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.

 Stormonu wrote:
Someone seems to have forgotten the Wargear cards of 2E, as well that psychic stuff was done with a deck of cards.

I hate MtG, but I will take reference cards over flipping through a book any day. As for popping stratagems, I think it’s a far better system to spend resources to pull off a stunt rather than to have the ability baked into the unit to use it every time you sneeze.

Pullin off combo buff stunts.
Sounds like CCGs to me

 Trimarius wrote:


giving that unit the proper wargear for its job. You wouldn't give a marine a bolter

You never give a marine a bolter. A marine already has a bolter, on the model. When you see the display in the store window, and go in and buy the kit and the codex, and take it home and you have built it, then it very clearly has a bolt gun and a two-handed, rune-inscribed sword that is bigger and heavier than a little stabbing short sword. You can read the background and find out what models to build for fighting tanks. Then you can look up the rules for the bolter, the sword, the lascannon, the drop ship.

There is nothing about any model that makes me think I should find rules for command points. There’s nothing in the background sections or the novels or the comics or the terrible movie that indicates space marines run out of re-roll gas if they bring too many relics.

If you want to have completely rootless mechanics like a command point economy on weird little fiddles like transhuman physiology, then just use paper tokens instead of models. I can take yiur models, out an extra coat glaze and of highlights on them, and loan them to someone so we can play a model war game.

I mean, the OP references literal cards throughout...

 Trimarius wrote:
"CCG" used as a pejorative is really only used by people who can't articulate their complaints with the system but feel the need to whine loudly about it anyway, so I wouldn't lean too heavily on that comparison or you risk being lumped in with them and getting ignored by others who are just tired of all the noise. It's like the people who scream "DLC!" whenever a new expansion for a game comes out, as if new content was somehow a bad thing. Poor balance/rules/fluff, not their delivery method, is the problem (and there's plenty of that).

Matching a unit to a strat that lets it do its job better is no different than giving that unit the proper wargear for its job. You wouldn't give a marine a bolter to go tank hunting and you wouldn't give a marine a lascannon to hunt grots. If you want a lone character to break face in combat, you give him a properly murder-y melee weapon, a way of getting into combat faster than walking, and maybe a bit of added protection to ensure he gets there, right? In just the same way, you save the "fight twice" and "punch harder" strats for when he needs to heroically break face.

Let me articulate for you.
Having cards to remember wargear or to be able to easily remove, say, the vortex grenade card in 2nd ed is different from sitting with a bunch of cards constructed as a list, saving manna, or command points while waiting to play those cards in power combos. In this way, the game can devolve into lots of thinking about when to play a card to activate combo buffs and spend command points types of decisions. I dont remember 2nd ed being so much this way. Sure some people exploited certain loopholes but such "that guy" type moves led to informal sanctions, i.e. i won'
For one thing, wargear cards are limited by points costs associated with equipment and with limitations thereupon.
The current collect a deck of faction specific buff cards peactice is much more involed. The second ecomony of CPs being poorly conceived aside, this deck building and combo playing seems to have become much more central an aspect of the game. Thirdly, in the early days the game was much more influenced by miniatures as vehicles for RPGs as well as historical wargames that tried to simulate actual historical as well as fictional engagements relatively realistically and this means fewer gimicks and manna ... er, command ... points to save for super mega combo buffs for example.

I get what you mean. I've also played 40k from 1st through 8th, and it has gotten a lot more... boardgamey, is probably the term I'd use.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, and obviously lots of people like it, but it certainly feels different. It's also not something entirely unprecedented - as people point out here, elements of that have been with minis gaming for ages.

But it certainly seems that the current popularity of tabletop gaming has resulted in more boardgame mechanics being used in terms abstracted invisible resources.

List building with the intent of having a combo engines that you're aiming to deploy, is a bigger part of the game than before. While it's something many people like, and it's also the case that it has always been part of the game, it is a bit of a change.

That said, I do think at least some of that is also because so much of the online discussion centres around tournaments - and that's understandable, because whatever format someone prefers, it's easier to speak about it when others who like the format have a common framework. While the narrative game with asymmetrical plot objectives I had last weekend was WAY more fun than I've had it with 40k for a year, it's just not something that I'll talk about with anyone other than the other three players in that game.

In your regular games it might be worth having a discussion with a potential opponent about what sort of game you want to play. For example, if I met someone who wanted to practice for the next Very Important Tournament Event, despite both "playing 40k" we'd have precisely zero overlap in what we want out of a game.

 catbarf wrote:

 Trimarius wrote:
Matching a unit to a strat that lets it do its job better is no different than giving that unit the proper wargear for its job.

Huh? They're completely different.

Stratagems can't be used on two of the same unit at the same time, wargear can. Wargear can't be reallocated to units that will benefit more on any given turn, stratagems can. Wargear is generally WYSIWYG, stratagems can be a complete surprise if you're not already familiar with all of an army's tricks. Wargear tends to work within the basic rules (eg increase your Movement characteristic), Stratagems tend to work outside the basic rules (eg fight twice). Wargear costs points, stratagems do not.

I'm really not a fan of how stratagems have been implemented. If they were more reflective of command assets on the tabletop (or support assets off-board), rather than being means to supercharge powerful units or execute rule-breaking abilities, it'd feel less CCG-esque. Having what were previously innate abilities to units stripped out and replaced by stratagems is annoying too.

I feel like most of the replies in this thread read the title but didn't read the OP. The comparison has nothing to do with physical cards or collectibility. It's about the design ethos of the game being based on ability and unit combos, supercharged by stratagems.

Your point summarizes well what I'm trying to say. CPs and strats not being tied to points cost for example, makes the system easily a bit of a mess to try to meningfully balance, for example. And exactly this I hate, the cards are almost always only used to overkill / eliminate any chance of fail with units that were powerful already. And back in earlier editions, I could take a look at someone's list before the game, and would have a pretty good idea what to look out for etc.. Now seeing a list is giving much less info since I'd also need to know how the general CP/strat meta is used with those factions. Things feel much more convoluted somehow.

I admit it was not a good topic title to pile it on the cards.. CPs and strats is my point, actually. Yeh, GW games have had cards for a long time (still have my IG unit cards for Epic somewhere).

It feels like the issue comes from the merit of a unit VS the merit of a unit under the effect of a strategem. The merit of a unit are rules that are inherent to that unit (Base stats, Special Rules, Points/PL).

Some may argue that strategems are the same as special rules, but they really aren't because in (Most) play there is a 1 per turn limit and its tied to a fluid resource that can be spent on other parts of the army.

If a unit itself has good merit they are taken on their own, and generally more than one (TFCs for example have incredible cost-efficiency and utility W/O strategems). If a unit only has merit with a strategem you'll mostly only see 1 unit to funnel CP into to make super effective, at which point it feels gamey.

I'm going to use a 10-man Assault Terminator squad as an example (mostly because I have the numbers for it). -

If they charge a knight they do an average of ~23 wounds, just enough to not kill a full health knight

However if those are salamander terminators I can spend 3 CP and pop Fury of the first, Strength of the primarch, and Crucible of Battle and suddenly they start doing an average of ~ 62 wounds to a knight (With no rerolls), more then double the damage, which could be doubled using the fight again strat to 124 wounds. So I spend this insubstantial currency that isn't represented anywhere on the battlefield except in these cards to literally double a unit's combat effectiveness. It just feels gamey, I want to bring terminators on their own merit but instead I use them to funnel CP.

It doesn't even fit that well in an abstraction of the game I used to think that CP represented Logistical support, which for factions like guard it does, but then you get scenarios where my completely unsupported units fight better because...? In the previous example, my terminators are stronger more often because I brought some extra Tacs? What?

I'm also not saying its a bad system either, just that it's been used as an easy way out for trying to fix units instead of actually working on the system (Fury of the first comes to mind again) and that the game is trying to put way to much weight on them.

I'm glad you made a point of noting play format.

I've been playing more Narritive PL based games rather than points based Matched Play games and it's really shifted how I look at the way things play.

The way you build and play lists is so different and feels far less restrictive. It really cuts down that weird dissonance you're talking about.

Both formats have their ups and downs, neither is perfect, but I've been finding that following the Narritive rules (including the CA stuff and missions) has made the game feel more like it used to be. There's a lot of content out there that just gets dismissed because it's not Matched Play, which is a shame.

 Blndmage wrote:
I'm glad you made a point of noting play format.

I've been playing more Narritive PL based games rather than points based Matched Play games and it's really shifted how I look at the way things play.

The way you build and play lists is so different and feels far less restrictive. It really cuts down that weird dissonance you're talking about.

Both formats have their ups and downs, neither is perfect, but I've been finding that following the Narritive rules (including the CA stuff and missions) has made the game feel more like it used to be. There's a lot of content out there that just gets dismissed because it's not Matched Play, which is a shame.

I find that the stratagem/ability weirdness creeps into narrative play too. EG any scenario can turn into a head-scratcher when the Swarmlord allows a unit of Genestealers to move twice followed by the Opportunistic Advance stratagem to double their advance roll, letting them move 30" before still being able to charge. I'm sure you can work that into the narrative somehow but it breaks the illusion of a consistent timescale.

BrianDavion wrote:
40K isn't like MtG, and people need to stop with the hyperbole. until GW starts forcing us to buy Space Marine hero boxes for a chance a rule they're not really comparable. If I sit down with an ultramarines army, against another guy with an Ultramarines army, we're both capable of doing the same thing. there's no "I got lucky in my random card pack, but you didn't perpare to be annialated!"

Oh but it is so much a deck building game now. And if you don’t buy the latest hotness (books/models) you don’t have the same chance. So what you mean is “40k its exactly like mtg people and need to stop with the hyperbole”

Blacksteel wrote:"That mentality has crept into 40k. If you take a BA captain with certain relics/warlord traits, pop certain strats, he can do XX number of wounds to whatever after charging on the drop. Or the CP farms that you could make. Or even simpler things like making sure you have some ML/HBs in your marine list to use the MW strats."

I assume you and the OP were not around for 2nd edition where wargear cards were an integral part of the game - they came in the box - and buying certain gear for your characters and setting them up to use them properly was a significant part of the game - vortex grenades, etc.

Psychic powers were also card-based and often randomly drawn or rolled.

Stratagems are just army-specific special rules that burn a fixed resource. They aren't random and they typically do not interact with each other. They're not really much like a MtG type game.

Having a collection of elements with specific stats that attack and defend in different ways is quite a bit like MtG, but that's how Warhammer and 40K have been from the beginning, for years before Magic was a thing.

Just because it was done in 2nd edition does NOT mean it was a good mechanic. In fact, 2nd edition was so great GW decided to scrap the entire system and rebuild it from the ground up. I'd say most 2nd edition specific mechanics need to be left in the grave with 2nd.

Pancakey wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
40K isn't like MtG, and people need to stop with the hyperbole. until GW starts forcing us to buy Space Marine hero boxes for a chance a rule they're not really comparable. If I sit down with an ultramarines army, against another guy with an Ultramarines army, we're both capable of doing the same thing. there's no "I got lucky in my random card pack, but you didn't perpare to be annialated!"

Oh but it is so much a deck building game now. And if you don’t buy the latest hotness (books/models) you don’t have the same chance. So what you mean is “40k its exactly like mtg people and need to stop with the hyperbole”

Not really the same -yes you can buy cards but the compnay sells them as random packs - its third party sellers that sell individual cards.

Thats like GW selling boxes with random models and having to buy indivdual models on ebay etc.

Models are not limited by availability - you don't have Rare Models.....

Well unless you want new Sisters of Battle which Gw could not be bothered to make enough of to last 10 mins sale period (they even put in the Christmas Catalogue that came with the pre-order obviously thinking they would still be available )

 Mr Morden wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
40K isn't like MtG, and people need to stop with the hyperbole. until GW starts forcing us to buy Space Marine hero boxes for a chance a rule they're not really comparable. If I sit down with an ultramarines army, against another guy with an Ultramarines army, we're both capable of doing the same thing. there's no "I got lucky in my random card pack, but you didn't perpare to be annialated!"

Oh but it is so much a deck building game now. And if you don’t buy the latest hotness (books/models) you don’t have the same chance. So what you mean is “40k its exactly like mtg people and need to stop with the hyperbole”

Not really the same -yes you can buy cards but the compnay sells them as random packs - its third party sellers that sell individual cards.

Thats like GW selling boxes with random models and having to buy indivdual models on ebay etc.

Models are not limited by availability - you don't have Rare Models.....

Well unless you want new Sisters of Battle which Gw could not be bothered to make enough of to last 10 mins sale period (they even put in the Christmas Catalogue that came with the pre-order obviously thinking they would still be available )

MtG is significantly cheaper to get into on a casual, fun level than 40k is.

I've got three Commander decks, and spent (counting for sleeves and deckboxes) less than $200 on it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
MtG is significantly cheaper to get into on a casual, fun level than 40k is.

I've got three Commander decks, and spent (counting for sleeves and deckboxes) less than $200 on it.

Don't even try. You will just spawn a derailed thread where people will be comparing apples to oranges to justify why their hobby spendings are better wastes of money than others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vilehydra wrote:
It feels like the issue comes from the merit of a unit VS the merit of a unit under the effect of a strategem. The merit of a unit are rules that are inherent to that unit (Base stats, Special Rules, Points/PL).

Some may argue that strategems are the same as special rules, but they really aren't because in (Most) play there is a 1 per turn limit and its tied to a fluid resource that can be spent on other parts of the army.

If a unit itself has good merit they are taken on their own, and generally more than one (TFCs for example have incredible cost-efficiency and utility W/O strategems). If a unit only has merit with a strategem you'll mostly only see 1 unit to funnel CP into to make super effective, at which point it feels gamey.

I'm going to use a 10-man Assault Terminator squad as an example (mostly because I have the numbers for it). -

If they charge a knight they do an average of ~23 wounds, just enough to not kill a full health knight

However if those are salamander terminators I can spend 3 CP and pop Fury of the first, Strength of the primarch, and Crucible of Battle and suddenly they start doing an average of ~ 62 wounds to a knight (With no rerolls), more then double the damage, which could be doubled using the fight again strat to 124 wounds. So I spend this insubstantial currency that isn't represented anywhere on the battlefield except in these cards to literally double a unit's combat effectiveness. It just feels gamey, I want to bring terminators on their own merit but instead I use them to funnel CP.

It doesn't even fit that well in an abstraction of the game I used to think that CP represented Logistical support, which for factions like guard it does, but then you get scenarios where my completely unsupported units fight better because...? In the previous example, my terminators are stronger more often because I brought some extra Tacs? What?

I'm also not saying its a bad system either, just that it's been used as an easy way out for trying to fix units instead of actually working on the system (Fury of the first comes to mind again) and that the game is trying to put way to much weight on them.

This.
There is too much power in stratagems and too little in the unit's rules, so you are building a list around your stratagems rather than around the units you have. No one would be fielding three battalions of gretchin if CP weren't the most efficient way to deal damage with orks.
And because too many effects multiply, it feels like building combos similar to channel+fireball, since stacking multiplying buffs is always better than spreading them around.

 Nevelon wrote:
Not to speak for the OP, but I think he’s referring more to the play style than the physical cards.

When deckbuilding for CCGs, you build around combos. Black Lotus + Channel + Fireball = turn 1 win. Or if I get these 3 cards into play, I can get infinite mana, millstone my opponent’s entire deck, and he will loose in his draw phase. (insert more up to date combos; I’ve been free of the flat-crack for a while now).

That mentality has crept into 40k. If you take a BA captain with certain relics/warlord traits, pop certain strats, he can do XX number of wounds to whatever after charging on the drop. Or the CP farms that you could make. Or even simpler things like making sure you have some ML/HBs in your marine list to use the MW strats.

A lot of the power is not intrinsic to the units themselves, but how you can leverage them with tricks and combos. I think this really took off in 7th with formations. And that feels more like a CCG than a miniature wargame, at least to me.

Cards and randomness has been with us for a while. Either tables, or psychic powers, or whatever. I like cards as play aids, as long as they don’t dominate the game.

Reading that first post I really think you're giving too much credit, but this is definitely a more interesting topic.


edit: and the OP has posted confirmation that this IS what he meant. Cool.

I've never been a CCG player, so wouldn't have made the connection, though it does make sense reading explanations in the thread. As more of a videogamer, I look at stratagems more like special moves or power ups, or extra effects on gear we equip. It definitely does add a significant amount of other options to keep track of, and yet, like wargear selections, most are either all highly situational, or there's one very clear winner. Outside of some of the really good, cheaper Strats or those which make lasting changes to a list, I can't think of building around them much. There are definitely one or two that are nice to have in the back pocket, but there are a ton that I'll never use...I was actually astounded the other day when I saw someone talking about the tri-Predator strat (Killshot?) because despite reading, and being disappointed by it multiple times I've never even considered it. I am pretty causal though.

craggy wrote:
I've never been a CCG player, so wouldn't have made the connection, though it does make sense reading explanations in the thread. As more of a videogamer, I look at stratagems more like special moves or power ups, or extra effects on gear we equip. It definitely does add a significant amount of other options to keep track of, and yet, like wargear selections, most are either all highly situational, or there's one very clear winner. Outside of some of the really good, cheaper Strats or those which make lasting changes to a list, I can't think of building around them much. There are definitely one or two that are nice to have in the back pocket, but there are a ton that I'll never use...I was actually astounded the other day when I saw someone talking about the tri-Predator strat (Killshot?) because despite reading, and being disappointed by it multiple times I've never even considered it. I am pretty causal though.

tneva is an ork player, and us orks were cursed/blessed with getting one of the best piles of stratagems in the game instead of any improvements on our units when the codex hit.
As long as you have CP, it feels like the army has tons of tricks up its sleeve, has options everywhere and can take on anyone. Once you run out of CP the army feels like it has literally run out of steam and everything is just mediocre.
Thematic for orks? Maybe. But in essence, your MVP is the hand full of stratagems and not any unit on the board.

Because of that the recipe for pretty much any successful ork lists is:
1) Get 18 CP
2) Turn 18 CP into damage by stacking buffs on tank bustas, lootas or flash gits and SSAG.
3) Hope to survive the rest of the game without CP.

When I would compare it to my Death Guard army, it feels like running and army featuring Mortarion - except Mortarion is a trio of stratagem cards instead of a disgustingly beautiful model.

Ah, the (over)use of CP and Stratagems does make more sense for how the game does feel different.

I have only been playing games with 1K points and 3 fixed CP to work with, so I haven’t been seeing these issues in my own games. CPs only have a small effect in these games and are more often a waste than a real benefit. I do, however, like the false feeling that I’m using some “cunning” tactic to affect the game in a method beyond the basic rule system - a touch of flavor/flair, if you will.

How little CPs get used in the games I’ve done does make the tales of mass spamming CPs and stratagems - and the resulting “can’t live without them, dread having them used against me” make me shake my head that they’ve been thoroughly abused this edition. The

I really dislike the stratigem aspect of 8th it adds unnecessary bulk to the game am makes it nigh impossible for anyone new to know all the stupid rules and ridiculous combos.

Back in the day these would have been wargear cards that you paid actual points for and not a freebie because you decided to build your list in a way to gain 900 CPs

I like stratagems - they give an extra dimension to the game. I've so far bought all the cards for convenience too because you can filter them so you only have the relevant ones to your army handy. They're an extra expense but at least optional as you get them all in your codex anyway. Having said that it's not so great when GW re-releases your codex and you need to fork out for new cards too. The only stratagem I dislike is the command re-roll. It really ruins situations where a lucky shot or gamble pays off, only to be re-rolled.

I like to think of CP as my Waaagh! energy pool.

You don't need cards to play.

That said they are really helpful.

I often sort through my stratagem cards and pull out only the ones I could use, and as the game goes discard some I won't be using. I can put the card on the table next to units being effected as a reminder, and re rules are right there in your hand.

I'm not a fan of the game when you can stack abilities strategems etc onto a unit and it becomes a one turn death star.

I don't like the unit disparity this causes - as in, a unit ends up performing far beyond its real capacity because you stacked these abilities on them.

There's nothing wrong with unit augments or special abilities per se, but when they become central to your strategy to win, that's when they have too much influence over the game.

GW puts effort into balance so you can't win just by taking a specific unit or piece of wargear (with varying degrees of success).

Because you can apply strategems to any unit with other combos they position themselves to be winning choices in a far more tangible way than just taking unit x

Vilehydra wrote:
It feels like the issue comes from the merit of a unit VS the merit of a unit under the effect of a strategem. The merit of a unit are rules that are inherent to that unit (Base stats, Special Rules, Points/PL).

Some may argue that strategems are the same as special rules, but they really aren't because in (Most) play there is a 1 per turn limit and its tied to a fluid resource that can be spent on other parts of the army.

If a unit itself has good merit they are taken on their own, and generally more than one (TFCs for example have incredible cost-efficiency and utility W/O strategems). If a unit only has merit with a strategem you'll mostly only see 1 unit to funnel CP into to make super effective, at which point it feels gamey.

I'm going to use a 10-man Assault Terminator squad as an example (mostly because I have the numbers for it). -

If they charge a knight they do an average of ~23 wounds, just enough to not kill a full health knight

However if those are salamander terminators I can spend 3 CP and pop Fury of the first, Strength of the primarch, and Crucible of Battle and suddenly they start doing an average of ~ 62 wounds to a knight (With no rerolls), more then double the damage, which could be doubled using the fight again strat to 124 wounds. So I spend this insubstantial currency that isn't represented anywhere on the battlefield except in these cards to literally double a unit's combat effectiveness. It just feels gamey, I want to bring terminators on their own merit but instead I use them to funnel CP.

