As I watched the LVO games it became apparent to me that many players were doing massive CP dumps. Nayden dropped literally all of his turn 1 for example.

Marines are driven by this, but with the addition of leaning on warlord traits. However, with a TFC not getting double shoot AND tremor, or players deciding between transhuman or duty eternal this turn could drastically reduce issues.

There may be some caveats. Just as Thousand Sons get unrestricted smite the armies that operate on strats like GSC may need to be allowed two or more.

Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

Hmm. Would basically virtually kill command rerolls from your turns(still used during opponent's turn to reroll saves). Could be good though. Less reliability. Or maybe give CP reroll excemption.

Let's see how it would change me:

Sisters. All death of character triggering stratagems would often die as you would be trying to save him via CP first.

Shooting blessed bolt(dominions) and retributor stratagem couldn't both be used. Not sure is that really issue those are used...Would basically delete one unit from lists.

What comboes were so horrible? Could similar get by same unit can't be affected by more than 1 stratagem per phase?

CSM, kyborgs / PG combit terms/ Reaper chaincannon bomb combos with Votwl would die.


Probably Votwl just as a whole.

Recycling stratagems most likely aswell.

Daemonengine lists would basically drop from somewhat functional to dead.


Short, all armies not getting just basic rules + (at this stage only marines get that) and therefore requireing CP to fuel the gameplan instead would literally collapse like the card house they are comparatively speaking atm


Also, stratagems like AA missile etc, stuff that allready doesn't see the light of day, would just entirely stop existing.

Well that kind of a depends if ones army is the one army that is going to get the exeptions. If yes, then why not. Anything that makes the game harder for others, makes it easier for me. But if my army is suppose to be able to use only bolts, and nothing else, then I want a new codex that makes blessed bolts a unit upgrade and not a stratagem. Hey they can even make it an ability granted to a unit by a character performing some sort of non psychic power action.

Maybe one per phase per detachment?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Maybe one per phase per detachment?

Still seems high though.

Personally I'd be happy with (and actively want) absolutely no stratagems at all.

If I was redoing them I'd have a smaller amount of CP per army, 1 per phase and a single generic stratagem list.

Not Online!!! wrote:
CSM, kyborgs / PG combit terms/ Reaper chaincannon bomb combos with Votwl would die.


Probably Votwl just as a whole.

Recycling stratagems most likely aswell.

Daemonengine lists would basically drop from somewhat functional to dead.


Short, all armies not getting just basic rules + (at this stage only marines get that) and therefore requireing CP to fuel the gameplan instead would literally collapse like the card house they are comparatively speaking atm


Also, stratagems like AA missile etc, stuff that allready doesn't see the light of day, would just entirely stop existing.

Good points. Hard to refute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
Personally I'd be happy with (and actively want) absolutely no stratagems at all.

If I was redoing them I'd have a smaller amount of CP per army, 1 per phase and a single generic stratagem list.

My other thought was reducing the CP back down again. Previously they bumped it to help elite armies, but now those elites are pretty silly.

Of course these are half baked ideas.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
CSM, kyborgs / PG combit terms/ Reaper chaincannon bomb combos with Votwl would die.


Probably Votwl just as a whole.

Recycling stratagems most likely aswell.

Daemonengine lists would basically drop from somewhat functional to dead.


Short, all armies not getting just basic rules + (at this stage only marines get that) and therefore requireing CP to fuel the gameplan instead would literally collapse like the card house they are comparatively speaking atm


Also, stratagems like AA missile etc, stuff that allready doesn't see the light of day, would just entirely stop existing.

Good points. Hard to refute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
Personally I'd be happy with (and actively want) absolutely no stratagems at all.

If I was redoing them I'd have a smaller amount of CP per army, 1 per phase and a single generic stratagem list.

My other thought was reducing the CP back down again. Previously they bumped it to help elite armies, but now those "elites" are pretty silly. Those like CSM have soup and their own CP batteries if needed.

Just to reiterate.

my opinion is, Get rid of stratagems, ( AA missiles get just a basic attack profile, Unit upgrades like butcher terminators, get to be an buyable / pts upgrad for certain subfactions, stratagems like cacophony or Votwl and any such BS from the same vein get outright deleted), Traits get a price point / model attached including keyword ( want AL; good troops pay 2ppm more WB +0 ofcourse adapted to the unit type.) Movement stratagems get switched up, the basic table size increases due to the basic premise of even more models due to seize creep, so that we finally may again have manouevre that matters for more then just deepstrike this Alphastrike unit with this combination to the face and are done with.


but again that is me, also can we please get back the old cover system, or modify the ones used atm into something that isn't as bonkers as either ITC baseline BRB ? Would that be a possibility?

Increasing the basic table size required to play wouldn't sit well with a lot of places and people, that'd get expensive to implement.

 Melissia wrote:
Increasing the basic table size required to play wouldn't sit well with a lot of places and people, that'd get expensive to implement.

well then we will just have to desize creep then don't we?

Kick out knights and other superheavies,
go back down to 1500 pts.

Because atm my regular R&H army has more models then my ork army had some editions back....

Returning the CP reward for Battalions and Brigades back to what it was before the bump would be my preference. I liked multiple small detachments for the thematic separation of units within an army into distinct battlegroups.

Then GW basically passed a rule that if you don't take brigades and battalions, you lose. When they did so, they completely invalidated the thing that made DE armies feel unique, because a single CP for patrol detachments couldn't compete anymore.

The really frustrating thing? The problem they were trying to solve by doing this was already solved by things like battle brothers and the rule of three.

I don't support one stratagem per turn at all. Strat combos are the only tools that some armies have, and as pointed out, some strats become absolutely unviable with a limit.

As for no strats, just play open. No battleforged armies = no cp = no strats. You already have the tools to do this. Use them.

Can't find people who want to play that way? Maybe that version isn't as fun as you think it is.

PenitentJake wrote:
Returning the CP reward for Battalions and Brigades back to what it was before the bump would be my preference. I liked multiple small detachments for the thematic separation of units within an army into distinct battlegroups.

Then GW basically passed a rule that if you don't take brigades and battalions, you lose. When they did so, they completely invalidated the thing that made DE armies feel unique, because a single CP for patrol detachments couldn't compete anymore.

The really frustrating thing? The problem they were trying to solve by doing this was already solved by things like battle brothers and the rule of three.

