Title.
I'm curious about this because GW are puting a lot of time and effort around strats and I'm wondering its paying off for them. From some discussion on here it looks like people generally don't like the direction they've gone with them but we'll see. Though this is Dakka so I doubt it, but then its Dakka so I'm sure there'll be complaints about the poll being biased or not including enough options.

^Poll is too good, didn't vote.

J/k. Less Strats please. Like 90% fewer.

Strats as a concept *could* work. They're definitely not all bad. However, their execution so far has has some issues. They're not very well internally balanced, so half of them never get used. Fluffy wargear and special abilities got rolled into them meaning you can't utilize those cool options unless they're worth sinking CP into. Any strat that basically says, "Kill more betterer," is prone to balance problems and is also just kind of dull. They seem to sometimes be used as a source of rules that really ought to be spread throughout an army (ex: Lightning Fast Reactions being a poor replacement for eldar having access to skimmers moving fast and Jink.)

Those issues haven't really been solved in 9th, but 9th edition books are also introducing a bunch of other new buffs (acts of faith, litanies, sacred rites/doctrines, etc.). So stratagems still don't feel very polished, but they DO feel kind of bloated.

Basically, there's a "budget" of how many different subsystems you can pack into a game before it's just too busy. Stratagems aren't horrible, but they're also not necessarily solid enough to justify how much of that budget they're taking up.

To me the one thing that Warhammer's always done better than anyone else in wargaming was scalability; everything else is better-designed but only really works in a narrow range (~50-75pts for Warmachine, ~200-400pts for Infinity, etc.). Warhammer used to sort of work from 500pts all the way up to 10,000+pt Apocalypse games. I know CP scale with the game size, but the degree to which the game runs on stratagems at this point and the fact that you only get to buff one unit with them (taken along with the only one duplicate psychic cast attempt each turn) means the game only really works in the 1k-2k range; below 1k one stratagem can swing the game way too easily, above 2k your opponent can ignore the thing with the stratagem on it and just kill other things too easily.

(Yes, I know "Apocalypse" is an alternate ruleset now, I don't like it very much. I'd prefer making the game actually scale again.)

Picked
- They're okay
- They cost the right amount
- There should be less

I like them, but some stuff should be reverted back to Wargear or unit abilities.

Don't like them at all. Especially in the Tau case, which they killed a bunch of upgrades to make them stratagems (and a lot of them are terrible).

Sadly, they are here to stay.

Voted for:

They're ok.
There should be less of them.
They need a rework.

Strats need to focus more on manoeuvre and positioning, deployment, and actual strategic assets. There should be far fewer 'tactical' strats, that just give you extra attacks or make you hit harder. Those are silly on even a conceptual level, let alone how you balance them.

There should be next to no "gotcha" reactionary strats (things like Transhuman Physiology are just dumb - I sacrifice an abstracted strategic resource and suddenly this unit of Marines, but only Primaris Marines, is tougher? What?). Overwatch would be an exception here, as that makes sense as a strat.

And there should be in-game ZERO equipment strats (smoke launchers, tankbusta bombs, etc.). Those should remain wargear upgrades you pay points for.

Some strats, which are more unit specific abilities would probably make more sense at 0CP if they must remain as strats - this way you can only have 1 unit do the ability but it does not cost anything.
sure other strats like additional WL traits/relics etc are fine to cost you CP though.

1st, there should be way less of them.
If something is a form of equipment (ex: Smoke launchers or melta-bombs), or something that any unit should logically be able to do (ex: Overwatch)? It should go. Some should revert back to being unit upgrades that you simply pay for. Others, like overwatch, simply options that trigger.

2nd, the general idea is OK - but needs work.

Also voted for:
They're ok.
There should be less of them.
They need a rework.

A nice idea but there is too many of them and it's too difficult to remember what I and my opponent can do each turn.

I feel strrategems are a good addition to the game; however, I would make the following changes:

- Limit how many can be take in each game (you kind of make a stratagem 'deck'). There's no randomisation, you know and can access any strat you have as needed and CP will allow but you can only take a limited number depending on the point size. For example: 0-500 = 5 strats, 501-1000 = 7 strats, 1001 - 1500 = 9 strats, 1501 - 2000 = 11 strats, 2001+ = 15 strats

- Ensure many of them are shared between all codexes. So if every Codex aims to have 25 strats to select from, then 15 of them should be exactly the same for every codex.

- Keep the re-roll, LD and overwatch as universal strats that exist outside the above limits.


I appreciate some of these feed into the "list building wins the game" but that's kind of already the meta of 40k and it doesn't detract from the fact you'd still need strategies around which strats to have and then apply them effectively.

As for what strats actually do in game, i'd defer to other ideas as I am fine either way. Have them as tactical manoeuvres or strategic effects.


(Disclaimer: numbers are arbitrary examples and not academically peer reviewed so avoid any panty twisting).

I voted that stratagems are bad:
- They have nothing to do with HQs (so, unlike AoS, they don't make non-Caster HQs more relevant).
- They certainly don't help with verisimilitude ("Oh no, our Battle Brothers have transhuman physiology, this means we no longer have transhuman physiology for some reason!")
- Many could be (and previously were) represented perfectly fine with wargear and points.
- Others seem like stuff that should just be baked into the core rules or unit abilities ("For 1 turn only, a single transport in your army is able to fulfil the sole function of a transport!").
- Then, of course, we have the "kill more" stratagems, which let a unit randomly fight twice or get rerolls to wound or some other such.

I was initially going to say that if you removed the above and tied the few remaining Stratagems to HQs (replacing auras), then you might be left with something passable.

However, on reflection, I'm scratching my head as to what they actually add to the game. Once you start taking away all the stratagems that should be wargear or unit abilities, or that add nothing to the game, I'm not sure there's enough left to build around or even that the system is worth saving in the first place.

Frankly, if you want all armies to have some sort of shared mechanic, I think something like Miracle Dice would be a *vastly* better system to build around.

From having spoken to my friends about this, who like strategems, they like the flavour.

They don't really care about anything beyond "it's cool that I get a special thing that does a useful thing".
Gotchas aren't a problem, you just need to learn the rules.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Gotchas aren't a problem, you just need to learn the rules.

*Looks at the sheer volume of Stratagems in codices, codex-supplements, campaign books, WD content, other random content etc.*

Cool. Maybe for an encore I could learn Chinese.

 vipoid wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Gotchas aren't a problem, you just need to learn the rules.

*Looks at the sheer volume of Stratagems in codices, codex-supplements, campaign books, WD content, other random content etc.*

Cool. Maybe for an encore I could learn Chinese.

I agree.
TBH I don't even think they agree with the statement either. I think it's just a case of them enjoying strategems and feeling obligated to dismiss every criticism of them at all. That seems increasingly common in arguments in general, things have to either be perfect or the antithesis, middle ground does not exist.

The poll is really missing an option for the people that want Stratagems gone altogether. I guess maybe that's what the "bad" option is for, but I think in their current incarnation Stratagems are bad for the game, but I also believe that with the right execution they could be awesome.

Stratagems can help even out results and make the game more based on skill rather than luck and I think that's a good thing. Stratagems that buff damage can be okay, especially on melee units since it's random whether you make your charge at all, being able to supercharge any one of the units that make a good charge roll rather than needing every charge roll to be a success is neat.

Semper wrote:
I feel strrategems are a good addition to the game; however, I would make the following changes:

- Limit how many can be take in each game

Spoiler:

(you kind of make a stratagem 'deck'). There's no randomisation, you know and can access any strat you have as needed but you can only take a limited number depending on the point size. For example: 0-500 = 5 strats, 501-1000 = 7 strats, 1001 - 1500 = 9 strats, 1501 - 2000 = 11 strats, 2001+ = 15 strats

- Ensure many of them are shared between all codexes. So if every Codex aims to have 25 strats to select from, then 15 of them should be exactly the same for every codex.

- Keep the re-roll, LD and overwatch as universal strats that exist outside the above limits.


I appreciate some of these feed into the "list building wins the game" but that's kind of already the meta of 40k and it doesn't detract from the fact you'd still need strategies around which strats to have and then apply them effectively.

As for what strats actually do in game, i'd defer to other ideas as I am fine either way. Have them as tactical manoeuvres or strategic effects.


(Disclaimer: numbers are arbitrary examples and not academically peer reviewed so avoid any panty twisting).

