simply to deny a deployment zone that is very advantageous to your opponents list. However, usualy, it is the lits involved that influence the decision the most.

For example, with my Mech-guard, I typically only choose tyo go second, if I am up against a drop/reserve army, and start in reserve to ocunter his drops/reserves. Aganist almost evertyhing else, I try to go first, because my deployment choices are limited, and I want my guns blasting away early.

This is even more true with my Kanwall. There is rarely a reason to go second with a kannwall, since your deployment is almost completely set in stone. Everything has a sepcific place in order to make the most out of 2 KFFs, and there is little room for deviation.

My eldar lists, however, typically prefer going second. This is even more true for my Saim-hann list, which not only wants to go second, but almost always starts in reserve and makes use of the Autarch. This changes if I am up aganst a farily static army with little CC capablilty. Then I want my Jetseer Council going first and getting stuck in as soon as possible, espcially since there is little chance of such an opponent out-manueavring me.

Additionaly, no matter what army I am using, if my opponent has the ability to enhance his chances of siezing, I usually opt for going second. There is no point in letting my opponnet respond to my deployment and giving him a solid chance of drawing first blood, as well, unless the choice of deployment zones can heavily alter the game.

All in all, every matchup is different. Sometimes it is the better part of valor to go second, to gain reactive deployment and guarantee yourself the last turn of the game. Other times, it is far more advantageous to be aggressive and force your opponent to react to your deployment, while having the opportunity to cripple his force before he even gets to go, and also dictatting the ground on which the battle is fought, by chosing the deployment zones. It is all about comparing your army's comp to that of your opponent, considering the mission (KP or objective) at hand, understanding the effects of terrain on both lists, and then drawing the best conclusion.

The main benefit of Sieze the Initiative isn't the fact that you go first, its that your opponent is now set up for his own idea of turn one that now will not occur. If they get overconfident they may well have left a lot of their kit hanging out on the assumption that you can't shoot it before they can move into a better position.

Flinty wrote:The main benefit of Sieze the Initiative isn't the fact that you go first, its that your opponent is now set up for his own idea of turn one that now will not occur. If they get overconfident they may well have left a lot of their kit hanging out on the assumption that you can't shoot it before they can move into a better position.

Umm..yeah...going first after your opponent is already deployed to go first is the ENTIRE benefit.

Whether your opponent overextended himself or not, getting to go first after already having the benefit of reactively deploying is a huge advantage. You already had the optimal deployment against your opponenant and now you have to opportunity to make the most of it. In addition, you have now successfully disrupted your opponent's plan and are forcing him to react to yours.

To be honest, I hate reacting to my opponent in any way, shape or form. I play a pod heavy Salamanders force, and if they make me go first and I pod my stuff in whilst they are in reserve, then I have my whole force ready for them whilst they come in peicemeal. (obv guard and BA/GK can get round this, but it still applies to an extent). If they set up on the board then excellent, I can start killing them earlier.

With my CSM and DE I also prefer going first, i want to cripple my opponent's mobility so I can get my heavy hitting CC guys in position. I have had very bad expereinces of keeping my raiders and venoms in reserve, and I tend to always want to move and shoot before my opponent.

So in relation to this thread, perhaps I am not a great student of the venerable Sun Tzu

I go second...alot, because I play daemons mostly.

If ever I play people with my daemons and they take first turn by choice I always ask them if they have played daemons before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do however prefer 1st strike with my DE.

Caranthir987 wrote:To be honest, I hate reacting to my opponent in any way, shape or form. I play a pod heavy Salamanders force, and if they make me go first and I pod my stuff in whilst they are in reserve, then I have my whole force ready for them whilst they come in peicemeal. (obv guard and BA/GK can get round this, but it still applies to an extent). If they set up on the board then excellent, I can start killing them earlier.

With my CSM and DE I also prefer going first, i want to cripple my opponent's mobility so I can get my heavy hitting CC guys in position. I have had very bad expereinces of keeping my raiders and venoms in reserve, and I tend to always want to move and shoot before my opponent.

So in relation to this thread, perhaps I am not a great student of the venerable Sun Tzu

1st - I don't mean to hijack, but Caranthir, would you mind checking in on my most recent post in the wraithwing thread? I'm about to go up against a 7 drop pod sternguard heavy army, and your input would be appreciated.