I don't support one stratagem per turn at all. Strat combos are the only tools that some armies have, and as pointed out, some strats become absolutely unviable with a limit.

As for no strats, just play open. No battleforged armies = no cp = no strats. You already have the tools to do this. Use them.

Can't find people who want to play that way? Maybe that version isn't as fun as you think it is.

Battalion to 3 and Brigrade to 6 or 7, perhaps?

In theory it's a nice idea, in practice half the armies in the game lose all functionality as they rely so heavily on CP.

As far as stratagems go, it's nice when they afford more agency and points of decision to the player.

Something like zapping a character with Bolt of Change? It would be great to drop 1CP to create a Spawn rather than retain 20 Reinforcement Points in your roster which might otherwise never be used effectively.

Something like Prepared Positions, or methods to Infiltrate or DS units? Really useful and not abusive in the majority of cases. It also creates a mechanic for alternating activations with things like Counter-Offensive.

Associating stratagem cost with Power Levels would help a lot in the short term. In the long-term, I think it should be more of a tradeoff between pregame customization, deployment effects, ways to affect your VP objectives and then finally the offensive and defensive effects somewhere mixed up in the rest.

Moving to 40k Proposed Rules

I think its 100% fine to dump it all at once, its a limited resource. Now what i don't agree with is how many stratagems there are, how easy it is to make 3 detachments and get lots of CP and that some stratagem are even in the game.

Stratagems and CP should be highly viable, game changing and limited, a strong tactical tool that if used at the wrong time its basically wasted. But.... sadly that nots 8th.

And for when i was playing nids all the time, Nids ONLY WORKED b.c i could use 15-17 CP turn 1, without that it was impossible for me to even win.

Given how 8th is, this would be a terrible change even if i don't like the system. We need a full new system or do nothing but balance the CP cost of more stratagems than what they are doing now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As I watched the LVO games it became apparent to me that many players were doing massive CP dumps. Nayden dropped literally all of his turn 1 for example.

Marines are driven by this, but with the addition of leaning on warlord traits. However, with a TFC not getting double shoot AND tremor, or players deciding between transhuman or duty eternal this turn could drastically reduce issues.

There may be some caveats. Just as Thousand Sons get unrestricted smite the armies that operate on strats like GSC may need to be allowed two or more.

Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

One stratagem per phase... hmmm. I am assuming pregame strats would be unaffected. So, as GSC, who you mentioned there, I'm actually not...*that* restricted. The biggest thing is choosing between Lying in Wait and A Perfect Ambush on my turn 2 infiltrate. The biggest loss would be drive-by demolitions being made essentially useless because you pretty much have to combo that with extra explosives to make it worth spending CP on. +1 to hit and +1 to wound on one grenade shot for 1Cp is pretty terrible.

For my typical list, I've got a rusted claw bike bomb, some kind of large-ish unit of acos, some smaller cc units, and some mounted infantry. I start with 13cp for that list. I would definitely drop the biker bomb in favor of a single big assault unit.

Pregame: they came from below, extra relic, deliverance broodsurge, extra WL trait on my broodsurge iconward.
Move phase turn 1: Free use of perfect ambush on the sanctus
Rest of turn 1: nothing planned, maybe a reroll on a shooting attack.

Turn 2 movement: A perfect ambush
Turn 2 shooting: Nothing planned
Charge Phase: Almost certainly a reroll to get in with something, even with the +2 to charge bubbles there's no guarantee I won't roll a 2.
Fight Phase: 1CP for first in the fight with my big aco blob.

So that's 9/13 cp spoken for in just my initial big focal point unit and setting that combo up. This actually would make me more likely to invest in what currently in my army just goes into creating more of a cc bomb. Right now, I deploy the two huge units so I meet the requirements of tactical reserves, zoop them up with They Came from Below and just leave crap on the table to get blown away turn 1. Then I spend all my cp's turn 2 in getting the huge aco blob in business and doing the bike bomb combo to blow something up.

Heck, maybe I'd actually use a Hivecult detachment with a Jackal Alphus as my warlord with the hivecult trait and spend some CP's on the overlapping fields of fire strat they have. Get all my dudes laser-focusing down enemy units with 2s rerolling 1s to hit.

I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

I do like this, too. AoS has proven it out as well.

I think taking a lesson from Kill Team would be a good idea, and there should be a base amount to start (much less than what we have now, thinking not much more than 6 or so) and then 1 or 2 CP gained per turn with an additional 1 if your warlord is on the table. Detachments would be used to help build that base amount so they still have a point and so there is still a fair amount of CP to be used for pre-game stratagems. Obviously the points gained from each Detachment would have to be reworked and reduced for the bigger ones.

That approach would help prevent massive CP dumping in a single turn, while also still allowing combos and interesting decision making along the lines of "do I spend now or wait until I build a few more points for a bigger combo?"

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

But what about stratagems that are just gear, that cost 2CP, specialy for low CP armies. If a GK list has to wait till turn 2 to start to use their basic gear, then it would be a change that was not intended.

Plus it kills any 2 or 3CP stratagem that are designed for tanking.

on a more personal level this would mean everyone would call out for a GK nerf, because they have a psychic power that lets them 1CP after casting.

Karol wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

But what about stratagems that are just gear, that cost 2CP, specialy for low CP armies. If a GK list has to wait till turn 2 to start to use their basic gear, then it would be a change that was not intended.

Plus it kills any 2 or 3CP stratagem that are designed for tanking.

on a more personal level this would mean everyone would call out for a GK nerf, because they have a psychic power that lets them 1CP after casting.

No solution is perfect, especially one thought up fairly quickly in a forum thread. However, remember that if such a rule was in place it affects everyone so you need to adjust your expectations about what's possible and plausible for each army now instead of just analysing the negative impact on your own army.

Pre-game stratagems could easily be taken form turn 1 CPs. Given how powerful pre-game stratagems tend to be that might not be a bad idea. Now you need to think about trading in-game bonuses for pre-game advantages. Meaningful decisions are what 40k lacks enough of right now and that's doubly true of stratagems where there's almost always a very obvious right and wrong time to use a stratagem.

Karol wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

But what about stratagems that are just gear, that cost 2CP, specialy for low CP armies. If a GK list has to wait till turn 2 to start to use their basic gear, then it would be a change that was not intended.

