Is getting to go first broken?!

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Hombre de Mundo wrote:

    Could I suggest that once Gold hits, we report some additional statistics along with what we normally report for our games on this forum. So in addition to the matchup and the BPs and Most/Least valuable, we also specify (optionally but standard format should include):

    Deployment type
    Secondary Objective
    Who had first turn
    Who won secondary objective

    In 9/10 games I've had, someone drops. I find going first to normally be best with Empire but it depends a lot on the terrain and deployment type. If I feel like I can only deploy in one sensible way with only a few question marks, I tend to drop. Otherwise, counter-deployment is a good idea. But I'd like to see some statistics on the matter because I'm absolutely certain that some armies will have advantages going first, some matchups might even be decided by who goes first. So I think it'd be worth gathering some data on.
    I have played about 30 matches in 9th and none of the games has ever deployed alternating. There is always one player who drops. I have watched other games as well, and I have never seen anyone go for second turn. Even the old Bretonian army will try to deny first turn by dropping all and avoid their opponent to get the bonus.

    I would love to see some statistics as well, as I find it odd that so many are going for the first turn. If it is the case, that some matches are to some degree won or lost by this roll, I would highly suggest a forced alternating system as in the old days.

    Allthough 9th is the best version of warhammer ever, I still think this part of the game is a little off. The game should preferbly not be tipped massivly by a single dice before the game has even begun.
  • Nordly wrote:

    I would love to see some statistics as well, as I find it odd that so many are going for the first turn. If it is the case, that some matches are to some degree won or lost by this roll, I would highly suggest a forced alternating system as in the old days.
    Allthough 9th is the best version of warhammer ever, I still think this part of the game is a little off. The game should preferbly not be tipped massivly by a single dice before the game has even begun.
    You mean, instead of letting a single die roll decide who should get the choice between first turn and who should get a deployment advantage, a single die roll should decide who gets the first turn without the other guy getting much of a deployment advantage to compensate?

    We can't feasibly get rid of the advantage obtained from going first, not without rebuilding the game thoroughly to the point that it can't reasonably be called the same game any more. That leaves us with having to compensate the guy going second somehow. If the guy who goes first dropped everything on his first deployment turn, the other guy has already been compensated by having gotten to choose deployment zone, and will further get to deploy reactively.

    If that isn't enough, one self-balancing but rather boring solution would be to let players bid for getting the first turn, by a forfeiture of VPs transferred at scoring time from the winner of the bidding to the loser.
    Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.
  • Nordly wrote:

    Hombre de Mundo wrote:

    Could I suggest that once Gold hits, we report some additional statistics along with what we normally report for our games on this forum. So in addition to the matchup and the BPs and Most/Least valuable, we also specify (optionally but standard format should include):

    Deployment type
    Secondary Objective
    Who had first turn
    Who won secondary objective

    In 9/10 games I've had, someone drops. I find going first to normally be best with Empire but it depends a lot on the terrain and deployment type. If I feel like I can only deploy in one sensible way with only a few question marks, I tend to drop. Otherwise, counter-deployment is a good idea. But I'd like to see some statistics on the matter because I'm absolutely certain that some armies will have advantages going first, some matchups might even be decided by who goes first. So I think it'd be worth gathering some data on.
    I have played about 30 matches in 9th and none of the games has ever deployed alternating. There is always one player who drops. I have watched other games as well, and I have never seen anyone go for second turn. Even the old Bretonian army will try to deny first turn by dropping all and avoid their opponent to get the bonus.
    I would love to see some statistics as well, as I find it odd that so many are going for the first turn. If it is the case, that some matches are to some degree won or lost by this roll, I would highly suggest a forced alternating system as in the old days.

