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 don't wanna run rhinos because they are so easy to kill, and if an opponent can send that Lascannon into a Rhino or a Land Raider he will prolly pop the rhino first just so he can get first blood.

Same goes for Dreadnoughts and other squishy vehicles. Going first has always been an advantage but with First Blood it is an even bigger advantage

valace2 wrote:
I don't wanna run rhinos because they are so easy to kill, and if an opponent can send that Lascannon into a Rhino or a Land Raider he will prolly pop the rhino first just so he can get first blood.

Same goes for Dreadnoughts and other squishy vehicles. Going first has always been an advantage but with First Blood it is an even bigger advantage

Well you have a few choices:

1) do not include soft units that will get killed if you go second in your list.

2) make sure the squishy units in your list are out of range/line of sight of the things that can kill them.

3) Deal with the 1 VP hit and make it up in other ways.

There are a few more, but I will not list them all.

And it's not like you are guaranteed to lose the rhino even if your opponent does go first.

In 5th it once took me three full turns of firing with two railheads and a broadside to kill a rhino. With hull points i might have wrecked it after only six or seven shots, but still.

DeathReaper outlined your main options pretty well there.

I don't either. Going first is already usually a huge advantage... and then first blood just makes it moreso?

I think what they were trying to do is to provide a reason not to have MSU spam, but this is a crappy way to do it.

5/6 of missions use objectives, where going second is an advantage. I think first blood makes the decision to go second a little harder.

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't either. Going first is already usually a huge advantage... and then first blood just makes it moreso?

I think what they were trying to do is to provide a reason not to have MSU spam, but this is a crappy way to do it.

I haven't noticed a correllation of going first with getting first blood. If you have data on this I'd like to see it.

I personally love it, but then thats because i always tend to get it, if you cant keep your units safe i offer an alternative tactic.

Simply have a small fast unit dedicated to getting into your opponents deployment zone before the last turn, they dont have to be doing anything to get that VP.

spackledgoat wrote:
5/6 of missions use objectives, where going second is an advantage. I think first blood makes the decision to go second a little harder.

Not really. You sometimes wanted to go second in 5th with an all-reserve list for the advantage in claiming objectives, but 6th's reserve rules killed that plan and the slight advantage in claiming objectives is more than offset by the value of the turn 1 alpha strike. In 6th you always go first, period. Instead of correcting a problem it ends up just giving a free victory point for doing something you already wanted to do, and that's just bad game design.

How often has 1 victory point made the difference?

Also if you want to counter it... just get line breaker end of story. Or how about slaying their warlord?

I love first blood because it encourages aggression in the game.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
How often has 1 victory point made the difference?

Also if you want to counter it... just get line breaker end of story. Or how about slaying their warlord?

I love first blood because it encourages aggression in the game.

How about Warlord, line breaker and first blood?

Whether or not it has made a difference in your games is irrelevant. It's still poor game design that allows the person who goes first to have a better shot at getting a victory point. It also is another nerf to assault based armies, as they're far less likely to get this victory point.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
How often has 1 victory point made the difference?

2-2 tie on objectives, first blood decides it.

Also if you want to counter it... just get line breaker end of story. Or how about slaying their warlord?

Except those are also symmetrical objectives and fairly easy to get. It's not as simple as just "kill their warlord" when they probably killed yours.

I love first blood because it encourages aggression in the game.

And there's a rule that doesn't encourage aggression in the game? The best strategy is to deliver a turn 1 alpha strike that cripples the enemy and wins the game, and even the most "defensive" list wants to start killing stuff asap. Giving a point for first blood just gives you an extra reward for doing what you're going to do anyway.

I haven't been in many tourneys lately (stupid work schedule) but most in our FLGS and some nat'l tourneys don't have first blood, or maybe 1 mission total. (our local TOs do their own scenarios and never strait from the book)

As for friendly games I care not either way, the one vp loss is generally made up for by the output of the unit inside. (Im not giving up my MANZ missile just because of first blood)

Griddlelol wrote: How about Warlord, line breaker and first blood?

Whether or not it has made a difference in your games is irrelevant. It's still poor game design that allows the person who goes first to have a better shot at getting a victory point. It also is another nerf to assault based armies, as they're far less likely to get this victory point.