Plus it kills any 2 or 3CP stratagem that are designed for tanking.

on a more personal level this would mean everyone would call out for a GK nerf, because they have a psychic power that lets them 1CP after casting.

honestly relics i would like to see a slight rework 1 per detachment in this system. so if a person say wanted to run a mroe elite army then they can run 2-3 specialist without much extra in the CP depatment btu get the added bonus of extra relics. or say force the choice of more CP with 2 batallions or more relics with 1 batallion and 2 specialty detachments.

It's an interesting idea but IMHO it would shift the power in favour of Marines even further, as with how things are right now the only "weapons" non-SM armies are getting in PA to fight with are under the form of stratagems, limiting the use of these would mean that passive army rules would be even more impactful, these plus a single pre-game "Chapter master strat" would be just overbearing as most of the new combos release in PA would stop to exist, sure it would also prevent some of the Marine shenanigans like TFC+tremor+fire twice, but other armies would suffer a even bigger blow.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Maybe one per phase per detachment?

So you're encouraging armies to be made up of multiple small detachments? Isn't/wasn't CP farming the core problem of soup?

So 1st I'll max out the CP generated, then I'll make sure to max out detachments (some of wich may yield CP) - so that I can spend x CP/phase.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

On the one hand I think stratagems introduce one of the most complex balancing aspects to the game and as such end up causing some of the most egregious problems.

On the other, I tend to think their interactions produce some of the most interesting tactics, so I feel it's worth the suffering.

Lastly, a change like this would require fundamentally rewriting the entire stratagem system, it would effectively require 9th edition.

It might be easier to tie the number of stratagems per turn to something like a combination of detachments and specific units, I have not thought this through seriously in any way.

Off the top of my head you could do something like 1/detachment/turn, 1/warlord, then have some additional knobs and dials you can tweak to get a couple more (like field commanders, or specific units, like the GSC Nexus for example or Master of Ordnance for AM, etc).

 Melissia wrote:
Increasing the basic table size required to play wouldn't sit well with a lot of places and people, that'd get expensive to implement.

It would be much easier to just reduce the points than to increase the table size. 1500 is a perfectly fine point level, which leaves plenty of freedom in the movement phase.

It allows all factions to work, since it is the old 2k points, which was selected because it was good for all factions.

Here's a crazy idea i just thought of this moment.

What about a quick "assign phase". So CP as normal, pre game as normal. But just before the battle round starts each player has to "assign" so many CP for that battle round. Any CP not used is lost.

So that means people who want to throw their entire CP into round 1 can, if they dont manage to use all CP points they're gone for good.

Or people can state Round 1 ill use 3 CP.

Maybe? It get's rid of opportunistic CP spams. Makes people think more tactically about how to use the stratagems, plan in advance. Makes the Dice roll's still fully eligible but risk=reward increases.

i think this would work if they would backpedal on a lot of the stratagems that should just be a static rule.
Lot of 1cp stratagems are either tied to a specific unit, or virtually useless except for a specific unit, and that specific unit is insanely bad w/o it. Stuff like that would need fixing to make a 1 strat per phase not completely cripple a lot of units.

Not to mention that often theres 2 such units in an army that uses a 1cp strat every turn with that mentality in mind. If you could only do 1, then a lot of list building would be stagnated as many choices flatout do not work with other choices by design, not by tactical differences.

Something this drastic would probably be reserved for 9th edition at worst, or the entire focus of a CA at best. Either way it would be confusing until the codex got updated for a lot of players that theres 2-4 pages of stuff that cant be used.

I would prefer that Strategems be one use per game only.

You can only use them if your warlord is alive.

Everyone gets a generic strategem that allows another HQ to become the warlord if your warlord dies for the purpose of continuing use of strategems. This of course can only be used once per game.

Start off with one command point for being battle forged.

Gain 1 command point at the beginning of every turn as long as your warlord is alive.

Gain a command point every time you kill an enemy unit or capture an objective.

Artifacts, specialty detachments and stupid generic stuff like AA Missiles are no longer tied to command points. This is just stupid.

This makes strategems very important but doesn’t allow spamming. They are there to turn the tide of a game in a tight situation. Command points are also much more difficult to come by, so it makes using them at specific points in the game much more important. It forces you to think, not just spam. It also forces armies to become more mobile because Command points are attached to objectives, so castles and gun lines become less effective.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Artifacts, specialty detachments and stupid generic stuff like AA Missiles are no longer tied to command points. This is just stupid.

There's a lot of use in being able to tailor to a matchup, especially for armies with a more generalist approach. Things that are situational simply don't see play if you can't take them only when they're needed.

Imo you should buy them as part of army creation.

You add up your CPs and then spend them on the strategems you want to employ during your game.

This means you have to set up your strategy to enable the use of them, rather than reactively applying them whenever a situation occurs that they'd work in.

It's like choosing your psychic powers.

I think "one stratagem per phase" is a matter of treating the symptom rather than the disease. Tying together multiple stratagems isn't the problem. It is having all your CP at the beginning of the game, which encourages you to spend hard and cripple your opponent.

I'd rather you got a small pool of points at the beginning of the game for pre-game stratagem use and then a few points per turn that you can either use or save. Imagine how different the game would flow if your CP was like this:

All Armies get 1 CP per Battle Round Plus the following by Detachments

Brigade: +6 CP Pregame , +2 CP per Battle Round
Battalion/Super-Heavy: +2 CP Pregame, +1 CP per Battle Round
Vanguard/Spearhead/Outrider/Supreme Command/Air Wing: +1 CP Pregame
Super-Heavy Aux/Fortification: No CP
Aux Support: -1 CP Pre-Game

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I think its 100% fine to dump it all at once, its a limited resource. Now what i don't agree with is how many stratagems there are, how easy it is to make 3 detachments and get lots of CP and that some stratagem are even in the game.

Stratagems and CP should be highly viable, game changing and limited, a strong tactical tool that if used at the wrong time its basically wasted. But.... sadly that nots 8th.

And for when i was playing nids all the time, Nids ONLY WORKED b.c i could use 15-17 CP turn 1, without that it was impossible for me to even win.

Given how 8th is, this would be a terrible change even if i don't like the system. We need a full new system or do nothing but balance the CP cost of more stratagems than what they are doing now.

Sounds like you were playing Nids very poorly then. That's not what you should be doing.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
CSM, kyborgs / PG combit terms/ Reaper chaincannon bomb combos with Votwl would die.


Probably Votwl just as a whole.