I wouldn't have any faction unique ones and I'd limit it to 5 (CP re-roll and the rest would be optional inclusion rather than bonuses), then get rid chapter tactics, combat doctrines and super doctrines. Yes, picking bad Stratagems would suck, but it would suck ten times less than trying to make Imperial Fists thunderhammer Terminators and Vindicators work and GW could no longer force Iyanden players to use more Guardians than Wraithguard.

I don't like how they are implemented. Right now we have a few stratagems that are auto-take, something else that is situational and a significant portion of the list that never sees the game.

I think pre-game stratagems like additional relics, warlord traits, deep strike, stats upgrades etc.. could have been implemented by paying points, and units locked stratagems could have been special rules included in the units' datasheets, maybe with one use per game only. Same for chapter/klan/dynasty locked stratagems, they could have simply been one use only special rules.

I'd remove CPs entirely, banning generic re-rolls and making additional detachments cost points as well.

They are bad. A mechanic which deleted numerous gear such as auspex scanners to be usable only a couple of times during a match.

 vict0988 wrote:
The poll is really missing an option for the people that want Stratagems gone altogether.

I thought about it but GW has you build armies around CP, added a whole phase for CP management and have numerous rules in codexes that reference CP so I don't think we'll be rid of them any time soon unless GW thinks of another use for CP.

Yet another mechanic that started out a good idea that got GW'd on over time.

mostly the problem with their execution has been the one-at-a-time codex rollout.

For most of 8th, you'd have factions with zero stratagems playing vs factions with all the crazy 8th-ed tier power level strats.

And now, in 9th, when theyre trying to tone them down and make them healthier, you've still got factions with the old stupid power level strats playing against newer factions that have the new toned down strats, which leads to a lot of the unit imbalance people are currently griping about.

I hate the concept for the most part. It shifts a lot of unit abilities to strats which greatly limits the number of units that can do a certain action and ties it to some sort of resource (makes me think of munitions in Company of Heroes). This in particular hurts MSU units which might want to have 2-3 different units doing something like throwing an EMP grenade but apparently the army is limited to just 1 per turn (I guess it's hand delivered by a logistics drone and the Tau only have 1 such drone on the battlefield?). It also ends up being used for mindless buffs like "+1 to wound" or worse creates gotcha moments because not every player is going to memorize the entire catalog of strats for their opponent's army (when 40k has well over a dozen unique codexes). It feels kinda MtG like where a sentence such as "Player A: I'm going to shoot with my unit and tap/spend a command point to get +1(/+1) to my attack. Player B: I will tap/play 1 command point to use my smoke screen card/strat to get -1 to hit." It might seem like it's a very minor cherry picked example and not all that different from declaring a unit is jinking or using markerlights but the whole paying a global resource to use an ability gives me MtG flashbacks and takes me right out of the game.

In general strats create the illusion of depth and choice but it doesn't really add much to the game's strategic complexity except having more junk to memorize (I thought 8th/9th was suppose to be less rules bloaty.... Somehow having USRs that every army shares is bad but having to memorize multiple armies unique stratagems is somehow better?). Ugh I just zogging hate the mechanic so much in tabletop 40k.

I havent played any 9th edition armies because I don't want to have to re-learn all these stupid Stratagem synergies all over again.

Stratagems are a crutch. They should have been left for Narrative games. They slow the game down. They give unfair advantages. If a unit should have a special rule, give it a special rule. Don't leave info scattered over multiple pages and books.

I really like strategems, and particularly like the not-alway-on buff idea. It speaks to me of leaning into a unit- or army-type, with a fluff equivalent of the general pre-preparing a few nifty manouevres. But I'd prefer a shift towards something more like Sigmar. Keep those small number of 'Extra Trait/Relic' and put-in-reserve strategems, and move them to the core rule book. Then give every unit one stratagem it can use on its datasheet.

The benefits here are:
1) Less to remember, both for the player and their opponent.
2) Less chance a wide-ranging strategem can go nuts on one unit. eg. VotLW being necessary to make CSM good, but just being used to make Termies too good by comparison.
3) A better way, then, to balance units.
3a) Maybe a strong stat unit gets a very situational buff. eg. Marines get a stronger statline, but situational buffs; GSC get a weaker statline, but get more reliably useful buffs.
3b) Maybe a unit is super special in getting two strategems that can be used - a particularly good way, in my mind, to balance troops.
4) A good way to balance sub-factions. eg. Iron Warriors give Obliterators a stronger/extra strategem.

By all means, hand out CP more freely than AoS (as AoS 3.0 is starting to do), but restrict them to individual data sheets.

I voted that they're okay- mostly because I have some issues with the detachment system for fringe units- like Inquisition Detachments, which always have to pay CP since it's not possible to make an Inquisition Patrol, Battalion or Brigade.

Like many, I'm not sure that all of the equipment that got converted to strats needed to be converted- though I do understand that it was done to limit how many units can use a given equipment ability per turn and to add an opportunity cost to that choice.

One of the cool interactions I like are abilities that let you use strats at a reduced cost- usually these are Crusade abilities- for example, there's a Deathwatch battle honour that allows a unit to use Special Issue Ammo for free- which is beautiful- it enables Primaris to use SIA, but only one unit per turn, which allows the firstborn to still really shine.

One comment that I frequently see in forums that bothers me somewhat is that 8th/9th has no tactical depth. I am sorry that people don't perceive strategems as tactics, but that is absolutely what they were intended to be, and they do require skill to use effectively. Maybe it's because I also like Collectible Card Games and things like Feats which were very prominent in 3.5 D&D, but who's impact has been severely curtailed in 5ed.

I never had trouble perceiving them as strategies/ tactics. To me, each and every use of a strat feels like a story event.

The army-wide always on stuff that most people on this forum talk about as "tactics" ie. pinning weapons, going to ground, blast templates and armour facings (which do increase the importance of positioning) do not feel as much like story events/ game shifting tactics to me. They just feel like common sense things that the entire army has to think about all the time. I didn't mind these features of the game when they were present, but I don't miss them either- I do think strats (for the most part) make the game more interesting.

I also like the way that strats can be used to express the character of a faction or sub-faction; pinning, going to ground, blast templates etc. by their general and ubiquitous, always on nature cannot be used to do this.

Similarly, I like the way strats can be derived from Theatres of War, campaign settings or controlled objectives/ terrain.

Again, I've always liked the elements of the game that give it a role-playing/ story feel. Strats do that for me. Your mileage may vary.

Way too many "necessary" strats and way too many in general.

All the equipment stratagems should either be pre-game purchases like relic stratagems, or should be removed in favour of pointed equipment upgrades.

All those generic stratagems that are printed in all codices with different names should just move to the core book.

And finally, to add to those above who have already said it: when you build your army list, you should have to pick a limited hand of stratagems to use. Something like 5. Warlord traits or relics could let you pick one more.

I also love the idea or getting rid of HQ auras and replacing them with stratagems which are tied to that HQ type.

Reducing the damage stratagems is a good idea, but the gotcha ones have strategic merit - you need to tease command points out of your opponent so they can't play those gotchas, or force them to pick between two situations where they want to use that stratagem.

Strats are a plague that highlights how shallow the design of the game has become.

“Spend two wombo points to play the game”

The lack depth is shocking.

MrPieChee wrote:


And finally, to add to those above who have already said it: when you build your army list, you should have to pick a limited hand of stratagems to use. Something like 5. Warlord traits or relics could let you pick one more.

I think realistically, most players do this anyway, without being asked to.

Seriously, who hasn't gone through their strat list and compiled a favourites list?

I take it a step further- I write the exact text of any strat I'm likely to use in a given game on a 3x5 index card with a page number for reference- sure, I could buy GW's cards, but I'd rather put that money into models and index cards are cheap. Granted, I usually end up with more than 5, but never more than 10. I offer to let my opponent look at them before and during the game- especially if my opponent is newb. Usually my opponents don't bother; if they take me up on it, I get to ask them about their go-to strats- if they don't take me up on it, I don't ask.

I would be okay with GW making a strat list a mandated feature of the game, I just think that most folks kinda do this without being asked anyway. Some strats are real duds. I'm also mostly playing at 25 PL these days, so I don't have a lot of CP to throw around, and neither does my opponent. My opinion might change once my Crusades grow to Strike Force level.

