Option when winning the initiative roll

Pretty much, the roll usually boils down to choosing to deploy second or choosing to go first.

There's an argument to be made for taking second turn in some missions, even if you have to deploy first, but you'll be starting at a distinct disadvantage.

 

You never choose to deploy first, if you choose deployment you do it to pick table edge and then get your opponent to deploy first on the side you choose for them.
I think the choice of who deploys first is a non-choise as it's basically never advantageous to select to deploy first.

 

1b) isn't really an option. There's literally no advantage to choosing to deploy first.

I often want to play second, since the mission design frequently favours it. When I want to play second, I will always choose deployment. 99% of the time, my opponent will then choose to play first. 1% of the time, I don't get my wish and have to play first, but in compensation my opponent has taken the handicap option and has to face a targeted strike.

I never take the handicap option, but it definitely has some advocates on the forums. I think it comes up more when you lose the roll, though: if the opponent chooses deployment, some players will sometimes still choose second turn.

My philosophy is: I built my list knowing I might have to go first or second, so I ought to be prepared for either option. So I shouldn't ever have to take the handicap just to get a preferred turn order.

 

While that's true I struggle to think of a case where this benefit meaningfully outweighs the benefits of forcing your opponent to deploy first.

Edit: The only other time I can think of wanting to deploy first is if you can make a highly impressive and convincing use of Holoprojector Lvl 1 to skew their deployment in a way that benefits you.

 

Heh, yeah, and if you're such an amazing bluffer that giving them a degree of misinformation works better than giving them no information at all! You're such a good bluffer that you fool them even though they're suspicious of why you chose to deploy first.

In which case you deserve to win, but also why are you playing Infinity when you could be off getting rich at poker.

 

Fair enough! I can't imagine it ever being worth it, but nonetheless I was wrong, there's not "literally no advantage" to choosing to deploy first.

 

You can, but that also means your opponent is extremely predictable or that you've gotten advance knowledge of their list you shouldn't have. Or that the terrain basically forces deployment.

Edit: to actually gain more advantage from deploying first than forcing your opponent to deploy blind and you to deploy with good knowledge, that is.

 

Exactly. It's such a damn stretch I had to do some mental gymnastics just to conceive of it.

 

Depends how good your ARO game in the list is, whether you've got strategos 3, or if your main attack pieces aren't actually on the table.

If my main attack pieces are a Hac Tao and a Tiger Soldier my opponent is more than welcome to try come and alpha strike me in my DZ if it's full of warbands with chain rifles and crap that's a waste of time to dive deep on.

 

If you think about it in the reverse and YOU have a crapton of mines and deployables (like MadTraps and Koalas), unless you deploy second the use of said tools is limited. I heard at least once in the forum, and once in person, of an Ariadna player choosing to go first against an army that can also fill the midfield just to be able to place a dozen midfield camos without restriction.

 

I think you have contemplated all the options.

The most common choices taken I think are 2a and 1a.

1a is taken often for that players who really want go second but it will have no problems going first, because the mission goes over controlling something (quadrants, consoles...) and sometimes play second allow react to the things the rival do. For example, if you need to take quadrants, which scores at the end of the round, in a first turn probably your enemy only will have 2, maybe 3 if he is lucku or plays with a lot of infiltrators. So, you can put all your effort where you need it and gain that "round score".

2b is choosed sometimes for some players when the table's setup allow a really good hidden deployment and the advantage of close the game is clear and the mission is about "controling something" at the rounds/match end.

1b a lot of people will say this never should be done, but they are occasions when is useful, of course, is a really risked choice. When it could be a good choice...? When we will be certain our enemy will want to deploy a lot of "camos" with minelayers and or weapons like CrazyKoalas. Remember a mine can't be deployed affecting a camo marker. So, with our camos, better if they are mines, can deny some areas for the enemy deployables weapons. It is not the best choice, but int some games it would be useful. As @Kumatake81 said before me. This will the reason to do it. Back in N2 was really useful, but now in N3 not so... we will see in N4.


The most obvious choice is "go first" (2a), because allow us to do damage and remove some orders to the enemy, still they are severeal things to take in consideration in order to make the choice.

Extras:
Are we playing Limited insertion? Then both lists will be the same in "size". So, all right.
Are you playing IL but the match isn't LI or at least Tactical Window, then, probably you should choose go first no matter what.

The Table: to me is one of the most importants thing in a Infinity game. The setting can provoke a lot of differents outcomes for the very beginning. If it has a high terrain density or not this could completely change how your lists works.

The Faction/List you are playing: Do you have more large range than shor range weapons? Have you a lot of specialists or you have only a few... etc.

The Enemy: what faction you are facing comes always with various considerations to take. of course too what kind of player.

For example, if you are playing Varuna, have the core with kamau multisnipper plus ORC with feuerbach and the table is really open, with good spots where deploy your long shooters... And you are facing something like SSA, maybe in this case do you want go second because the kamau snipper it will be a rock against which SSA will crush. The best option to put down the "kamau" is achilles, but not every SSA players choose achilles, and even this character don't have all the odds with him. But, what happens if the table setting is too closed, too many buildings, with no a lot fo LdTs. In this scenario where the snipper and the feurbach haven't good ranges or spots where to deploy, probably you will be the first player.

Another Example: You are facing something like TAK or Ariadna (vainilla). Two armies which can literally deploy all the list as camo markers. At least you have a lot of orders to waste in "discover", probably it will better for you let him to beginn the game. If you don't probably you will loose your first turn triying to discover mines and decoys. If he want to kill something or to push any button it would need discover that camo marker. Still this choice depend a lot of your lists, because it needs to have the power to resists a first assault of a lot of camos.