2nd- I think Sun Tzu would approve of drop pods. Wow, I never thought i'd type that string of words in my life. They are the ultimate in fluid deployment. The most incredible battle I'd ever seen was between two drop pod armies, it helped that both players were excellent, and I was learning the game at the time, so both of them talked me through every decision they made. It made me love 40k specifically because the tactical potential was so rich and complex.

Formless offense is basically being unpredictable and building off the principle of all war is deception.

If you want to take anything from the art of war keep in mind the principle of strategic goals being important than tactical victories, especially when playing objective based games. That being said going 2nd is a huge advantage in an objective based game.

I love the quoting a war text book then deciding not to use terms like double envelopment or refuse flank, essentially war text books have rewritten the same words for years so why not use a more modern book which deals with combined warfare for example. Interestingly I think Sun warns against your bull horn manoeuvre

I took bits of the text to mean not deploying at all. Which when going second can work very well. It essentially denies the opponent a whole turn, as they try to guess your moves like sun describes. If you are careful how you come on and if you have a lot relentless models then you can make up for the reduced force available to you.

Alerian wrote:and also dictatting the ground on which the battle is fought, by chosing the deployment zones.

Oh, I forgot about this. Picking your deployment zone can be HUGE. Not only do you get the choicest terrain for your plans, but you can screw up your opponent's plans as well. Your opponent may get to deploy second, but you have the ability to stick him in the table quarter that has a huge building that obscures LOS in such a way where he has to split up his long-range shooters so that he can cover both fire lanes, for example. If anything, there are as many deployment shenannigans for taking first turn and deciding your opponent's DZ for them as there is in going second, especially in dawn of war missions.

I hate to dig up the Prussian here, but CVC himself notes that the advantage of defense is that you can always be strong where your opponent is weak, and you have the ability to put the right forces in the right place at the right time, but still offense is better because you get to decide what your enemy does, as he is forced to react to your plans, and always have your forces concentrated where you want them.

On the defense, your reading of Sun Tsu, sounds like "water warrior" talk, while on the offense, it's really just saying play with fast units and deepstrikers, and be generally unpredictable. If anything, on offense, Sun Tsu is actually "take first turn, and never let your opponent forget it"

The whole chapter quoted can really be boiled down to "behave in such a way where your opponent is forced to react to you". Your opponent can't attack your weakly held position if he's forced to rescue his own forces from attack. Your opponent can't stop your attack if you've forced him to get bogged down with a decoy elsewhere. Etc.

So, the question is, what is the best way to take and hold the initiative? It seems to me that going first, even if you have to react to your opponent somewhat on turn 1, still gives you more power, as I've yet to come across a game where I went first and 100% of my movement and shooting was just to react to where my opponent deployed. Usually my overall plans are robust enough to handle second deployment craziness with some left to spare.

Unless, of course, you're an all-reserver or have something sneaky, in which case, take second.

I always liked Sun Tzu

Good analysis on this topic.

I've always been a reactionary based player, much more keen on defence than offence. As such I often will want to go second over first, mainly to see their deployment and for a solid counter deployment, but also so I can further react to how he is going to play out the game.

Pretty much sums up The Principles of War. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_War

Specifically, the principles of Mass, Manuever, Initiative.... and some Objective, Surprise, and Security.

You should be using all of these principles in every battle, not just trying to limit it to a simple "should I go first or second?" question.

In general, I think Sun Tsu wants to go first since he'll be able to better use initive, mass, objective, manuever, etc... The only time he wants to go second is if he's playing "all reserve".

-Myst

Mysticaria wrote:Pretty much sums up The Principles of War. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_War

Specifically, the principles of Mass, Manuever, Initiative.... and some Objective, Surprise, and Security.

You should be using all of these principles in every battle, not just trying to limit it to a simple "should I go first or second?" question.

In general, I think Sun Tsu wants to go first since he'll be able to better use initive, mass, objective, manuever, etc... The only time he wants to go second is if he's playing "all reserve".

-Myst

I think you've missed the point of the thread. This isn't a thread about Sun Tzu, Sun Tzu is just to help get the ball rolling- although I believe Sun Tzu would choose either, being the master of the Crooked and the Straight . This is about going second. Of course the principles laid out in the art of war should be applied to every battle- that is a given. This is simply focusing on one part of the battle/game, going second, and peoples opinions on it.

junk wrote:

2nd- I think Sun Tzu would approve of drop pods. Wow, I never thought i'd type that string of words in my life. They are the ultimate in fluid deployment.