PenitentJake wrote:


One comment that I frequently see in forums that bothers me somewhat is that 8th/9th has no tactical depth. I am sorry that people don't perceive strategems as tactics, but that is absolutely what they were intended to be, and they do require skill to use effectively. Maybe it's because I also like Collectible Card Games and things like Feats which were very prominent in 3.5 D&D, but who's impact has been severely curtailed in 5ed.

What they're intended to be and what they are, are two very different things. I'm not even sure they were ever intended to add tactical depth. I certainly don't agree they require skill to use effectively. Far too many of them are either so good you'll use them every turn or just useless. There are a few that can maybe make a difference when used at a crucial moment, but doing so is more an exercise in remembering some niche strat exists rather than tactical genius on the player's part.

PenitentJake wrote:

I never had trouble perceiving them as strategies/ tactics. To me, each and every use of a strat feels like a story event.

I'm not sure what these two sentences have to do with one another. Being a "story event" doesn't make something tactical. Having one unit of Primaris shrug off a couple of melta shots thanks to Transhuman may be all cinematic and stuff, but it becomes hilariously stupid when doing so means the identical squad beside them gets annihilated by Heavy Bolters because their comrades had used all the superman points for the phase.

PenitentJake wrote:

I also like the way that strats can be used to express the character of a faction or sub-faction; pinning, going to ground, blast templates etc. by their general and ubiquitous, always on nature cannot be used to do this.

We never needed strats for that before. I don't think Blood Angels gained much extra character or narrative weight thanks to Forlorn Fury, for example. Nor did Necrons greatly benefit in background terms from Disintegration Capacitors. There are so many ways to make an army characterful and match its background without stratagems I can't see the argument for including them for that reason.

They are bad and whoever's idea it was to implement them into 40k should feel bad.

I signed up to play a wargame, not MTG with toy soldiers.

PenitentJake wrote:

I think realistically, most players do this anyway, without being asked to.

Seriously, who hasn't gone through their strat list and compiled a favourites list?

I mean, I wouldn't say I have a "favourites list" so much as a shortlist of stratagems I can be arsed remembering.

They're bad and there are too many. And mostly, they're boring, which is baffling.

Strats give me something to do as a player. In the editions before 8th I always had the feeling that 40K is more like watching a movie than actively playing. You built your list and then the game played itself with phases where you did nothing (opponent's turn, fight phase). Now with strats there's often something you can do and some ressource management. Strats also add some fluffy rules that would be broken if they were active all the time (as they were in 7th formations).
So, alternative activations would be better, but with strats there's at least one tactical Element in 40k, which I missed in prior editions.

Having stratagems be directly associated with hqs and warlords who depending on the model / unit have access to different ones, would at least make the system interesting rather than essentially playing a card on the table.

I mean, take a page from LOTR and look at how heroes, heroic actions, and might works.

Pancakey wrote:
Strats are a plague that highlights how shallow the design of the game has become.

“Spend two wombo points to play the game”

The lack depth is shocking.

If you had played 9th you'd realize this is far less of a thing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Strats are a plague that highlights how shallow the design of the game has become.

“Spend two wombo points to play the game”

The lack depth is shocking.

If you had played 9th you'd realize this is far less of a thing.

Please elaborate how planning your order and roll out of strategems is less of a thing.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Strats give me something to do as a player. In the editions before 8th I always had the feeling that 40K is more like watching a movie than actively playing. You built your list and then the game played itself with phases where you did nothing (opponent's turn, fight phase). Now with strats there's often something you can do and some ressource management. Strats also add some fluffy rules that would be broken if they were active all the time (as they were in 7th formations).
So, alternative activations would be better, but with strats there's at least one tactical Element in 40k, which I missed in prior editions.

This is the one thing I really like Stratagems for, but I also think they're kind of the sloppiest, dumbest way to handle that solution.

just allowing basic reaction actions during an opponent's turn is generally the simplest, easiest way to introduce this if you want to maintain the igo-ugo structure.

just incredibly simple spitballing here:

Set Overwatch: instead of attacking on your turn, have a unit assume a fixed stance and directional facing and get ready to take shots at a penalty on your opponent's turn.

Duck and Cover: When targeted by an attack, a unit can choose to give up their next turn to move up to their movement towards the nearest terrain piece and become voluntarily pinned, receiving an extra bonus to their defenses over regular cover.

Retreat: When an enemy unit completes a charge move within engagement range of a friendly unit, that unit may choose to give up their next turn to attempt to run away. Roll 1d6 and add the unit's movement statistic, if the defending unit's total exceeds the charging unit's total, the defending unit may move up to their movement away and become pinned.

Give Chase: When an enemy unit makes a Fall Back move, each enemy unit they were in Engagement Range of may choose to give up their next turn's movement to roll-off, adding the movement characteristic of each unit. If the chasing unit's total exceeds the falling back unit's total, the chasing unit may move up to their movement characteristic towards the falling back unit.

Stuff like this.

Slipspace wrote:


We never needed strats for that before. I don't think Blood Angels gained much extra character or narrative weight thanks to Forlorn Fury, for example. Nor did Necrons greatly benefit in background terms from Disintegration Capacitors. There are so many ways to make an army characterful and match its background without stratagems I can't see the argument for including them for that reason.

The Blood Angels are a poor example, since, as Space Marines of Codex of a flavour that has had it's own Dex since 3rd (and shared with only one other chapter and 2nd), they've always received flavour goodies from GW.

I was thinking more of SoB who have existed as a faction since 2nd, but who's subfactions always played identically on the table for six editions.
It is really, really nice that at last Bloody Rose doesn't feel identical to OoOML or Valorous Heart. Strats are a part of the package that distinguishes them.

RE: Necrons- I don't have the Dex, but I'm assuming every subfaction (dynasty?) has it's own bespoke relic, strat, WL Trait and Dynasty ability. Doubt that they did before 8th. So the question is do all the Dynasties feel the same like they would have before they had that stuff?

Distinguishing between factions has never been a problem, you're right- I think they've always felt different. But with the exception of Marines, no other faction has had distinct rules for its subfactions in every edition since 3rd. Yes, in some editions, some factions had distinct subfaction traits. But nothing like we see now.

They're bad and there's far to many.

There should be a core set that can be used multiple times, but all faction specific strats should be one use only.

They should be tactical, no weapon or damage buffs.

Sim-Life wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The poll is really missing an option for the people that want Stratagems gone altogether.

I thought about it but GW has you build armies around CP, added a whole phase for CP management and have numerous rules in codexes that reference CP so I don't think we'll be rid of them any time soon unless GW thinks of another use for CP.

crappy mechanic that is unnecessary.

Nightlord1987 wrote:I havent played any 9th edition armies because I don't want to have to re-learn all these stupid Stratagem synergies all over again.

Stratagems are a crutch. They should have been left for Narrative games. They slow the game down. They give unfair advantages. If a unit should have a special rule, give it a special rule. Don't leave info scattered over multiple pages and books.

Umm, no. Strats by design are non-narrative. That level of gaminess belongs in feth you style of play, i.e. Tourneys.

Lord Clinto wrote:Way too many "necessary" strats and way too many in general.

Grimtuff wrote:They are bad and whoever's idea it was to implement them into 40k should feel bad.

I signed up to play a wargame, not MTG with toy soldiers.

very much this. If I wanted to play MTG, I would, but I don't, so I wont.


All the damn strats that used to be unit abilities baked into their datasheet need to go back to whence forth they came.

 Vankraken wrote:
I hate the concept for the most part. It shifts a lot of unit abilities to strats which greatly limits the number of units that can do a certain action and ties it to some sort of resource (makes me think of munitions in Company of Heroes).

This is a pretty good analogy. Also, now I'm sad and nostalgic about CoH.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
I hate the concept for the most part. It shifts a lot of unit abilities to strats which greatly limits the number of units that can do a certain action and ties it to some sort of resource (makes me think of munitions in Company of Heroes).

This is a pretty good analogy. Also, now I'm sad and nostalgic about CoH.

You can still play COH. I played through all the campaigns a little while ago, the game holds up pretty solidly tbh.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
I hate the concept for the most part. It shifts a lot of unit abilities to strats which greatly limits the number of units that can do a certain action and ties it to some sort of resource (makes me think of munitions in Company of Heroes).

