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.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truthfully you have to look at the stats they're presenting, for example:



As you can see, he's high in early game and in late game... or he's nearly finished loading. I'm not sure. But either one is good!

This post is one of the funniest I've read in a long time on dakka, thank you!

But what happens when he finishes loading? O.o

then it's early game for the next match. Back to buffering.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truthfully you have to look at the stats they're presenting, for example:



As you can see, he's high in early game and in late game... or he's nearly finished loading. I'm not sure. But either one is good!

This post is one of the funniest I've read in a long time on dakka, thank you!

But what happens when he finishes loading? O.o

He installs 10th Edition.

Breton wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truthfully you have to look at the stats they're presenting, for example:



As you can see, he's high in early game and in late game... or he's nearly finished loading. I'm not sure. But either one is good!

This post is one of the funniest I've read in a long time on dakka, thank you!

But what happens when he finishes loading? O.o

He installs 10th Edition.

Exalted.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Although if you've ever spoken to the guy, you'd know he has way more integrity than many of you are implying, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't know enough about the competitive scene to comment on the rest of your post, but I will say this. Unless we hear of an imminent lawsuit from him, I'd say that the article I'm about 90% sure GW wrote for him tells me everything I need to know about his "integrity".

The article on WHC doesn't read much different from things has written or said in the past. He always had this "the game is a great puzzle you just need to solve" attitude (and he was wrong about it often enough) and he rarely, if ever, called out the issues with the game because those issues are usually just one more tool that helps you win games.
He also is a professional, so him not slamming GW on the first interview they ever do with him is just natural.

You guys are so hilariously out of touch with who this person is but speak with full confidence about this identity you've invented for him, since he's a big bad pro player.

He was on live yesterday, outspokenly criticising GW for their contributions to this very article. Which is way more than others would do. What do you actually expect him to jump on WHC and start bitching about Eradicators OP and GW needs price drops? They aren't gonna print that lol. There's nobody who wants to grow the hobby more than Nick Nanavati does he works so hard to improve and build the community, you guys are such jerks on here lol

I said the very same thing, but good job jumping me for no reason as usual.

I’m sorry I misread what you were saying

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
He was on live yesterday, outspokenly criticising GW for their contributions to this very article. Which is way more than others would do. What do you actually expect him to jump on WHC and start bitching about Eradicators OP and GW needs price drops? They aren't gonna print that lol. There's nobody who wants to grow the hobby more than Nick Nanavati does he works so hard to improve and build the community, you guys are such jerks on here lol

Is he claiming that they've misrepresented his statements? If so, he should seek legal action rather than just go to camera. Likely he knows this, of course, and actually agreed with the content for the cash, but is now covering his butt to not lose the audience.
Like I said, I will only believe in any notion of integrity if I hear about that lawsuit.

I'm very familiar with that style of writing as I've had to use it myself before at work - it's full of fluff and nonsense and buzzwords, which is another hint that it's absolute rubbish.

Nobody is saying to just believe Nick at face value with no explanation. Although if you've ever spoken to the guy, you'd know he has way more integrity than many of you are implying, but that's neither here nor there. The overall point is if you have a good reason to believe that 1st turn is overpowered (as it does seem many of you do), then by all means, especially if you can't see a valid counter argument to that reasoning, you know what, you're very probably right. The point is that the stats aren't a valid counter argument because so often are they flawed, and there's already been very practical reasons given as to why they could be in this case. I'm saying don't blindly believe statistics OR blindly believe a person because they are a known name, both are a flawed approach. Nick Nanavati is an excellent player and has gone directly against the grain of what the groupthink and the stats-quoters believed many times in the past and been later proven correct, so I'd be inclined to want to hear out his reasoning for why first turn isn't overpowered before dismissing it off hand, and basing my opinion from there as until I heard convincing logic it wouldn't change my opinion. I personally suspect there is a slight bit of a first turn advantage, though I also suspect that it's not as slanted as the stats would show for some of the reasons given - it's how we're currently approaching the game as players. Reading his explanation as to why he believes it, seems he is also of a similar opinion.

