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 a very strong correlation between going first and winning (no surprise when we can delete 25-40% of an opponents army turn1).

What if we had to deploy our entire army one at a time? The person who deploys first goes first?

I think this would help mitigate the advantage of going first and even up that first turn. Fluffy justification you got here first so you a ready to go, I'm reactive to you so I get to set-up second.

Doesn't seem like it would break the game, would be easy to implement, not a bunch of rules. I'll see if I can get someone to try this with me but I'd love any other viewpoints.

It would decrease the value of first turn. Wouldn't eliminate it.

A step (back to 7th) in the right direction (not back to 7th, but lower P1 advantage).

That is one part of 7th that I wouldn't mind going back to.

I also liked that people had to plan for a roughly even chance of going first or second back then, instead of some armies having a really easy time taking turn 1. (Not everywhere uses the CA rule of +1 to a roll off yet.)

All in all though, after I played axis and allies navy battles, I was envious of their shooting phase. Everything on both sides shoots, and then you apply the damage at the end of the phase, so things don't die without doing something unless they were outranged.

Simultaneous shooting would be excellent, but even moreso - simultaneous close combat.

Deploying one army at a time makes absolutely sense, means that an army shows up in a scenario and immediately after that comes the other one. I still don't understand why 8th edition's depolyment works in a silly way.

Simultaneous shooting or CC would heavily favor the tankier armies.

For shooting, it might work -> the faster forces could concentrate on a smaller part of the enemy.

Imagine things like Banshees, though. Simultaneous CC makes them worthless. Their schtick is to hit first, and only hit things they can kill before they strike back (in force).

Ehhh no thanks.

Im enjoying the decision making and deployment baiting and tactics, rather than just putting everything up to the deployment line and hoping to not get seized.

 Desubot wrote:
Ehhh no thanks.

Im enjoying the decision making and deployment baiting and tactics, rather than just putting everything up to the deployment line and hoping to not get seized.

I do enjoy this aspect of the new deployment. Sometimes if I know I have a lot of deepstrike I will deploy them first just to watch what my opponent does. Sometimes I deploy my ground forces first just to bait them into early deployment mistakes.

It's an enjoyable aspect of the game.

The idea would be the person who deploys first would go first, no seize roll.

Roll for deployment type, roll to determine who chooses side, side chooser deploys second?

I do agree alternating deployment does have some fun strategic elements (better than screens up front, shooties in back which is what it would seem first turn would turn into) but secondary deployment would have a bit of strategy and would create more strategic movement in the first turn instead of just setting up your guys in the most advantageous positions to start the game.

I feel it's bad form when I can just set-up my guys in optimal range of their optimal target and if I go first delete that target. I just feel the games I've played against good armies that go first I sit there and remove my models until it is my turn. If I got to deploy after they put their troops up I'd at least have an opportunity to use some strategy to mitigate first turn alpha and would be less dependent on a go first/seize roll.

I'm not sure how smaller drop armies would be rewarded though.

But the strategy would be to sit as far back as possible to avoid fully getting shot if going second.

and basically any first deploy er would just put everything up on the line.

you would end up playing the exact same way every time.

as for optimal range shooting.... with alternative deployment you should of seen it coming and made adjustments or expected it. its the kinda depth that is good.

Hmm...

I guess I'm jaded by playing buff-stars. Once I put an important unit down you know that 5-6 more are going within 6" to get inside of that sweet re-roll bubble.

I doubt gunlines would be so happy to line-up at the front of their zone if I could get some out of LOS melee units close or some deepstrike zones behind them. Being able to deploy outside of lines of sight/fire lines would at least force the enemy to move in order to bring maximum fire-power.

With all at once deployment I could set up a couple fire teams, some melee units and some deepstrike and you'd have to react on your first turn but you're probably right that deployer 1 would just gun-line it up as close to the center of the table as they could get and player 2 would just cower in the back of their zone...

48" range on a 4x6 table doesn't leave a lot of room for positioning shenanigans. I'll still try to talk someone into trying it but I guess it's back to the drawing board...

I mean nothing wrong with trying it.