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.

Ice_can wrote:
It made sence when it was finish first get first turn, now that obly gives you a +1 it's too littlw reward when your only talking an 8% improvement in chance of going first.
Also gets even worse if they reroll the sieze dice.

It's bit more than 8% as WITH the seize it's 60-40 do you go first if you get +1. Without seize more like 70-30

My maths might be off (21/31*5/6), but I think under the current rules its 56.45% to 43.55% to go first if you deploy first.

Without seize it would be 67.74% vs 32.26%.

You don't choose to go first, when you win the role off you can choose who goes first. So you can deploy defensively and take the benefit of going second if you win the roll off, and they can not reverse that decision. It is a significant strategic advantage to decide who's going first after seeing both full deployments. The game is more complicated than deploying everything you can as close as you can and running forward....

Additionally, in ITC you gain objective advantage by going second, because you can see how many units they destroyed in order to have a goal for your turn, same with objective holding etc. Further: If your army is built to weather damage, or deployed safely (maybe out of LOS), going second is a good idea. This might be true for Maelstrom as well, as you get to act last in a game, so you get to be suicidal for your last moves to gain those last few points.

 hollow one wrote:
You don't choose to go first, when you win the role off you can choose who goes first. So you can deploy defensively and take the benefit of going second if you win the roll off, and they can not reverse that decision. It is a significant strategic advantage to decide who's going first after seeing both full deployments. The game is more complicated than deploying everything you can as close as you can and running forward....

Additionally, in ITC you gain objective advantage by going second, because you can see how many units they destroyed in order to have a goal for your turn, same with objective holding etc. Further: If your army is built to weather damage, or deployed safely (maybe out of LOS), going second is a good idea. This might be true for Maelstrom as well, as you get to act last in a game, so you get to be suicidal for your last moves to gain those last few points.

In theory yes, in practice most tables are so bare that going first is usually killer. First 2-3 shooting phases usually decide the game who gets wiped out. The one starting game usually causes crippling damage on 1st turn already.

tneva82 wrote:
In theory yes, in practice most tables are so bare that going first is usually killer. First 2-3 shooting phases usually decide the game who gets wiped out. The one starting game usually causes crippling damage on 1st turn already.

I don't mean to be offensive, but maybe in your practice, and on your tables that is a problem. Who goes first is a legitimate choice in almost all my games. Sure some games you're not hiding, there's no LOS, and you are an assault army (I play green tide, I get it), but many times this is not the case.

edit: to illustrate my point. I used to deploy boyz up front in a huge row right at the spear tip every game for months, jump things forward and hope for charges etc. I now deploy with Mek Gunz up front, boyz in hiding (where possible) and stormboyz out of range and I believe I get better results with this formation. I think deploying defensively is something people don't do enough. IMO: If they have greater firepower than you, you are obliged to mitigate their damage during deployment, even if the board is barren, you have to out-range and deploy in a careful order. If you're just standing in front of them and hoping to go first, are you even playing a strategy game anymore?

I have yet to see tournament table in Finland, US and UK where you can't see huge swathes of enemy army. More than enough to cause crippling damage on turn 1. Very hard for enemy then to recover in 2-3 turns game continues.

tneva82 wrote:
I have yet to see tournament table in Finland, US and UK where you can't see huge swathes of enemy army. More than enough to cause crippling damage on turn 1. Very hard for enemy then to recover in 2-3 turns game continues.

I think you look at a whole army as equally valuable, when inside your army you may have targets you want to get shot at, and targets you don't. I've yet to play a game where I could NOT hide my 15man tankbustah squad before I jump it in.

I think its the LVO that has huge L shaped LOS blocks in the middle of every table. The BAO stream from FLG showed their top table with enormous soda can walls (painted in hazard stripes) that players were considering LOS. I'll agree with you that more LOS is needed, but it is out there. And I don't think having your entire army or maybe even more than half your army is needed for you to be able to deploy defensively.

edit: i'll illustrate my point with the army I'm currently playing, Nurgle/1k sons. I don't mind if people are shooting my PBC so I use them as LOS (since they are huge) for the large blobs of plague-bearers that can't entirely fit behind something.

15 tank bustas win game do not. You don't need generally to kill one specific unit to have crippling advantage. Quarter of army dead period is enough.

tneva82 wrote:
15 tank bustas win game do not. You don't need generally to kill one specific unit to have crippling advantage. Quarter of army dead period is enough.

Nah, mate. You're looking at my paltry example and taking it too literally. As if dispelling my example means you've destroyed my argument. So here's some other examples then:
The dark reapers hiding in a building or wave serpent, that is important. Hiding the Hammerheads or Longstrike behind a building is really important. Making sure your Castellan starts entirely out of threat range from any 36" heavy weapons is important. Taking stock of which table quarter has the most LOS, and gearing your position to assault through that mess, is important. Exactly how many basilisks can you put behind that mountain? That will change the guaranteed pressure you can put on the entire game...

Also, 15 tank bustas da jumping in threat range turn 2 and guarantee shooting is better than hoping I go first and running 15 tank bustas forward in the mass of boys to shoot. The latter just loses the game if I go second. I don't play that jank.

edit: also quarter of your army dying means very little if all your important shooty stuff is alive and shoots back (killing a quarter of their stuff).

 hollow one wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
15 tank bustas win game do not. You don't need generally to kill one specific unit to have crippling advantage. Quarter of army dead period is enough.