    Allthough 9th is the best version of warhammer ever, I still think this part of the game is a little off. The game should preferbly not be tipped massivly by a single dice before the game has even begun.
    I guess I played over 300 9th age matches probably and I would say over 70% of them goes with alternating deployment at least for a while. If my opponent deploys all first to start, in vast majority of cases this is a mistake... I tend to quite often drop all at some point and allow my opponent to start.

    But maybe I'm just weird...
    2016 - ETC Team Poland
    2017 - ETC Team Poland
    2018 - ETC Team Poland (C)

    Abrasus Tactics Channel
  • Randomus wrote:

    I guess I played over 300 9th age matches probably and I would say over 70% of them goes with alternating deployment at least for a while. If my opponent deploys all first to start, in vast majority of cases this is a mistake... I tend to quite often drop all at some point and allow my opponent to start.
    But maybe I'm just weird...
    Yes, people alternate a little while, untill they see their chance to take first turn. Of cause you will do like this often, depending on the army and matchup.

    Generally I am more interested in the fact that many matches, but not all may be partly decided by that one roll. I dare say, that even if 10% of all the matches in a tournament is affected heavely by that one roll, then the system is out of balance. Even though you can find examples of when it is just fine as it is.
  • Today I just notice one thing, the order of select objectives in king of the hill scenario should be opposite as it is now

    Actually it gives double advantage to the player who don't choose deploy zone, the option of deploy all for go first and choose the terrain after their opponent, so he can force the deployment of the enemy by choosing the most near/far terrain possible after opponent choose

    I think in this scenario the player who choose deploy zones should pick up the terrain after their opponent choose
  • On secure target happens the same case.

    Also, start has a big advantage on center and on spoils, and even on breakthrough it has an slight advantage if you can close enemys space to avoid the breakthrough.

    I would like my oponents let me start always :D
    Argentine ETC 2015 Team: Skaven
    Argentine ETC 2017 Team: The Vermin Swarm
    ETC Spain Champion 2018: The Vermin Swarm
    Spain ETC 2018 Team: The Vermin Swarm
    ETC 2018 Zagreb Winners: It´s conquerors time!
  • epoepo wrote:

    On secure target happens the same case.

    Also, start has a big advantage on center and on spoils, and even on breakthrough it has an slight advantage if you can close enemys space to avoid the breakthrough.

    I would like my oponents let me start always :D
    But secure targets has limits to put the objective, you can close your enemies options (and can be good or meah, in function of the enemies army)
    But, KoH have no limits, the second player can even choose the same objective as the firts
    Here is totally broke the advantage of choose deployment
  • Kharneth wrote:

    epoepo wrote:

    On secure target happens the same case.

    Also, start has a big advantage on center and on spoils, and even on breakthrough it has an slight advantage if you can close enemys space to avoid the breakthrough.

    I would like my oponents let me start always :D
    But secure targets has limits to put the objective, you can close your enemies options (and can be good or meah, in function of the enemies army)But, KoH have no limits, the second player can even choose the same objective as the firts
    Here is totally broke the advantage of choose deployment
    Yeah it has limits on where to put them, but that it means starting player, pushing, is playing to get 2 objectives (one almost guaranteed and other in play), and the other player almost only plays to defend his own objective, so is more hard for him to win it.
    Argentine ETC 2015 Team: Skaven
    Argentine ETC 2017 Team: The Vermin Swarm
    ETC Spain Champion 2018: The Vermin Swarm
    Spain ETC 2018 Team: The Vermin Swarm
    ETC 2018 Zagreb Winners: It´s conquerors time!
  • Dan wrote:

    To borrow a cue from economics, the invisible hand tells us that if it were truly broken all skilled players would drop first 100% of the time.
    In theory yes, but that is not how humans actually work. In this case it is not a clear advantage in all matcheups, scenarios and objectives. But some armies might have a clear gamebreaking advantage from going first in some cases. So may be the current system might work 90% of the time. I'd like to adress the remaining 10% or whatever the number is of the situations. We do not know yet, as we lack data. I have just risen the question without having the answer.