Let’s get this discussion its own thread and start talking it over. Is going first that big of an advantage in this game? To combat this topic lets approach by first looking at the advantages and disadvantages of both going first and going second in a game turn and what this means for a player.

Going first Advantages:
1) You are able to shoot first both in the Command and Activation phases. This is obviously a very good advantage because your troops are fresher and you have a higher torrent of fire (more shots are always better). I think this is particularly nasty with long range shooting during the command phase because it can allow you to begin the suppression and elimination aspects of this game.
2) You gain free reactions. As the Rules Are Written you only loose your reaction if you have a reaction counter from taking an order or you are suppressed. This means if you did a sustained or double action in the activation phase you are still able to react to the enemy in their activation phase. Whereas the person going second only gets to react to your actions causing them to gain a reaction token and forfeit an action in their activation phase.

Going first Disadvantages:
1) You are unable to use orders to clear suppression before the activation phase that is cause by your opponent in the command phase. This can be vital as if you order a unit to take an action they then gain a reaction counter forfeiting a action in the activation phase, then if your opponent causes them to take a suppression they loose an additional action in the activation phase (as these effects stack). Effectively you can lock down an entire unit this way. The only unit this is not a total bad scenario with is Hero units as suppression works differently for them (remove on blanks when attached to a unit and ignored when on their own)

Going second Advantage:
1) You remove suppression from the command phase. This doesn’t mean you’re always going to be unsupressed as your opponent can just turn right back around after you removed it and resuppress you in the activation phase. It does however allow you to react to your opponent’s movements and shooting in his activation phase which is very important and arguably necessary.

Going second Disadvantages:
1) You get shot and suppressed a lot with minimal ability to react.
2) You have to choose to react and loose actions or sit and plan for sustained actions.

So let me hear what people think on this, is going first truly that advantageous or is it just that people need to learn how to make second turn work for them? I sort of believe it is you need to make second turn work for you, I also believe that this isn't THAT bad since the order of who goes first and second changes with each turn.

Another advantage to going second is if it's the last turn and you're playing key position or break the line (or something similar), it's easier to get your guys to their objective without having your opponent take them out, and also easier for you to focus your attack on your opponent's units that have reached their objectives, knowing that other units can be safely ignored.

all valid points, yet try as i may an analysis of the games structure simply on a "i go, you go" basis doesnt truely represent the situation.

Its true that having the initiative is a huge bonus, yet going second has its own advantages. We realise you will most likely suffer supression and issues, yet when on the back foot you can tidy up at the end of the turn, knowing what moves your opponant has made that turn and thus punish mistakes or make moves of your own.

What a great deal of the game comes down to is how particular force lists interact with the initiative. Allow me to explain.
Take an allied assult based force. We are talking lots of assult rangers here. Lets presume for the sake of insanity that the force has a very short average range of 6".

Now, initiative is clearly going to be a huge advantage on the attack. If we can, we want to use this force in a way that lets us move in the command phase so as to avoid those nasty reactions when we move our troops within 6", and then unload in the unit phase. Suppression is going to be an issue also, clearly.

Now lets presume a situation. 3 units a side. On the axis side we have 3 units, all 16 inch shooters, and on "our" side we've 3 units, all 6 inch range. Lets presume we are at 15/16"'s away, where things are going to get interesting.

With me? Good, its been a bloody long day and i expect sympathy by the bucket load where possible.

Now in our first example we will have initiative. We want to close the gap without risking reactions in the unit phase (as those 3 units moving into shooting range and then firing in the unit phase will result in so many reactions that we'd be destroyed outright with ease). So we use our commands to move out fast infantry to within 6" of our foe.

Their command phase - Ok, they can spend command points to ensure we are absolutely buggered by firing at our units, putting suppression on units already sat with reaction markers.

Come our unit phase we are going to roll, presume on average 1 unit removes it suppression, and bingo, we can give a little punch against units that have reaction markers on them also.

This particular scenario is remarkably common in games, especially when people are still finding their groove with the game and the rules. Allow me to crunch the situation

Allies have the forward foot.

we command to move into close range
axis command to shoot

we are now supressed AND have reaction tokens.

Roll dem bones, hope you get lucky.
How else could this go? Well, our opponent may well get smart and not command to fire at us, but if he doesn’t, we can destroy him in the unit phase (or react and we both wipe each other out). Long story short, the axis player is going to be sat in a situation where he can react, but those units simply wont survive, yet perhaps neither will ours.