It doesn't even fit that well in an abstraction of the game I used to think that CP represented Logistical support, which for factions like guard it does, but then you get scenarios where my completely unsupported units fight better because...? In the previous example, my terminators are stronger more often because I brought some extra Tacs? What?

I'm also not saying its a bad system either, just that it's been used as an easy way out for trying to fix units instead of actually working on the system (Fury of the first comes to mind again) and that the game is trying to put way to much weight on them.

Excellent summation. I also dislike CPs and stratagems for being an invisible resource with weak or zero ties to the units on the table. I want to bring Deathwing, Ravenwing, scouts, tac squads, etc. on their own merit, not because they increase my total of this abstract resource that allows me to activate special abilities from out of nowhere. This is the same reason why I have no interest in WH Underworlds- why do I need to draw and then play a card for one of my warriors to use a skill they already know?

Contrast 40k CP and stratagems with MEDGE's system: Players gain an amount of CP equal to the turn number plus the total Command USR value among their units. They can spend CP to give units orders, which reduce that unit's suppression tokens on a 1:1 ratio, and in the case of the Epirian Foundation, activate bot protocols like move and suppression fire, extra movement, improving the benefit of cover and so on. The Command Points are tied to the units on the table-HQs directing the troops, not activating combo-combos.

tauist wrote:
Back in the old days of 40K, the rules were perhaps a bit more complex, but this modern "magic the gathering" -style cardplay didn't exist. IIRC this type of stuff was introduced by GW in the thrid Space Hulk supplement "Genestealer" and I remember my friends dissing it saying it ruined Space Hulk for them.

Now I'm starting to feel the modern day card play in 40k is ruining my enjoyment of 40k in a similar way. Feels like its more important now to have a list that support certain playing cards and then use the cards to pull off ridiculous power combos that would most likely have been considered "OP/broken" in old 40K editions.

Why do the core rules get simpler, but then all these stratagems and tactics etc get piled on? Makes no sense to me.

I want to play with plastic figs and roll dice, get these MTG cards off my lawn!

thoughts?

I don't think there is too much reason to view Stratagems/WL traits/Super Doctrines separately from units, whether a unit has a busted profile or if its profile is busted when you use it under a specific Chapter or if you use a Stratagem, the end result is a unit that is more pts effective than what your opponent has brought. There have absolutely been units that are more busted than the most busted combos of today, especially after GW has nerfed many of those combos and lists. Whether you need an OP combo or an OP unit, is there really a big difference? Let's take Lootas vs the very popular Ork artillery, Lootas are strong with Stratagems, the artillery doesn't need it, even if Lootas didn't have their combos you still wouldn't see Squigbuggies because they're inefficient compared to artillery. There are OP Stratagems and combos, but whether a combo is OP or a single unit is OP the game balance hasn't been markedly worsened by the increased number of combos in the game.

Stratagems allows your army to do cool things without being OP and allows a single unit to do something that might be strong, but would be obnoxious if the entire army could do it. Let's take the BA Smash Captain, he can become extremely deadly with the use of Stratagems, so much that he can kill a Knight in a single Fight phase. Losing a Knight in a fight phase is devastating, but imagine losing 3. The BA Smash Captain either wouldn't be able to kill Knights almost at all with his base rules or his base abilities and cost would have to skyrocket and maybe you aren't looking for a Smash Captain that can kill Knights, that's fine you don't have to spend CP on it. Some Stratagems and combos are OP and need a nerf, but a bunch of units in earlier editions needed nerfs as well.

As you might get from my tone I absolutely love Stratagems, but I think the balance is a little borked between and inside codexes. I hope GW fixes it, but they probably will not, it'd be too much book-keeping to fix all their mistakes so they just fix the 1-3 worst offenders in the most insanely OP factions instead of redoing all of them.

I like strategems as a concept. It can add another layer of tactical decision making by bringing in some powerful special abilities that theoretically compete against each other for usage. It's a way to go "hey, this ground force has a navy backing it up that can bombard you" or what not.

I am not a huge fan of the current implementation which has them vary wildly in power and usability for various armies.

The very first thing I'd change is to make CP's generated per turn, not given as a pool. That lessens the wombo-combo effect.
I'd also not have them used to buy extra relics and warlord traits. I'd put that stuff as points and/or tied to detachments (which is another system I like in theory but doesn't work out great in practice).