I understand what you're saying but no, I do not think of it that way. Points spent becomes unimportant once they hit the table except for missions where cost can score. I care more about total orders remaining. This is especially true on missions that have a limited group size. I'd usually rather lose my pricey Gecko because the effort, even if done efficiently, only lowers my order count by 1.
@loricus you aren't disagreeing with me. Barring few exceptionally expensive or critical models, order quantity is way more important order quality. In most cases, the true value of a trooper is the table is in fact, the average value of the order, or 20pts in Tactical window. Every trooper should get three orders. Failing to get three orders or wasting an order is performing below average. For durable and "cheap" ARO piece like Gecko, it's sometimes difficult to count the number of order that enemy uses to kill it. Perhaps enemy HMG needed waste an order to move into good range band or cover? Speaking of TAGs and REMs, Remove Presence and inability to go prone are interesting attrition skills. Even with full link benefits, it's somewhat unlikely for BS13 HMG to kill a REM using a single order, because it takes three failed ARM rolls. An additinal order must be used. From attrition point of view this is extremely inefficient. The inability to go prone means that if an unconscious REM is repaired, you don't have to use an order to stand up.
I'm not sure if I quite follow here. When playing a mission that clearly favours going second, I should never pick second turn if I win the dice roll? If both players are skilled enough to know the advantage of the last minute objective grab, scenario 1 and 3.2 should never happen. Unless you're arguing that you should always choose first turn if you're given the chance regardless of mission.
I'm not arguing in that post, I'm just trying to list the options. Most players will be able to realise when the mission favours going second, but it is harder to realise when it extremely favours going second which some missions do, and more importantly - when your list is capable of capitalising on it. So if the mission favours going second, if both sides are sufficiently defensive, and if your list is capable of capitalising on going second - you pick turn order and choose going second. If all of those are not true, you pick deployment and try to force your opponent to go first. If your opponent judges that all of those three are true for them, they will choose to go second in spite of being counter deployed. Usually somewhat experienced players will judge that at least one of those three will be unfavourable so you'll end up with one of the two safe permutations: 1. Initiative, go first -> deployment, opponent deploys first 2. Deployment, opponent deploys first -> initiative, go first.
That and some people go the other way: "This mission heavily favours going second and if my opponent wins the Lt roll they will almost certainly choose deployment. Therefore, if I so choose I can basically guarantee going first." You can then build with that in mind and hyperspecialise your list for going first in missions that favour going second.
Certain factions that lack in midfield skirmishers (Onyx...) can build this way. Basically this is how I learned to play against Polynikes's CA - alpha strike hard turn 1 or lose, otherwise his canny piloting of specialists was going to win the scenario.