Recycling stratagems most likely aswell.

Daemonengine lists would basically drop from somewhat functional to dead.


Short, all armies not getting just basic rules + (at this stage only marines get that) and therefore requireing CP to fuel the gameplan instead would literally collapse like the card house they are comparatively speaking atm


Also, stratagems like AA missile etc, stuff that allready doesn't see the light of day, would just entirely stop existing.

Good points. Hard to refute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
Personally I'd be happy with (and actively want) absolutely no stratagems at all.

If I was redoing them I'd have a smaller amount of CP per army, 1 per phase and a single generic stratagem list.

My other thought was reducing the CP back down again. Previously they bumped it to help elite armies, but now those "elites" are pretty silly. Those like CSM have soup and their own CP batteries if needed.

Just to reiterate.

my opinion is, Get rid of stratagems, ( AA missiles get just a basic attack profile, Unit upgrades like butcher terminators, get to be an buyable / pts upgrad for certain subfactions, stratagems like cacophony or Votwl and any such BS from the same vein get outright deleted), Traits get a price point / model attached including keyword ( want AL; good troops pay 2ppm more WB +0 ofcourse adapted to the unit type.) Movement stratagems get switched up, the basic table size increases due to the basic premise of even more models due to seize creep, so that we finally may again have manouevre that matters for more then just deepstrike this Alphastrike unit with this combination to the face and are done with.


but again that is me, also can we please get back the old cover system, or modify the ones used atm into something that isn't as bonkers as either ITC baseline BRB ? Would that be a possibility?

Yes traits and faction abilities should cost points so that factions stop ceasing to act like themselves just because they run out of cp. Go back to units strength being based on their own stats and abilities instead of whatever combo of strategems you can stack on them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kick out knights and other superheavies

Aaannnd you lost me.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Increasing the basic table size required to play wouldn't sit well with a lot of places and people, that'd get expensive to implement.

well then we will just have to desize creep then don't we?

Kick out knights and other superheavies,
go back down to 1500 pts.

Because atm my regular R&H army has more models then my ork army had some editions back....

I'm a broken record, but the main reason army size is bad is because of IGOUGO making it so your army dies without being able to retaliate. Apocalypse's alternating detachments + units removed at the end of everything would be a good starting point to work with.

Gadzilla666 wrote:


Aaannnd you lost me.

Honestly, i don't feel like it should be possible to bring in a Baneblade in 1000 pts games.

And it certainly shouldn't be reccomended to do so, in order to achieve skew.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


I'm a broken record, but the main reason army size is bad is because of IGOUGO making it so your army dies without being able to retaliate. Apocalypse's alternating detachments + units removed at the end of everything would be a good starting point to work with.

Nope, even if you abandon IGOUGO the first turn would remain vastly to terrible, and whilest going first would now not be as big as an advantage as before it still would allow you for intiative.

Further. Regardless off IGOUGO or AA, with the ammount of models a "regular" army fields maneouvre becomes a joke regardless and Auras certainly don't help that either.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:


Aaannnd you lost me.

Honestly, i don't feel like it should be possible to bring in a Baneblade in 1000 pts games.

And it certainly shouldn't be reccomended to do so, in order to achieve skew.

Yes but why not lower model count by raising costs for units across the board including super heavys? That way they would be nerfed by the percentage of your army they take up instead of just removing them?

Or possibly introducing the hh rule were they must constitute less than 25% of your army and can only be used in 2000+ point games?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As I watched the LVO games it became apparent to me that many players were doing massive CP dumps. Nayden dropped literally all of his turn 1 for example.

Marines are driven by this, but with the addition of leaning on warlord traits. However, with a TFC not getting double shoot AND tremor, or players deciding between transhuman or duty eternal this turn could drastically reduce issues.

There may be some caveats. Just as Thousand Sons get unrestricted smite the armies that operate on strats like GSC may need to be allowed two or more.

Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

Is the problem Strats or Marines?

pm713 wrote:
Personally I'd be happy with (and actively want) absolutely no stratagems at all.

If I was redoing them I'd have a smaller amount of CP per army, 1 per phase and a single generic stratagem list.

And kill off any army that isn't point, click and shoot. Many armies requiring mobility to get close and do their thing have had this patched in over the course of the edition with various stratagems. Unless you want literally every CC specialist in the game riddled with special rules on their datasheet like Wulfen to make them somewhat functional.

Edit: anyway, I feel like this has more to do with damage generally being too high (or rather, defense generally being too low) and the inherent flaws of IgoUgo than stratagems themselves being overpowered. A game full of glass cannon units encourages alpha strike combos that take up a ton of CP first turn, that's just how it is. Also, many players simply have a predisposition to burn CP and stratagems as soon as they see a decent opportunity unless they have a well thought out gameplan that revolves around spending CP late in the game. That's just human nature.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:


Aaannnd you lost me.

Honestly, i don't feel like it should be possible to bring in a Baneblade in 1000 pts games.

And it certainly shouldn't be reccomended to do so, in order to achieve skew.

Yes but why not lower model count by raising costs for units across the board including super heavys? That way they would be nerfed by the percentage of your army they take up instead of just removing them?

Or possibly introducing the hh rule were they must constitute less than 25% of your army and can only be used in 2000+ point games?

GW is unwilling to hike prices it seems.
Mostly because it cuts in their sales.


but no matter how you deal with sizecreep it must at some point be done imo.

Also your 25% would allready kick out mono knights preety much no?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As I watched the LVO games it became apparent to me that many players were doing massive CP dumps. Nayden dropped literally all of his turn 1 for example.

Marines are driven by this, but with the addition of leaning on warlord traits. However, with a TFC not getting double shoot AND tremor, or players deciding between transhuman or duty eternal this turn could drastically reduce issues.

There may be some caveats. Just as Thousand Sons get unrestricted smite the armies that operate on strats like GSC may need to be allowed two or more.

Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

Is the problem Strats or Marines?

Mostlikely both.

What about the "Schemes of War" concept of using CP to alter your Tactical Objectives, or those of your opponent?

This means CP become important not only in terms of battlefield effects and setting up your army, but in player-vs-player mindgames relating to scoring VP.

So if you waste 5-6CP on a huge offensive combo, but have nothing left in the tank to discard and search achievable Tactical Objectives in the following turns, maybe the opportunity cost wasn't actually worth it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:


Aaannnd you lost me.

