WestRider Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 So, I've run into this a couple of times now, and I'm wondering what's the rationale behind the decision to revert to the previous editions' method where whoever Deploys first must take the First Turn as well? Maybe it's just the way I build lists, but it seems like if you're designing a list that does well going second, Deploying second is also an advantage, because you can see where everything's going, and plan your own setup to best weather that first Turn strike. I thought the change in 7th was a really good idea, so if you want to go second, you have to tip your hand with your Deployment first, and gamble more about what kind of alpha strike you're going to be able to take, rather than seeing what the other Player puts down and where and being able to plan more accurately based on that. I noticed it even more so at the Forever Knight tournament this past weekend, because of the way the Maelstrom secondaries are scored at the end of each Game Turn, rather than each Player Turn, making it even more desirable to go second. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 I'm not sure why we would change it from what is in the rulebook. I agree. I like the way it works now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 I've been screwed over on this a few times in 7th where I was deploying to go second and then they chose to go second. It's off-putting because if you're setting yourself up to be out of range of things to avoid a bad alpha strike, then being forced to go first means you just waste a turn essentially. It's an interesting dynamic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 I've been screwed over on this a few times in 7th where I was deploying to go second and then they chose to go second. It's off-putting because if you're setting yourself up to be out of range of things to avoid a bad alpha strike, then being forced to go first means you just waste a turn essentially. It's an interesting dynamic. I think as long as you know that you have a chance of going second, you have to deploy appropriately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 I think as long as you know that you have a chance of going second, you have to deploy appropriately. That's my point. I forgot about it since I'm so used to the old method and then got outplayed by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 I also tend to play armies that are slow and have a lot of inertia/mass. Being off-balance at the outset can basically lose me the game almost immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted March 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 That's my point. I forgot about it since I'm so used to the old method and then got outplayed by it. I had the opposite happen to me, which is what got me to post about it. This was the one part of the BAO Missions that were used last weekend that I didn't catch, until I "Deployed*" first and then tried to go second. *Pod list. I didn't actually Deploy anything during Deployment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 Wait, is it a BAO mission thing that they force you to go first if you deploy first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 So, I've run into this a couple of times now, and I'm wondering what's the rationale behind the decision to revert to the previous editions' method where whoever Deploys first must take the First Turn as well? Maybe it's just the way I build lists, but it seems like if you're designing a list that does well going second, Deploying second is also an advantage, because you can see where everything's going, and plan your own setup to best weather that first Turn strike. I thought the change in 7th was a really good idea, so if you want to go second, you have to tip your hand with your Deployment first, and gamble more about what kind of alpha strike you're going to be able to take, rather than seeing what the other Player puts down and where and being able to plan more accurately based on that. I noticed it even more so at the Forever Knight tournament this past weekend, because of the way the Maelstrom secondaries are scored at the end of each Game Turn, rather than each Player Turn, making it even more desirable to go second. Maybe not in tournaments, but I have noticed this too. Personally, I like the idea that the player that deploys first must also go first. Second player can still Seize. As for best choice, I've found both have merits. First player has much greater potential to obtain first blood. They also have the ability to strike before powers like invisibility or smoke launchers have been deployed. If second player has some reserves, it permits first player to strike against less than an entire army, which allows focusing fire and results in greater destruction. First player's first deployment also has some of the greatest impact on the game, as placements can direct the flow of the game, leaving player 2 stuck with adapting to the opponent, rather than dictating the opponent's actions. As mentioned, second player is able to see their opponent's deployment while they deploy. Second player can seize. And second player can move on the last player turn of every game turn. I will note that I think Seize the initiative is a rather huge balancing factor here, as a player that seizes, MUST go first. The roll itself remains optional, though in a tournament, forcing the roll may be a reasonable balancing idea, as it leaves neither player certain of turn order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 The issue is that, as written in the rulebook, the first-vs-second decision is ENTIRELY in favor of the player who is going first. "Normally" (meaning the 6E/5E version and the version most tournaments play now days) the player who wins the roll-off for first deployment/turn has a decision to make; they must consider whether or not they will be trying to play for objectives (which favors the second player), whether they need to have psychic buffs or other activated effects prepped in order to weather the first turn of shooting (favoring the first player), whether they have Infiltrators or Scout (favoring the first player), and the relative ranges and deployment options of theirs and the enemy's firepower. A poor set of choices when deploying can allow the enemy to strategically counter-deploy so as to negate most of the first-turn advantages and leave them floundering for position as they find their guns out of range and models out of position. However, the 7E method removes many of these considerations. The enemy can't counter-deploy against you, because if they do, you simply give them the first turn and force them to be the one struggling to attain position- or, at best, leaving both of you out of position and in a stalemate. It allows you to selectively avoid the first-mover disadvantage in the game after you know what the enemy's plan is, and that is bad for strategy because it removes a lot of the interesting choices. It's not that you can't play the game that way- you can, and I have. But it really cuts out a lot of the choices you have to make and removes a significant amount of skill from the deployment process. I don't like it, and I'm glad ITC doesn't use it. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 Interesting readout on it from everyone. I may find my mind has changed. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonwinter Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 As for the tournament at Forever knight they used the ITC format missions they have that setup in for the reasons abuse puppy said. Being able to seize no matter who goes first is fair. In the BRB right now if you win the right to go first or second you lose the right to seize if you give up going first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 I actually like it the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted March 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 The issue is that, as written in the rulebook, the first-vs-second decision is ENTIRELY in favor of the player who is going first. "Normally" (meaning the 6E/5E version and the version most tournaments play now days) the player who wins the roll-off for first deployment/turn has a decision to make; they must consider whether or not they will be trying to play for objectives (which favors the second player), whether they need to have psychic buffs or other activated effects prepped in order to weather the first turn of shooting (favoring the first player), whether they have Infiltrators or Scout (favoring the first player), and the relative ranges and deployment options of theirs and the enemy's firepower. A poor set of choices when deploying can allow the enemy to strategically counter-deploy so as to negate most of the first-turn advantages and leave them floundering for position as they find their guns out of range and models out of position. However, the 7E method removes many of these considerations. The enemy can't counter-deploy against you, because if they do, you simply give them the first turn and force them to be the one struggling to attain position- or, at best, leaving both of you out of position and in a stalemate. It allows you to selectively avoid the first-mover disadvantage in the game after you know what the enemy's plan is, and that is bad for strategy because it removes a lot of the interesting choices. It's not that you can't play the game that way- you can, and I have. But it really cuts out a lot of the choices you have to make and removes a significant amount of skill from the deployment process. I don't like it, and I'm glad ITC doesn't use it. OK, so as I qualified it, it is a matter of how I build Armies. I'm never relying on the elements that favour going first, so, for my Lists, the advantages are all in favour of both Deploying and going second. Thanks for laying that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crono Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 OK, so as I qualified it, it is a matter of how I build Armies. I'm never relying on the elements that favour going first, so, for my Lists, the advantages are all in favour of both Deploying and going second. Thanks for laying that out. WR: I think there is a slight disconnect. Unless I've misunderstood AP's post, he made the argument that regardless of list design there is no inherent advantage to going second. The more games of 7th I'm playing the more I'm coming around to that perspective. The roll to deploy first decides a lot of the early turn elements. So I think is possible to take the opinion: in a general sense it is possible to create a list with few (maybe no) disadvantages going second. But that is not the same as having an advantage to going second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 I don't think that AP said that entirely. There's still the last move advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generalripphook Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 But the last move advantage is only a thing if maelstorm cards are scored at the end of the game turn. With objectives being scored as the game progresses there is not a big advantage of being able to jump on all the objectives turn 5 and score 3 vp for each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Depending on armies and scenario, there may be an advantage to going first, an advantage to going second, both, or neither. How all of that balances out is part of the skill of determining whether or not to take the first turn. The 7E RAW version removes many of those considerations- not all of them, but many of the most relevant ones to a lot of armies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 But the last move advantage is only a thing if maelstorm cards are scored at the end of the game turn. With objectives being scored as the game progresses there is not a big advantage of being able to jump on all the objectives turn 5 and score 3 vp for each.Grabbing them each turn still works though. Going second in maelstrom means you can counter your opponent each turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted March 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 And in Tournament play, where I'm mostly running into this change, it's still mostly about scoring Objectives at the end of the Game, which still provides an advantage when going second. EDIT: Also, when I say it's about how I build Armies, I'm mostly talking about the fact that I've been running Drop Lists almost exclusively for the past 6 months or so. Going second means I get to make my Opponent waste an entire Turn. There is really no reason for me to want to go first with these Builds. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.