Switch Theme:

Stratagems That Could Be Generic  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Any strategems that "get used every turn" should just be gone. Those are either: [A] Too good, or [B] Needed to make a unit work, in which case, the rules for the unit themselves need to be fixed. Strategems shouldn't be needed for any unit to work.
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Just bring back unit special rules and universal special rules. Strategems have just become a lame excuse by GW to ram more of their trash print media down our throats. Those psychic awakening books are terrible. Boring D-grade fantasy fluff and magazine photos just to shunt a few strategems that army players “need”. It’s a crap model. Even the 40K social media influencers have had to concede that the system is fundamentally broken.
   
Made in gb
Whiteshield Conscript Trooper




As someone new to the game the stratagems concept seems simple enough and adds some nice strategic moments when you get to feel you have planned out a neat trick rather than just rolling dice. However I really think they need some sort of broad groupings to help organise them. It seems far to easy to forget to play a stratagem because you have to remember all the ones for your army all at once. If they were somewhat grouped you could focus on the ones useful for your current situation (ie OK I'm in a melee fix and these three are the melee stratagems, rather than trying to remember which of the sometimes oddly named strats even relates to melee).
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




New here but what if the CP you have at game start was just used to purchase Codex Stratagems & those selected are the only ones you're allowed to use the whole game, using left over/saved CP for Universal core rule book ones only. Could even add a "every new Battle round you can exchange current held Stratagems for a different one/refund or use gathered unused CP to get more".

Though my suggestion would extend game time it might add some depth strategy wise if both sides don't tell each other what Stratagems they have selected until used.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






My idea for managing stratagems is this:

First, have a smaller CP pool to start with, which may require massaging how detachments are costed from a CP standpoint.

Second, have players "buy" stratagems from those that are available using their CP points left over. This would be part of the army building process (or could be done at the start of the game akin to picking secondaries). You are required to tell/show your opponent your selected stratagem cards. Target it such that most players would have 5-7 stratagem cards. Players begin the game with 0 CP's in the pool.

Last, all purchased stratagems become one-time use and cost 1 CP to play (irrespective of their purchase cost). Players would still gain "1 CP" per turn. So you could play 1 stratagem per turn, or save a point one turn and play 2 the next turn, or hold off until the end of the game game drop 5 on turn 5.

I think the above would make it far less onerous as player making a list, and would make it far easier at the start of the game to share what stratagems you're using with your opponent. It would make them more straightforward to use during play - since you just have to mange the 5 or 6 stratagems you've pre-selected instead of the entire library of them. It still has a bit of the CP resource management element, but keeps the effectiveness of strategems limited in the first couple of turns. At most you'd be able to use one on the first turn. This would help balance out the wombo-combo craziness.

Solved!


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I think that designing a whole complex system around purchasing starts with CP, only to end up with 0 CP, and then only getting to use one per turn in a game that's probably over by Turn 3 means that it's a waste of time that doesn't add anything to the game.

"Well I spent all this time working out what 7 strats to take and oh... I'm down by 25 points at the top of turn three... it's over, and I only got to use two of my strats. Cool. Glad I took the time to carefully pick them."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 02:36:42


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




Also, if we're going to 'fix' Strategems, can we avoid just turning them into wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote:
Hey guys,

There's a lot of talk about complexity and complication within 9th edition, and whether USRs are good or not. I'm not here to argue about all of those things, what I'd rather do is this:

Let's discuss what Stratagems or Auras could be moved into the Core Rulebook to potentially cut down on the Codex bloat.

I'll start us off.

Transhuman Physiology - this stratagem should be in the Core Rulebook with a clarification that it applies to whatever Infantry units that also have the Astartes keyword.

Vehicle/Monster Temporarily on Top Profile - Most factions have some manner of this by now, where a chosen vehicle or monster can be treated as if it's on its top profile. I figure this could be in the Core book, since it's just a copy-paste of so many other stratagems that just have different names.

What else can you guys think of? What auras, stratagems, and other rules are just copy-pasted from codex to codex and just given a different name?
There are a couple of problems I have with this suggestion.

The biggest is most factions doesn't equal all factions. In a game as big as 40k, you can have a large number of factions that don't need, want, make sense to have stratagems like the ones you've suggested, including some major ones.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 03:15:56


   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Mezmorki wrote:
My idea for managing stratagems is this:

First, have a smaller CP pool to start with, which may require massaging how detachments are costed from a CP standpoint.