Honestly, i don't feel like it should be possible to bring in a Baneblade in 1000 pts games.

And it certainly shouldn't be reccomended to do so, in order to achieve skew.

Yes but why not lower model count by raising costs for units across the board including super heavys? That way they would be nerfed by the percentage of your army they take up instead of just removing them?

Or possibly introducing the hh rule were they must constitute less than 25% of your army and can only be used in 2000+ point games?

GW is unwilling to hike prices it seems.
Mostly because it cuts in their sales.


but no matter how you deal with sizecreep it must at some point be done imo.

Also your 25% would allready kick out mono knights preety much no?

That could be knights mono bonus. Give them immunity to the 25% rule.

No,
that would just facilitate abuse and skew, same with old flyer rules etc. Some factions got then a distinct major advantage whilest others could twiddle their thumbs.

I think its a good idea. That is still a potential 6 strats a turn per player. Certainly for a narrative rule or a tourny twist I think it is good.

I think this could be functional if you limited stratagems to where you can only play one stratagem on a single unit per phase.

So, I can still double tap a thunderfire cannon, or double shoot oblits, but I have to choose to do that, or use tremor shells/VOTLW.

That also will finally kill the super-wombo-combo smash captains.

Karol wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

But what about stratagems that are just gear, that cost 2CP, specialy for low CP armies. If a GK list has to wait till turn 2 to start to use their basic gear, then it would be a change that was not intended.

Plus it kills any 2 or 3CP stratagem that are designed for tanking.

on a more personal level this would mean everyone would call out for a GK nerf, because they have a psychic power that lets them 1CP after casting.

I mean so do several other armies at this point. Tsons and Ultramarines I believe both got that exact same power.

Stratagems aren't the only way to stack modifiers on units, though.

Usually it's a combination of things -- stratagems, datasheet auras, relics, psychic powers, litanies, WLTs, etc.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Stratagems aren't the only way to stack modifiers on units, though.

Usually it's a combination of things -- stratagems, datasheet auras, relics, psychic powers, litanies, WLTs, etc.

I freely admit this is true, but this way, (just for example) you couldn't double tap AND get veterans of the long war on the same unit of oblits.

The thing is that if you ration something, you just make it even more guaranteed that you will only use the best stratagems and the minor incidental ones will never see play.

The problem I think is that stratagems are too powerful, and too integral to the game now. As people have said, you have units, even whole armies, that would literally break down if you couldn't use stratagems designed to go with them.

I don't mind the fact you have a pool of resources and can spend them as you like. I just I think though they should have been a box of tricks rather than very powerful, borderline essential abilities that people go "I'm going to use stratagem X, Y and Z on turn 1, X and Y on turn 2 and maybe X on turn 3 if I have any remaining CP".

Auto-stratagems are just as boring as auto-take units.

Tyel wrote:
The thing is that if you ration something, you just make it even more guaranteed that you will only use the best stratagems and the minor incidental ones will never see play.

The problem I think is that stratagems are too powerful, and too integral to the game now. As people have said, you have units, even whole armies, that would literally break down if you couldn't use stratagems designed to go with them.

I don't mind the fact you have a pool of resources and can spend them as you like. I just I think though they should have been a box of tricks rather than very powerful, borderline essential abilities that people go "I'm going to use stratagem X, Y and Z on turn 1, X and Y on turn 2 and maybe X on turn 3 if I have any remaining CP".

Auto-stratagems are just as boring as auto-take units.

Hense my idea of having the CP's as normal from writing the list. Any pre game stuff is normal. But then you assign CP's per battle round as you go. It's up to you to decide how many and if you use all or not. Forces adaptive thinking, if you want to assign more to use bigger stratagems you can. I think it would make for more strategical play without having to completely overhaul anything.

 iGuy91 wrote:
I freely admit this is true, but this way, (just for example) you couldn't double tap AND get veterans of the long war on the same unit of oblits.

Correlating stratagem cost to the relative power of the unit would help a lot with this. If some players are bloodthirsty and really keen on alpha striking -- well, everyone has their own playstyle. But it would be nice if 80pts of CSM wasn't paying the same prices for those stratagems as 285pts of Obliterators.

That's one reason list construction leans the way it does. Min squads for CP generation, and then one really strong unit to maximize the effect of whatever stratagems can be leveraged the hardest.

Nobody is going to double tap with a 5 man Chaos Marine unit to begin with though. Just make it 3CP like all the other double fighting Strats.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As I watched the LVO games it became apparent to me that many players were doing massive CP dumps. Nayden dropped literally all of his turn 1 for example.

Marines are driven by this, but with the addition of leaning on warlord traits. However, with a TFC not getting double shoot AND tremor, or players deciding between transhuman or duty eternal this turn could drastically reduce issues.

There may be some caveats. Just as Thousand Sons get unrestricted smite the armies that operate on strats like GSC may need to be allowed two or more.

Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

Is the problem Strats or Marines?

A bit of both. Lists often get tied to whatever units make the best use of the most stratagems at once.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody is going to double tap with a 5 man Chaos Marine unit to begin with though. Just make it 3CP like all the other double fighting Strats.

You're inviting problems that way.

- 1CP to double-fire CSM with 2x special weapons = good.
- 2CP to double-fire Havocs = good.
- 3CP to double-fire 3x Oblits = good.

If you make it 3CP for every single unit? You're penalizing CSM compared to Oblits, and excacerbating the overarching problem of taking units specifically for their stratagems.

Removed - BrookM

Removed - BrookM

Yoyoyo wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody is going to double tap with a 5 man Chaos Marine unit to begin with though. Just make it 3CP like all the other double fighting Strats.

You're inviting problems that way.

- 1CP to double-fire CSM with 2x special weapons = good.
- 2CP to double-fire Havocs = good.
- 3CP to double-fire 3x Oblits = good.

If you make it 3CP for every single unit? You're penalizing CSM compared to Oblits, and excacerbating the overarching problem of taking units specifically for their stratagems.

Scaling cost for strats could get messy though.

I think limiting a unit to only be able to benefit from 1 stratagem per phase would fix this.

So you have 3 oblits. Good unit

You could VOTLW them, OR double tap with them. But not both in the same phase.

If you had 2 units, you could use 1 stratagem on each.

What about using any one stratagem other than CP pre-roll, one time use in a battle. For instance, Agents of Vect can only be used once a battle, More Dakka can only be used once a battle and so on...