I said before, in your battle report, if you have fiday you should go always first. I used "always" and maybe is a strong word. Is the most usual choice, but for example the case against TAK or Ariadna, it would be a good case of "go second". "Ghazi's jammer" should you allow to resist the first turn. Too the haris and the core. The weaponery of Muyibs is a really good one, with lightshotguns and too the asawiras. It is hard to pass over the ghazi and go for the fireteams. And too if the enemy want to put down the fidays at least it will have to reveal first to do the first discover. If the table allows you to deploy in a form you can provide covert fire to the fiday them it will an expensive "discover order".

The thing with "hassasin" or "a haquiss player who love the fiday" is that your rival can't afford let you go first, because the treath the fidays do is too risky, with the exception if the enemy are playing some alien faction (tohaa or CA), all your valuable troups are good in CC (SSA) or you place a lot of camos (TAK, Ariadna Vainilla).

After all this considerations come the "Mission thing". If the things to score can be done only at the end of the match or the round, maybe it will be a good idea choose "deploy, side, order (enemy first, you second) " when one of both sides is clearly worst than the other and you go want to go second, because most probably your enemy choose go first in order to have "some advantage". If both sides are pretty mucho the same, you could still risk to choose deploy, because it is probably your rival want to "close" the game.

For example, Armoury it would be a good scenary to go second, because it will be the rival who waste some orders opening the doors (not if he uses Antimaterial but this case could even forced him to expend more orders), but Highly Classified it is the scenario in which you want to go first for to main reasons: if you can do the Objetives it will the enemy who will have to do the same in order to draw the match, if you can't do some of them, you can try to do some, many as you can, and too you can try to eliminate the specialist which can do the objetives you don't.

:) Best regards!!

The true is that not exists any rule which tell you what to do in every case. It is something you must see in the very moment you have the table and know what your enemy is playing with.

 

Even where the mission objectives don't specifically score at the end, like Annihilation, there are still big advantages to going second because of the 3-turn cap. Your opponent has no choice but to attack on turn 1 - if they play too defensively, they've basically wasted a turn and now you get 3 turns to their remaining 2. So they have to attack, which means exposing their attack pieces, while none of your pieces are exposed.

Ideally, they move into the midfield to attack your dz but you manage to stop them from doing too much damage. On your turn, you kill the attack pieces they left in the midfield. Repeat twice more. They kept having to go after your dz but you got to ignore their dz completely.

A list that uses impersonators, superior infiltrators, or drop troops benefits less from this strategy, since if you go first, you're already in position to attack their dz.

 

If you have builded your list to go second, then probably it will a good choice, of course, even in "to kill" scenarios, and if the table allow you that (not every setting does, sadly). When I played with Acontecimento I haven't preference about to go first o second, even I deployed sometimes at same time as my rival, no matter if I was the second or not. This is one of the reason I stopped playing with Acontecimento as my regular choice.

We will see what bring to us N4, the N3 Start change the "go first choice" a lot, letting the players the "go second choice" thanks to the "tokens"... Now I think isn't so good choose 2º "always" as it was, but it is a really good opition sometimes. The good here is we can't say this is the better option, because it has many factors to take into consideration. So, I hope this will continues in N4.

 

I see this on the forums from time to time, and it's interesting, because I would never consider building a list to go first or second. I always try to build a list that can do either, since I might have to do either at the table.

It would never be a good idea to build a list that could only go first. Your opponent might win the roll and choose to go first, and you've already lost.

I guess I can see building a list to go second, as long as you're willing to accept the handicap fairly regularly. Your opponent will basically never win the roll and choose to go second, so you'll pretty much always get to go second but you'll frequently have to take the handicap to do it. I have a hard time imagining a list that wants to go second _that_ much, but clearly there are players who can. Is it a popular approach, to build a list specifically designed to go second at the expense of being able to go first?

 

Considering that Infinity is not a game where you win or lose a game at list-building, at all, that is not the case (that you´ve already lost if not going first). There are some armies or lists that have easier ways to leverage going first or second, as I learnt coming from Nomads to play Invincible Army exclusively for a year, but nothing too definite to make me lose the game if I went second.

This is a finely balanced game, and tbh I feel it has more to do with your own abiity and comfort zone. I find myself impaired to play defensively or "hiding" stuff, but much better at evaluating favourable active exchanges and so have typically more sucess with an army that was active-turn advantages like IA. But I know some players that excel at lock-down midfield defenses, for example.

 

Oh, you can definitely lose at list building, but it's not dependent on going first or going second, more about handicapping yourself for the mission so much that you never stood a fair chance in the first place. Like, put all the order-hungry units in the second group sharing only 5 orders, and use only expensive toolbox units instead of heavy hitters, have the toolbox units have basically the same toolbox so that you don't have a variety of tools, and have a fairly obvious LT.

 

Hinges on the list and table a lot I'd say.
Generally speaking I've seen tables where one DZ was significantly better than the other.
Depending on lists that can matter a lot, either to make your opponent's spammy list set up in relatively open terrain or to allow you more security.

What makes a well balanced list is usually the ability to deal with a sparse DZ no matter if going first or second. When ideal terrain doesn't matter as much you're free to go for picking first to get some work done and cripple your opponent. Going second can be an advantage if the mission favors it AND you don't expect your opponent can deal with your defenses, which again is a matchup/table thing.

From general experience, if you had to pick one option and stick with it, I'd go for turn 1, making it impossible for to win despite the mission favoring going 2nd.

The closest thing to an "I win" scenario has been picking Deployment in a mission that heavily favors going 2nd. There are very few tables and matchups where you can give the opponent counter deployment with favorable outcome. If he goes first you have the mission on your side, if he choses to go second you're probably ripping him apart.
Really looking forward to N3 making things more of a 3 turn back and forth slugfest and less of an alphastrike heavy meta.

TL:DR - it depends