This is a pretty good analogy. Also, now I'm sad and nostalgic about CoH.

You can still play COH. I played through all the campaigns a little while ago, the game holds up pretty solidly tbh.

I played it... a lot. Me and my buddy played under the names Romeo and Juliet. We had most allied wins in 2v2 matched. Our record streak was 120 before he messed up a Brit truck rush. We did the math on his 18th birthday and determined he'd spent 3% of his life playing CoH. But anyway... stratagems!

I also love how munitions worked in CoH (2, for me).

Stratagems in 40k, they're cool, but there are way too fething many.

Voted "they're ok" and "there should be less of them". The concept is ok, but too many of them are things that should just be an ability that the units already have or something you should be paying points for. Also too many are just "auto-use every turn".

I like them. However I think that the main problem with them is that you can stack them. I think a lot of the most obnoxious issues would be resolved if a unit could only be subject to one friendly and one opposing stratagem at a time, i.e., not VotLW and re-roll to hits.

Also 12 is to many command points at 2000. It should start at 9. (One thing I love about 1000 points games is the 6 CP really limits relying on strats as a full on tactic.)

Edit: Oh and get rid of command re-roll. Being able to re-roll any dice once per phase is also an issue in my opinion. Maybe limit it once per turn?

My issue is not their cost. My issue is their power level.

IMO - stratagems should not be doubling/tripling the damage output of a unit. They are way to strong in general. Also - no unit should be able to be under the effect of any 2 stratagems at once from a single player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xeen wrote:
I like them. However I think that the main problem with them is that you can stack them. I think a lot of the most obnoxious issues would be resolved if a unit could only be subject to one friendly and one opposing stratagem at a time, i.e., not VotLW and re-roll to hits.

Also 12 is to many command points at 2000. It should start at 9. (One thing I love about 1000 points games is the 6 CP really limits relying on strats as a full on tactic.)

Edit: Oh and get rid of command re-roll. Being able to re-roll any dice once per phase is also an issue in my opinion. Maybe limit it once per turn?

I think a single reroll per turn would be good.

Stratagems help the game include concepts that are too abstract to include in the more traditional mechanics like information warfare or intelligence.

Best examples being smart characters like Zahndrekh, or weirder stuff like eating the information out of your opponent's skull, that allow to mess with Stratagems and/or Command Points

As for wargear stratagem, they help with wargear that is too situational or weak to warrant points, but you cannot give as free. Best example being Tyranid Feeder Tendrils, no one used them as an upgrade (or at the very least I didn't), and now they are an occasional source of CP if the Genestealers eat a character.

The mechanic isn't bad, it is just that GW's implementation was poor in many occasions.

Stratagems are great for things that you only want a player to do once. Overwatch is a good example of this, previous editions overwatch was a slog through wasteful rolling that would under very rare occasions completely ruin the experience of a melee player, now its something that you only see rolled when it actually matters.

Strats are non narrative?

"In the clangour of battle the worshippers of Slaanesh hear sweet music, and they compete to be the loudest in this deafening chorus."

"A sudden, lethal beam of magic is released from a Silver Tower."

"Wave after wave of Orks overwhelm the enemy's defense lines."

Stratagems are supposed to represent turn of the battle events.

I get it. Some gamers like book keeping. I've been trying to teach new players at my club 40k and between Detachment bonuses, stratagems, faction traits, and every entries special rules, it's been a nightmare to navigate.

I'd prefer a system like Adeptus Titanicus, where you purchase stratagems before the game (and have far fewer at your disposal). The current system isn't horrible but there are far too many.

This thread is wearing out my exalt button. Scotsman had same nice ideas e.g. overwatch and fall back and duck and cover etc. But this is exalted for poetic brevity -


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
They're bad and there are too many. And mostly, they're boring, which is baffling.

Perfect.

Marshal Loss wrote:I'd prefer a system like Adeptus Titanicus, where you purchase stratagems before the game (and have far fewer at your disposal). The current system isn't horrible but there are far too many.

Titanicus is their best game...ever.

I've been toying about with strats purchased before game on each unit you want to use them on. If we aren't getting rid of them at least make them require forethought. Not just oh I have this special strat for just this very situation.....aha Gotcha.

It makes them known to the person you're playing with so no "buhackshualyy" pulling a strat outta yo ass.

Personally I think stratagems are slow and clunky. I don't like CP or the deck of cards approach to strategems.

I think it would be a better system if the strategems were baked to the legion/chapter traits. Each legion/chapter would have a single strategem that can be used once per turn.

Stratagems are fine. Most of 9ths over complexity comes from other army rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And there should be in-game ZERO equipment strats (smoke launchers, tankbusta bombs, etc.). Those should remain wargear upgrades you pay points for.

Everyone had smoke in 8th. Nobody used it. In what form do you think people would use smoke as gear without it either being useless or auto-take ( illusion of choice )?

That doesn't really answer the point.

And no one used it? No one? Not ever?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That doesn't really answer the point.

And no one used it? No one? Not ever?

In all my games played, no. Which is much less than I've seen smoke activated. -1 was less useful in 8th with the reroll negating the effect. -1 now can't stack so the usefulness is entirely situational.

Under core rules where you get a 4++, but can only shoot one gun or less then, sure, but in this set of rules? Not so sure.

And why can't that just be the rule for Smoke Launchers, rather than a strat?

It creates a scenario where vehicles with smoke can roll up as fast as possible and shoot. They become the haves and anyone without smoke is a have-not.

This isn't a zero sum game. You're assuming that smoke is either the way it was (something apparently no one used), or the way it is now and too powerful enmasse.

My point isn't about smoke launchers. My point is that equipment shouldn't be strats. This whole damned thread is about strats, and how necessary they are, whether they work, whether they should be re-worked. And you're haggling about smoke launchers. You're missing the woods 'cause them pesky trees keep getting in the way.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It creates a scenario where vehicles with smoke can roll up as fast as possible and shoot. They become the haves and anyone without smoke is a have-not.

So... why not make it work both ways? Or smoke in lieu of shooting?

I mean, this isn't exactly an unsolved problem for games without Stratagems.

 catbarf wrote:
So... why not make it work both ways? Or smoke in lieu of shooting?

Because no one - EVER! - used it before. Remember?

I think that a lot of them should be 0cp once per game strategems. Cause they sound cool on paper but are too niche and not worth holding up cp for. For example, my current ork army at <2k games is spending most cp before game and has to spend around 6 first turn.
3 - outrider detachment
2 - extra relics
2 - extra traits
2- first turn 5++ force field booster
2 - first turn smokes

1st turn I regen 1 cp and have 2 to spare which go to a dice re-roll and careen.

So...i don't ever get to use like 30 other strats that eat up place in the book for no good reason, apparently.

'Gotcha' trash.


Before USR bloat in 6th, you could, with a bit of knowledge about the big USRs (which you pick up very quickly, and even if you didn't they only took up 2-3 pages if I recall) look at a unit, know exactly what it does, then go from there. This meant you could actually play the game itself and employ your own skill and units, and so could your opponent. It gave players agency (granted Strategems do allow more player agency for players when it is not their go, but this is something that could be included in the game without Strategems and the problems they bring with them).

Now a player can do everything right, but because they don't know of one of the obscure strats from one of the 3 books their opponent is using, their skill is for nothing, all because they don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the poorly written, bloated and ever changing trash GW publishes and has the audacity to call 'rules'.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It creates a scenario where vehicles with smoke can roll up as fast as possible and shoot. They become the haves and anyone without smoke is a have-not.

Practically everyone without smokes is open topped or flying, and has more bonuses then the supposed have bonus from one turn of smoke launchers. Plus it is clearly seen on what type of units are being used by armies. Who runs imperial smoke launcher platoforms? SoB because they can scout them with dominions, put 5 in the tank along side a heavy squad armed with MM or mix of MM and flamers.

Any strats that displaced upgrades should just go.

The quasi "no model no rules" paradigm we are in when it coems to upgrades and veriaty is dumb.

The only real acceptable use for strats should be:

- Take aditional relic
- Take warlord trait / promote character to get an extra buff
- Upgrade a unit to veterans/specialisation (minor buff for fluff)

In game uses only for things like desperate breakout and or overwatch plus morale hold and all having one time use.

Also you should get like 5 CP max.

Any abilities and things currently done by strats should go back to being upgrades baked into data sheets as options and associated costs. Then you can just get rid of strats all together.