I think ability to endlessly spam the same strats over and over is the issue

One of the challenges with strategems is that you technically have access to every single one at any time and get to pick which one you use so you maximize its effect.

It would be like buying a heavy weapon upgrade and getting to choose which heavy weapon it was whenever you fired it.

Hence why having to choose your strategems at army creation makes it easier to balance and makes it a resource you have to think carefully about.

At the moment, you basically have the ability to only apply the most potent strategem for the situation you are currently in at any given time, making it less a tactical decision and more of a matching game- which one of these strategems maximizes outcomes in the turn I'm in.

Hellebore wrote:
At the moment, you basically have the ability to only apply the most potent strategem for the situation you are currently in at any given time, making it less a tactical decision and more of a matching game- which one of these strategems maximizes outcomes in the turn I'm in.

I think that's a problem of opportunity cost. If one stratagem or combo clearly outperforms everything else, of course it's the only one you'll care about.

Not Online!!! wrote:
No,
that would just facilitate abuse and skew, same with old flyer rules etc. Some factions got then a distinct major advantage whilest others could twiddle their thumbs.

Ok you're confusing me. First you propose removing super heavys from the game, then you complain that the 25% rule would eliminate mono knights. If you want less super heavys in the game why do you care if the 25% rule gets rid of mono knights?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
No,
that would just facilitate abuse and skew, same with old flyer rules etc. Some factions got then a distinct major advantage whilest others could twiddle their thumbs.

Ok you're confusing me. First you propose removing super heavys from the game, then you complain that the 25% rule would eliminate mono knights. If you want less super heavys in the game why do you care if the 25% rule gets rid of mono knights?

No, you misunderstand me, i have nothing against the elimination of knights f.e., i just brought it up as a point that the 25% rule has consequences that would eliminate an army ( which is iffy regardless of your position torwards said army).
Allowing them to bypass the rules however is like the old flyer and skimmer rules when not every faction hat atleast something to deal with it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
No,
that would just facilitate abuse and skew, same with old flyer rules etc. Some factions got then a distinct major advantage whilest others could twiddle their thumbs.

Ok you're confusing me. First you propose removing super heavys from the game, then you complain that the 25% rule would eliminate mono knights. If you want less super heavys in the game why do you care if the 25% rule gets rid of mono knights?

No, you misunderstand me, i have nothing against the elimination of knights f.e., i just brought it up as a point that the 25% rule has consequences that would eliminate an army ( which is iffy regardless of your position torwards said army).
Allowing them to bypass the rules however is like the old flyer and skimmer rules when not every faction hat atleast something to deal with it.

Ok I understand you now. I also don't care if the rule would eliminate knights as a standalone army. An entire army compromised of just a few big models makes for boring games in my opinion.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I think its 100% fine to dump it all at once, its a limited resource. Now what i don't agree with is how many stratagems there are, how easy it is to make 3 detachments and get lots of CP and that some stratagem are even in the game.

Stratagems and CP should be highly viable, game changing and limited, a strong tactical tool that if used at the wrong time its basically wasted. But.... sadly that nots 8th.

And for when i was playing nids all the time, Nids ONLY WORKED b.c i could use 15-17 CP turn 1, without that it was impossible for me to even win.

Given how 8th is, this would be a terrible change even if i don't like the system. We need a full new system or do nothing but balance the CP cost of more stratagems than what they are doing now.

Sounds like you were playing Nids very poorly then. That's not what you should be doing.

Nope your wrong, with genestealers able to move faster, fight twice, move between fighting twice, and having double shooting, along with double moving other units (yes they take a couple MW's), etc.. it was extremely effective.

When i am able to actual win with them vs this crap in the game, i think i'm doing what needs to be done.

TLDR... I think there should be a set of core stratagems that can be used once per phase (i.e. reroll, melee interrupt and auto-pass morale and mission specific ones) and all others are one use per game. This completely eliminates stratagem abuse and puts less pressure on needing a large pool of command points.

 oni wrote:
TLDR... I think there should be a set of core stratagems that can be used once per phase (i.e. reroll, melee interrupt and auto-pass morale and mission specific ones) and all others are one use per game. This completely eliminates stratagem abuse and puts less pressure on needing a large pool of command points.

And also eliminates all stratagem depending armies.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 oni wrote:
TLDR... I think there should be a set of core stratagems that can be used once per phase (i.e. reroll, melee interrupt and auto-pass morale and mission specific ones) and all others are one use per game. This completely eliminates stratagem abuse and puts less pressure on needing a large pool of command points.

And also eliminates all stratagem depending armies.

Yes, csm players shouldn't need cp for their legions to play as they should. "A talent for murder " should have been a legion trait, not broken up between a stratagem and a warlord trait.

And no army should require strategems just to function.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody is going to double tap with a 5 man Chaos Marine unit to begin with though. Just make it 3CP like all the other double fighting Strats.

You're inviting problems that way.

- 1CP to double-fire CSM with 2x special weapons = good.
- 2CP to double-fire Havocs = good.
- 3CP to double-fire 3x Oblits = good.

If you make it 3CP for every single unit? You're penalizing CSM compared to Oblits, and excacerbating the overarching problem of taking units specifically for their stratagems.

You're still not going to use it because the density of weapons is terrible, so it shouldn't even be considered a possibility someone would waste their one shot a turn to use it on a Chaos Marine squad.
Besides, Stratagems like that shouldn't exist to begin with. There's no strategy to a Stratagem that just has a unit shoot twice.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're still not going to use it because the density of weapons is terrible, so it shouldn't even be considered a possibility someone would waste their one shot a turn to use it on a Chaos Marine squad.

This kind of rational conclusion is exactly what we want to avoid through rules tweaks. Look at this possibility. Say you have 3CP to spend this turn, and you’re holding two unachievable Tactical Objectives. If you want to double-fire your Oblits, you can’t re-prioritise your Tactical Objectives and that costs you VP.

The bigger question is ‘opportunity cost’. If there’s no better way for a faction to spend CP than on one preset combo, it’s not making the game more interesting.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 oni wrote:
TLDR... I think there should be a set of core stratagems that can be used once per phase (i.e. reroll, melee interrupt and auto-pass morale and mission specific ones) and all others are one use per game. This completely eliminates stratagem abuse and puts less pressure on needing a large pool of command points.

And also eliminates all stratagem depending armies.