It isn't a poor game design, it's literally an incentive to get the game starting and discourages your exact complaints, parking lots almost all but vanished for a more realistic combat narrative. As an ork player i can absolutely guarantee someone will not be getting first blood against me by just using squads instead of vehicles... problem solved. because shocker here almost every army can use some form of viable way to deny first blood easily

IG = Infantry heavy with barrage vehicles completely hidden from LOS
Space Marines = Drop Pods > Rhinos
Nids = ... yeah ...
Necrons = surprising durable monoliths or just foot cron + Nightfighting lord
Eldar = fortune bikers
Tau= honestly basic tau tactics work fine here since they rarely relied on the vehicles

infact the only race i think this wouldn't work well for is dark eldar.

You also seem to be forgetting that an army that is able to nail a first blood from a distance and the general favored tactics of 6th are now to be gunline armies. This meaning you get the line breaker objective for just being assaulty to cancel it out.

Peregrine wrote: 2-2 tie on objectives, first blood decides it.

A match that close is deserving a victory in the first place. But honestly the victory points of old edition was no better, this objective gives you the incentive to do what you already were doing in old games aim for vehicles and slow down your enemy.

Peregrine wrote: Except those are also symmetrical objectives and fairly easy to get. It's not as simple as just "kill their warlord" when they probably killed yours.

how do you figure? them killing your warlord is just as likely as you killing theirs whoever goes first should never decide who gets slay the warlord... ever! Obviously slaying the warlord is the tie breaker here for more missions as first blood just sets the balance in one direction and then the other player is suppose to begin to play the other objectives. I have played a game where my enemy got slay the warlord, first blood and line breaker but i still ended up winning because it was an objective based mission and i kept my units to the main objective of the game instead of assualting since they were a gunline. I ended up also scoring linebreaker for the tie breaker...

And there's a rule that doesn't encourage aggression in the game? The best strategy is to deliver a turn 1 alpha strike that cripples the enemy and wins the game, and even the most "defensive" list wants to start killing stuff asap. Giving a point for first blood just gives you an extra reward for doing what you're going to do anyway.

Exactly, here is a challenge go ahead and buy an Aegis Defense line next game if you are a gunline player... go to ground against another gunline player and enjoy your 2+ cover saves tada no easy kill point + your vehicles can remain out of LOS. or how about keeping those units in reserve at the start of the game to ... i dunno deny an easy first blood? Think smarter alpha strikes only work if you allowed them to work in the first place I've had no problems beating 1 VP in most circumstances infact it only made the difference in 1 of my fights so far which i think they deserved in the first place.

Please i understand you are entitled to your opinion but can you truly say your tactics are flawless or you couldn't see how if no one has long range weapons their... might ...just might be a point to move up and trying to get a shot in?

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:


It isn't a poor game design, it's literally an incentive to get the game starting and discourages your exact complaints, parking lots almost all but vanished for a more realistic combat narrative. As an ork player i can absolutely guarantee someone will not be getting first blood against me by just using squads instead of vehicles... problem solved. because shocker here almost every army can use some form of viable way to deny first blood easily

By the same logic, it's very easy to build lists which have a great way of getting first blood. Your tactics for denying first blood all make the assumption that it's only possible to get it on the 1st turn. Foot slogging lists give up first blood just as easily, just less likely on turn one. Unless of course you bring enough blast markers, which for a lot of codices isn't difficult.

I don't see how it discourages my complains, since I specifically didn't complain about anything other than the VP you gain from it. I also fail to see how it "gets the game started" since there is no tactical advantage to not start killing things on the 1st turn.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

You also seem to be forgetting that an army that is able to nail a first blood from a distance and the general favored tactics of 6th are now to be gunline armies. This meaning you get the line breaker objective for just being assaulty to cancel it out.

You also seem to be forgetting that gun-line armies have a mobile element, always, for the specific reason of capturing objectives. It's very easy for these to get line breaker. You're also making the assumption that assault based armies don't have an element designed for shooting. They do: Long Fangs, Devastators, Warwalkers etc.

Peregrine wrote: 2-2 tie on objectives, first blood decides it.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
A match that close is deserving a victory in the first place. But honestly the victory points of old edition was no better, this objective gives you the incentive to do what you already were doing in old games aim for vehicles and slow down your enemy.