Any starts that boost offensive / defensive capability of any unit is very prone to being disproportionate effective on certain units making costing them more of a nightmare then it already is...

E.G. An Oblitirator with endless cacophony should not cost the same points as an oblitirator without the acess to endless cacophony.

Someone floated the idea of limiting the amount of strats one could take based on game size. That idea has potential.

 Argive wrote:
Also you should get like 5 CP max.

Do that and people just hold onto CP to get re-rolls or pass the odd vital morale check. None of the others would get used, so now we have a complex system with tons of options that never get used as none of them are ever really better than a regular re-roll.

Giving out more CPs in 9th and having them regenerate during the game was actually a good idea. The problem are the strats themselves and how they're implemented.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Someone floated the idea of limiting the amount of strats one could take based on game size. That idea has potential.

 Argive wrote:
Also you should get like 5 CP max.

Do that and people just hold onto CP to get re-rolls or pass the odd vital morale check. None of the others would get used, so now we have a complex system with tons of options that never get used as none of them are ever really better than a regular re-roll.

Giving out more CPs in 9th and having them regenerate during the game was actually a good idea. The problem are the strats themselves and how they're implemented.

My point was to actually get rid of like 95% of all strats with only having basic ones available and move everything else to either data sheet abilities or upgrades to be paid for by pts.
Id get rid of the reroll start as well though.. If strats are to remain id give each army like 3 faction sepcifi ones that are verey very tame and then have like 5 core ones for everyone with a very small CP pool.

You can only use morale once and some armies don't even fail morale. This would also make things that lower leadership actually useful..

If yo build an elite army that does not care about morale you will use CP for overwatch or something.

I just don't think the CP resource should offer anywhere near that much of an advantage as it currently does...

As things stand, giving units transhumans left right and center, rerolls 1s, +1 to this +1 to that etc ... Its all the same crap regurgitated for 95% of strats for 100% of the armies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This isn't a zero sum game. You're assuming that smoke is either the way it was (something apparently no one used), or the way it is now and too powerful enmasse.

My point isn't about smoke launchers. My point is that equipment shouldn't be strats. This whole damned thread is about strats, and how necessary they are, whether they work, whether they should be re-worked. And you're haggling about smoke launchers. You're missing the woods 'cause them pesky trees keep getting in the way.

Well, my take was a point on that not everything should necessarily be equipment. There's nuance and usefulness in stratagems.

The too powerful en masse scenario was if we presumed an old smoke that was 4++, but the core rules do not prevent shooting like the old one. That'd be way too much. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

If everyone just had smoke as -1 to hit that they could use and shoot still? Sure, I guess. So then it has to be one use or you kind of have this weird scenario where tanks are just rolling around in clouds of smoke all game. Then it is no longer an interaction. It's just something that would happen the first time a tank gets shot. It just...is.

On the stratagem side you have a legitimate choice to make on whether smoke is the right use of resources or whether you can convince your opponent that the use of resources is wise, which reduces their options later in the game for interrupts, morale, and force multipliers.

Or we could just have a thing that just happens, because we don't like strats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
I think that a lot of them should be 0cp once per game strategems. Cause they sound cool on paper but are too niche and not worth holding up cp for. For example, my current ork army at <2k games is spending most cp before game and has to spend around 6 first turn.
3 - outrider detachment
2 - extra relics
2 - extra traits
2- first turn 5++ force field booster
2 - first turn smokes

1st turn I regen 1 cp and have 2 to spare which go to a dice re-roll and careen.

So...i don't ever get to use like 30 other strats that eat up place in the book for no good reason, apparently.

That's a sacrifice you make. If the outriders, relics, and traits aren't providing more benefit than the CP would otherwise then you need to trim or change strategy.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It creates a scenario where vehicles with smoke can roll up as fast as possible and shoot. They become the haves and anyone without smoke is a have-not.

Practically everyone without smokes is open topped or flying, and has more bonuses then the supposed have bonus from one turn of smoke launchers. Plus it is clearly seen on what type of units are being used by armies. Who runs imperial smoke launcher platoforms? SoB because they can scout them with dominions, put 5 in the tank along side a heavy squad armed with MM or mix of MM and flamers.

Right, so, would you rather Sisters spend the CP for smoke or that they just get it for like 0 to 5 points? Which of those do you think is of more consequence to the outcome of the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Someone floated the idea of limiting the amount of strats one could take based on game size. That idea has potential.

Then you just limit the player's ability to make decisions during the game. I thought we didn't want games that were decided at the list level?

The issue I'm seeing Daedalus, between this thread and the other one when talking about morale, is that you only see two possible outcomes:

1. The way it's done now.
2. The way it was done prior to now.

... and if you don't like the way it was done prior to now, you assume that the way it's done now is therefore the better way.

This precludes two other options:

3. Another way it was done prior to now, but not specifically the immediate previous rule.
4. Something entirely different that attempts to resolve the issue.

I say OK and needs overhaul.

The first issue is that GW has put too many uses into the limited currency of Command Points. Detachments, Unit enhancers (Warlord Traits, Relics and other before the game uses), Strategic Reserves, and then finally during the game Stratagems. The first three should be on a separate army building budget with the other two being Command Points.

Then there is the issues of too many Stratagems in the Codex. While I can see they put some wargear into the Stratagems to make you pay for them only if you actually use them, they have gone overboard. I get why they made Flakk Missiles a stratagem, since players avoid spending points their opponent can negate by not spending points (not bringing any Aircraft). And the Melta Bomb stratagem has a certain allure of being available but not wasted if your opponent brings no Vehicles not the mention not wanting to the number of point necessary to actually get a Melta Bomb into an opponent unit. But Smoke Launchers? Every freaking Imperial vehicle has Smoke Launchers and it can often be useful to have more than one vehicles use their SL at the same time.

Trim down wargear Stratagems to the situational but useful. Change any single (or highly limited) unit stratagems into unit Abilities that cost CP if they can't be always available abilities (Smoke Launchers? Seriously?). Get rid of the highly situational ones so that you are left with just a small list of Stratagems.

 Argive wrote:
Any strats that displaced upgrades should just go.

The quasi "no model no rules" paradigm we are in when it coems to upgrades and veriaty is dumb.

The only real acceptable use for strats should be:

- Take aditional relic
- Take warlord trait / promote character to get an extra buff
- Upgrade a unit to veterans/specialisation (minor buff for fluff)

In game uses only for things like desperate breakout and or overwatch plus morale hold and all having one time use.

Also you should get like 5 CP max.

Any abilities and things currently done by strats should go back to being upgrades baked into data sheets as options and associated costs. Then you can just get rid of strats all together.

Any starts that boost offensive / defensive capability of any unit is very prone to being disproportionate effective on certain units making costing them more of a nightmare then it already is...

E.G. An Oblitirator with endless cacophony should not cost the same points as an oblitirator without the acess to endless cacophony.

Uhhh.....you want stratagems that replaced things that used to be upgrades to go back to being things you pay for with points, but you want to keep the ones for extra relics, Warlord traits, and veterans? No, those things should cost points too, because they aren't all equal, and therefore shouldn't all have the same 1CP price. There's a reason that back in the day Siege Specialists was 1 PPM and Furious Charge was 3 PPM, because one was usually useless and the other was almost always a good thing to have. Why is giving one of my tanks or dreadnoughts a -1 to be hit for a single shooting phase for 1CP bad, but giving my Sorcerer a 2+ save and <ALWAYS COUNTS AS BEING IN COVER> for the entire game for the exact same price fine?

Yeah this is why its a dumb idea to have starts to begin with.. I never said relics and traits should cost 1 CP in this hypothetical paradigm...

I think if you had to pay 2-3 CP for pre game upgrade from a very limited CP pool of 5-6 it would really mean you would have to pick if you want to upgrade your Genral with a cool beatstick or keep it for in-play game things.

I dont think the same relics or traits should remain as most of them are busted or so crap nobody remember they exists. So I say get rid of the auto take and only leave some of the crappy ones which are thematic enough to be relevant.

Part of the relic thing that really bugs me is lots of armies lost upgrades/felxibility option becasue no model no rules but at the same time you can have game defining relics an entire army is built around at no cost and not equally available to anyone and not a single bit of modelling required..

My whole points is to make CP and strats disapear entirely.