Yes, csm players shouldn't need cp for their legions to play as they should. "A talent for murder " should have been a legion trait, not broken up between a stratagem and a warlord trait.

And no army should require strategems just to function.

Ohh absolutely agree but so long we are stuck with an 8.1 dex i am not willing to Part with the stratagems so long traits and General army rules aren't fixed and considering the ammount of times GW attempted to fix those but allways failed i have no high hopes.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 oni wrote:
TLDR... I think there should be a set of core stratagems that can be used once per phase (i.e. reroll, melee interrupt and auto-pass morale and mission specific ones) and all others are one use per game. This completely eliminates stratagem abuse and puts less pressure on needing a large pool of command points.

And also eliminates all stratagem depending armies.

Yes, csm players shouldn't need cp for their legions to play as they should. "A talent for murder " should have been a legion trait, not broken up between a stratagem and a warlord trait.

And no army should require strategems just to function.

Ohh absolutely agree but so long we are stuck with an 8.1 dex i am not willing to Part with the stratagems so long traits and General army rules aren't fixed

Yeah I hate the current situation of csm. Without strategems we're fethed. Which forces cp farming thus limiting our unit and detachment options.

Meanwhile loyalists have options galore.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 oni wrote:
TLDR... I think there should be a set of core stratagems that can be used once per phase (i.e. reroll, melee interrupt and auto-pass morale and mission specific ones) and all others are one use per game. This completely eliminates stratagem abuse and puts less pressure on needing a large pool of command points.

And also eliminates all stratagem depending armies.

Yes, csm players shouldn't need cp for their legions to play as they should. "A talent for murder " should have been a legion trait, not broken up between a stratagem and a warlord trait.

And no army should require strategems just to function.

Ohh absolutely agree but so long we are stuck with an 8.1 dex i am not willing to Part with the stratagems so long traits and General army rules aren't fixed

Yeah I hate the current situation of csm. Without strategems we're fethed. Which forces cp farming thus limiting our unit and detachment options.

Meanwhile loyalists have options galore.

Which isn^'t inherently bad.

The bad part is that GW just switched mid edition again their Dex design. That is the issue.

Yes, and as usual everyone is left waiting for their new code and hoping it'll be good. If they really wanted to they could have fixed a lot of the problems with pa. At least fix the legion traits and give the legions back their respective troops.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes, and as usual everyone is left waiting for their new code and hoping it'll be good. If they really wanted to they could have fixed a lot of the problems with pa. At least fix the legion traits and give the legions back their respective troops.

but then they'd miss out on dex 2.0 sales, which could be stacked with PA sales.

see the issue.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're still not going to use it because the density of weapons is terrible, so it shouldn't even be considered a possibility someone would waste their one shot a turn to use it on a Chaos Marine squad.

This kind of rational conclusion is exactly what we want to avoid through rules tweaks. Look at this possibility. Say you have 3CP to spend this turn, and you’re holding two unachievable Tactical Objectives. If you want to double-fire your Oblits, you can’t re-prioritise your Tactical Objectives and that costs you VP.

The bigger question is ‘opportunity cost’. If there’s no better way for a faction to spend CP than on one preset combo, it’s not making the game more interesting.

Yes, and at no point did someone think to themselves "boy I wish I could double fire with my Chaos Marines or Chosen XD"
If you're gonna spend that many CP to double shoot, you should actually be thinking carefully instead of making affordable all nillywilly so you don't think about it. In fact, the only reason the double fighting Stratagem should be 2CP is just because melee is hard to achieve. There's no good reason to make it cheaper for certain units. Decide if it's actually worth fighting twice or not.

Your way takes actual thinking out of the game. Regardless of making it more expensive for certain units, only certain units will see use of those Stratagems.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes, and as usual everyone is left waiting for their new code and hoping it'll be good. If they really wanted to they could have fixed a lot of the problems with pa. At least fix the legion traits and give the legions back their respective troops.

but then they'd miss out on dex 2.0 sales, which could be stacked with PA sales.

see the issue.

Yeah I see it. Just like announcing new fw books and immediately trying to get people to buy the current ia books that will soon be obsolete.

Cash is king.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yes, and at no point did someone think to themselves "boy I wish I could double fire with my Chaos Marines or Chosen XD"

There is zero thinking involved if you are just matching stratagem XYZ with whatever unit gives you the most mathhammer return on using it.

If you want to encourage not re-enacting for the same canned combo every game -- you need real opportunity costs. Not "my oblits shoot better than my CSM" for the exact same 2CP spent. That's the concept of "internal balance".

These things need to go completely.

I think I would rsther see 40k go more the AOS route. Having detatchments that provided bonuses but cost points in list building. Then attaching certain strats to character and heavily restricting the command points you get per turn.

Well, this would be an option to think about.
Would take the sting out of some combos and lead to less ''power gaming''.

While I'm not sure 1 Stratatem per phase is the correct answer, 8E edging nearer 7E's bloat and it's clear that the stratagem system is becoming increasingly unwieldy. People used to recoil in horror early in the edition at armies with 20+ CP, but often without anything terribly powerful to spend them on most of the time however. Now armies are dumping 7 CP before the game even starts on significant new capabilities that often radically alter power levels, and get crazier from there. I'm afraid we've probably reached the point in this edition where it's only going to get worse with Stratagems until a new edition comes up with a new system for GW to introduce and slowly bloat to take their place.

CPs have been the bane of this edition. Lock all an armies flavor behind CP use and as its rolled on they get more and more out of control until you find broke lists that as has been said drop it all in one super CP explosion to try and hammer blow the opponent away.

I said it way in the beginning, CP for Strats is this editions formations, you even use CPs to buy the current formations. They aren't a good thing and while at first I thought, maybe they'll just add some depth, they have evolved into being make or break aspects for most armies in consideration of use.

I still like stratagems as a concept. It's just that the execution needs a little refinement. Basically what I expected when they were introduced to "normal" 40k this edition.

I think a lot of the issue with strats is that they're trying to be a bunch of things all at once.

* You use them to buy unit upgrades like relics, flakk missiles, veteran intercessors, and chapter masters/great harlequins/alliances of agony, but those things could and probably should just be upgrades that cost points. Possibly with a 0-1 limit on how many of each one you can take.

* You use them for large-scale tactics and special actions like orbital bombardments, infiltrating, deepstriking, etc. These, to me, are what "stratagems" are advertsised as. These seem fitting.