Nah, mate. You're looking at my paltry example and taking it too literally. As if dispelling my example means you've destroyed my argument. So here's some other examples then:
The dark reapers hiding in a building or wave serpent, that is important. Hiding the Hammerheads or Longstrike behind a building is really important. Making sure your Castellan starts entirely out of threat range from any 36" heavy weapons is important. Taking stock of which table quarter has the most LOS, and gearing your position to assault through that mess, is important. Exactly how many basilisks can you put behind that mountain? That will change the guaranteed pressure you can put on the entire game...

Also, 15 tank bustas da jumping in threat range turn 2 and guarantee shooting is better than hoping I go first and running 15 tank bustas forward in the mass of boys to shoot. The latter just loses the game if I go second. I don't play that jank.

edit: also quarter of your army dying means very little if all your important shooty stuff is alive and shoots back (killing a quarter of their stuff).

Your example highlights two of the main issues people have found is another issue if you dont have cheap chaff units.

As its unit for unit the player with fewer drops is forcednto place their important units first, allowing the player with more drops to place their important units to avoid the largest threat or to threaten the opponents important units.

The other issue is the ammount of NLOS shooting at range a certain faction can bring to a game making hiding to not get shoot even harder.

Thirdly if your playing an army that doesn't do CC or have the fly keyword everywhere you still need to screen which can force you into having to deploy in the open etc

Everything you're commenting on, like unit for unit deployment (chaff first, important shooters last), chaff unit placement, NLOS army composition, and screening, all feed into interesting defensive deployment discussions. A poor general will deploy without these things in his army and without these ideas in mind, and the quarter of his army that he loses will be an important quarter that costs him the game when he goes second. A good general might be able to mitigate these issues, and under the right conditions, so much so that he chooses to go second when he wins the roll.

 hollow one wrote:
Everything you're commenting on, like unit for unit deployment (chaff first, important shooters last), chaff unit placement, NLOS army composition, and screening, all feed into interesting defensive deployment discussions. A poor general will deploy without these things in his army and without these ideas in mind, and the quarter of his army that he loses will be an important quarter that costs him the game when he goes second. A good general might be able to mitigate these issues, and under the right conditions, so much so that he chooses to go second when he wins the roll.

So your saying everyone should be taking 20 disposable units just to make deployment take another 20 mins, thats 30s per unit just to be clear. And screw you if you want to bring a model that over 200 points as thats 5 infantry squad drops. Your dudes will just have to take being screwed.

The auto going first was too powerfull, but with the lethality in 40k only gaining a 57 to 43% change to go first is way to brotal on elite armies who loose a lot more of their armys damage output for each unit lost. The +1 to the roll of is much closer to the benifit you should get for having finished in 10 deployments to your opponents 25+. As they have been able to place 15 units without you having any counterplay at all.

Ice_can wrote:
So your saying everyone should be taking 20 disposable units just to make deployment take another 20 mins, thats 30s per unit just to be clear. And screw you if you want to bring a model that over 200 points as thats 5 infantry squad drops. Your dudes will just have to take being screwed.

No, I think it's pretty clear that I'm not saying that.

Tyel wrote:
My maths might be off (21/31*5/6), but I think under the current rules its 56.45% to 43.55% to go first if you deploy first.

Without seize it would be 67.74% vs 32.26%.

It's off because you didn't include the case where you lose the roll despite having the +1, but YOU STI (+10/31*1/6), and it makes the actual odds about 62%.

Regardless, Seize is not a pointless roll because there are occasions where the player who is made to go second doesn't want to go first and thus doesn't attempt to Seize.

Didn't get trough all the replies, but it seems that people are forgetting that STI works both ways.

You may get a +1 for deploying first, and it may seem that this is "balanced" back by the STI, but if you lose the roll off (having deployed all units first) you can still STI back... So the odds shouldn't really be that far off the +1 rolloff....

Laffin wrote:
Didn't get trough all the replies, but it seems that people are forgetting that STI works both ways.

You may get a +1 for deploying first, and it may seem that this is "balanced" back by the STI, but if you lose the roll off (having deployed all units first) you can still STI back... So the odds shouldn't really be that far off the +1 rolloff....

Yeah I mean - that is when it really hurts. You win the -1 roll off and then they seize on you. It's like...wow. Feth you dice gods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

eldritchx wrote:

Tyel wrote:
My maths might be off (21/31*5/6), but I think under the current rules its 56.45% to 43.55% to go first if you deploy first.

Without seize it would be 67.74% vs 32.26%.

It's off because you didn't include the case where you lose the roll despite having the +1, but YOU STI (+10/31*1/6), and it makes the actual odds about 62%.

Regardless, Seize is not a pointless roll because there are occasions where the player who is made to go second doesn't want to go first and thus doesn't attempt to Seize.

I can't really imagine why you would ever not go first. If you like where you are - just don't move and shoot. It's can't possibly hurt you except for stupid objective nonsense.

 IronBrand wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 IronBrand wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
STI should be removed.

A doctor should be able to give you a cream to help with that.

Can he cure my bad luck?

You may need to throw some virgins into a volcano to fix that. I think that's how it works.

Be very very careful if Xenomancers starts arranging games near active volcanoes.

For many reasons.