Or if they have to be kept, make it a very thematic gimmick or a very minor tactical benefit that could be used in a crutch moment.

A handful of Universal stratagems would be great - as AOS does. There are too many - I have absolutely no idea what the majority of my stratagems do and the act of looking at it during a game takes me out of the game to my opponent.

I like the existence of strats, and I'll give a good example of why:

In Ork lore, teleportation was a vital part of the strategy to invade Armageddon, dropping ork mobs, vehicles, and even super heavies down onto the planet before the defenders could react, overwhelming them while the rest of Graz' Waaagh! came down though traditional roks and landaz. Teleportation is part of the sort of underappreciated concept that orks are masters of energy manipulation, as well as there general idea of using unpredictable and tempermental wild machines as part of their agility to surprise their enemies.

The problem with tying it to a character or an upgrade is the scalability. If I could take a Big Mek with a tekeporta pak or whatever to teleport one unit... then that's one unit (since generally abilites like that have always only effected one unit). One unit, per big mek, that would be taking up HQ to being in a unit that's meant to represent a very cool aspect that's very unusable at larger games and possibly broken in a smaller one. With a points upgrade, how do you point that? Per Model? Great for my meganobz, useless for my boyz.

Stratagems, *if done right*, could very well add a dimension to the game that upgrades and unit abilities can't really fulfill. I fully understand the flaws of them, and why people don't like them, but I think throwing them out completely is very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If anything, this thread is a monument to why it's impossible to discuss anything related to 9th edition in general has become impossible on dakka.

There some valid points of criticism but they are drowned out by all the people whole clearly have no fething clue what they are talking about, are throwing about buzzwords they've learned to repeat like brean-dead parrots or are suggesting fixes that are already being implemented. Oh and let's not forget the "I don't like 9th, so you shouldn't either!"-faction who can't manage to stick to the other five threads dedicated to their passion.

I don't think the poll is particularly well written, so I just voted "they are ok". All other options don't really make a lot of sense when you apply them to multiple stratagems across multiple codices.

PenitentJake wrote:

RE: Necrons- I don't have the Dex, but I'm assuming every subfaction (dynasty?) has it's own bespoke relic, strat, WL Trait and Dynasty ability. Doubt that they did before 8th. So the question is do all the Dynasties feel the same like they would have before they had that stuff?

Distinguishing between factions has never been a problem, you're right- I think they've always felt different. But with the exception of Marines, no other faction has had distinct rules for its subfactions in every edition since 3rd. Yes, in some editions, some factions had distinct subfaction traits. But nothing like we see now.

Personally I think the endless sub-factions GW has started including since 8th are a mistake, especially form a company that struggles with balance at the best of times. In the case of Necrons, yes each dynasty gets its own WL trait and strat but their pretty low effort and in some cases go against the theme of the sub-faction. Mephrit, for example, are the long-range shooty dynasty, yet their WL trait is a S and A buff.

In a game the scale of 40k I really don't see why we need to distinguish which specific Order our SoB are from. All that usually ends up happening is one of the sub-factions ends up with the busted combination of WL trait, strat, relic and rules (hi Lucius!) and suddenly all this supposed narrative depth ends up just turning 90% of AdMech armies into Lucius ones. The idea you need endless piles of rules to make your sub-faction distinct is an insidious piece of marketing from GW that I wish people would stop falling for.

Nightlord1987 wrote:Strats are non narrative?

"In the clangour of battle the worshippers of Slaanesh hear sweet music, and they compete to be the loudest in this deafening chorus."

"A sudden, lethal beam of magic is released from a Silver Tower."

"Wave after wave of Orks overwhelm the enemy's defense lines."

Stratagems are supposed to represent turn of the battle events.

I get it. Some gamers like book keeping. I've been trying to teach new players at my club 40k and between Detachment bonuses, stratagems, faction traits, and every entries special rules, it's been a nightmare to navigate.

The problem is the narrative rarely equates to the reality. Just like how the Land Raider is always described as this terrifying, nigh-unstoppable behemoth of destruction but has been consistently terrible for multiple editions, the description of something like Endless Cacophony sounds great until you realise it's just a way to double the damage output of your Obliterators. Adding a bunch of random background information doesn't make something narrative. For that it needs to produce a meaningful, interesting narrative result as opposed to just making stuff killier, or harder to kill.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Title.
I'm curious about this because GW are puting a lot of time and effort around strats and I'm wondering its paying off for them. From some discussion on here it looks like people generally don't like the direction they've gone with them but we'll see. Though this is Dakka so I doubt it, but then its Dakka so I'm sure there'll be complaints about the poll being biased or not including enough options.

Stratagems are a bandaid for the lack of tactical options and decision-making in the core rules.

There are too many of them, some so dramatically changing the utility of a unit that said unit is useless without it.

They slow the game down, they turn the game into a fest of devastating and unpredictable power moves, they are the opposite of what a "tactical wargame" should stand for.

I think they should be entirely removed from the game, if not, there shouldn't be any "army's/units specific" stratagem, only core rules stratagem that everyone knows about.

Alongside reroll auras, they are on of the 2 reasons playing 40k has become a chore.

I really don’t like them. The feel like god powers that can be applied to any unit and being clever with this is the new skill of the game.

I’d be happy with units having some strat type abilities baked into them, like once per game melee units could do an enhanced charge or a unit being near an officer or hero can improve their performance or morale. But being able to choose any unit at a pint that convenient and buff a stat or get a load of re rolls is pants.

I think a good example is demonettes, the more demonetts you take the more attacks each mode has in the unit, but they are also easy to kill so if you want to deploy lots of demonettes and max out attack then you have to be clever about it and hope for the dice to be on your side. So there’s a trade off in using them this way and you have to be strategic in your approach.

The idea that you can spend a CP and buff any unit you want in a way that is convenient to what is happening on the table top at that time is silly.

And while I’m on it, can we get rid of re rolls. Especially on hit rolls, wound rolls and save rolls. The shot either hit or it didn’t.

After returning to the game for 2 years now I think I’ve realised GW totally lost sight where the strategy element should come into a table top war game.

I think they're fine for the most part, but...

1. There's too many of them which can slow game down when I'm searching correct one from codex etc. Naturally it'll speed up when they've been used plenty of times and players can recall them fresh out of memory. Or better yet, using datacards which are quicker to search through and what GW expects us to use anyway I concur.

2. They're unbalanced. Few are those you'd like to spam if possible and more than a handful are either too situational or too insignificant to ever use cp for.

I have to mention however that I'm very much in favor of keeping a single stratagem unique to specific order/cabal/klan along with warlord trit and relic to mke them more special.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I like the existence of strats, and I'll give a good example of why:

In Ork lore, teleportation was a vital part of the strategy to invade Armageddon, dropping ork mobs, vehicles, and even super heavies down onto the planet before the defenders could react, overwhelming them while the rest of Graz' Waaagh! came down though traditional roks and landaz. Teleportation is part of the sort of underappreciated concept that orks are masters of energy manipulation, as well as there general idea of using unpredictable and tempermental wild machines as part of their agility to surprise their enemies.

An excellent example of where some special rule can add flavour.
But does it need to be stratagems?

The problem with tying it to a character or an upgrade is the scalability. If I could take a Big Mek with a tekeporta pak or whatever to teleport one unit... then that's one unit (since generally abilites like that have always only effected one unit). One unit, per big mek, that would be taking up HQ to being in a unit that's meant to represent a very cool aspect that's very unusable at larger games and possibly broken in a smaller one. With a points upgrade, how do you point that? Per Model? Great for my meganobz, useless for my boyz.

Surely this stratagem scales worse than an upgrade/character would? You can only teleport one unit per turn, doesn't matter if that's in a 500pt game or a 3000pt game. It hardly scales at all.
But if it was an upgrade to a unit, whether that be related to a Big Mek or whatever, it does scale. You could give the upgrade to multiple units, and/or you could buy multiple Big Meks.
I also don't see the criticism about pricing. Teleporta currently costs the same regardless of what you're jumping it. Could be a 20pwr unit or a 4pwr unit, same price. If that's good enough it'd be good enough making Teleporting a flat points price as well.