Shame when you drop down your on foot from that point forward. Drop pods are fluid in deployment, but once they are there they ain't going anywhere too quick- which is why drop pod placement is so important (outside of what your going to hit, whats going to hit back, what is this going to make/force the opponent to do etc)

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.

This is especially true for units and weapons that have to have really good circumstances to really shine.

Anyways, as for going second and Sun Tsu. The problem here is that it cuts both ways. Yes, if you go second, you get to react to your opponent's deployment, but at the same time, your first turn is going to be spent reacting to your opponent's first turn. What you gain by being able to react to your opponent's deployment, you lose by being forced to react to your opponent's movement phase. Your opponent dictates the tempo and direction early game. After all, your opponent is getting first crack at attacking you in places you are obliged to rescue. He also gets first crack at your stuff with long-range shooting, which means you might well find yourself having to react to his shooting phase as well.

Yes, the deployment phase is important, but it's not all that much more important than the first turn of the game. At best, you're talking about a wash, and worse if your opponent is really fast.

The same tends to trickle down to other things as well. Yes, going second means your reserves come in after his do, but the trade off is that their reserves get to attack you pre-emptively, and you're forced to react. For example, perhaps you would have liked to deepstrike something near something else, but because of your opponent's actions, you're forced to deepstrike next to his deepstrikers instead. Likewise, going second means you get to sneak onto objectives at the end of the game, but because your opponent got to move first, it's more likely that you're going to have to sneak onto your own objective in a defensive, reactionary manner.

Defense and reactivity can be powerful tools, but certainly so is taking the initiative and controlling both gravity and tempo of a battle early on.

If anything, the whole "formless offense" thing of Sun Tsu is really just saying "take deepstrikers and outflankers", much moreso than "take the bottom of turn 1 rather than the top".

On a personal note, I always take turn 1 where I can get it. I'm smart enough not to spread my forces out farther than I can adequately concentrate them by turn 3, for example, so deployment shenannigans don't bother me too much. Plus, on objectives games it's not like you don't know exactly which parts of the board are going to be of strategic value (and thus where your opponent will be deploying, even with second deployment). Even without much in the way of long-range firepower, being able to move my troops up so that the fighting happens on THEIR side of the board, and generally forcing my opponent to react to me has more than made up for any advantages of deploying second.

There are a few exceptions of course. For example, if I'm going all-reserve, I'll want my opponent to take the first turn, or if my opponent is a chronic all-reserver, I'll try to force him to take the top of one so that I'll get an extra turn to engage. Otherwise, unless I've got some specific trick up my sleeve (which happens on rare occasion), going first is always better.

If it weren't, there wouldn't be a "Seize the initiative" rule.

^ A good post. I have to go to work, so there's not way I can post up a response to this block o' text. So, uhh, reserved for future post! Or if lots of people keep posting, I'll write a fresh one up

@Jihallah,

Sorry, the 2-pages of Sun Tsu quotes in front of the question threw me off a lttle. 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

I think it depends on the mission and what your opponent is playing. I typically don't want to go second vs a parking lot type list unless i have some way to put the pressure on with ds, outflank infiltrate etc.

It depends entirely on matchup. Psychologically speaking, though, I do believe that when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. If you're a good general, you should have more than one way to make lemonade: a reliance on going first is going to screw you.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:It depends entirely on matchup. Psychologically speaking, though, I do believe that when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. If you're a good general, you should have more than one way to make lemonade: a reliance on going first is going to screw you.

Or a reliance on going 2nd. Players only get to choose their turn order 42% of the time, and you have to be adaptable when you don't get your way.

Final note on Sun Tzu: The man would find the 41st millennium a nightmare dystopia, there is nothing the man despised more than prolonged and/or pointless warfare.

42%?

There are 2 big advantages to going second.

1) Getting the last turn allowing you to potentially change the outcome.
2. Going second means you can never have the initiative stolen on you.

I think a key part of any 40k player wishing to improve thier game is the ability to go second and turn it to an advantage not the negative that a lot of players see it as.