Now, same situation and we are allies, yet axis have initiative. Go make me a coffee if you'd be so kind and we will see how this could play out.
Again, we are at 16 with 3 units that need a 6 inch range to fire. The foe is ready for us (arnt they always)?
Command - the axis are going first. They can use their command to give us suppression, not a bad idea at all as it'll limit our actions, or they can prepare for us by betting on using those reactions well.

In our command we can either do nothing and suffer the huge backlash of movement reactions Or we could use our command to move forward, avoiding those reactions. We could also use command points to remove any suppression we suffered if the opponent used their command to shoot at us. We have flexibility, they have to take a stab at what they believe to be their best plan, we do not, we can simply counter as required.
So, if they spend command shooting at us - we spend command to regroup or move forward, depending on how we feel. If they dont, we definitely want to use out command to get in their faces and avoid reactions to our movement.

Now the unit phase - ok so the axis go first, and if they didnt spend command to supress us, they have 2 actions. If we moved forward with our command, we are going to be seriously hurt and supressed, and unlikely to have an action in our unit phase. Yet, if we spent our command to clear our suppression, at least now the enemy only has 1 action due to their reaction. If the axis player doesn’t use his command to supress us, we can risk it, wait, or use reactions to get out of the bloody way

With me so far? Good.
What we have here is a situation where the 2nd player is more informed as to the abilities of his/her opponent, where going second does indeed decrease your damage output and put you on the receiving end of an ass kicking, yet the second player can see a clear scenario, while the opponent cannot.

The thing is Caecitas your are relaying a very situational argument that involves two units with a huge difference in how they function. No matter what the Axis player in that scenario has a huge advantage because all of his units out range you significantly and that is going to be a negative for you no matter what.

We have to remember this is a dynamic game people should not be taking just 6" range guns every group has access to long range weapons which are important in the suppression aspect of the game. Additionally this is a free form battle simulator where strategy matters. If you have short range weapons use the table top to your advantage you don't run them down the middle of the board without expecting to get shot to pieces no matter the scenario. You need to out maneuver and bait the enemy into ambushes with your more powerful short range weapons.

I am sorry but the argument you were making is not valid for this discussion as it doesn't take enough variability into consideration. You are providing too situational of a point to make an accurate argument that first is too powerful. I could just as easily provide you with a scenario where 2nd is clearly over powered, do you see where I am going here?

So lets pull ourselves out of this tunnel visioned argument and look at the bigger picture of how good is it to really go first?

felkor brings up a good point for additional advantages to going second, I had left that out on purpose though because it really only applies to going second in the LAST game turn and I wanted to focus more on generalized game turns as the turn order on this game is NOT static so you cant assume your going to go second in the last turn of the game and that is the only time this advantage presents itself.

One thing I would like to point out though is that the way the initiative in this game tends to work out it seems to be to draw games closer together then making it supper advantages for one player like in similar games (40K). Here if you have lost a lot of units you have lower dice in your command pool and on average you should be going first more often so the advantage should always be going to the "loosing" player in those scenarios. This means they are never truly out of a game. I have played many games of 40K where an alpha strike from my opponent can easily take out a quarter of my force now leaving with a huge uphill battle to fight in order to win. This game system allows for a player who took a trouncing in the previous turn to (on average) come back with an advantageous position. I must say I personally like that aspect of it.

I'm not going into a long rehash of what's already been other than to say I agree, going first is not the holy grail, end all be all. Can it be powerful? Sure. Can it be countered? Absolutely.

I think the initiative system of this game is one of the many things that make it shine. Another thing that is uncommon in current mini-game offerings is the Scenario-Builder & Terrain placement rules. Take those rules out, and then yeah, first Turn becomes much bigger IMO.

This is definitely a case of rules synergy. Without the terrain being 25% of the table and making good scenario/condition choices based on your list vs your opponents, then initiative becomes vital. If you play the entire rule-set properly, and utilize the conditions & terrain with skillful maneuver, then the game comes down to making the right decisions at the right time, rather than a lucky initiative roll.

I find the entire ruleset refreshing, fresh, and imminently playable as a balanced whole! Something I've come to expect from Andy Chambers. Well done to him and his team of FFG staffers! Now, as for the proof-reading/editing of the book…

That's a whole different topic being discussed ad nauseum and it is what it is. *shrug*

Going second gives a player the opportunity to pull off some risky moves. You can march move or enter from reserve, and then use your next turn's command phase to attack before your opponent can do much about it.

Denied said:

yes it was situation, no i wont write up my explanation usng an example that takes into account a 300ap game.