Second, have players "buy" stratagems from those that are available using their CP points left over. This would be part of the army building process (or could be done at the start of the game akin to picking secondaries). You are required to tell/show your opponent your selected stratagem cards. Target it such that most players would have 5-7 stratagem cards. Players begin the game with 0 CP's in the pool.

Last, all purchased stratagems become one-time use and cost 1 CP to play (irrespective of their purchase cost). Players would still gain "1 CP" per turn. So you could play 1 stratagem per turn, or save a point one turn and play 2 the next turn, or hold off until the end of the game game drop 5 on turn 5.

I think the above would make it far less onerous as player making a list, and would make it far easier at the start of the game to share what stratagems you're using with your opponent. It would make them more straightforward to use during play - since you just have to mange the 5 or 6 stratagems you've pre-selected instead of the entire library of them. It still has a bit of the CP resource management element, but keeps the effectiveness of strategems limited in the first couple of turns. At most you'd be able to use one on the first turn. This would help balance out the wombo-combo craziness.

Solved!



I actually prefer Sigmar's approach to stratagems; there are a couple of generic ones, but almost every stratagem in your army book is a command ability specific to a character that lives on that character's datasheet, you need that character in play to use it, and it measures range from that character when figuring out who it can be used on (the exceptions are the one extra stratagem per sub-faction). It does a lot to re-couple the stratagems to the models, it doesn't add extra stuff to do at game start, and makes them feel more like part of the game rather than an ass pull from the blue.

(I haven't read any of the new 3e army books, though, so if it turns out GW's dropped that in favor of cloning 40k's current structure I will ungracefully retire muttering about how GW always kills their best decisions in a misguided attempt to standardize the bloat.)

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Lammia wrote:
Also, if we're going to 'fix' Strategems, can we avoid just turning them into wargear.
But so much wargear has been needlessly turned into stratagems.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:

I actually prefer Sigmar's approach to stratagems; there are a couple of generic ones, but almost every stratagem in your army book is a command ability specific to a character that lives on that character's datasheet, you need that character in play to use it, and it measures range from that character when figuring out who it can be used on (the exceptions are the one extra stratagem per sub-faction). It does a lot to re-couple the stratagems to the models, it doesn't add extra stuff to do at game start, and makes them feel more like part of the game rather than an ass pull from the blue.

(I haven't read any of the new 3e army books, though, so if it turns out GW's dropped that in favor of cloning 40k's current structure I will ungracefully retire muttering about how GW always kills their best decisions in a misguided attempt to standardize the bloat.)

Yeah, 3E Sigmar's approach seems like a decent starting point. Really what I want is for most stratagems to get turned into something like guard orders with specific <COMMANDER> units having access to thematically appropriate strats. So for instance...

* My drukhari army has three commanders: an archon, a succubus, and a haemonculus.
* In my Command phase, each of those commanders can give an order.
* The commands they can choose from include the handful of generic ones from the main rulebook plus one or two commands unique to them. Ex: The stratagem that lets splinter weapons use their Poison rule against vehicles might be an archon-only command. An Esoteric Kill Delivered From Afar might only be available to a haemonculus of the appropriate coven subfaction. Lightning Fast Reactions and Never Stop Moving might be available to all Drukhari commanders, etc.

Any stratagems that can be wargear go back to being wargear. Any stratagems that are iconic unit abilities should probably go back to being unit abilities (ex: Eviscerating Fly-By). Any stratagems that are just unit upgrades (ex: veteran intercessors) just become datasheets or wargear upgrades.

The handful of actual stratagems that remain would mostly be pre-game deployment options and Epic Deeds. And at that point, you'd probably just get a set number of them rather than doing the whole CP thing.
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Also, if we're going to 'fix' Strategems, can we avoid just turning them into wargear.
But so much wargear has been needlessly turned into stratagems.
Because then those rules matter.

The wargear that's become Stratagems is stuff that I've mentally put in the same group as 1 or 2 ppm grenades. Useless stuff that no one should ever consider in list building, but still have a cost for that 1 in 20 game that you actually want to make use of it.

Grenades otoh, continue to remain almost completely useless and have earnt their 0ppm.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Lammia wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Also, if we're going to 'fix' Strategems, can we avoid just turning them into wargear.
But so much wargear has been needlessly turned into stratagems.
Because then those rules matter.

