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.

Asmodios wrote:
the first "professional" Warhammer player.

A little part of me just died inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


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 depends on if my opponent infiltrates. If they infiltrate onto objectives I'd think about going first. If not, I'd go second. Can't score Turn 1, and the pre-placed objectives are all but guaranteed to give chargers free movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

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"

Still do. I mean I get it some of them can make incredible money. But that just makes it even sadder.

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.


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advantage would be significantly diminished if GW and the rabid white knights would choose to let go of the terribly outdated IGOUGO turn structure.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

AKA use all the houserules you can and everything is okay. Did you know the game is super balanced too when you ask your opponent to not bring models they might have wanted to bring as well? Did you also forget as the codices get released that gap gets a lot larger? Did you also forget this statistic for the previous editions?
Nope, not buying it, and quite frankly neither should you.

Breton wrote:

 Overread wrote:

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"

Still do. I mean I get it some of them can make incredible money. But that just makes it even sadder.

No more nor less than any other competitive event that gains sponsorship.

Dudeface wrote:

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.

It absolutely does because as long as they're not criticized they will continue to do the same old song and dance. We HAVE people in this thread denying that first turn advantage exists, despite the historical precedence of that statistic and those people forgetting how much worse it gets as time goes on with each new edition as people have basically solved it.

Tycho wrote:

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 ....

You should read this post.

"This community has a fundamental problem with the interpretation and citations of statistics and data."
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/j799yq/this_community_has_a_fundamental_problem_with_the/

Tycho wrote:


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

You mean the guy who specifically brought up all the new units, including the obviously meh Outriders, might be trying to help GW sell something?

 Overread wrote:

No more nor less than any other competitive event that gains sponsorship.

I'm prepared to agree with that. Paying enough real money outside of your own hobby gains to give some kid $300,000 a year or some such to play a video/tabletop game.... And we haven't even scratched the surface of fan merch etc ala NFL Jerseys and MLB Team Caps.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tycho wrote:

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 ....

You should read this post.

"This community has a fundamental problem with the interpretation and citations of statistics and data."
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/j799yq/this_community_has_a_fundamental_problem_with_the/

Yeah, no. This person that posted this is just mad they don't get 40k. If they were actually correct on this topic we would've been seeing more occasional toppings because of that "human element". 40k isn't complicated. There's only so much you can put on the human element.

You should read this post.

"This community has a fundamental problem with the interpretation and citations of statistics and data."
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/j799yq/this_community_has_a_fundamental_problem_with_the/

I've actually seen that post. The line "The statistics are a measure of what IS, CURRENTLY, doing well." is particularly interesting because, what is currently doing well is going first. Something that seems to do better and better the more data we collect. This was reflected in my own groups 200+ games of 9th as well.

Additionally, the following isn't wrong:

Just because an opinion isn't represented by the stats doesn't mean it disagrees with them.

Just because an opinion is mirrored by the statistics, doesn't make it correct.

The statistics themselves are objective. Your interpretation of them may not be.

BUT in this case, we have the opinion of a man on the manufacturer's website. A man known to, on occasion schill for said manufacturer, a man who charges hundreds of dollars for "coaching" and a man who, as far as I know, has not actually played in a tourney yet, vs a rule set that, if you read it, clearly lays out a bias for first turn and stats that, increasingly back that up. So, which way you leaning? 'cause while the numbers COULD be wrong, and while my interpretation of them COULD be incorrect, current evidence says the article's interpretation may not be so reliable.

It's especially funny because so many people said "Wait till we see the numbers! They'll show that there is no advantage." Now, we have them. They are leaning heavily towards said advantage, and those SAME PEOPLE are saying "Well, you see, your interpretation of the numbers - it may not be correct. Numbers are not wholly reliable and don't get me started on statistics and how they get gathered."

I suppose we shall wait and see.

You mean the guy who specifically brought up all the new units, including the obviously meh Outriders, might be trying to help GW sell something?

Slayer - I mean ZERO offense when I say this, but the fact that you and I are on the same page here should be screaming that there's something wrong!

I think you should read all of it instead of stopping at the points you can easily attack.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think you should read all of it instead of stopping at the points you can easily attack.

I did read it all and it reads like someone that got offended being told 40k isn't a good or complicated game and they went off.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think you should read all of it instead of stopping at the points you can easily attack.