This is no excuse for a poorly added victory point. Just because they got it wrong once doesn't mean they need to keep getting it wrong in future editions.

Peregrine wrote: Except those are also symmetrical objectives and fairly easy to get. It's not as simple as just "kill their warlord" when they probably killed yours.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
how do you figure? them killing your warlord is just as likely as you killing theirs whoever goes first should never decide who gets slay the warlord... ever!

I don't think Peregrine is claiming that the warlord is killed on the 1st turn. He is saying as both sides have an equal opportunity at Warlord and Line Breaker VP, you can't take them into account. It's not as simple as "He got 1st blood, so I'll get warlord" since both sides have equal chance at it, unlike 1st blood.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
It isn't a poor game design, it's literally an incentive to get the game starting and discourages your exact complaints, parking lots almost all but vanished for a more realistic combat narrative.

Except:

1) The parking lot has no problem getting first blood since it just shoots something turn 1.

and

2) You don't NEED more incentive to get the game started because everything else already does that. There is no viable strategy that just sits back and never kills anything, every single army wants to start killing ASAP first blood or no first blood because it wins the game. First blood just gives you a free VP for doing what you were going to do anyway.

You also seem to be forgetting that an army that is able to nail a first blood from a distance and the general favored tactics of 6th are now to be gunline armies. This meaning you get the line breaker objective for just being assaulty to cancel it out.

And then the gunline uses a mobile unit and gets line breaker as well.

Exactly, here is a challenge go ahead and buy an Aegis Defense line next game if you are a gunline player... go to ground against another gunline player and enjoy your 2+ cover saves tada no easy kill point + your vehicles can remain out of LOS. or how about keeping those units in reserve at the start of the game to ... i dunno deny an easy first blood? Think smarter alpha strikes only work if you allowed them to work in the first place I've had no problems beating 1 VP in most circumstances infact it only made the difference in 1 of my fights so far which i think they deserved in the first place.

So let me get this straight: first blood exists and is good game design because it gives incentive to play aggressively and kill stuff, so you should hide out of LOS and go to ground to ensure that you don't give it up. Do you honestly not see the contradiction here?

I don't think Peregrine is claiming that the warlord is killed on the 1st turn. He is saying as both sides have an equal opportunity at Warlord and Line Breaker VP, you can't take them into account. It's not as simple as "He got 1st blood, so I'll get warlord" since both sides have equal chance at it, unlike 1st blood.

Exactly. Both players can get slay the warlord and line breaker, but only one player can get first blood and the "free" VP goes to the person who goes first even though the person who goes first already has a huge advantage.

You are scared of giving up one VP? Are you serious?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
You are scared of giving up one VP? Are you serious?

Whether or not it's something to be scared of it's still stupid game design and yet another demonstration of how out of touch GW's "professionals" are.

 Testify wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't either. Going first is already usually a huge advantage... and then first blood just makes it moreso?

I think what they were trying to do is to provide a reason not to have MSU spam, but this is a crappy way to do it.

I haven't noticed a correllation of going first with getting first blood. If you have data on this I'd like to see it.

Indeed, in some cases (such as Daemons) it tends to go to who goes second about as often as first. But, going first does give you the first attempt to get it; if they deploy well enough they will deny it.

 n0t_u wrote:
But, going first does give you the first attempt to get it; if they deploy well enough they will deny it.

Assuming you cripple yourself by deploying with everything hidden, avoid taking anything that could easily die (any non-squadroned vehicle, small infantry units, etc), and never play in large games where the firepower on the table is enough to kill a single unit no matter what you do. It might not be 100%, but the person who goes first has a much better chance of getting it even without making any special effort to do so.

My group just threw out the the first blood rule, might be worth asking the people you play if they want to get rid of it as well.

I find that the 50% chance of night fighting on the first turn helps to balance out First Blood fairly well.

I don't mind First Blood, since none of my Tau or Gaurd units/vehicles are that killy, adding on that first turn is usually night fighting anyway so that increases your survivability. More than likely I get First Blood regardless if I'm going first or second because of Blacksun Filters and Searchlights.