Stratagems, *if done right*, could very well add a dimension to the game that upgrades and unit abilities can't really fulfill. I fully understand the flaws of them, and why people don't like them, but I think throwing them out completely is very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I kinda agree, to a point.
Strategems can work but they need to be limited in scope.
Wargear is a difficult one. There's a lot of wargear that's really niche in use, to the point where it just wasn't taken. Auspex for example, currently lets you shoot a deepstriking unit. That's really too niche a use-case to buy that as an upgrade on every unit, and not very useful if just one one or two units. But is very useful if you can just buy it after it becomes relevant, as it were, using strategems. So this I'm not opposed to.
But there's a lot of wargear that isn't such a niche use-case. Like smoke launchers or grenades. There's no reason this stuff should be stratagems and they contribute a lot to the bloat.
There's also a lot of special rules that have no right to be stratagems. Transhuman Biology - are my guys resistant to damage or not?

Don’t all armies basically have the same strategems? Just with different names? How many unique strategems are there.

This round hit rolls do D3 mortal wounds, this round the unit can ignore hit penalties for loving and firing

If all strategems were very unique and did thematic things for each army instead of just negating rule or buffing stats they would be better.

Either that or All CP should be spent before the game starts

There's only a few strats which are direct copy/pastes, but almost all the strats smell distinctly like only two or three archetypes.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
There's only a few strats which are direct copy/pastes, but almost all the strats smell distinctly like only two or three archetypes.

You could say that about most of 40k's "bespoke" rules.

I like them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
There's only a few strats which are direct copy/pastes, but almost all the strats smell distinctly like only two or three archetypes.

You could say that about most of 40k's "bespoke" rules.

And that why 40K is cumbersome and clumpsy without being deep or diverse.

I think anyone who's ever complained about lethality should think twice about whether they want strats of any kind to revert to equipment or datacard abilities.

The thing about strats is that there are limits to their use.

The thing about datacard abilities and equipment is that the only limit is the pregame points cost (if you even play points; if you play PL, it's freakin gangbusters up in here).

It's true that bespoke limitations such as once per turn, once per round, once per game or one unit with this ability per turn/round/game can be added as bespoke rules to individual pieces of equipment or datacard abilities...

But who's talking about confusion, bloat and tracking now?

It's possible to want to move some strats to be equipment again without turning all of them into paid-for upgrades. Just because you could easily make Haywire grenades a thing you can pay points for, doesn't mean you need to even keep the strats that really up lethality, like the various shoots twice strats or extra damage ones.

Part of why people dislike strats is, I think, because most of the time they just make the game more killy with little thought. That means they're likely to want those things removed completely, rather than shifted around

This isn't an either/or thing. There's middle ground to be found.

Well since the majority of the ork ones that were good got removed and the "new" ones for hte most part are literally just abilities we used to have inherently that got removed from models...yeah, not feeling it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
I think anyone who's ever complained about lethality should think twice about whether they want strats of any kind to revert to equipment or datacard abilities.

The thing about strats is that there are limits to their use.

The thing about datacard abilities and equipment is that the only limit is the pregame points cost (if you even play points; if you play PL, it's freakin gangbusters up in here).

It's true that bespoke limitations such as once per turn, once per round, once per game or one unit with this ability per turn/round/game can be added as bespoke rules to individual pieces of equipment or datacard abilities...

But who's talking about confusion, bloat and tracking now?

They took Burna's -2 AP on their weapons away and turned it into a strat. This is how the math works out if they had left well enough alone.

5 Burna boyz = 55pts In CC that is 10 attacks, 6.6 hits, 3.3 wounds and 2.2dmg vs Marines.
6 Boyz = 54pts In CC that is 18 attacks, 12 hits, 6 wounds and 3dmg vs Marines.

With that said, i am not disagreeing with you inherently. I'm just pointing out that not all the strats if added back would break the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The issue I'm seeing Daedalus, between this thread and the other one when talking about morale, is that you only see two possible outcomes:

1. The way it's done now.
2. The way it was done prior to now.

... and if you don't like the way it was done prior to now, you assume that the way it's done now is therefore the better way.

This precludes two other options:

3. Another way it was done prior to now, but not specifically the immediate previous rule.
4. Something entirely different that attempts to resolve the issue.

I don't think that because it is done this way that it is the better way. I think that people dismiss the current rules, because they're nostalgic for the old without contextualizing why those rules did or didn't work for their time.

There can always be changes down the line that improve interactivity. And believe me - I want morale to be a strong phase, but I don't see people talking about working within the ruleset to effect good change that much, but I could be skimming through posts too fast so that could be my fault.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The issue I'm seeing Daedalus, between this thread and the other one when talking about morale, is that you only see two possible outcomes:

1. The way it's done now.
2. The way it was done prior to now.

... and if you don't like the way it was done prior to now, you assume that the way it's done now is therefore the better way.

This precludes two other options:

3. Another way it was done prior to now, but not specifically the immediate previous rule.
4. Something entirely different that attempts to resolve the issue.

I don't think that because it is done this way that it is the better way. I think that people dismiss the current rules, because they're nostalgic for the old without contextualizing why those rules did or didn't work for their time.

There can always be changes down the line that improve interactivity. And believe me - I want morale to be a strong phase, but I don't see people talking about working within the ruleset to effect good change that much, but I could be skimming through posts too fast so that could be my fault.

Probably because we now sit pretty firmly in 9th edition releases and basically no faction has Morale issues except for 1. I actually can not remember the last time I forced my opponent to make a morale check where it ended with them losing models. GW in their hamfisted manner decided morale needed to be a thing very late in the release cycle and honestly I see it as just one more nail in the coffin for horde players.

Slipspace wrote:
It's possible to want to move some strats to be equipment again without turning all of them into paid-for upgrades. Just because you could easily make Haywire grenades a thing you can pay points for, doesn't mean you need to even keep the strats that really up lethality, like the various shoots twice strats or extra damage ones.

Part of why people dislike strats is, I think, because most of the time they just make the game more killy with little thought. That means they're likely to want those things removed completely, rather than shifted around

This isn't an either/or thing. There's middle ground to be found.

My point is: how does every unit using haywire grenades every turn make the game less killy than one unit doing it every turn, and only if I have sufficient CP without a better use for them?

Or any other strat that you want to move to equipment or data card abilities?

As for "very little thought", knowing when to use a strat and when to wait, or knowing when the strat alone is enough to get the job done or if you need to stack it with an aura in order to make sure it has the impact you need it to have for CP cost is an important part of using a strat.

Because there is no in-game cost to using equipment once it's purchased with points, and because it is connected to a specific unit, there's actually far less thought required if you make it equipment. And truth be told, I think that is the whole reason people don't like equipment strats- is smoke worth the opportunity cost of using another strat? People just want to be able to use smoke AND everything else without having to make tough choices. That desire just doesn't square with an underlying belief that the game is to lethal, because it would be far more lethal if you could use strat based equipment on multiple units per turn without it coming at the expense of using other strats/ abilities (extra detachments/ reserves/ requisitions).

Now I'm not saying that ALL equipment strats are lethal- obviously, smoke is not. But even in the case of smoke, if you didn't pay CP to use it, the thing that you did use that CP for might be something that increases lethality.

SemperMortis wrote:

They took Burna's -2 AP on their weapons away and turned it into a strat. This is how the math works out if they had left well enough alone.

5 Burna boyz = 55pts In CC that is 10 attacks, 6.6 hits, 3.3 wounds and 2.2dmg vs Marines.
6 Boyz = 54pts In CC that is 18 attacks, 12 hits, 6 wounds and 3dmg vs Marines.

With that said, i am not disagreeing with you inherently. I'm just pointing out that not all the strats if added back would break the game.

But you left the other end of that out where those burnas do D6 hits now ( and also there's a spanner per 5 ).

14 * .5 * .333 = 2.3
5 * .333 * .666 * .3333 = 0.4
8 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 1.8
2 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.2

6 * .333 * .5 * .333 = 0.3
18 * .666 * .5 * .5 = 3

5.1 v 3.3

Without it they lose 0.9 damage ( so they effectively double their damage in melee ). For a Trukk sized unit they'll have 10 burnas, do 5.8 in shooting and 4.4 in melee.

Is it something you're going to use often? Probably not. But it does take a unit that performs better than boyz to a higher level for a small cost and can easily swing a combat since it's pretty easy to flub 5+ armor.

I think the larger point was that this was a rule Burna Boyz have had for ages, and suddenly it was removed and turned into a strat.

