Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Nurglitch wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Okay, so I just read some pages of a thread about how a player at the LVO couldn't play a strategem on a single Knight Castellan because it was in an Auxiliary Super-Heavy Detachment. I don't use super-heavy units (knights, etc) so I hadn't been aware of this, but I think it goes some way to validating my idea of having Command Point silos - each detachment has their own Command Points they can only spend on their own strategems, and then armies have 3 general ones they can spend on anything.

You read those several pages wrong then. The controversy was about a player not being allowed to use the army trait on a unit from the Aux detachment - the equivalent of the Chapter Tactic.

Quite possibly. Wasn't it that the strategem was specific to the House Raven army trait?

I am fairly certain that no matter what kind of detachment you are in, you can use the stratagem, relics etc from a subfaction keyword.

Remember how earlier in the edition, you'd have Ynnari taking mixed detachments and their shining spears would be Saim-Hann, and they wouldn't get the Saim-Hann detachment trait, but they would be allowed to use the Saim-Hann stratagem, which is why they made them that.

Then they'd put Black Heart Kabal warriors in the detachment as well and they'd get agents of vect.

the_scotsman wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Guard have a strat to deploy troops from a Valkerie after it moves. Anyone who has had a big pack of tooled up orgyns suddenly drop in 3" from their lines turn 1 can tell you how much fun that isn't. Concentrated Fire (or whatever that to-hit bonus is called)

Overlapping Fields of Fire is regiment-specific, 2CP, and does require you to cause an unsaved wound before you can use it. Definitely pretty good, and scales like absolute trash into apocalypse, but not something every guard army has access to (especially if they are running catachans).

Grav Chute Insertion is not a stratagem, it's an ability that the valkyrie has. also, it has a 2/3 chance of insta-popping one of your bullgryns assuming you load it up with 4. There's a stratagem that allows you to avoid that rule, it costs 1cp to unlock the specialist detachment that contains it and 1cp to

I am exactly as afraid of a grav-chuted squad of bullgryns as I would be afraid of a 300 point vehicle equipped with nothing but 6 autocannons. Except less, because the bullgryns can only charge what I put in the very front of my army.

Then your opponent isn't playing it right. At 1000 points, two Valks with melee Bullgryns and Commisars dropping into your backfield turn 1 is really hard to deal with.

Didn't realize that was built into the Valk rather than a strat, so I'll concede that it doesn't apply to whether Guard has good strats or not.

Melee...commissars? Like, with powerfists?

At 1000 points, two valks with melee bullgryns and commissars is over 600 points, which generate exactly 0 CPs. I'm sorry, but that is laughable to deal with. if you cannot handle 5 bullgryns (Because on average 1 will die jumping out) charging into your 1000 point army, your army construction is gakky. 5 bullgryns deal 7 damage to a rhino with their bonus attack on the charge. They kill 4 MEQ on average. FOUR. For 600 points.

If you are letting bullgryns land "in your backline" it is not your opponent playing well, it's you being bad. They must get out of the valkyrie 9" away from enemy models. They can still move afterwards, so you can't keep them from getting to your units, but you absolutely can keep them out of your backline, unless you're leaving gigantic 20" diameter holes in your deployment against a strategy that's more telegraphed than a punch in a looney tunes cartoon.

What units could bullgryns possibly charge that they could cause anywhere near enough impact to justify their crazy points cost? They are just not an offensive unit. They're great at standing in front of stuff and not dying.

Protip: If your opponent shows up to the game with 600 points loaded into two planes and 400 points of guard actually on the table, deploy your army in relatively close formation, and put marines, rhinos, guardsmen, lesser demons, fire warriors, literally anything but your exceedingly vulnerable gunline units out front. Boom, you win that game.

I was mis-remembering something; it was a Priest giving them all extra attacks, and something giving them re-rolls in melee. The drop was a couple.of characters and either 6 Bullgryns with their power mauls and an Ogryn Bodyguard or just 7 power maul Bullgryns.

Now as to what they could kill with a first turn charge that would be worth the points, it's pretty easy to get 126 points back against Space Marines. In fact 7 Bullgyns making 37 attacks at S7, Ap 1 will wreck three or four squads of Marines without breaking a sweat before the Priest gets involved, so that might be coloring my perception of the Bullgryn's value.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Okay, so I just read some pages of a thread about how a player at the LVO couldn't play a strategem on a single Knight Castellan because it was in an Auxiliary Super-Heavy Detachment. I don't use super-heavy units (knights, etc) so I hadn't been aware of this, but I think it goes some way to validating my idea of having Command Point silos - each detachment has their own Command Points they can only spend on their own strategems, and then armies have 3 general ones they can spend on anything.

You read those several pages wrong then. The controversy was about a player not being allowed to use the army trait on a unit from the Aux detachment - the equivalent of the Chapter Tactic.

Quite possibly. Wasn't it that the strategem was specific to the House Raven army trait?

