PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on first blood



Commissar Merces
29-08-2012, 16:04
Alright before anyone really jump down my throat, I have to say I really enjoy 6th edition (once my gaming group cut the fat out). I avoid mysterious anythings, pretty much all warlord traits (we re-roll if we don't like the first one we get), we also allow for a psychic power re-roll if you can't use the power (like broodlord with no BS for a witchfire).

One thing we have kept, however, is first blood and I think we maybe changing that. While first blood is always fun, it's beginning to take the fun out of the games I play. In older editions, some people would make the tactical decision to NOT take first turn in hopes of better firing positions/have their opponent walk into a trap. Now, however, everyone takes first turn and focuses fire on a single unit in order to get a free victory point for first blood. I can't tell you how many good games I have played lately have come down to who got first blood and that doesn't sit right with me. It's almost like non of the actual battle mattered at all (as most people will have linebreaker and potentially slay the warlord).

I am curious to see if anyone else has seen trends like this? I am not bitter (as I have won many games because of this rule) as much as I am saddened by the exploitation of this rule.

Thoughts?

orkmiester
29-08-2012, 16:23
I do see where you are coming from...

"but";) it has in my opinion put a sort of "balance" on whether you have first turn or not. In 5th going 2nd gave a distinct advantage, that dammed mission "capture and control" IIRC was 2 home objectives and that was it (aka happy campers:rolleyes:) that mission still exists. Though with first blood and slay warlord a winner can be decided without too much trouble, far better than sitting there and playing for a draw, which is what it usually came down to.

In most of the missions they only serve to provide some incentives, in addition to capturing the objectives.


:angel:

Scammel
29-08-2012, 16:28
I like it, I think the nature of 6th's missions and objectives promotes balanced forces. Troops for objectives obviously, FA and HS for their respective missions, heavy firepower to secure First Blood, fast units to get Linebreaker and some manner of reliably killing the enemy warlord, possibly your own.

Aluinn
29-08-2012, 16:31
I do think it's kind of disproportionately punishing to anyone who takes light vehicles; it certainly encourages large (or just plain tough) infantry units, and though that's not necessarily a bad thing, I think the rest of 6th already does it well enough. That's my only problem with it and otherwise I agree with Orkmeister.

If you keep it I recommend holding things like Land Speeders in Reserve, no doubt. There are other ways to get around it a bit; using enough terrain to allow a couple vehicles to be thoroughly hidden at deployment helps (though so does first turn Night Fight, if you roll it up--and for that eventuality keeping things in cover is of course a huge boost). It also sometimes involves a trade-off, e.g. you might be able to easily pop a Drop Pod, but that wouldn't otherwise be the optimal target priority. Shooting the weakest or most vulnerable units first is not always what you want to do, and if you offer units to your opponent in deployment, try to make sure that's the case as best you can.

Commissar Merces
29-08-2012, 17:35
I get what you are saying, but think about it like this. Dark Eldar are in a pretty tough spot with their Raiders. If they don't get first turn, they are pretty much guaranteed to already be down a kill point.

Or an imperial guard platoon command squad (5 people). I understand that part of the tactics is hiding these units, but it is a relatively steep penalty to pay.

ReveredChaplainDrake
29-08-2012, 18:12
I noticed this in my last game, a Scouring mission with my Necrons versus Black Templars. My Annihilation Barge got knocked down to 1 hull point and lost its quantum shielding after some LRC fire, so I unabashedly spent several turns running into a distant corner with it. (We were playing diagonal deployment.) Ironically, first blood actually went to me when I knocked out the LRC with a Doom Scythe, and if it didn't I would've lost because I started out with some of the lighter-weight objectives.

First Blood is pretty huge considering how easy it is to get versus how much of an impact it causes. It may only be worth one point, but in practice it's more like two points because, unlike the others, only one person can get First Blood, ergo a two-point swing. In practice it's a restriction against MSU and token scoring units, but by that logic I think it should go to whoever gets the most kills, or both players could get a point each for killing half their opponent's army. Causing heavy casualties is really the kind of thing you should be rewarded VPs for, especially in an objective mission where killing is otherwise unrewarded. In the game I mentioned above, I had one big meaty unit of Warriors just leisurely strolling across the board for Linebreaker after the LRC decided to go down the other flank. I probably could've taken some shots at some units I passed by, but given how First Blood had already been decided, there was no point in bothering to even pot-shot the nearby Bolter units when I could just run instead to scoop up Linebreaker and the four-point objective.

As for Mercer's examples of Dark Eldar Raiders and IG platoon command squads, I'm not particularly moved by that considering how easy it is for both Dark Eldar and IG to get first blood if they do get first turn. Also, IIRC, both Dark Eldar and IG have some pretty potent boosters to their first turn roll. I know DE have Sathonyx and Vect, and I'm pretty sure Creed has the same seize effect that Vect does. There's probably more silliness, but I'm not very read up on IG.

Ace Rimmer
29-08-2012, 18:24
I've found in the half dozen or so games I've played of 6th that the margins haven't yet been close enough for it to make a difference.
But I'm sure once I finish my daemon army, I'll find my main opponents Grey Knights somewhat more of a threat than my Eldar do.

Commissar Merces
29-08-2012, 18:41
I noticed this in my last game, a Scouring mission with my Necrons versus Black Templars. My Annihilation Barge got knocked down to 1 hull point and lost its quantum shielding after some LRC fire, so I unabashedly spent several turns running into a distant corner with it. (We were playing diagonal deployment.) Ironically, first blood actually went to me when I knocked out the LRC with a Doom Scythe, and if it didn't I would've lost because I started out with some of the lighter-weight objectives.

