I play rush the same way, getting to attack on turn 1 is way more important than getting a head start on the economy. Especially with my orc deck where economy really is a secondary consideration.

Really there are no benefits from going second, even as a rush. I would like to go second only if I had only units battlefield only on my hand. If that's the case the deck is probably badly built or you just had no luck with mulligan. True story.

That's a bold statement.

I think 5 damage into your obviously open battlefield on turn 1 sounds like a pretty good reason to me.

Rush also dumps their hand quickly and can really benefit from the extra card.

Of course if you are starting with double Warpstone on your hand you can go with 3xSpider Riders into the battlefield as a second. Otherwise you will have one attack and the enemy will kill all your units next turn/make attacking with them pointless. There is just too much unit hate (and too much dark elves/chaos). Also you attack for 6 damage into the battlefield. Empie on second turn (which is not uncommon for them) drops Hemmler to battlefield. Where is your rush now? I would always want to start and drop One Orc's Scrap to kingdom, Warpstone and Village to quest regardless of my deck's build. Unless Und Dokbar suddenly becomes popular

I'm not just talking about orcs, I'm talking about a style of play.

As a general rule if I'm playing a rush deck my goal is to kill you or at least put you on the defensive before you get all your tricks set up. I think a lot of decks do benefit from going first, but if I'm playing rush I will more than likely only need 3 resources to puke out a bunch of weenies and throw some attachments on them. If I do play anything other than the battlefield it would be my quest to replenish my hand.

I feel like if I'm taking time to setup then I'm not rushing as fast as I could be.

I know what you mean, because I used to play just like that with an orc rush through whole corruption cycle up to The Fall of Karak Grimaz when Master Rune of Spite came out. Suddenly loosing almost every unit (except of Clan Moulder's Elite) to one tactic was painful. Then there was Offering To Hekarti, which effectively shuts down every 1 hp unit. I think it was true death of rushes, but you can still suprise your opponent on tournaments with a rush if he's not prepared for it. But the game has sped up so much that even if you swarm me with weenies I can burn your zone using only 2 resources and 3 cards: rip+bloodthirster+warstone experiments. I think first turn set up is mandatory even if you play rush. So it will be always better to go first and be one turn ahead of your opponent. Maybe it's like in starcraft, you can win some games with six-pool but better players will not fall for it.

Maybe in your area rush starts second but imho you'll burn zones faster if you start first.Lemme give you a rough scenario where if the orc starts first and starts dropping grimgor camp a spider rider and warpstone in quest on the first turn.The next turn you proceed to drop the a sneaky git with choppa on it and a crooked teef.That pretty much burns a zone on the 3rd turn of a game with a game ender probablity on the 5th.All this and the 2nd player is just getting his 2nd turn in.This scenario isn't that uncommon though and thats the true advantage of going first.The overwhelming odds of a strong dice roll lol.

I know there is a lot of weenie hate out there now, but I still think rush can be viable strategy. I have play tested against the DE Hekarti build and beat all the ones I played against at regionals with a rush build.(Brayherd is a 60/40 match up in Chaos's favor though)

We could drop hypotheticals back and forth all day, but I will still prefer 2nd with my rush decks. Regardless of how you get there in the end I think burning a zone first is more important in determining the winner than who goes first.

Card Board Gamers said:

Who goes first usually burns the zone first. Either way you will attack after you opponent's first turn. By going first yourself you gain additional turn in which you can build your economy or play units into battlefield even if they can't attack. Honestly I can't see how being one turn behind is good for you, regardless of the deck.

With that kind of thinking you make the game sound like competitive coin flipping.

The best part of this game is the ability to adapt your strategy for different situations. If it were that black and white I don't think I could continue investing money in it.

Card Board Gamers said:

I think this statement is the heart of this discussion. Kaine is saying that laying the thwomp down on his first turn is better than playing some economy cards. The others are saying that having more turns than your opponent is always better, no exceptions. So who's right? I can't really say. Kaine is definitely right in a world with imperfect information, but if I sit down against an Orc board then I am thinking rush and would like to get my cards down that address opponents using lots of units.

So ya, it's an advantage to go first, especially if you know what the opponent is going to do, but if for some reason I don't take action against any sort of rush on my first turn, then the rush deck going second would be a rude surprise.

A case that I think is even more of a challenging question is Dark Elf control. Their control is very much "reactive" (as most is?), with cards like Withering Hex and Mindkiller. If DE control goes second then the other player puts down some cards, the DE player minimizes their benefit and plays cards of his own, creating some sort of resource differential. If DE goes first then they are holding on to all these control cards without knowing what can be developed, or whatever. So in that situation I'd say that there is a case to go second. In that particular case, the first turn advantage could be nullified by lucky DE control draws.

If there is one thing I've learned, it's that as soon as someone says "This is the best rule / deck / strategy" there is always someone out there that manages to crack it in hilarious fashion, to their benefit.

Attacking as second player means you will burn your enemy fastest in 3.
Developing as first player means you will burn your enemy fastest in 3 - but the enemy had one less turn to act.

jogo said:

Exactly my thoughts

Ok, i will think this through now as simple as possible. Consider your opponent going for an economic start no matter what, and yourself having a weenie rush deck of orc.

I go first: +1 for kingdom, +1 for quest zone and a weenie for the battlefield. (maybe go +2 on quest, you need cards!!!) / 1st turn opponent: does economy / My 2nd turn: Good chance to burn a zone, because of higher income, already one battlefield unit, more cards, whatever. 2nd turn opponent: initiates counter measurements, tries to kill everything which is usually more or less succesfull depending on his race and deck. My 3rd turn: either go for it and try to finish or lay back on economy, try to reset later (troll vomit or else), harrass his economy, good options…

Other way round

Opponent goes first: does economy, My 1st turn: I put everything in battlefield, but i have a lower chance to burn a zone (only 3 gold, 1 card drawn, no battlefield unit yet) i will end up doing 5-6 dmg as described but iam not having any economy. 2nd turn opponent: counter measurements, kill maybe one unit, My 2nd turn: no economy, but i can now burn his zone, 3rd turn opponent: finally kills everything and stops me on my run. My 3rd turn: no more options, i'm ded :D

This way, maybe still a big part of the rush decks being played, play themselves out. For a rush the most important thing is drawing cards. You can go for a kingdom economy of 3, but also with 4 you can support troll vomit or call the brayherd. So economy is the best, and therefore going first is the best, even with a weenie rush - just try it. And yes, some people say you can compare it to dice rolling, but i think there are still many ways to beat a starting player, even if it is chaos itself.

Exactly as i wanted to point out in my post gr4ffi.True i didn't mean that if you go first you'd win due to the dice roll,i just meant that some opening hands specially chaos now just win by second turn due to the lockdown they have and the game is decided.With a chance to mulligan to get that said hand it isn't really impossible.

The game is still balanced if the first player had a penalty of not mulliganing or some sort.It is just a suggestion with the way the game is being played out now thats all.At the moment theres no real downside of going first because in this game you can draw more than 1 card per turn unlike magic and completely make up for the loss of the first turn draw.