My point remains, going second is not as serious a disadvantage as many have claimed, and initiative shifts. The real question should be is "is changing initiative that good", which yes, it is. Timing is vital to this game.

caecitas said:

Bingo!

And, speaking as a Deputy Marshal working mostly in cities and buildings, who prior to my law enforcement career battled in jungles and sand, it's pretty **** vital irl, regardless of terrain.

Besides the various points already covered, my own experience with these dice is not a sure thing. I've seen 6 dice on an initiative roll come up blanks and the opposing 4 die player was all hits. There is still a fair amount of random dice results that can shift the initiative back and forth.

Someone can work a list to work the dice pool angle to go first. The other side is packing in as many units in to lay down as much suppression as possible to cause a decision in command phase.

The battle builder gives some flexibility to make adjustment to the environment to best suite your position.

How much of these arguments are based on theory or actual play?

Knightdrake said:

Mine are based 100% on play experience. The only game where I saw a "Go First" turn swing the game to all but ensure the win was the first one I played: Terrain was sparse, I had 10" range advantage on 90% of the models on the table, and I destroyed 60-70% of my opponents army that turn. However, it shouldn't have happened because we played it wrong. Based on the die rolls, my opponent should have been the initiating player, and the game would have probably been far more evenly matched. So, I think had we played it right, even with the scarcity of terrain, it would have been more balanced, as intended.

Yes I was chagrinned and mortified I won so easily my first game due to unintentional cheater head, lol. All my subsequent games have been far more interesting.

All of mine have been based on personal experience. The only thing I will admit though is all my play testing has been done currently at 150pts due to the simple fact a lot of the people in my local scene (including myself) are all new to Dust and don't yet have a grasp on the game so we are playing small games to get our feet settled. That being said there are certain things that are very powerful in small games especially with the first turn advantage in round one. Specifically Snipers + Angela, if I get first turn with Snipers and Angela I can remove my opponents snipers from the board before he can do anything with them.

My experience has been with only 150 also and using core boxset models. Been a win some lose some without much effects from going first. Bigger piece was going second last round to have that all out push without follow up round retaliation.

I'd rather win the roll and go second because I find the more orders you have the better off you are, plus with weapon ranges being as Short as they are let you opponent move up into your range.

Denied said:

No we have played a gambit of different scenarios and also I am one of those noobs lol, who has actually played with several different lists. I wasn't the one in my group who discovered how good snipers were either at low points spamming them is really powerful. It was a guy who I was demoing the game for who was like hmm snipers sound fun oh I can fit like 3 in a platoon DONE! He DESTROYED me lol. It was sad.

Denied said:

Haha. Well, there are a few ways to deal with them. You can try for "unprepared" deployment, so that support team comes in on Turn 3, or if you're allies, choose an Assault Platoon and put up the smoke screen to reduce their range. Luckily I haven't had to deal with more than one sniper squad, as we just play with the units I own, and I don't own more than one of anything. I'm interested to see just how lethal Angela + snipers is though.

felkor said:

Very! But Once demonstrated, I might as well paint a bullseye with a, "Shoot me first!" caption on her tank-top.

Like low point values she is amazing the higher you get the more there is to balance against her. Or at least that has been my experience.

Denied said:

Ditto here. Especially vs someone who's been previously rofl-stomped by her previously.

Just wrote an article about this very matter over at Fire Broadside and came to a similar conclusion as the OP. All theory so far though as I still have only played one game. Two more planned for tomorrow night though!

If you're interested you can read my thoughts here: Dust Warfare - Some Additional Thoughts .

Going first is always an advantage in just about any game when you think about it. It is "slightly" balanced against the responding player having more commands (very slightly)…. but if you want to go fist, win the roll-off. Sounds silly and can suck if you roll like crap all game long but dice have to play a role in any dice-based game and at some point your dice will inevitably be on fire. Hot and cold dice is what makes the game fun in many ways as well. Think about all the post-game discussions you have with opponents playing just about any dice-based wargame…. its almost always, "Remember when you rolled those 3 sixes!", or "How did you get 4 hits out of 5 dice", or "you couldn't buy a good roll for initiative", etc., and laughs are had (most of the time) and if a player is not very good it lets you say to them "If you would have rolled better…." regardless of how they rolled as people only remember bad rolls and seldom remember good ones and then they go home feeling like they could have won and don't feel so bad and you don't have to make them feel bad by saying "hey, you kind of suck at these games and that's why you got smashed!"