First Blood is pretty huge considering how easy it is to get versus how much of an impact it causes. It may only be worth one point, but in practice it's more like two points because, unlike the others, only one person can get First Blood, ergo a two-point swing. In practice it's a restriction against MSU and token scoring units, but by that logic I think it should go to whoever gets the most kills, or both players could get a point each for killing half their opponent's army. Causing heavy casualties is really the kind of thing you should be rewarded VPs for, especially in an objective mission where killing is otherwise unrewarded. In the game I mentioned above, I had one big meaty unit of Warriors just leisurely strolling across the board for Linebreaker after the LRC decided to go down the other flank. I probably could've taken some shots at some units I passed by, but given how First Blood had already been decided, there was no point in bothering to even pot-shot the nearby Bolter units when I could just run instead to scoop up Linebreaker and the four-point objective.

As for Mercer's examples of Dark Eldar Raiders and IG platoon command squads, I'm not particularly moved by that considering how easy it is for both Dark Eldar and IG to get first blood if they do get first turn. Also, IIRC, both Dark Eldar and IG have some pretty potent boosters to their first turn roll. I know DE have Sathonyx and Vect, and I'm pretty sure Creed has the same seize effect that Vect does. There's probably more silliness, but I'm not very read up on IG.

Point being whoever gets first turn as a high chance of getting a victory point that the 2nd person will never be able to get. If it was a VP for a totally killed unit in the players first turn (so both players have a chance) I would say this is more fair to all parties.

Scammel
29-08-2012, 18:50
Point being whoever gets first turn as a high chance of getting a victory point that the 2nd person will never be able to get.

With the advantage of deploying second, I'd argue that player 2 should be capable of putting his fragile units in positions where they're not liable to killed off.

Narf
29-08-2012, 19:04
id also argue that in going 2nd that player has more chance of getting linebreaker, an removing the opponents linebreaker unit in the last player turn of the game.

Nurgling Chieftain
29-08-2012, 22:52
With the advantage of deploying second...Which you may not have gotten at all.

wyvirn
30-08-2012, 02:00
Well if you have a light vehicle such as a rhino or raider, you are weighing loss of first blood versus getting a linebreaker VP. Compared to a a footslogger list, you are able to cross the battlefield more quickly, but are more likely to forfeit the first blood VP.

A big problem with many of my local players is that they don't adapt to the situation. For example, they wouldn't change which units are held in reserve based on opponent or their deployment. Or they wouldn't use terrain to minimize shooting casualties in the first turn and allow an outflanking/deepstriking unit to mow a small or exposed unit off the board.

I agree that First Blood doesn't treat all armies the same, and some races do get the short end of the stick. But this is usually balanced out by other factors, such as a 50% chance of getting the first turn advantage (barring special character/StI shenanigans), and it's only a single VP. So overall, I like it.

zendral
30-08-2012, 04:54
I think it's alright, sortof balances things out a bit. In the begining it was about who got first turn.....first kills, first everything. Editions later going second was more advantagous. Get last moves, deploy second, etc. First blood now makes one think a little more about whether going second is as cracked up as it was.

Sexiest_hero
30-08-2012, 08:11
It's fine. Second player gets the last turn. first player gets a CHANCE at first blood.

Nostro
30-08-2012, 08:53
But it is indeed a 2 VP thing, so has a big impact.

sprugly
30-08-2012, 09:17
It's ok in my book, going first has the advantage of the chance to do damage before your opponent can do anything and potentially getting the single first blood point.

Going second usually means you've deployed second and gives you an advantage in grabbing or clearing objectives in the last turns without you opponent have another chance to react.

Add in the unreliability if night fight happens and the fact that it helps encourage players to get stuck in at the start.

I have no problem with the rule or any rule in the book to be honest.

Sprugly

Pentregarth
30-08-2012, 11:43
Also, it's just all kinds of awesome if you get first blood, take out your phone and play the first blood sound from UT ;)

Rick Blaine
30-08-2012, 12:30
But it is indeed a 2 VP thing, so has a big impact.

It's a very reliable 1 VP, but there is absolutely no way it could be even remotely considered a 2 VP swing.

sprugly
30-08-2012, 14:27
Because its only available for 1 player it could be seen as a 2 point swing. 1-0 to 0-0 to 0-1.

Sprugly

Str10_hurts
30-08-2012, 14:35
It's fine. Second player gets the last turn. first player gets a CHANCE at first blood.

This was my thought exactly. I think its fine.

Some army builds have a minor disadvantage same goes for slay the warlord I guess. Now imagine playing 6 objectives on a hammer and anvil table with an immobile army, now there is an disadvantage.

Max_Killfactor
30-08-2012, 15:00
Also, it's just all kinds of awesome if you get first blood, take out your phone and play the first blood sound from UT ;)

Exactly.

I think it's a fun rule, that so far hasn't cost me any games. I almost always said "first blood" anytime something dies in warhammer, warmachine, mtg, or whatever nerdy game I'm playing... so I'm glad it has a rule.

Sithlord
30-08-2012, 15:50
the only reason that first blood thing is exist is to make sure that you ain't get any draws anyway (which pretty much how i translate all those secondary objective are use for).
The only thing that is so terrible in VP scoring is that warlord trait where you challenge somebody and killed them, get a free +1vp's. Yea I enjoy that warlord trait being a dark eldar archon :p