I am fairly certain that no matter what kind of detachment you are in, you can use the stratagem, relics etc from a subfaction keyword.

Remember how earlier in the edition, you'd have Ynnari taking mixed detachments and their shining spears would be Saim-Hann, and they wouldn't get the Saim-Hann detachment trait, but they would be allowed to use the Saim-Hann stratagem, which is why they made them that.

Then they'd put Black Heart Kabal warriors in the detachment as well and they'd get agents of vect.

You are incorrect. Re-read the rules for Super Heavy detachments, or just read the thread.

 Eldarsif wrote:
My problem with this line of thinking that it implies rock-paper-scissor which should not be in any game design.

Maybe not at an army-to-army basis, but on a unit-to-unit basis? Certainly without a shadow of a doubt.

A good rock-paper-scissor system will ensure that every army list should incorporate healthy mix of various units to be competitive. There should also be a healthy pool of rocks, papers & scissors to be picked within each codex so that there are no obvious "go-to" rock, paper or scissor.

The current issue is that everyone is bringing 'knives' (the classic rock-paper-scissor-and-knife) from different armies.

The current issue is that everyone is bringing 'knives' (the classic rock-paper-scissor-and-knife) from different armies.

Which means the problem is that they are putting knives in all the armies. Even if there are knives in all armies and you had to play mono you are still going to pick knives, or has everyone forgotten the scatterbike spam of 7th edition? OP units are OP until GW nerfs them.

It feels like many people expect players will be picking subpar units in their armies if they go mono. That just ain't going to happen except in certain circumstances. In competitive it will just be knives, even if they are mono(filament) knives(sorry, couldn't resist).

The soup problems are explicit and all too often it appears people want fix a small crooked picture by replastering the entire wall. I don't see anyone complaining that ultramarines and deathwatch can ally(a popular pick of my friend) because they are always complaining about the same things.

We can say there are two levels of soup complaining. The top tier is very explicit and pertains more or less only to IG + Castellan which is a CP problem. The other top tier complaint is Ynnari - which for the record - isn't much of a soup issue but their trait being damn too powerful for certain units and that they are borrowing point costs from codexes instead of having their own. Both of these issues can be changed without creating an elaborate plane intersection algorithm.

The second tier complaint seems to be that Craftworlds can ally with Craftworlds or Genestealer Cult can ally with Genestealer Cult. However, these are a minority complaint that really doesn't pertain to soup because if you are fighting one of these armies you are fighting a mono-army for all intents and purposes. It's just that you don't like their traits and that brings us to the issue that some traits are just too damn powerful compared to their counterparts.

Rock-paper-scissors would be fine for design - if you can switch what you’re throwing in the midst of the game (say via a stratagem).

The problem is that 40K’s fixed list doesn’t allow you to do that - if you bring a rock list to someone’s paper, you are at best fighting an uphill battle - if not an impossible one. A “take all comers” list can mitigate this somewhat, as can soup, but it may also dilute your list into being worthless at any given task, or an enemy that chooses to specialize.

I vote Eldarsif as 40K's new lead game designer.

The issue is it is they Ally system and how cp are shared.

If you build a solo knight list and stack those upgrades on a Castellan it is powerful. However it is significantly less powerful than the same knight with 10 more cp to spend.

The Newman wrote:
Now as to what they could kill with a first turn charge that would be worth the points, it's pretty easy to get 126 points back against Space Marines. In fact 7 Bullgyns making 37 attacks at S7, Ap 1 will wreck three or four squads of Marines without breaking a sweat before the Priest gets involved, so that might be coloring my perception of the Bullgryn's value.

Let's not exaggerate too much. Those 37 attacks are only killing ~10 MEQs, hardly "three or four squads".

What's so bad about Rock-Paper-Scissors?

If it is properly implemented, so rock still has a chance vs. paper, but with less than 50% chance of winning etc. (something that GW won't be able to do, so that's probably the answer to my question), I think the game might get a lot better.

If a mech army runs into an opponent who solely brought anti-mech options, shouldnt they be odds on to lose? If not how can anti-mech be said to be anti-mech.

Armies - or factions - should be designed with options. It shouldnt be "Tau>Orks>Eldar>Tau" or whatever.

Basically you should be able to counter-pick all lists. The fact is however that in 40k some lists are always uncounterable (i.e. you cant stack the odds so you have say an 75-80% win rate) and they then dominate the tournament scene.

Really though Op is Op - but GW are trying to balance for the first time in ages. Soup has to be nerfed. Its obviously superior.

Did we ever have proper Rock Paper Scissors?

Efficiency of weapons vs. certain targets isn't good. Therefore spamming Cultists with Abbadon and the stratagems was the most efficient way for Chaos to kill Knights (in particular).

Massed invul saves on mech make dedicated anti-mech bad vs. mech.

Melee should counter shooty armies by binding units, but cheap chaff with no natural predators make it rock vs. paper + scissors.

