First or Second?

[Demagog]

I almost always go second. I also usually win, assuming both decks are equally matched. There are obviously negatives and positives of both. If you have a rush deck, going second gives you card advantage. Sure, the other person may be a step ahead of you if you have the same start, but that extra card on the first turn will let you outpace them. Plus, there's nothing more satisfying than going up against an entropy speed-rainbow and getting a first turn discord out. Decent chance they won't be able to play supernovas until their third or fourth turn.

I guess I just prefer to go second unless I have a deck-out deck.

[jippy99]

I think the answer to this depends if you have enough pillars/novas to get quantum with.  If you do, then I would rather go first.  If you dont, then you could pick up a card and go second.

[midg3333]

usually, first is better, but with some decks (such as denial decks, ESPECIALLY with pest) it is better to go second. I believe the reason somebody said going second is better for a deckout deck is because deckout decks are generally made to not get decked out themselves. In simpler terms: a deckout deck does not depend on going first to win. This means that if they go second, they have a (slight) card advantage, possibly allowing them to get their stall cards out easier.

As stated above, going second also gives you the element of surprise, especially if towers are being used.

then again, speed decks that rely on supernova get a huge advantage from going first, as do many other kinds of decks.

[howardron485]

1st:
1. First to establish quanta (Pillars, Towers, Novas, Immos etc.)
2. Your opponent draws a card and therefore starts with a full hand and may have to discard, you won't have to your first turn no matter what.
3. If the same amount of cards and no RT's, you win the deckout.

These are the sole reasons why you want to go first, no matter what kind of deck you're running. It's first for me.