I did read it all and it reads like someone that got offended being told 40k isn't a good or complicated game and they went off.

*shrug* Fair enough.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

It absolutely does because as long as they're not criticized they will continue to do the same old song and dance. We HAVE people in this thread denying that first turn advantage exists, despite the historical precedence of that statistic and those people forgetting how much worse it gets as time goes on with each new edition as people have basically solved it.

I know it's your 'thing' to drop in IGOUGO references all. the. time. but you know GW aren't going to change, now, soon, no indication of ever... that horse has been beaten to death, flogged into undeath, and is praying the resurrection spell fails so it can sleep peacefully now.

I think you should read all of it instead of stopping at the points you can easily attack.

Read it all as well. I just don't think it really changes much in regards to this discussion.

The whole thing is generally "Wait and see", "the best player in world went against the grain so your point is invalid" etc etc.

We started the "first turn advantage" discussion way back months ago with people saying "Wait and see - we need numbers". Now that we have them, it's "you may not be interpreting the numbers right, they don't mean what you think they mean, someone said something different than the numbers and that may be valid but it could also not be valid, the stats gathered across hundreds of games are meaningless as soon as an outlier appears" etc etc.

Like I said, his point about an opinion going against the grain doesn't automatically make the opinion wrong is absolutely correct, but you have to REALLY want to White Knight for GW if, at this point, you aren't at least suspicious of both this WarCom article as well as the first turn problem.

I've not read the WarCom article. I'm also not claiming there isn't a first turn problem.

I've not read the WarCom article. I'm also not claiming there isn't a first turn problem.

Fair enough then.

Seemed like you were arguing in favor of it.

Honestly, the player profile reminded me of the Rock in The Rundown, its more tongue in cheek than anything else
If you're actually offended by this article I'd say you have bigger problems.
As someone said, its always marketing, all the time. Its not rocket science.

I saw the inherent flaw to this edition the first game I set up to deploy. Like literally the first thing I said. Oh? Objectives scored at the start of the turn and the game length reduced to 5? Well that's 2 turns of scoring removed from the player going second.

I'm telling you. The way you fix this is make tabling a win and increase game length to 6 turns. Give the player going second a way to win if they logistically can't compete in the objective game due to the fact they have the first opportunity to be denied an objective.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I saw the inherent flaw to this edition the first game I set up to deploy. Like literally the first thing I said. Oh? Objectives scored at the start of the turn and the game length reduced to 5? Well that's 2 turns of scoring removed from the player going second.

I'm telling you. The way you fix this is make tabling a win and increase game length to 6 turns. Give the player going second a way to win if they logistically can't compete in the objective game due to the fact they have the first opportunity to be denied an objective.

No, feth having tabling as a wincon. I know youve got a hardon for blasting your opponents off the table but that would just make people bring lists that are 100% based on killing stuff. Which would make the already high lethality go even higher.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I saw the inherent flaw to this edition the first game I set up to deploy. Like literally the first thing I said. Oh? Objectives scored at the start of the turn and the game length reduced to 5? Well that's 2 turns of scoring removed from the player going second.

I'm telling you. The way you fix this is make tabling a win and increase game length to 6 turns. Give the player going second a way to win if they logistically can't compete in the objective game due to the fact they have the first opportunity to be denied an objective.

No, feth having tabling as a wincon. I know youve got a hardon for blasting your opponents off the table but that would just make people bring lists that are 100% based on killing stuff. Which would make the already high lethality go even higher.

How exactly would lists change?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I saw the inherent flaw to this edition the first game I set up to deploy. Like literally the first thing I said. Oh? Objectives scored at the start of the turn and the game length reduced to 5? Well that's 2 turns of scoring removed from the player going second.

I'm telling you. The way you fix this is make tabling a win and increase game length to 6 turns. Give the player going second a way to win if they logistically can't compete in the objective game due to the fact they have the first opportunity to be denied an objective.

No, feth having tabling as a wincon. I know youve got a hardon for blasting your opponents off the table but that would just make people bring lists that are 100% based on killing stuff. Which would make the already high lethality go even higher.

How exactly would lists change?

You would see even less models that are good because of their scoring capabilities (nurglings, termies, wracks) and you'd just see even more big guns and lists with damage output in mind.

It would mostly be a change in mentality where someone could completely ignore the mission and decide to just table the other guy, removing any sacrifices like making an action to score some points or sacrificing a unit to get engage on all front.