But like I said, right now, we actually HAVE solid evidence of the advantage. We ALSO can just read the missions and pretty plainly see the bias for player 1. We also have a guy who is likely doing what is essentially a paid advertisement here in that article. You seem to be pretty up in arms about people saying the article needs taken with a grain of salt because it's a GW marketing channel. I'm sorry if that's upsetting, but it's the flat out truth. He's not going to go on a GW marketing channel and say ANYTHING negative. Well and good he criticised them after, but a lot of people won't see that. They will only see this article ad take it as gospel. COunter to your point above, people HAVE suggested we just take him at his word despite the fact that ALL of the stats say otherwise. At this point, the people (IMO of course) with the best work on this are Goonhammer, who's stats show there IS a distinct first turn advantage that actually gets worse as the skill gap narrows (with the exception irc of ONE mission I think). It's pretty clear. So now the folks that said "wait and see -the stats will prove you wrong" are saying "but - the stats are wrong! Totally unreliable!" It makes no sense. I'm all for listening to dissenting opinions, but the other end of it is that this community tends to get very fuzzy thinking. 1000 unconnected people have the exact same experience and that's dismissed as "group think/bad tactics/you aren't using enough obscuring terrain". ONE GUY says something he hasn't actually even had the chance to demonstrate yet, and it's "SEE! The stats are wrong!" lol And yeah, just like the other top players, he's succeeded in the past by going against the grain. But even there we draw the wrong conclusion. If it takes a player of that caliber, who spends most of his time doing just this to pull it off - it means there's a larger issue with the game.

If there is only 1 set of objectives in no mans land (like Scorched Earth, Vital Intel, Surround and Destroy, Battlelines) then someone is always going to get on them first and make the other player remove them (and have to survive himself). This won't change by moving scoring to end of turn.

Ignoring the fact that there are many missions without that setup, and the fact that we can change where they are, imo you're missing my point. Right now, player 1 rushes out and gets the objectives. Player 2 has to try and knock him off BUT since player 1 immediately scores top of his turn, he can score, then kill off player 2 and player 2 cannot score. At all. It's less tactical because you generally know where everyone is going and we get the "mosh pit" effect. Move the scoring to the END of the full round in round 2, turn 1 suddenly becomes much more tactical. You're not going to just rush out and take something knowing you can't immediatly score it top of turn 2. Turn 1 becomes jockeying for position, planning, and maneuvering. Then, turn 2 becomes about making the first claims, but the difference is, we actually have to fight it out. Player 1 can't just shutout player 2 before they even have a chance to score. That's the key. Currently player 2 can be easily shut out on turns 1 and 5 because scoring doesn't happen at the same time.

Additionally I play GSC, a deepstriking glass cannon army. 9th edition has been difficult since I am trying to claim objectives with basically guardsmen. If we score at the end of battle round and I go 2nd I can just deepstrike an Acolye squad next to you, charge your unit holding an objective (7" charge is pretty reliable) and take it from you while scoring with 0 possible counterplay from you. That you then kill the unit in your turn and again claim the objective doesn't matter, because I can do the exact same thing again next turn. With again no real counterplay.

If scoring happens at the end of the full round, player 1 knows you have the potential to do this, and must plan for it. Player 2 on the other hand has to time it very well. There actually IS a chance for counter play. The difference is, the counter play happens BEFORE the thing happens. What you describe is a thing that literally happens RIGHT NOW but with the difference that scoring can be cut off before a player even has a chance at it. Have you actually tried the type of scoring I'm talking about? If you played some games with it I think you'd see the advantages.

I think a lot of it boils down to ranges being to long in 40k. especially with the smaller table. I would ideally want ranges to be so that player 1 in his first turn is out of range for almost all of his guns, even after having moved forward. So player 1 moves forward onto objectives in his first turn and is mostly out of range. Player 2 moves forward and is now in range. So player 1 gets to move and score first but player 2 gets to shoot first. Both players get shot at once before scoring.

Table size and ranges are for sure a issue to be considered. We found 9th played better at a size in between the minimum recommended and the traditional max size. That actually was a significant improvement to our games once we did it.

Super Ready wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Although if you've ever spoken to the guy, you'd know he has way more integrity than many of you are implying, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't know enough about the competitive scene to comment on the rest of your post, but I will say this. Unless we hear of an imminent lawsuit from him, I'd say that the article I'm about 90% sure GW wrote for him tells me everything I need to know about his "integrity".

People are acting like this dude is 40k Jesus and can do no wrong.

he wanted money, will shill for said money, then will back off of the shill for different money.
Man, if this dude is what integrity is......



nuff said

Tycho wrote:

But like I said, right now, we actually HAVE solid evidence of the advantage.

You don't at all. You have a completely unnuanced statistics which are the opposite of solid evidence.

