Alpha Strikes

[Ser Warwick]

Just curious about players' thoughts on the topic. I have noticed that going first with aggressive units can lead to taking out key threats before they can properly respond.

 

I have not had any large issue with my opponents going first in any games thus far, but I thought it might make for an interesting tactical discussion. There is a large benefit to a successful first turn, but being able to respond to your opponent's moves in deployment and each subsequent turn is also quite potent if handled correctly.

 

To that end, a few questions: How do you tend to do combat alpha strikes? (i.e. MSU, redundant unit roles, advocating for LOS blocking terrain, tough units, etc.)

 

Do you prefer taking the first turn if you win the roll off? (I suppose it would depend mightily on how the lists match up.)

[PumpkinHead]

I think it mostly depends on the army you are playing and the army your opponent is playing.  Me playing bugs I have learned that a VSG is useful for shunting grav, while a malanthrope grants shrouding to my friendly little bugs.  That is all I got against alpha strike.  Going first or second normally comes down to what the objective of the game is, if I think I can weather the alpha strike, and what the opponent puts on the table.

[fluger]

List matchup and mission are critical for determining who goes first or second.

 

Another element of avoiding alpha strike is null deploying.

[JMGraham]

It seems to me (and I am just making this stuff up) that alpha strike armies like it best when their opponent does one of two extremes. If the opponent deploys very little to preserve their troops and response flexibility, then the alpha striker has the possibility of wiping out the opponent wholesale. If the opponent deploys everything, the alpha striker gets to pick and choose what pieces of the opponent's army to destroy, dealing a potentially crippling blow. So, I guess the middle ground might be the best? Deploy enough that you know you'll be able to survive, with enough (and the right units) in reserve to be able to make a strong counter-attack.

 

In practice,I don't actually know how often someone null-deploys and gets wiped out the first turn, but as an aspiring Raven Guard player, I hope it happens sometimes. At least, I hope it happens to my opponents sometimes. With the Raven Guard list I have in mind, I would want to go first against anything but a drop pod list. As such, I reckon it would behoove my opponent to go first, unless they drop pod (in which they would want to go second).

 

MSU also seems an appropriate counter, unless you're playing in an evironment where kill points are a possibility. I'm as guilty as the next person at avoiding kill point missions, but I think they're a necessity at balancing out certain types of builds (double demi-company, I'm looking at you!),

[WestRider]

Different Armies have different approaches to coping with this. Void Shields are useful in many cases if you want to start with stuff on the table and have a Fortification slot available. They have their weaknesses, but I really like Drop Lists (or other Null-Deployment strategies) in part due to their near invulnerability to Alpha Strikes. Some Armies can also spread their threats around enough that there's no particular targets that jump out as optimal to hit with the Alpha Strike; they're going to lose a certain percentage of their hitting power, but they're still going to have something to hit back solidly with.

[Ser Warwick]

Good thoughts all, thank you.

 

I will have to look into null deployment strategies, I take it you would likely want some sort of reserve manipulation in that case, no?

 

My main motivation is contributing to my post-game talk. The Ravenwing component of my DA got pretty brutal, and in taking the first turn I could almost choose what dies. Taking first blood, removing a key target, and getting right in the opponent's face with scout moves has given me quite a bit of forward momentum in the first few turns. Is it true that most ITC missions have 'first strike', wherein each player gets a chance at first blood during the game turn, rather than the player turn? Seems fair enough to me. I might ask if my next opponent would like to give that a go.

 

In further circumstances such as these I will be glad to give more tactical feedback than "Just seize the initiative, roll better next time. Actually, if you look back to the pre-game, when I rolled a 2, and you countered with a 2, that was a solid move. Then I rolled a 5, and you rolled another 2, see now, that's where you went wrong."

[WestRider]

ITC Missions have several possible Secondaries. I think Warlord and Linebreaker are in all of them, and then there are a bunch of others as the third one, rather than First Blood all the time. All the Missions are up on their site if you want to give 'em a try.

 

Servo-Skulls and Infiltrators are also things I'd recommend to your Opponents, depending on their Faction. Those can limit your forward distance on your Scouting and give them an extra Turn for at least some of their critical stuff. Even just a 55 Point Scout Squad or something can close off a big chunk of the Board to Scout Re-deployments.

[TW_Haines]

As a ork player, going 1st is a real advantage. If you destroy my key transports I am stuck with a slow foot slog. That makes a uphill battle. VonVelkee stone walled me last time we played, he got 1st turn. Then he dropped a few pods to destroy my transports. As I advanced my army kept speed bumping into his units if the game was 10 turns I could of won. Had I to push him off of everything so I lost. He played well and took out my speed advantage.

 

Tw