I think this undercurrent of distaste for it is more player experience than the actual game. In that mindset, Line Breaker is terrible too since you're most likely to end up in your enemies deployment anyway...

Just seems like First Blood is a mechanic more suited to games with alternating activations, feels a little crammed in and ham fisted in a game like 40k

if the rhino or trukk is a dedicated transport, does killing the vehicle count as first blood? Even if theyre an add-on for the squad?

Yup, it sure does count for first blood, also as a VP in purge the alien (not what you asked, but something worth knowing)

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
You are scared of giving up one VP? Are you serious?

THANK YOU

Just because you go first doesn't guarantee you the VP. There are a myriad of things that can happen, if you get hammer and anvil, you deploy far away.
Also, just create a unit that assures first blood for yourself, like dropping sternguard with meltas.

Look, i don't want to keep throwing my 2 cents in so i am going to leave it to this.

i play about 2-3 games a week right now because i have lots for freetime. With the ability to hold 1/2 your army in reserves protecting vulnerable dedicated transports the first round or so and night fight first blood should ultimately go to the player who is able to get the first few shots BUT the decent dice rolls. Of example the primary gap between deployment zones is normally between 24-36 inches in range. Besides a few select weapons this basically means it's impossible to get a shot during night-fight without either exposing yourself to a more harsh retaliation on the 2nd half of the turn or you have minor levels of fire power barely able to reach and most shouldn't be penetrating with a normal 5+ cover save or better with terrain to abuse it all the way to 2+ if you can.

Smart deployment and making sure you don't put down your entire army to alpha strike are the best ways to avoid giving first blood. I play orks I am PAINFULLY aware how easy it is to give first blood to my enemy with transports, so i do 1 of two options hold trukks in reserve or just risk it and hold them in terrain and blast through moving 25 inches on my turn if I survive knowing i will be getting boyz in painfully quick and letting my enemy know i am a heavy threat now.

Ultimately this isn't something that will be going away no matter if you like it or not. I understand wanting to say "i don't like this rule" but you all honestly need to anty up your game and just start realizing some squads are nearly impossible to award your enemy first blood with no matter the amount of shooting round 1, and all tactics such as the ones you are upset about have flaws.

I am well aware well composed lists are mobile and gun oriented but the thing is most people are going to the volume of guns or aren't aware vehicles cannot claim. If you are just as aware of claiming and denial units as your enemy most players have developed a gunline with an assualting force to protect the line (normally a tarpit unit) with an element of speed to either outflank or disrupt capturing. But the idea that both players have line breaker? that is very rare in almost any game i watch someone is awarded for being mobile/aggressive and the other player normally tries to prevent the rusher.

The concept is that if you give your enemy first blood.... as mundane as this is to me apparently it's huge enough to waste this much time and effort to others and i understand and respect that. Rather than just whine I am saying that normally this means you need to fight harder and think deeper to make up the one point or at least find a way to ultimately not allow them a victory but at least a tie. My closest match was against eldar who were gunline claimed first blood and slay the warlord round 1.... you think i wasn't mad? Sure I was but guess what i ended up winning because I held true to the objectives of the game and fought to the bitter end keeping them on their toes.

This is really a small aspect to a larger problem which it sounds like the people who are upset by this "feel cheated" that someone who has alot of guns might have in a narrative sense a boosted morale for downing a squad quickly. please... please just realize you have ways to mitigate this issue if you would only choose to act on them. Avoid vehicles being deployed if you can't properly hide them or have high enough armor and start the battle with less firepower but an easier chance to obtain first blood than your enemy.

List building and then list deployment are two sides of a very important coin when it comes to battle. those two steps IMHO are the most important ones before starting the fight.

The concept is that if you give your enemy first blood.... as mundane as this is to me apparently it's huge enough to waste this much time and effort to others and i understand and respect that.

Lol, passive-aggresive much?

Look at the OP. He isn't whining. He is simply stating the running transports can be a liability with regard to first blood.

I think first blood is there to "even up" for going first.

Going second in 6th is huge. HUGE. You get that turn 6 last phase run towards objectives, you have a better chance of your flyer coming in after your oppenents, so can shoot it down fatser ect.

What first blood does is give the player going first the -chance- at an early advantage; which they can use to force the player going second to be a little more aggressive to make up the lost vp.