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.

So, a simple question: How many deployment drops are people aiming for in a list that wants to go first? Will six drops do it in a 2000 points list? Will eight?

Or conversely, how many deployments before you abandon hope of first turn and instead go for a MSU list? The advantage of the latter is, that you get to deploy most of your army after your opponent has deployed all of his army.

Depends on your opponent. 6 will get it against most armies at 2k points, but a Knight army will still beat you to first turn.

Doesn't this depend entirely on your opponent? My grey knights can in theory be fielded in three drops, my necrons in about nine. I very much doubt you'll ever find an average because it's entire dependent on the list build and type of opponent

I don't think it's quite that cut-and-dry - a knight army can reasonably expect to have 4 drops, so anything with more than that needs to be built with the expectation that it can survive a turn of shooting from a knight list. I imagine 5-7 drops is probably what most other armies that really want the first turn will aim for, with the higher end of that trading drops for survivability.

Still, I imagine as time goes on we'll probably see a lot of tournaments adopt the ITC standard of giving +1 to go first rather than automatic first turn to armies that finish deploying first, since the latter is so abusable for alphastrike armies and makes list-building a case of minimal dos drops or msu with nothing in between. If that's the case then every list will need to be built with the expectation that it's not going first a third or more of the time and armies that are aiming to get the bonus to go first are more likely to cluster at 10-12ish drops in my estimation.

Godeskian wrote:
Doesn't this depend entirely on your opponent? My grey knights can in theory be fielded in three drops, my necrons in about nine. I very much doubt you'll ever find an average because it's entire dependent on the list build and type of opponent

Yes, of course it depends on your opponent. But to ask in another way: Will you field your armies (GK and necron) in a low-drop style with how many drops, or a MSU style list?

My standard GK tournament armies are either 3 or 4 drops. But, that is with me using 2 stormravens (full of troops) and 1 or 2 Nemesis dreadknights.

Assuming 1500 point minimum...

2 would be absolute minimum. Two transports, with units in them, with the ability to summon more would be about only way to get there. (One maybe possible, but that means one of the transports would need to be able to DS and still take enough points with it or the other transport takes enough with it. Pretty hard, considering max half your units can be in reserve)

3 will be seen rarely, "elite" infantry armies in transports, Knight armies.

4 seems like a very reasonable, common number. Mix of transports and units placed on the table/reserves.

I'm so glad ITC just gives +1 to the first turn rolloff for the player with lower drops. Going first is already a huge advantage in 8th, you shouldn't be able to manipulate it with an all knight army or something.

yea, kind of annoyed by the whoever finished deploying first goes first. as a primary ork player I am barring building for it always going 2nd unless I can seize. theoridically I might be abel to pull off a battlewagon rush list with everything in 3-4 battlewagons

Do units put in one of the various forms of reserve each count as a drop?

If it is in a deployed transport it does not count as a drop.

If it is a "summoned" reserve, it does not count as a drop. (So summoned daemons, termagaunts, for example)

If it is in a DS reserve, it counts as a a drop.

If it is placed on the table it is a drop.

So putting 20 Stealers with a Trygon in DS reserve would count as one drop. Putting a five man Assault Squad with a Chracter in a Razorback on the table would count as one drop, placing a Sorcerer who can summon daemons, counts as one drop, and the Sorcerer can then summon daemons until you run out of reserve points, the units in reserve do not count as a drop.

Cheers. Is that defined in the rulebook? Couldn't find it in my last game.

pismakron wrote:

Godeskian wrote:
Doesn't this depend entirely on your opponent? My grey knights can in theory be fielded in three drops, my necrons in about nine. I very much doubt you'll ever find an average because it's entire dependent on the list build and type of opponent

Yes, of course it depends on your opponent. But to ask in another way: Will you field your armies (GK and necron) in a low-drop style with how many drops, or a MSU style list?

I will normally field the same TAC army under all circumstances. Currently they're 6 drops (GK) and 7 drops (Necron) respectively, but eventually I expect the GK one to drop to three or four. I tend out of preference to field smaller armies with more elite units, so I'll always tend to have less drops.

GK and Necrons are both low deployments. I expect most non-knight lists trying to aim for going first (except I play with ITC +1 to roll off with friends, limits how aggressively people deploy) will hover around 8-9 deployments. My own lists are up around 11-12 deploys but could probably be thinned down to 10 if I worked on it.

Don't like this rule also. Some armies can much more easily have fewer drops. So they default will easily get to go first. And what about horde or melee type armies? Go 30 per squad or go home?

Its hard enough playing a melee type army. But to end up always going second and being shot at because you have a lot of units ... :(

What was wrong with rolling off to see who goes first?

Two Supreme Command detachments: 1 Stompa with 10 HQs and a banner nob deployed in it. You may never win but you'll always go first.

Oh, and for reference, I have a Wych Cult melee/alphastrike list that has 6 drops normally but can deploy with five at the cost of being slightly more vulnerable to being seized on.

It has been brought to my attention, that the player going second can use a command reroll when trying to seize the initiative. This results in a nice 30.5% chance of seizing the initiative, which severely limits the incentive to build a list around getting first turn. Even a knight player must contend with going second in every third game.

pismakron wrote:
It has been brought to my attention, that the player going second can use a command reroll when trying to seize the initiative. This results in a nice 30.5% chance of seizing the initiative, which severely limits the incentive to build a list around getting first turn. Even a knight player must contend with going second in every third game.

What's funny is that the horde players who will always go second also have an overabundance of CP to seize with due to an easy time filling out multiple battalions. The Guard player in my group never starts a game with less than 10 CP.

I'm thinking 18-19. Because Brigades give 9 CP and also trying to field a Guard/Sisters of Battle army with min deployments seems like a recipe for failure.

ITC's ruling is a good solution for the majority of armies, but buffs hordes unnecessarily.

Hordes already have a ridiculous amount of extra CP compared to most other armies, and can place all their chaff first forcing your hand before they can put down their critical units. This is very beneficial for a smart horde player. Being forced to go second counterbalanced this, but ITC's ruling means they get more CP and a tactically advantageous deployment like normal, but also get a much better chance to seize and go first now? And can reroll with all those CP lying around?

You shouldn't get punished for trying to get the most out of the method GW implemented for deployment because of a dice roll. It's already the most stressful roll in the game.

Just remove the seize mechanic. It's unnecessary and rage inducing when it does happen. I hated it in 7th and it's gotten worse in 8th (if you follow ITC's ruling)

 Klowny wrote:
ITC's ruling is a good solution for the majority of armies, but buffs hordes unnecessarily.

Hordes already have a ridiculous amount of extra CP compared to most other armies, and can place all their chaff first forcing your hand before they can put down their critical units. This is very beneficial for a smart horde player. Being forced to go second counterbalanced this, but ITC's ruling means they get more CP and a tactically advantageous deployment like normal, but also get a much better chance to seize and go first now? And can reroll with all those CP lying around?

You shouldn't get punished for trying to get the most out of the method GW implemented for deployment because of a dice roll. It's already the most stressful roll in the game.

Just remove the seize mechanic. It's unnecessary and rage inducing when it does happen. I hated it in 7th and it's gotten worse in 8th (if you follow ITC's ruling)

What ITC ruling are you talking about? The seize and reroll mechanics comes from the rulebook? They are stock rules.

As for Orks, most pure boyz-spam lists will still deploy in seven or eight drops.

pismakron wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
ITC's ruling is a good solution for the majority of armies, but buffs hordes unnecessarily.

Hordes already have a ridiculous amount of extra CP compared to most other armies, and can place all their chaff first forcing your hand before they can put down their critical units. This is very beneficial for a smart horde player. Being forced to go second counterbalanced this, but ITC's ruling means they get more CP and a tactically advantageous deployment like normal, but also get a much better chance to seize and go first now? And can reroll with all those CP lying around?

You shouldn't get punished for trying to get the most out of the method GW implemented for deployment because of a dice roll. It's already the most stressful roll in the game.

Just remove the seize mechanic. It's unnecessary and rage inducing when it does happen. I hated it in 7th and it's gotten worse in 8th (if you follow ITC's ruling)

What ITC ruling are you talking about? The seize and reroll mechanics comes from the rulebook? They are stock rules.

As for Orks, most pure boyz-spam lists will still deploy in seven or eight drops.

Apparently ITC have ruled that however finished deploying first gets a +1 to the roll off for who goes first

 Klowny wrote:


Apparently ITC have ruled that however finished deploying first gets a +1 to the roll off for who goes first

This true, but it really makes very little difference. The odds of losing a roll-off with +1 is roughly similar to the odds of seizing with a reroll. The only difference is that it saves a command-point for the player that rolls to seize.

No matter what, you will have no more than a 70% chance of going first. And while 70% is nice, it is hardly something to rely on.