For what gain, exactly? What did adding that further complication to the rules actually achieve?

PenitentJake wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
It's possible to want to move some strats to be equipment again without turning all of them into paid-for upgrades. Just because you could easily make Haywire grenades a thing you can pay points for, doesn't mean you need to even keep the strats that really up lethality, like the various shoots twice strats or extra damage ones.

Part of why people dislike strats is, I think, because most of the time they just make the game more killy with little thought. That means they're likely to want those things removed completely, rather than shifted around

This isn't an either/or thing. There's middle ground to be found.

My point is: how does every unit using haywire grenades every turn make the game less killy than one unit doing it every turn if I have sufficient CP without a better use for them?

Or any other strat that you want to move to equipment or data card abilities?

For one thing you now have to pay for it with points so you may just decide not to, whereas strats are pretty much always available if required. Also, if we imagine the points are relatively well balanced for these upgrades maybe you don't want to slap haywire grenades everywhere and only a couple of units have them. You now need to think about their positioning and movement more than you do right now if you want to get the most out of that upgrade. With the way strats work you can have upgrades miraculously teleporting to where they're needed most which is yet another way 40k has been dumbed down over the years.

Personally, I'd remove pretty much every strat that increases a unit's lethality from the game or shift some equipment-based ones to be paid-for upgrades. No more shoots twice, or bonus AP exactly where it's needed because you have CP available.

SemperMortis wrote:
Probably because we now sit pretty firmly in 9th edition releases and basically no faction has Morale issues except for 1. I actually can not remember the last time I forced my opponent to make a morale check where it ended with them losing models. GW in their hamfisted manner decided morale needed to be a thing very late in the release cycle and honestly I see it as just one more nail in the coffin for horde players.

I have to autopass morale with Crons all the time. That's with a reanimator around the corner. Many people neglect to deploy in a way that lets them get enough shots off on a block, but those that do can easily knock 8 to 10 models off and it really isn't worth the risk of taking more.

I also made Vanguard take morale 3 times with Thousand Sons and much more rarely marines, because they MSU almost all the time. My Rubrics on the other hand come in 10s or more and if I don't have the CP I will lose them. Morale is certainly a risk to bigger units or those with weak leadership. It shouldn't be as large of an issue for small elite units, which it is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the larger point was that this was a rule Burna Boyz have had for ages, and suddenly it was removed and turned into a strat.

For what gain, exactly? What did adding that further complication to the rules actually achieve?

It was a trade-off. Gain D6 shots instead of D3, but lose that ability. Otherwise that unit becomes objectively better than other similar Ork units in total ( especially when Waaagh is applied ), but they still allowed it to exist for a cost.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Morale is certainly a risk to bigger units or those with weak leadership. It shouldn't be as large of an issue for small elite units, which it is not.

Which is backwards, because an elite, highly trained unit shouldn't die faster because they have more squad members.
The pre-8th ed retreat rules were fairer, imo.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It was a trade-off. Gain D6 shots instead of D3, but lose that ability. Otherwise that unit becomes objectively better than other similar Ork units in total ( especially when Waaagh is applied ), but they still allowed it to exist for a cost.

That only assumes that they'd have D6 attacks in melee. The melee profile can be different to the ranged profile.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It was a trade-off. Gain D6 shots instead of D3, but lose that ability. Otherwise that unit becomes objectively better than other similar Ork units in total ( especially when Waaagh is applied ), but they still allowed it to exist for a cost.

That only assumes that they'd have D6 attacks in melee. The melee profile can be different to the ranged profile.

Not familiar with the dex, but my assumption is that the biggest difference is that now you can't do it 3x per turn, every turn until the end of the game without missing out on other opportunities because of your choice.

Which IS something that I assume you would have been able to do before the change, though again, I'm not familiar with that dex.

I don't see any real problem with a specialist unit carrying special weapons having better offensive profiles than the regular dudes all the time. The downside to Burna Boyz was always that they were no harder to kill than regular Boyz. Same deal with Guard's Special Weapon Squads.

It's certainly easier to assign a fair points cost to than trying to take into consideration that they only situationally have a decent melee profile.

Strats had alot of potential, in that it was an additional resource players had control over, which if managed properly to swing the game would show more player skill.

Then they just became broken, offereing far too much damage output when stacked with buffs on certain units, more than doubling their efficiency on the table.



Either we start with too much CP, or the strats themselves need to be more conditional.

Personally I like the Custodes strats, which are defensive in nature. Keeping your guys alive should be what a commander (command points) tries to do. Point and click destruction strats require little to no brainpower and only offer fun to the player using them.

Like I said earlier, tying strats, cps, and their usage to specific HQs on the battlefield would go a long way to making them feel like they're actually a part of the game.

Look at LOTR and heroic actions for inspiration.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It was a trade-off. Gain D6 shots instead of D3, but lose that ability. Otherwise that unit becomes objectively better than other similar Ork units in total ( especially when Waaagh is applied ), but they still allowed it to exist for a cost.

That only assumes that they'd have D6 attacks in melee. The melee profile can be different to the ranged profile.

I don't know that that is relevant - if it were D3 in melee you'd have the same outcome at present.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't see any real problem with a specialist unit carrying special weapons having better offensive profiles than the regular dudes all the time. The downside to Burna Boyz was always that they were no harder to kill than regular Boyz. Same deal with Guard's Special Weapon Squads.

It's certainly easier to assign a fair points cost to than trying to take into consideration that they only situationally have a decent melee profile.

But they are at present better without the strat. If one was so inclined to jump a full-sized specialist mob of them given that they are core, 12", and min 3 shots, well...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And there should be in-game ZERO equipment strats (smoke launchers, tankbusta bombs, etc.). Those should remain wargear upgrades you pay points for.

Everyone had smoke in 8th. Nobody used it. In what form do you think people would use smoke as gear without it either being useless or auto-take ( illusion of choice )?

I used smoke in 8th. I often had armies that included4-6 Rhinos and sometimes bum-rushing into position was the thing to do. I could pop smoke for the whole lot of them as I pushed my army forward. The Storm Bolters couldn't fire after advancing anyways. Best case scenario meant my whole army had a -1 to hit at the start of the opponents shooting round.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

But you left the other end of that out where those burnas do D6 hits now ( and also there's a spanner per 5 ).
14 * .5 * .333 = 2.3
5 * .333 * .666 * .3333 = 0.4
8 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 1.8
2 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.2

6 * .333 * .5 * .333 = 0.3
18 * .666 * .5 * .5 = 3

5.1 v 3.3

Without it they lose 0.9 damage ( so they effectively double their damage in melee ). For a Trukk sized unit they'll have 10 burnas, do 5.8 in shooting and 4.4 in melee.

Is it something you're going to use often? Probably not. But it does take a unit that performs better than boyz to a higher level for a small cost and can easily swing a combat since it's pretty easy to flub 5+ armor.

You are correct, I in fact did leave off they went to D6 shots at 12' range...because that is literally what they were supposed to have been from the very start of 8th, but too many idiots working at GW assumed a D6 flamer would be OP in the hands of an ork.

The main point was that GW took our inherent abilities away and turned them into stratagems. So again, would it have really broken the game to let Burna boyz keep there natural -2AP in CC? No. An 11pt model with a flamer and 2 -2AP attacks in CC at S4 would not have been broken, especially when compared to the crap floating around right now in the meta. An Intercessor pays 2pts for a longer ranged Bolter that is -1AP and a +1 attacks vs a Tac Marine. I think a Flamer and -2AP would be fine for 2pts on an ork with a 6+ save

Also, in the future, if you could label your math I would appreciate it.

Taking what used to be a base unit rule and turning it into a strat is GW's favorite trick.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Taking what used to be a base unit rule and turning it into a strat is GW's favorite trick.

Cuttin Flames
Tankbusta Bomb
Breaking Headz
Gun Crazy Show offs
Lumbering Strides
ForceField Boosta


6 out of 25 of our Non-Klan specific strats are literally just old abilities that they turned into Strats. Ridiculous.

I've said before (and people do not like this, but)... They should be wargear and purchased with points, secondly, certain strats needs to honestly go away. The command re-roll is honestly one of the worst ones of the lot, it's just a really boring, unimaginative mechanic that players abuse (using 4 in one turn, one in each phase)... If it was once per game in total, I would be far happier with it, but currently it's just meh.