Do people really enjoy "Stratagems" or are they just going along with it since its become such a big part of the game?

I hate the entire concept of Stratagems and having to keep a deck of cards available so I can "buy" myself a quick cheat every now and then...Wtf, why is this even part of a miniature game.

Id appreciate them a lot more if they were additions/addons to an army you purchased before a game, not the stupid halfhearted mechanic it is right now.
Some of the stratagems are thematic, fitting the army they apply to really well. Sadly GW couldnt manage to work that into the actual army itself.

Yeah im bitter about it, just ignore me.

Soulless wrote:
Do people really enjoy "Stratagems" or are they just going along with it since its become such a big part of the game?

I hate the entire concept of Stratagems and having to keep a deck of cards available so I can "buy" myself a quick cheat every now and then...Wtf, why is this even part of a miniature game.

Id appreciate them a lot more if they were additions/addons to an army you purchased before a game, not the stupid halfhearted mechanic it is right now.
Some of the stratagems are thematic, fitting the army they apply to really well. Sadly GW couldnt manage to work that into the actual army itself.

Yeah im bitter about it, just ignore me.

Stratagems would be nice if they were about strategy instead of adding +X to dice rolls/characteristics. Currently they are just another layer of things that makes certain units better than others (especially internally).

Do people really enjoy "Stratagems" or are they just going along with it since its become such a big part of the game?

I enjoy them, but they are hit and miss.

Stratagems were a neat idea that was just completely botched. They took too many automatic rules and made them "spend CP on this" and some are just too far out there which further encourages CP farming to power them. They went from a cool idea to just another thing you want to game and combo together.

Same with IMHO detachments; they should have adopted 30k's Rites of War whereby you get certain bonuses to the FOC (e.g. may take X as compulsory troops) but have some drawbacks (e.g. everything has to be in a transport/must deep strike/etc.)

That would also put an end to crap like taking an air wing with 7 flyers or supreme command detachments but would allow things like Knights to still be fielded as an entire army (with some hefty restrictions on it). It also means they could have designated things as non-Compulsory (stuff like Drones, Cultists, Conscripts etc.) which means you couldn't take them to fill a slot, you'd have to take them alongside something else.

Wayniac wrote:
Stratagems were a neat idea that was just completely botched. They took too many automatic rules and made them "spend CP on this" and some are just too far out there which further encourages CP farming to power them. They went from a cool idea to just another thing you want to game and combo together.

Same with IMHO detachments; they should have adopted 30k's Rites of War whereby you get certain bonuses to the FOC (e.g. may take X as compulsory troops) but have some drawbacks (e.g. everything has to be in a transport/must deep strike/etc.)

That would also put an end to crap like taking an air wing with 7 flyers or supreme command detachments but would allow things like Knights to still be fielded as an entire army (with some hefty restrictions on it). It also means they could have designated things as non-Compulsory (stuff like Drones, Cultists, Conscripts etc.) which means you couldn't take them to fill a slot, you'd have to take them alongside something else.

Strategems are cool on paper. And on fourms and in theory hammer and spreadsheet hammer. They aren't as much fun actually playing.


But they are a hell of a lot of fun in list building.


Yeah I wouldn't mind seeing them go. But at the same time some of them really fit well.

The deep strike ones make sense and thats a good way to do it. The fight twice ones are cool. Prepared positions are cool. The one I really hate is Command re-roll. Actully that one is fine too. Except on invul saves. It really burns my ass to finally break through a 3 up invul save only to have them re roll and make it.

They should cut them way back I think. And get rid of all the cult specific ones.

As a first test of an idea, they aren't bad. We just need the second draft.

There are a lot of balance issues with the game.

Some weapons are under costed points wise. Not because they shouldn't be cheap, but because the harsh downside is easily negated entirely by rerolling 1s which every army has access to.

The units that pay lots of extra points for durability get those points negated entirely suffer the most from this.

Some armies have ridiculous access to utility which allows them to shoot multiple times with multiple units.

There are a few stratagems which cause the problems but are hardly the main offenders.

What balance problem? I played during 4th/5th/6th. And now 8th and ots by far the most balanced its ever been crazy statagem etc comboes are only Not 'balanced' if one particular list gets to do it. The diversity of factions is solid righr now; having a game be to diverse is actually a problem for competetive play see mtg modern format. It could be a little doverse but i really like how many poaaible things you canbring to the table righr now.

But a lot of factions can't do most of the stuff the good factions can. If you look at the first 2-3 books that came out in 8th ed and the two or three last ones, it is as if they were designed for a totaly different game. Also I wouldn't call faction diversity the fact that someone can run 3x5 scouts and some smash captins along side ton of IG and castellans. There is also the problem of over lap. If you want melee marines running something like soup SW or soup BT over soup BA makes no sense, as BA are clearly superior. DW and GK are the same. Same point costs, same gun, but DW get a ton of gear making it again pointless to run GK over DW, and as GK can't be run mono this means the army has no real way to be played.