Tycho wrote:
You seem to be pretty up in arms about people saying the article needs taken with a grain of salt because it's a GW marketing channel. I'm sorry if that's upsetting, but it's the flat out truth.

I'm not up in arms even remotely ive posted like 3 times in this entire thread. I too have said I'd be skeptical at taking anything here at face value. You're really going hard out here mate for someone to be accusing others of being up in arms.

Tycho wrote:
At this point, the people (IMO of course) with the best work on this are Goonhammer, who's stats show there IS a distinct first turn advantage that actually gets worse as the skill gap narrows (with the exception irc of ONE mission I think). It's pretty clear.

The stats show that more people who are going first are winning. The stats do not show a distinct first turn advantage, thats what you've read into it. This is a point of principal, but it's important to know the difference. There may well be a first turn advantage. Or, as top players are telling us and SHOWING us, like Richard Siegler electing to go second in the majority of his games, maybe the first turn advantage isn't such a thing after all and it's simply how people are approaching their list building and deployment - two aspects of 40k many people struggle HEAVILY with. This is not an unrealistic possibility by any stretch.

Tycho wrote:
So now the folks that said "wait and see -the stats will prove you wrong" are saying "but - the stats are wrong! Totally unreliable!" It makes no sense.

I've never said the stats will prove anything, and I should say I'm speaking on behalf of just myself. If I've worded anything so far that made it seem that I'm speaking on behalf of anyone who has cited stats as their argument, I'd like to clarify that was most definitely not my intent, I'm speaking only for myself, and you responding with statements that others have made is not a counter to my argument. I'm also not saying the stats are wrong. Just like that big reddit write-up, the stats are objective - but your interpretation of them may not be.

Tycho wrote:
I'm all for listening to dissenting opinions, but the other end of it is that this community tends to get very fuzzy thinking. 1000 unconnected people have the exact same experience and that's dismissed as "group think/bad tactics/you aren't using enough obscuring terrain". ONE GUY says something he hasn't actually even had the chance to demonstrate yet, and it's "SEE! The stats are wrong!"

I feel like you are arguing past me with statements I haven't made.

Tycho wrote:
And yeah, just like the other top players, he's succeeded in the past by going against the grain. But even there we draw the wrong conclusion. If it takes a player of that caliber, who spends most of his time doing just this to pull it off - it means there's a larger issue with the game.

Top players display how the game plays when you are good at it. If you're bad at it, you may see much different results to the top. There's an argument to be made that this is the level we should balance it at, but doing so almost inevitably leaves imbalances at the upper end.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

You don't at all. You have a completely unnuanced statistics which are the opposite of solid evidence.

Which is still much better than what the opposite claim has, which is the point you seem to have difficulty grasping my friend.

You are technically correct in that the stats do technically just show that at the moment most people going first are winning (though you have yet to also acknowledge that they also show that the first turn win percentage actually gets higher in later rounds when player skill is more even), sure.

Yet it is still the best evidence anyone can provide concerning first turn advantage, either for or against it. Your appeal to authority is much flimsier evidence by comparison, and even if you're just saying that these dudes thinking this way means we should just wait and see no, feth off lol. Atm the best evidence (not just the stats, bluntly the reasoning for why going first is much stronger than second is better than Nanavatti's) suggests going first generally provides a big advantage, so that's what I'm going to believe. If the meta evolves and Nick is ultimately vindicated and the gap between first and second turn narrows then great, I sincerely hope he's right.

But until there's compelling evidence to believe otherwise I'm going to continue thinking first turn carries a notable advantage. There isn't always an advantage to going first. Just usually.

I'm pretty sure going first is an advantage *for most lists* because going first allows you to control the board, and a game where half the points rely on controlling points, that's going to matter.

Its increasingly clear 9th edition is an assault edition, not because assault is overpowered ludicrous damage output (although some instances exist) - but because assault is the main mechanism of contesting/claiming objectives in your or, potentially, your opponents turn. If by contrast you shoot a unit holding an objective off in your turn, you then have to move a unit to the point in your next turn, it has to then survive, and you might finally score some points in 2 turns time. Your opponent has two turns to respond, and so should be able to counter you.

So for example, since Tau have essentially no viable assault options, and slow obsec, they would appear to be screwed - especially if going second. If I blob up on objectives with just about any faction, then even if the Tau player can shoot my entire army to death by turn 3, they will not be able to claim significant primary points until turn 5. If as a result they are say 20-25 primary points behind, they are likely to lose. (Especially if I'm playing a faction which doesn't throw out 25+ secondary points just for killing stuff you had to kill anyway.)

I think the games where its complicated, as outlined in the reddit thread, are when two armies both have potent assault elements, and so getting the charge off is valuable. This may become more common at the top end - with factions that don't have such an element being driven out. In that case the usual bundle forward on turn 1 can actively be harmful, even if it gives you board control, as it potentially sets up your opponent for turn 1 charges. Which should give them the advantage, and puts them all over the central points. Obviously the scenarios are not all the same, so it will also impact this.

You also have the fact dead units do no damage and claim no points, so going first *should* also be an advantage there. So armies which will work are likely to be ones which are fast enough to stay out of range/LOS in the early game and can then deliver a decent assault phase later on. This would perhaps suggest why Harlequins are good. It might also explain why, in the Goonhammer statistics, Harlequins perform well going first and second, while there is a much bigger separation for certain other factions.

 Aaranis wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/08/metawatch-warhammer-40000-1-a-brave-new-world/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=40K&utm_content=40kmetawatch0802020&fbclid=IwAR1l82-wB5ncPIFGPqs63uCDHb_GwTMyreHXEG6d89FA421ZHKp1fE_8eaQ

WHC has started a new series of articles, focused on competitive play, with its first guest: Nick Nanavati himself !

I just read it. It feels disingenuous to put the onus of insufficient terrain on the players rather than the TOs, and to say "build your army to go second" (don't die) versus maximizing firepower. The ability to proliferate firepower, plus the relative ease to include LOS-ignoring attack profiles to cripple "key" firepower units means that in general, you will want to go first anyway. So long as 40k is IGOUGO, and firepower easier to obtain over cover...you want yo go first.

Edit: Looks like I was late to the party. GW editing and decontextualizing statements? Fun.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/08/metawatch-warhammer-40000-1-a-brave-new-world/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=40K&utm_content=40kmetawatch0802020&fbclid=IwAR1l82-wB5ncPIFGPqs63uCDHb_GwTMyreHXEG6d89FA421ZHKp1fE_8eaQ

WHC has started a new series of articles, focused on competitive play, with its first guest: Nick Nanavati himself !

I just read it. It feels disingenuous to put the onus of insufficient terrain on the players rather than the TOs, and to say "build your army to go second" (don't die) versus maximizing firepower. The ability to proliferate firepower, plus the relative ease to include LOS-ignoring attack profiles to cripple "key" firepower units means that in general, you will want to go first anyway. So long as 40k is IGOUGO, and firepower easier to obtain over cover...you want yo go first.

Edit: Looks like I was late to the party. GW editing and decontextualizing statements? Fun.

Players do play games outside of tournaments, I'm not going to be angry at a tournament organiser about terrain when playing a competitive level match at my brothers house.

Reminder time - being polite is not optional. You may disagree with what Mr. Nanavati has to say or how this article has been presented until you are blue in the face, being rude about him personally is not okay though. Anymore insults directed his way will earn their poster a vacation.

Dudeface wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/08/metawatch-warhammer-40000-1-a-brave-new-world/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=40K&utm_content=40kmetawatch0802020&fbclid=IwAR1l82-wB5ncPIFGPqs63uCDHb_GwTMyreHXEG6d89FA421ZHKp1fE_8eaQ

WHC has started a new series of articles, focused on competitive play, with its first guest: Nick Nanavati himself !

I just read it. It feels disingenuous to put the onus of insufficient terrain on the players rather than the TOs, and to say "build your army to go second" (don't die) versus maximizing firepower. The ability to proliferate firepower, plus the relative ease to include LOS-ignoring attack profiles to cripple "key" firepower units means that in general, you will want to go first anyway. So long as 40k is IGOUGO, and firepower easier to obtain over cover...you want yo go first.

Edit: Looks like I was late to the party. GW editing and decontextualizing statements? Fun.

Players do play games outside of tournaments, I'm not going to be angry at a tournament organiser about terrain when playing a competitive level match at my brothers house.

Except the statement was in reference to competive play; context is key.

"It’s my understanding that the vast majority of the competitive Warhammer 40,000 community believe that having the first turn leads to a nearly insurmountable advantage over your opponent in most games."

That statement is not an unreasonable one by any means. What is more debatable is the idea "the players do not play with enough terrain" is a burden on the players rather than the TOs. Terrain is a potential problem, but there are at least quite a few other "historic" problem areas throughout the editions.