Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
what do you all prefer?
i used to think that going first was the way to go, as you get the first shots. but as i played more i learned that going second has some big advantages. first, you get to counter-deploy. this means that you get to see where all of your opponent's units are and the parts of your table that are the most in jeopardy. this allows you to deploy in areas that are not well covered by his guns. i like to run oblits and defilers, and i can deploy them behind terrain out of LOS. then on my first turn i pop out and actually get the first shot. since my opponent deployed first his units are always out in the open for max LOS. this means you can effectively deny your opponent the benefit of having the first shot. secondly, you get the bottom half of every round. this means you can use your princes or tanks to make a big 12" move to contest objectives to close out the game. this will win you more games that you should have lost than you can count.
funny thing, the two games i've lost were game i went first. ever since i realized that i always defer to my opponent and let him go first, and i haven't lost since.
just something to think about.
I love the smell of promethium in the morning.
I havent really won a game yet, except for my 1st 500 point fresh out of the box AOBR game. But I prefer to go 2nd for the same reason, get to see where your oponet has placed everything and see what area of the board is most important to them and can exploit it.
Theres different arguements for both sides really, for example yesterday I played a game against a Chaos army with my Tau and I won the roll for deployment but let him go first. In the first turn he shot two lascannons at my devilfish which caused it to explode, kill 3 of the fire warriors inside, then they failed their leadership test and ran off the board which nearly cost me the game if it wasn't for some last minute objective contesting, I would've lost.
One shall stand, and one shall fall.
Going second is better for armies with fast skimmers - they can go 24" to contest, not a measley 12". Going first also grants the critical advantage of being able to choose deployment zone. (And if your opponent is deploying in the open without smokes on his vehicles, he's an idiot.) TLOS also makes it difficult to actually hide vehicles if your playing on a board with proper terrain.
"The sergeant major asked me what my job is. I told him it's to do what I am told. He gave me a medal. I like the Imperial Guard."
"Innocentia Probat Nihil"
It doesn't really matter if my army goes first or second, they will get the job done. I think it all comes down to experience, and experienced player won't loose to an opening dice role. Going first or second, in my opinion, matters only on objective based missions and not so much for kill points.
The Wolf time is upon us!
Rep for the Rep God! Positive for the Positive Throne!
Armies: Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Emperors Children, Necrons, Eldar
But I digress. Going first to me means taking out transports, getting the feel for range and possible turn 2 charges. It also means luring my opponent into fire zones by moving certain units.
It will also force my opponent to submit his reserves early in the game and allows me to better handle their arrival.
Going second means my opponent has deployed out of range: I use his movement phase to get closer as well. It will also confirm my suspisions about his plan of attack. I will often go second
if I can use Deep Strikers/Outflankers without having to worry about enemy reserves.
Innovation suffuses this hobby like a tea bag in the boiling water of play.
I normally deploy first, partly because all of my main opponents are really good at counter deploying, and so taking the second turn not only stops them doing this, but also lets me do the same, ideally neutralising their biggest threats to me, and putting my biggest threats in places where they'll do the most damage.
Also, against armies like orks, it can give me a couple of turns of shooting, whereas normally they're out of range on turn 1.
That said, it can be useful to choose a deployment zone, and choose/deny your opponent certain terrain features, or just keep some terrain behind you so that you don't have to charge through it.
adamwelton "Bliss-giver is right as always."
"Opportunities multiply as they are seized."
i will say counterdeploying doesn't work all that well if the table has too little terrain.
I love the smell of promethium in the morning.
For me, what it really comes down to is army composition and my enemy. Generally, I have a list that has some long range firepower, but really shines at midrange and closer. What this means is that against lists I know can pop transports like a boss and leave my poor marines foot slogging, I prefer to go first, hoping to close as much distance as I can before losing my mobility. Against lists that I don't have to worry as much about first turn transport loss, second is great, as I can deploy conservatively, and set up lanes of fire and dictate more of the battles by either denying flanks or having more reactive movement/drawing opponent into poor decisions.
Also, the ideas above cater to my playstyle, which is always "Table your opponent". The biggest thing that hamstrings me is High T high wound models (effin troop tervigons). Objectives usually enter my mind around turn 3, if my forces aren't clearing out the opponents troops fast enough.
As for the terrain, I always make sure there is at least 25% of the board covered. I had a local tourney I lost in the last round due to <10% of the board having cover.
The day will not save them. And we own the night.
CSM: W:25, D:3, L:9
DE:W:2, D:0, L:0