The wargear that's become Stratagems is stuff that I've mentally put in the same group as 1 or 2 ppm grenades. Useless stuff that no one should ever consider in list building, but still have a cost for that 1 in 20 game that you actually want to make use of it.

Grenades otoh, continue to remain almost completely useless and have earnt their 0ppm.


I miss my haywire grenade characters. I loved being able to toss a bunch of those around in a drukhari army; even when they were just okay. I'd gladly go back to paying a couple points for those to be able to use them more than once per turn and with more units. If something is actually so useless that you'd only take it if it's free, well, just make it free then. Options like flakk missiles that basically only exist due to the flyer balance problems of 6th/7th edition could probably be quietly removed from the game without issue. And I'd love to get a useful crucible of malediction and other wonky haemonculus weapons back even if I had to pay a few points for them.

Edit: Also, non-imperial grenades are typically pretty useful. It's really just frag grenades that are meh.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 05:12:41


 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




Wyldhunt wrote:
Lammia wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Also, if we're going to 'fix' Strategems, can we avoid just turning them into wargear.
But so much wargear has been needlessly turned into stratagems.
Because then those rules matter.

The wargear that's become Stratagems is stuff that I've mentally put in the same group as 1 or 2 ppm grenades. Useless stuff that no one should ever consider in list building, but still have a cost for that 1 in 20 game that you actually want to make use of it.

Grenades otoh, continue to remain almost completely useless and have earnt their 0ppm.


I miss my haywire grenade characters. I loved being able to toss a bunch of those around in a drukhari army; even when they were just okay. I'd gladly go back to paying a couple points for those to be able to use them more than once per turn and with more units. If something is actually so useless that you'd only take it if it's free, well, just make it free then. Options like flakk missiles that basically only exist due to the flyer balance problems of 6th/7th edition could probably be quietly removed from the game without issue. And I'd love to get a useful crucible of malediction and other wonky haemonculus weapons back even if I had to pay a few points for them.

Edit: Also, non-imperial grenades are typically pretty useful. It's really just frag grenades that are meh.
Frag grenades are great!

'My squad of guardsmen shoot your squad except for the sergeant, who throws a frag grenade'

*rolls # of shots, gets a 1*

'Whelp, that's just as effective as their Las pistol would've been'

But that aside, my point is Stratagems are something about the game that's outside of list building and changing them to be in list building will make them something that is solved with right and wrong answers, rather than tactical considerations in a game

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 05:42:41


   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Lammia wrote:
Stratagems are something about the game that's outside of list building and changing them to be in list building will make them something that is solved with right and wrong answers, rather than tactical considerations in a game

True, but it would be right or wrong depending on your army and the meta the list is going to be in, that doesn't sound so bad, like choosing between a heavy bolter and lascannon. Many editions there is an obvious choice between HB and LC, but the same is true about some Stratagems never seeing play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 05:46:16


 
   
Made in gb
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




UK

Honestly the "4+ to deny a psychic power" stratagem a few factions get should just become universal at the very least.

Obviously psychic armies should exist and be functional, but playing vs one with an army that has 0 or terrible access to psychic defence is actively un-fun at times. Basically every other playstyle can be countered and played around through normal list-building and tactical play. But playing certain armies vs GK or Tsons is just miserable.
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




 vict0988 wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Stratagems are something about the game that's outside of list building and changing them to be in list building will make them something that is solved with right and wrong answers, rather than tactical considerations in a game

True, but it would be right or wrong depending on your army and the meta the list is going to be in, that doesn't sound so bad, like choosing between a heavy bolter and lascannon. Many editions there is an obvious choice between HB and LC, but the same is true about some Stratagems never seeing play.
That's the advantage of stratagems though, you go into a game with a general plan for CP and then ruin it because you decided to use Desperate Breakout or w/e. Some Stratagems won't see play as written, but that's a design problem. One I think GW has tried to improve on some levels to a range of results.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




vict0988 wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Stratagems are something about the game that's outside of list building and changing them to be in list building will make them something that is solved with right and wrong answers, rather than tactical considerations in a game

True, but it would be right or wrong depending on your army and the meta the list is going to be in, that doesn't sound so bad, like choosing between a heavy bolter and lascannon. Many editions there is an obvious choice between HB and LC, but the same is true about some Stratagems never seeing play.

