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'm not bashing this article.

To me this is just another great series to go alongside GW's other comedy efforts, like their comic strips and the Regimental Standard.

There are several laughs in every paragraph. Even the pictures are funny!

The problem of first turn advantage would be significantly diminished if GW and the rabid white knights would choose to let go of the terribly outdated IGOUGO turn structure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Holding on to legacy rules just because "thats how it was" is incredibly immature

Most people aren't saying the idea is bad, they're making fun of the cringeworthy execution and the lack of any real actual competitive insights. But mainly the cringeworthy execution. Those supposed skill level bars...no, just no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The problem of first turn advantage would be significantly diminished if GW and the rabid white knights would choose to let go of the terribly outdated IGOUGO turn structure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Holding on to legacy rules just because "thats how it was" is incredibly immature

IGOUGO isn't happening for at least another 3 years, given we've just had a new edition and it doesn't have it. Seems like a pointless argument to have at this point.

ITC2020 had 1st turn advantage down to an essentially non-existent 52%. Why GW chose that particular moment to throw out the baby with the bathwater and start over I have no idea, but then, it's GW.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Most people aren't saying the idea is bad, they're making fun of the cringeworthy execution and the lack of any real actual competitive insights. But mainly the cringeworthy execution. Those supposed skill level bars...no, just no.

Just more proof gw is mining the video game industry for ideas now that they've already dug deep into ccgs for them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The problem of first turn advantage would be significantly diminished if GW and the rabid white knights would choose to let go of the terribly outdated IGOUGO turn structure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Holding on to legacy rules just because "thats how it was" is incredibly immature

IGOUGO isn't happening for at least another 3 years, given we've just had a new edition and it doesn't have it. Seems like a pointless argument to have at this point.

ITC2020 had 1st turn advantage down to an essentially non-existent 52%. Why GW chose that particular moment to throw out the baby with the bathwater and start over I have no idea, but then, it's GW.

Ya think they maybe didn't go with ITC style missions because their primary mission writer is a dude from NOVA?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The problem of first turn advantage would be significantly diminished if GW and the rabid white knights would choose to let go of the terribly outdated IGOUGO turn structure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Holding on to legacy rules just because "thats how it was" is incredibly immature

GW stick with the system because they want to, it has nothing to do with any "white knights" in their fan base.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Most people aren't saying the idea is bad, they're making fun of the cringeworthy execution and the lack of any real actual competitive insights. But mainly the cringeworthy execution. Those supposed skill level bars...no, just no.

Just more proof gw is mining the video game industry for ideas now that they've already dug deep into ccgs for them.

Marked for truth.

ERJAK 792765 10950438 wrote:

Wait, since when is 58% really that unnacceptable? Chess is like 54% FTA, is 40k supposed to be more balanced than CHESS?

I'm not necessarily arguing against any of your other points, just 58% isn't that bad. It's IMPROVABLE, not UNACCEPTABLE.

Because it is avarge for all factions.
GK win ratio when they go first and when they go secocond is different by like a 20+%.

the reason this is getting soooooo much gak from everyone is summed up by the tag line from the article......


"Your indispensable guide to competitive gaming"

thru the lens of someone who thinks they're the MJ/Lebron/etc of "professional"(can't say that with a straight face) 40k. when in reality they're just some dude that does well enuff in the tourney scene(whatever that means) to get idiots to give them money.


and GW loves tourney idiots giving them money.....so it's a match made in heaven.

I dont see why people bring up chess as a reason to think you cant balance going first and second. They kinda solved it by playing more than 1 game and alternating who goes first and second in chess. If they didnt do that the game would be dead at a higher level or they would have made other changes. They wouldnt have just left it at the first player having a huge advantage and say"40k have a huge difference in winrate and they also have the same rules for both players". If they then kept Chess at best of 1 then they would probably give black a special turn 1 move that was about as good as 1,5 moves to level the playing field.

40k takes too long to play multiple games against the same opponent so instead of having the exact same rules for player 1 and player 2 they could give the second player an extra rule.

Was it warmachine that had different deployment depth depending on who went first or second? I think the second player got to start another 2" up the board.

There are multiple small rule changes GW could try out that would reduce the difference between going first or second.

Plus there is also a difference of % in win rates among different scenarios. some give huge buff to going second.

Didn't the goons have a big article with stats on it? It was a great read.

Seabass wrote:
I am legitimately confused (though hardly a surprise there).

With tournament play growing by leaps and bounds (prior to COVID) it would seem that having a series of articles focusing on the tournament scene would make sense. While I don't see myself as a tournament player, I do go to them on occasion, and this seems like a good series of articles that could benefit players.

I understand tournament play isn't everyone's preferred way to play, but with the growth of the game, and GW wanting to push more for tournament play as being a gameplay mode that is supported by them, it would seem logical that they would do such an article. I just don't understand why there is so much negativity towards it. I am confused as to what I am missing.

I think the problem is more about how GW are doing it, rather than the fact they're doing it at all. It just seems like such a forced approach and the content comes across far too much like a marketing pitch (because that's what it is, not an in-depth look at tournament play). The stats card with the completely made-up stat bars is a perfect example of how cluelessly the whole thing has been constructed. As vapid and banal as most of the text is, that player card thing is just embarrassing for all involved.

I think GW should probably look to be more organic with how it supports the tournament scene. Instead of trying to co-opt it with articles like this, they need to forge closer ties with sites like Goonhammer or Nick's own various online sites and channels. That's how most other companies work and it's especially important for a company like GW who have shown time and again they lack the credibility to be taken seriously when talking about their system in any competitive sense.

Anything on the GW site is marketing. If you’re surprised by this, well...

GW acknowledging they’ve a competitive market to cater to is fine. There are probably better competitive resources out there but not everyone knows about them and this might be someone’s first look at that way to play. It’s not inherently bad.

Totally didn’t expect to see so much salt for GW embracing tourney play as this site is obsessed with pretending every game is a minmax WAAC situation with netlists and zero fun. Go figure!

ERJAK wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

stratigo wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
40k Pro, what is that supposed to mean, like a golf pro @ the local course? cuz if that's the case it really doesn't mean much....unless they're Tiger or Chi Chi Rodriguez.


Also 40k Pro is quite possibly the most bullshittiest statement out there....I'm just waiting for GW to pull a Pro Necromunda Player out a their ass.

GW didn't invent Nick Nanavati. The man made his own PR and marketing. And. I mean, it worked. People do pay him a silly amount of money to be told how to git gud at warhammer.

A fool and their money soon part ways. I guess good for him, but 40k pro isn't something one should list on their resume, unless your trying out for the Crud Creek Nosepickers new ALL-STAR 40K world tour championship team where you win all the money 40k has to offer.

If you do something and people like watching, you can draw spectators. Spectators who enjoy your content can sometimes be leveraged for income as they are in basically every popular game that gets played from football to nascar to chess. If people figure out a way to draw spectators enough that you can and do make a significant amount of your living off of playing warhammer, then you're a pro warhammer player. Same way as you would be a professional athlete or a professional racecar driver, or professional youtuber.

It's just commerce. He creates something people enjoy consuming so they pay him for it.

It's you attaching context to it and getting butthurt about it.

Nanavati operates subtly, but perceptively, differently than, say, a tabletop tactics and their patreon system. If he was just a podcast and video man who had premium content, I mean, he'd still be very arrogant about it, but eh. But he offers coaching services for hundreds of dollars. And it's pure grift. I mean you can respect the hustle of it, but it's still a hustle.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
There’s numerous reasons why the first turn advantage may not be as strong as the statistic represents. You’d be silly to ignore Nick’s opinion based on “the stats” it doesn’t matter if the data size is 3000 or 3 million, the stats ignore a human element and how we approach the game / our knowledge of it.

He could also just be wrong, or biased because he just happens to be playing the faction that is the single best of any of them at mitigating first turn advantage.

Especially given that the data so far has suggested that not only does first turn advantage exists, it is more pronounced in later rounds as players are matched with people closer to their own skill level.

It wouldn't be anywhere near the first time a top level player at something just didn't know what he's talking about. It reminds me of when Dopa of League of Legends said "Oh no man after this latest rework Ryze is useless garbage he won't be in Worlds" only for Ryze to, guess what, dominate Worlds once more.

He could be wrong, he’s not infallible. Neither are the stats. That’s why dismissing his viewpoint because of stats is silly.

I saw a good write up about someone explaining the win rate discrepancy as he saw it today

I'm also on the side that while First turn is strong, it's not gamebreakingly strong inherently. I think a considerable amount of the emphasis on first turn is just coming from how people are deciding to play the game at the start.

If you deploy super aggressively, you can make the most of first turn, but often usually means you will also get wrecked if you dont win first turn.

If you deploy conservative in expectation of your opponent going first, and they deploy super aggressive and take first turn, you can often punish them extremely and swing the game in your own favor by going second as they expose themselves trying to get on objectives and midboard with minimal ability to punish your conservative deployment. You can also force their reserves in before your own reserves which can be extremely valuable.

The problem comes if you deploy conservatively and expect to go second and then get forced into turn 1, its a little more difficult of a position.

TL;DR i suspect the over emphasis on turn 1 being too good is from people leaning into hyper-aggressive turn 1 focused deployment and positioning and putting themselves in make-or-break positioning based on a contested die roll.

This might also be wrong it’s one persons opinion. But please stop letting stats blind you to the possibility that what Nick says here might be none of the things you described and may just be accurate

I trust stats immensely before I trust someone giving a PR interview to a buddy invested in the strength of the system. The whole thing is entirely compromised and biased.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Totally didn’t expect to see so much salt for GW embracing tourney play as this site is obsessed with pretending every game is a minmax WAAC situation with netlists and zero fun. Go figure!

Eh I've come to expect a lot of salt on Dakka. I think part of the issue is we've a population of people who, for a multitude of different reasons, are "done" with "GW" as a company. They might still play or buy models, but they hold little to no respect for the company, thus they tend to look for the most negative ways to interpret GW's actions.

Now GW is not innocent, some of their efforts can be cringeworthy or they are a take on fun and jovial that some dislike. They also clearly have some issues with a competitive mind-set in that they are far more narrative and fluffy based than competitive in their attitude toward the game. Which has its up sides as well as its down sides.




In the end perhaps this is a bit of a wobbly step, but I would hope many might see that its a step in "the right direction" and a direction many have been calling for. So GW didn't get off to a flying head start, but its new ground for them in truth. It's not like when they bungled AoS on multiple fronts at launch. This is GW doing something in the competitive world which is something they really haven't done in a serious way in what, a decade?


I'd hope its a first step and that more can GROW and develop from it.






Also on the subject of "there's no depth to the tactical discussion". This isn't GW's problem. This is a problem the ENTIRE WARGAMING sector has (at least for anything sci-fi and fantasy - historicals might be very different). We can cry and call foul of GW not having it in the article, but in truth its rarely anywhere else in the market either. We might dip into dice theory and probabilities now and then, but there is very little actual game and tactical depth discussion going on anywhere in the hobby. We are more content to tear apart things with list building and dice theory than we are to talk about deployment strategies; target selection; movement theory; denials and such. At best we might throw out the tired old bone of "play to the objectives", but its a bone with no meat on the statement nor elaboration as to how one achieves that; nor how one might differentiate choices between that and other approaches.


Indeed perhaps this article's light nature highlights the very real and present issue with tactical discussion and teaching within the hobby and community at large. We can do fantastic with building models and terrain; outstanding with artwork and painting. We, as a community, CAN do it. There is potential and resources in the community, but getting it out and in the open and promoting it is a whole other ballgame.

It would be foolish for any maker of rules to say that they have bad grasp on the rule implementation or dealing with core rule problems. No one is going to do it. And GW doesn't even have to worry about stuff like sponsors or countries law systems, just investors and core of their buyers.

Choosing to got second, two out of three times made me laugh and his explanation of "git gud" cracked me up. Most tournament players worth their salt have a general idea of the game and don't just build first turn or nothing lists when there's a coin flip involved.

Of course he's going to be fine with turn 2 as Harlies are the fastest and best army in game right now. The stats don't lie that there's a problem with first turn advantage this edition.

I mean it is kind of a funny considering he plays harlis. And I generaly don't get fun stuff most of the time.

I mean I really have to struggle to imagine what would have to happen to a list and table for a 20% difference in win/lose ration to not matter and a GK or Tau player decide, that they want to go second. Non of the scenarios had a higher win ratio for going second, according to the huge data pool the Goons showed. The best are close to balance, but still with a favour to the player going first. And this is including those armies not having a 50% win ratio.

But I am not a tournament player, not even a skilled player. Still it made me chuckle with the just use more terrain thing. I seen enough games of dense terrain, that vehicles couldn't enter parts of the table , and the person in first turn still has the edge. He sometimes even has more of an edge, becuase now all the extra terrain is blocking off any shoting that could happen turn 1, so they get free objectives.

A typical Nick Nanavati article. He is without doubt an exceptionally good player and very talented, but whenever he does an analysis or tries to predict how the meta changes he is wrong as often as he is not.
Just because you're a extremely talented player doesn't mean that you can put that talent into words - just like a star player in sports often isn't fit to be a coach either.

What in the fu is that gak? Gonna be alot uglier in the gaming clubs across the globe with this tournament catering...

I am legitimately confused (though hardly a surprise there).

With tournament play growing by leaps and bounds (prior to COVID) it would seem that having a series of articles focusing on the tournament scene would make sense. While I don't see myself as a tournament player, I do go to them on occasion, and this seems like a good series of articles that could benefit players.

Totally didn’t expect to see so much salt for GW embracing tourney play as this site is obsessed with pretending every game is a minmax WAAC situation with netlists and zero fun. Go figure!

If the article *actually* embraced tourney play - it would be a different story, but that's not what this is. It's a cringeworthy effort to trot out a figurehead in order to be a mouthpiece for their messaging. Nothing more. If you search my post history, you'll see that while I've been critical lately, I'm typically defending GW and I'm often one of the last people to go after them for something like this, but this is .... just bad.

@ERJAK -

The problem isn't just that the 1st turn win rate is 58%. You have to look at the stat across the entire span of the edition (short though it's been). When the missions came out, most people could see the immediate potential for first turn advantage and snowballing. The white knights screamed about "tactics" and "change your mindset" even though it was right in front of them. The first weekend of tournaments happened and the percentage was something like 54%. The white knights rejoiced. The next tournament, that percentage crept up. The tourney after that ... the percentage went up again. Add to that that the percentage gets higher as you get deeper into each tourney and the skill gap narrows, and it's a pretty clear upward trend. There is unequivocally, a very clear advantage to going first. The fact that GW felt the need to trot Nick out to try and address that should say something.

40k pro?


I'm sorry if the dude is reading this but that is hilariously sad.

Dai wrote:
40k pro?


I'm sorry if the dude is reading this but that is hilariously sad.

Eh go back 5 or 10 ish years and people (even gamers) said the same of "video game pros"

Tycho wrote:

The problem isn't just that the 1st turn win rate is 58%. You have to look at the stat across the entire span of the edition (short though it's been). When the missions came out, most people could see the immediate potential for first turn advantage and snowballing. The white knights screamed about "tactics" and "change your mindset" even though it was right in front of them. The first weekend of tournaments happened and the percentage was something like 54%. The white knights rejoiced. The next tournament, that percentage crept up. The tourney after that ... the percentage went up again. Add to that that the percentage gets higher as you get deeper into each tourney and the skill gap narrows, and it's a pretty clear upward trend. There is unequivocally, a very clear advantage to going first. The fact that GW felt the need to trot Nick out to try and address that should say something.

You forgot : " Wait and see!"

...

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
There’s numerous reasons why the first turn advantage may not be as strong as the statistic represents. You’d be silly to ignore Nick’s opinion based on “the stats” it doesn’t matter if the data size is 3000 or 3 million, the stats ignore a human element and how we approach the game / our knowledge of it.

^ that

You forgot : " Wait and see!"

Ah yes - how could I forget! That inviolable bastion of logic, and the ever-present fall-back position of those who don't like inconvenient things. Like numbers, and stats and evidence and such ...

There’s numerous reasons why the first turn advantage may not be as strong as the statistic represents. You’d be silly to ignore Nick’s opinion based on “the stats” it doesn’t matter if the data size is 3000 or 3 million, the stats ignore a human element and how we approach the game / our knowledge of it.


^ that

And thus the cycle continues:

"There is no first turn advantage! Wait and see!"

Week 1 of tournaments yields something like 54% 1st turn advantage - "Hazzaah! No advantage! Just as we saw! The numbers prove it!"

Week 2 of tournaments yields a larger advantage - " ..."

Current stats show a clear advantage with the number worsening as the skill-gap narrows and a steady upward trend "There are many reasons why the numbers are wrong here! Listen to this man who hasn't played a tourney yet! On this website with a vested interest in there NOT being a 1st turn advantage! This is just like ... your opinion man!"

TL;DR:

Unbiased numbers > than the opinion of a man likely doing a paid advertisement ....

Karol wrote:
I mean it is kind of a funny considering he plays harlis. And I generaly don't get fun stuff most of the time.

I mean I really have to struggle to imagine what would have to happen to a list and table for a 20% difference in win/lose ration to not matter and a GK or Tau player decide, that they want to go second. Non of the scenarios had a higher win ratio for going second, according to the huge data pool the Goons showed. The best are close to balance, but still with a favour to the player going first. And this is including those armies not having a 50% win ratio.

But I am not a tournament player, not even a skilled player. Still it made me chuckle with the just use more terrain thing. I seen enough games of dense terrain, that vehicles couldn't enter parts of the table , and the person in first turn still has the edge. He sometimes even has more of an edge, becuase now all the extra terrain is blocking off any shoting that could happen turn 1, so they get free objectives.

GK can go second, especially the builds with a low model count. You hide your stuff and let your opponent come to you so you can get into combat with more stuff on turn one.

Personally, i'd rather go second no matter what army i play. Granted i do play with more terrain than tournaments usually use.

It's really hard to glean much of anything from tournament results right now for 9th edition. After all, the number of games has been a lot lower (for obvious reasons), plus the new Space Marines and Necrons codexes will make a difference in what we're seeing. I hate to be the guy who always says "wait and see", but I think in this case it is warranted. Maybe give it until the end of October before we start to make judgement with true voracity.

It's really hard to glean much of anything from tournament results right now for 9th edition.

The issue at play with the missions isn't going to be fixed via the codexes. It's an inherent fault in the missions themselves and how they're scored. "wait and see" doesn't really work here imo.

I had said "wait and see" on some other issues in 9th as I thought the books could fix those, and they very well may (although - despite the Marines being pulled more in-line, there is still a marked difference between Codex Marines and Codex Necrons that is fairly concerning), but THIS problem, isn't likely to be fixed with new books.

I'm not gonna lie, eveyrthing about this "article" made me embarrassed for everyone involved in it on both a personal and professional level. It just reeks of personal fantasies and tryhard wish fulfillment wrapped up in hamfisted marketing, and delivers basically nothing of actual informational value to the reader regarding tournament play. The ego stroking involved in what is a painfully product marketing puff piece is nauseating.

There's a way to have done this, and this was not it. I agree with many other posters here, and it's classic GW, a great idea executed abysmally.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
They obviously did, and it's a joke, because 40k doesn't keep track of any of the metrics necessary to make those ratings have any validity.

Honestly they reminded me of the old stats you used to get on Transformer toys.

Amusingly enough, when I was 12 or so, I took a massive piece of cardboard and drew a grid on it, then kept all my Transformers stat records, and tried to create a hybrid chess/tabletop game that relied on those stats to determine the outcome of the battles. It did not end well, but it was a really fun thing to think up at 12. Probably contributed to some of my bad grades in school, but whatever.