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.

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

You can only use them if your warlord is alive.

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

Start off with one command point for being battle forged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imo you should buy them as part of army creation.

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

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

It's like choosing your psychic powers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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


Probably Votwl just as a whole.

Recycling stratagems most likely aswell.

Daemonengine lists would basically drop from somewhat functional to dead.


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


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

Good points. Hard to refute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

Just to reiterate.

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


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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kick out knights and other superheavies

Aaannnd you lost me.

Not Online!!! wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Gadzilla666 wrote:


Aaannnd you lost me.

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


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

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

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

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:


Aaannnd you lost me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the problem Strats or Marines?

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

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

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

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

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:


Aaannnd you lost me.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

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

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

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

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

Is the problem Strats or Marines?

Mostlikely both.

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

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

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

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:


Aaannnd you lost me.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karol wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Mr Morden wrote:

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

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

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

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

Is the problem Strats or Marines?

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

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

You're inviting problems that way.

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

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

Removed - BrookM

Removed - BrookM

Yoyoyo wrote:

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

You're inviting problems that way.

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

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

Scaling cost for strats could get messy though.

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

So you have 3 oblits. Good unit

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

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

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

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