Its an easy way out and makes the game a slightly more complex dice roll, a stat check. Does your army have enough dakka to take mine down, feth the rest.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I saw the inherent flaw to this edition the first game I set up to deploy. Like literally the first thing I said. Oh? Objectives scored at the start of the turn and the game length reduced to 5? Well that's 2 turns of scoring removed from the player going second.

I'm telling you. The way you fix this is make tabling a win and increase game length to 6 turns. Give the player going second a way to win if they logistically can't compete in the objective game due to the fact they have the first opportunity to be denied an objective.

No, feth having tabling as a wincon. I know youve got a hardon for blasting your opponents off the table but that would just make people bring lists that are 100% based on killing stuff. Which would make the already high lethality go even higher.

Dead units don't hold objectives very well

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I saw the inherent flaw to this edition the first game I set up to deploy. Like literally the first thing I said. Oh? Objectives scored at the start of the turn and the game length reduced to 5? Well that's 2 turns of scoring removed from the player going second.

I'm telling you. The way you fix this is make tabling a win and increase game length to 6 turns. Give the player going second a way to win if they logistically can't compete in the objective game due to the fact they have the first opportunity to be denied an objective.

No, feth having tabling as a wincon. I know youve got a hardon for blasting your opponents off the table but that would just make people bring lists that are 100% based on killing stuff. Which would make the already high lethality go even higher.

Dead units don't hold objectives very well

Whats your point?
Thats exactly why i think tabling shouldnt be part of the game as a wincon. Killing your opponent already is its own reward. Its the same reason why i disliked the kill/kill more bonuses because you were double dipping in your scoring.

Honestly, the player profile reminded me of the Rock in The Rundown, its more tongue in cheek than anything else
If you're actually offended by this article I'd say you have bigger problems.
As someone said, its always marketing, all the time. Its not rocket science.

I thought the profile was really funny.

I don't think that too many people are actually truly offended by the article. I think the bigger issue stems from people NOT realizing that this is, as you say, simply marketing.

Man, Nick Nanavati seems like a really good pokemon to add to my team

I think a better change would be to move scoring points to the end of Player's 2 round for both sides.

Tycho wrote:

I've not read the WarCom article. I'm also not claiming there isn't a first turn problem.

Fair enough then.

Seemed like you were arguing in favor of it.

Nah. I'm just in favor of nuance. I don't typically bother with WarCom articles unless there's rules posted. Marketing makes me bleh.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You mean the guy who specifically brought up all the new units, including the obviously meh Outriders, might be trying to help GW sell something?

Nah man, he's legit. Did you see his stats?

Nah. I'm just in favor of nuance. I don't typically bother with WarCom articles unless there's rules posted. Marketing makes me bleh.

Yeah, I'd agree nuance is a thing and pretty important to keep in mind. IMO a lot of my current crits of 9th can be solved at the codex stage and I'm also fine with waiting to make a judgement on the over-all meta until the majority of factions have a proper 9th ed book because, IMO, 9th is just different enough that the 8th ed. books are "compatible" in only the loosest possible sense.

That said, when it comes to first turn - If we don't have enough evidence to outright declare the 1st turn issue, we do have enough to say it's not looking good.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I saw the inherent flaw to this edition the first game I set up to deploy. Like literally the first thing I said. Oh? Objectives scored at the start of the turn and the game length reduced to 5? Well that's 2 turns of scoring removed from the player going second.

I'm telling you. The way you fix this is make tabling a win and increase game length to 6 turns. Give the player going second a way to win if they logistically can't compete in the objective game due to the fact they have the first opportunity to be denied an objective.

No, feth having tabling as a wincon. I know youve got a hardon for blasting your opponents off the table but that would just make people bring lists that are 100% based on killing stuff. Which would make the already high lethality go even higher.

Dead units don't hold objectives very well

Whats your point?
Thats exactly why i think tabling shouldnt be part of the game as a wincon. Killing your opponent already is its own reward. Its the same reason why i disliked the kill/kill more bonuses because you were double dipping in your scoring.

I think the point he is trying to make is the same one I am trying to make. List wouldn't change in the slightest. You are already rewarded for killing.Tabling is a risky condition though and you would still likely have an advantage focusing on scoring objectives. The ability to win by table really helps the player going second if the player going first just keeps sacrificing units to hold objectives.