* You use them for special attacks/maneuvers on individual units. Almost like a new fangled version of "Might" from the old days. Like a mana bar shared across every unit in your army. While I really like most of these abilities (lightning fast reactions, stalker bolt rifles sniping characters, fighting twice), it seems very odd that a smash captain's ability to go on a rampage is based on how many guardsmen or tactical marines are present at the start of the battle.

If we think of these as three different types of benefits rather than classifying them all as "stratagems," we could open up some interesting means of modifying how they're handled. Maybe the first category go back to being wargear/units that you pay points for. Maybe the second category is paid for with "command points" per now. Maybe the third category is fueled by a new resource called "Might" that isn't generated based on army composition (so no more loyal 32 cp batteries for smash captains). Or maybe you simply put a limit on how much Might can be spent on a given unit each turn.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, this would be an option to think about.
Would take the sting out of some combos and lead to less ''power gaming''.

(except if you are numarines )

I apologize if this was already asked and answered, but what about pre-match strats? Victors of the Blood games? etc. I would say this is a good start but we could go further to address the issue this is attempting to help, which is strat abuse.

Start by making all IH lists only able to use certain strats usable on certain conditions. The repaid strat, make that only when the target is below hald health. Double shoot, only if the target hasn't had a full movement that turn etc. You can balance many of the more abusive strats by makingf them more speciific

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As I watched the LVO games it became apparent to me that many players were doing massive CP dumps. Nayden dropped literally all of his turn 1 for example.

Marines are driven by this, but with the addition of leaning on warlord traits. However, with a TFC not getting double shoot AND tremor, or players deciding between transhuman or duty eternal this turn could drastically reduce issues.

There may be some caveats. Just as Thousand Sons get unrestricted smite the armies that operate on strats like GSC may need to be allowed two or more.

Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

My thought is that you almost realized how stupid a blanket restriction like this is when you immediately had to make exceptions within 3 paragraphs of the proposed rule.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, this would be an option to think about.
Would take the sting out of some combos and lead to less ''power gaming''.

(except if you are numarines )

Yeah, play a game with no stratagems vs numarines and see how well you do while their 17 chapter tactic blanket army wide rules dunk you off the table.

This is less than I'd expect from you deadalus.

Some armies should be allowed more strats per turn? Just not marines? This is a terrible idea.

The way you fix this issue is one of the main issues I have been complaining about all edition. Stacking stratagems is the problem. 1 Strat per unit max. So you get double shoot or tremor - not both. No issue for playing 2 seperate buffs a turn on 2 units. That just costs a lot of CP. Transhuman is actually a very fair stratagem - you can completely ignore it if you shoot a weapon that wounds on 4's or 5's. Unlike a -1 to hit which can't be ignored. Or a +1 armor which can't be ignored unless you have ap-4 or something.

Some armies are built around stacking stratagems like CSM - they should be compensated in some way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
These things need to go completely.

I would also be in favor of this.

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As I watched the LVO games it became apparent to me that many players were doing massive CP dumps. Nayden dropped literally all of his turn 1 for example.

Marines are driven by this, but with the addition of leaning on warlord traits. However, with a TFC not getting double shoot AND tremor, or players deciding between transhuman or duty eternal this turn could drastically reduce issues.

There may be some caveats. Just as Thousand Sons get unrestricted smite the armies that operate on strats like GSC may need to be allowed two or more.

Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

My thought is that you almost realized how stupid a blanket restriction like this is when you immediately had to make exceptions within 3 paragraphs of the proposed rule.

Could you read me off the smite rule, please? Just want to be sure I understand whether or not it has exceptions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As I watched the LVO games it became apparent to me that many players were doing massive CP dumps. Nayden dropped literally all of his turn 1 for example.

Marines are driven by this, but with the addition of leaning on warlord traits. However, with a TFC not getting double shoot AND tremor, or players deciding between transhuman or duty eternal this turn could drastically reduce issues.

There may be some caveats. Just as Thousand Sons get unrestricted smite the armies that operate on strats like GSC may need to be allowed two or more.

Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

My thought is that you almost realized how stupid a blanket restriction like this is when you immediately had to make exceptions within 3 paragraphs of the proposed rule.

Could you read me off the smite rule, please? Just want to be sure I understand whether or not it has exceptions.

Is it possible that the one-attempt-at-casting-each-power-per-phase rule could also be a stupid blanket restriction?

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is less than I'd expect from you deadalus.

Some armies should be allowed more strats per turn? Just not marines? This is a terrible idea.

The way you fix this issue is one of the main issues I have been complaining about all edition. Stacking stratagems is the problem. 1 Strat per unit max. So you get double shoot or tremor - not both. No issue for playing 2 seperate buffs a turn on 2 units. That just costs a lot of CP. Transhuman is actually a very fair stratagem - you can completely ignore it if you shoot a weapon that wounds on 4's or 5's. Unlike a -1 to hit which can't be ignored. Or a +1 armor which can't be ignored unless you have ap-4 or something.

Some armies are built around stacking stratagems like CSM - they should be compensated in some way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
These things need to go completely.

I would also be in favor of this.

Csm could be compensated by giving us a codex that doesn't require stacking strategems and constructing Rube Goldberg devices to compete.

In other words balance the codex and FIX THE FETHING LEGION TRAITS!

Personally, I think CPs should be generated each turn, based on the number and type of HQs you have on the table.

I'd then give HQs the ability to 'cast' stratagems (on themselves or on a nearby unit), based on a *much* smaller pool.

Instead of auras, each HQs would have a unique Stratagem that they can cast in addition to the standard pool.

A lot of Stratagems will be scrapped outright. For example, artefacts should be paid for with points. Same goes for other wargear-turned-stratagems.

The overall idea is to focus Command Points where they should be focused - the commanders. Some auras might still exist in the form of unique Stratagems, but using them will no longer be free. Basically, a big part of the game will be resource-management. What's more, because Stratagems are no longer cast at infinite range, mobility will be more of a consideration. e.g. you can have a commander stay back while a unit charges forward, but then that unit will be out of range of any buffs that commander could have otherwise provided.

What's more, this can then be used to power abilities appropriate to individual armies. e.g. a Necron Overlord could have a command power to reanimate a Necron unit that was wiped out nearby, at the cost of CPs.

Just spitballing right now but hopefully you get the general idea of what I'd be going for.