Eh. The thing is that they've moved a lot of fluffy/iconic/juicy options into stratagems. So if those options don't happen to be considered optimal in the list building stage, you're functionally removing them from the game. Using haywire grenades as an example again... I want them to be usable by multiple units in my army each turn. They're currently usable by a single unit each turn, and I occasionally actually use them if the stars align. If I had to choose between having access to the haywire grenade strat and several more generally useful options, I'd probably just not have access to haywire grenades at all 9 games out of 10.

So making stratagems a more limited resource isn't a terrible idea, but it's definitely not a change I'd want to see in a vacuum.

Bosskelot wrote:Honestly the "4+ to deny a psychic power" stratagem a few factions get should just become universal at the very least.

Obviously psychic armies should exist and be functional, but playing vs one with an army that has 0 or terrible access to psychic defence is actively un-fun at times. Basically every other playstyle can be countered and played around through normal list-building and tactical play. But playing certain armies vs GK or Tsons is just miserable.

Probably an unpopular opinion: people feel too entitled to psychic defense. Used to be most armies couldn't really do much about enemy psychic powers at all. Tail end of 5th edition saw several armies (mostly Space Wolves) have ways to DtW. 6th edition made it a universal thing, but you only had a 1/6th chance, so it was kind of okay. 7th edition let you almost automatically shut down a single power each turn if you had a big enough psychic pool compared to your opponent. 8th and 9th have backed off on that a bit, but there are lots of relics, strats, etc. floating around to give you a chance at shutting down psychic powers.

I get that mortal wounds are a pain to get hit with, but most mortal wound powers target the closest unit meaning you can defend against them by screening or positioning units such that your opponent has to leave himself exposed to go after a valuable target. And that's assuming you aren't playing an army that has a chance to ignore mortals with Feel No Pain.

Plus, there are powers that can be really critical to a unit or even army's performance; randomly having those abilities get shut down (after already having a chance to randomly not work thanks to psychic tests) is a pain. Having Doom not go off can seriously diminish my craftworlders' offense for a turn; potentially for most of the army if I'm trying to focus fire an important enemy unit to death. Failing Da Jump or Warp Time can mean that one of your key units is left out of the fight for an extra 20% of the game.

I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with me, but psychic powers already have enough failure points as-is. I don't love the ideal of my opponent getting to randomly shut off my crucial powers 50% of the time.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Wyldhunt wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Stratagems are something about the game that's outside of list building and changing them to be in list building will make them something that is solved with right and wrong answers, rather than tactical considerations in a game

True, but it would be right or wrong depending on your army and the meta the list is going to be in, that doesn't sound so bad, like choosing between a heavy bolter and lascannon. Many editions there is an obvious choice between HB and LC, but the same is true about some Stratagems never seeing play.

Eh. The thing is that they've moved a lot of fluffy/iconic/juicy options into stratagems. So if those options don't happen to be considered optimal in the list building stage, you're functionally removing them from the game. Using haywire grenades as an example again... I want them to be usable by multiple units in my army each turn. They're currently usable by a single unit each turn, and I occasionally actually use them if the stars align. If I had to choose between having access to the haywire grenade strat and several more generally useful options, I'd probably just not have access to haywire grenades at all 9 games out of 10.

So making stratagems a more limited resource isn't a terrible idea, but it's definitely not a change I'd want to see in a vacuum.

I would make haywire grenades a weapon again, that's the same thing you want, isn't it? I suppose haywire grenades would be removed entirely from the game for a while if codex Stratagems were replaced with generic ones. It wouldn't take a tonne of page space to re-introduce things like haywire grenades in Chapter Approved I don't think, meanwhile the points cost for the option can be added to appropriate units in the Munitorum Field Manual. It's something for me to keep in mind if I end up finishing my version of CA2022.

...people feel too entitled to psychic defense.

I just let my opponent's fail their psychic tests by themselves, works for me most of the time. Having too much psychic defence isn't great for game balance, like when I played Szarekhan against Tzeentch Daemons, not only did I get 5+ FNP against mortals, but I also had a 4+ Psychic shut down Stratagem, my opponent didn't really get to play the fantasy of his army of sorcerer abominations. Add to that Horrors not being able to cast Smite properly and me getting 15 free VP because Tzeentch has a lot of psykers makes me agree with the sentiment. I haven't played against neo-TS/GK so maybe I will change my mind.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 07:41:45


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yeah. If you're making haywire grenades (and other options that have been converted to stratagems over the years) into wargear, unit special rules, etc., then I have no problem with making stratagems a small list of limited use choices.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: