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.

Strategems themselves I'm very positive about, the thing that usually has me going "wait a moment" is the way CP is balanced. With how heavilly skewed it is towards horde armies over elite armies I feel like it should be tied to power level (or points in matched play). Or something.

I'm not sure of the elegant solution to the problem as elite armies did get more CP in the new beta rules....but horde armies still get FAR more than that.

Anyways, strategems themselves are pretty great. Special rules tied to a diminishing resource so you have to weigh pros and cons of when and where to use them? Great! Most of them are pretty flavorful as well. There are a few duds out there (Killshot comes to mind since it's basically the old formation with a bonus you pay to use), and some that were too good (Tide of Traitors before the errata for example), but for the most part they're pretty good and add some things to the game that didn't really fit in with how the game used to function.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Strategems themselves I'm very positive about, the thing that usually has me going "wait a moment" is the way CP is balanced. With how heavilly skewed it is towards horde armies over elite armies I feel like it should be tied to power level (or points in matched play). Or something.

I'm not sure of the elegant solution to the problem as elite armies did get more CP in the new beta rules....but horde armies still get FAR more than that.

Anyways, strategems themselves are pretty great. Special rules tied to a diminishing resource so you have to weigh pros and cons of when and where to use them? Great! Most of them are pretty flavorful as well. There are a few duds out there (Killshot comes to mind since it's basically the old formation with a bonus you pay to use), and some that were too good (Tide of Traitors before the errata for example), but for the most part they're pretty good and add some things to the game that didn't really fit in with how the game used to function.

I feel like the most elegant solution would be to change Battalion from "Gain 5 CP" to "Gain 1 CP per 100 points spent on troops", or something similar.

This would fix the horde aspect.

I’m very pro stratagems. They’re my favorite part of 8th edition.

The Newman wrote:
I like them a lot in theory. Vanilla Marines have an unfortunate number that require you to field some really sub-optimal stuff to use (which SM can't afford) and not enough ways to regenerate cps, but that's a problem with the SMs, not with strategems.

Well, it's also a problem with the strategems. KIillshot, Linebreaker, etc. all require 3 of a kind of the unit, which isn't a recipe for success.



I very much like the strategems, but I feel like every army has a couple good ones and a lot that take up space.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

I feel like the most elegant solution would be to change Battalion from "Gain 5 CP" to "Gain 1 CP per 100 points spent on troops", or something similar.

This would fix the horde aspect.

This response illustrates very well the misconception some have that "horde armies generate CPs more/too easily". If this was implemented, marines would have an even worse time getting CPs without allied help, having to spend more points on the crap that is marine troop choices.

It's in fact not very difficult to see how 'horde' has nothing to do with it, since the requirement to generate CPs is based on a number of units, not the number of models. Minimum size 'horde' units are often not cheaper than those in non-horde armies.

The armies that have issues generating CP generally have these problems because of the low efficiency of their troop and HQ choices. The Guard CP battalion isn't popular only because it's cheap, but because even the cheap HQ and troop choices fulfil important battlefield roles effectively.

If Marines had awesome troops and HQs that you'd want to field instead of thinking of them as a tax, you'd most likely see a lot fewer Guard CP battalions around. And sure, the Guard CP warlord farms CP well, but don't forget that the opportunity cost is a warlord trait and the first relic.

Strategems and CP generation aren't the problems. It's poor balancing of HQ and troop choices.

eldritchx wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

I feel like the most elegant solution would be to change Battalion from "Gain 5 CP" to "Gain 1 CP per 100 points spent on troops", or something similar.

This would fix the horde aspect.

This response illustrates very well the misconception some have that "horde armies generate CPs more/too easily". If this was implemented, marines would have an even worse time getting CPs without allied help, having to spend more points on the crap that is marine troop choices.
It's in fact not very difficult to see how 'horde' has nothing to do with it, since the requirement to generate CPs is based on a number of units, not the number of models. Minimum size 'horde' units are often not cheaper than those in non-horde armies.
The armies that have issues generating CP generally have these problems because of the low efficiency of their troop and HQ choices. The Guard CP battalion isn't popular only because it's cheap, but because even the cheap HQ and troop choices fulfil important battlefield roles effectively.
If Marines had awesome troops and HQs that you'd want to field instead of thinking of them as a tax, you'd most likely see a lot fewer Guard CP battalions around. And sure, the Guard CP warlord farms CP well, but don't forget that the opportunity cost is a warlord trait and the first relic.
Strategems and CP generation aren't the problems. It's poor balancing of HQ and troop choices.

Debatable. I could go out and pay 90 points for 3x gretchin squads for CP and get just as much as a fully kitted marine army.
Right now the system is rewarding MSU too much.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Elbows wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I find them a bit silly. Tyranids have acid blood but only some of the time for example.

This one probably makes sense thematically, sometimes Tyranids do have acid blood sometimes they don't. Anyway, I think it's intended that you envision the enemy unit as getting covered in acid blood only some of the time.

Not really. It makes no sense that one minute a hormagaunt has acid blood then the next minute the same one doesn't. The being covered acid part is represented by rolling for the wound. That doesn't explain how some stratagems are for throwing a grenade but only one unit can do it. Seems dumb that a civilisation smart enough for interstellar travel has a single grenade per army.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Debatable. I could go out and pay 90 points for 3x gretchin squads for CP and get just as much as a fully kitted marine army.
Right now the system is rewarding MSU too much.

No, what it's rewarding is soup where you mix MSU CP farms with expensive elite units to spend those CP. In a mono-faction army there's a level of balance between the two sides. MSU generates CP more easily, but each CP you spend has a greatly reduced effect because it's applied to a cheap unit. For example, re-rolling all hit rolls on a 50 point unit is worth much less than re-rolling all hit rolls on a 300 point unit, but both options cost the same CP. So you have all those CP, but you have to spend more (and often on different stratagems because of the once per phase rule) to get the same total benefit. An elite army will have a harder time generating CP, but each time they spend a CP it will have a bigger effect on the game. You get problems when the CP that you accumulated for 50-point IG squads at the discount rate can be transferred to 300 point allied units.

In short: as I've been saying for a long time, remove allies and soup. One 5th edition FOC, one codex. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(And remove stratagems too, but soup still has to go.)

 Peregrine wrote:


No, what it's rewarding is soup where you mix MSU CP farms with expensive elite units to spend those CP. In a mono-faction army there's a level of balance between the two sides. MSU generates CP more easily, but each CP you spend has a greatly reduced effect because it's applied to a cheap unit. For example, re-rolling all hit rolls on a 50 point unit is worth much less than re-rolling all hit rolls on a 300 point unit, but both options cost the same CP. So you have all those CP, but you have to spend more (and often on different stratagems because of the once per phase rule) to get the same total benefit. An elite army will have a harder time generating CP, but each time they spend a CP it will have a bigger effect on the game. You get problems when the CP that you accumulated for 50-point IG squads at the discount rate can be transferred to 300 point allied units.

In short: as I've been saying for a long time, remove allies and soup. One 5th edition FOC, one codex. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(And remove stratagems too, but soup still has to go.)

As much as I am loathe to agree with Peregrine on most things after reading his posts throughout the years, I actually think that this is a pretty good analysis. While I like stratagems overall, I do feel like the soup lists we see are often designed to abuse command points and thus stratagems overall, which can be frustrating from a game-play perspective. I believe stratagems are typically designed to function and be balanced within their own codex (obviously some need rebalancing, but I believe this is the intent). I know it's been brought up before, but consider Imperial Guard stratagems to Blood Angels stratagems, specifically before the deep strike beta nerf. IG has access to crazy amounts of command points, but their stratagems seem to be balanced around that, in that they are fairly lackluster, often very situational, and rarely game-changing. Blood Angels, on the other hand, have access to some very powerful, very game-changing stratagems, but they are limited in the number of command points they have, and their very good stratagems are often more expensive (2-3 CP), and cannot be used more than once or twice. In this way, both sides of the CP spectrum can be represented and balanced against each other. The problem then in this example is when you're able to use the CP generation of Imperial Guard and apply them to the very powerful stratagems of the Blood Angels.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Debatable. I could go out and pay 90 points for 3x gretchin squads for CP and get just as much as a fully kitted marine army.
Right now the system is rewarding MSU too much.

No, what it's rewarding is soup where you mix MSU CP farms with expensive elite units to spend those CP. In a mono-faction army there's a level of balance between the two sides. MSU generates CP more easily, but each CP you spend has a greatly reduced effect because it's applied to a cheap unit. For example, re-rolling all hit rolls on a 50 point unit is worth much less than re-rolling all hit rolls on a 300 point unit, but both options cost the same CP. So you have all those CP, but you have to spend more (and often on different stratagems because of the once per phase rule) to get the same total benefit. An elite army will have a harder time generating CP, but each time they spend a CP it will have a bigger effect on the game. You get problems when the CP that you accumulated for 50-point IG squads at the discount rate can be transferred to 300 point allied units.

In short: as I've been saying for a long time, remove allies and soup. One 5th edition FOC, one codex. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(And remove stratagems too, but soup still has to go.)

Beta rules are already looking to limit soup by forcing you to split up your army into detachments meaning more tax being added in (instead of running Guard as troops in your Marine detachment you need to take Marine troops in the Marine detachment and a Guard HQ in the Guard one for example). Limiting your average game to only three detachments helps push that further since you have to take more tax to make certain armies work again.

That said, if allies continue to be a problem for balance it's safe to say GW will take them away too. Which is a shame because I've always wanted to get around to doing a Red Hunters army (a Marine faction typically run by the Inquisition) with a mix of Marines and Inquisition units. If allies go away, so does that army project.

I disagree with removing stratagems though. If anything we need the older codexes to see a rework so the 6/7th edition formations that were tossed in as stratagems see a rework to be something actually useful. Additionally, after seeing Tide of Traitors become a one time use strategem I feel like we should see other one time use only options. Say, like Vortex Grenades (or the Holy Orb of Antioch for Black Templar )

Personally I feel like stratagems are a good thing for the game, but they (like any new change to the game) will need more work to really hit that sweet spot of tactical benefit for limited uses.

Also I think I should point out that part of why Guard are popular as a CP source is the relic they can take that gives CP back when spent. I feel like relics should be restricted to the army that your warlord belongs to in order to restrict this kind of abuse.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Also I think I should point out that part of why Guard are popular as a CP source is the relic they can take that gives CP back when spent. I feel like relics should be restricted to the army that your warlord belongs to in order to restrict this kind of abuse.

The Guard dude is also the warlord. There a Warlord trait and a relic, and together they make you generate CP on a 5+ whenever your opponent uses a strategem or you use a CP.

You're giving up your main faction's warlord trait, but... personal buffs are rarely as good as army buffs, and regenerating CP is a very flexible army buff.

Regarding allies and single FOC's, I think that would be okay for tournament play, because I can see the exploit potential, and I've read enough threads from the competitive set decrying soup.

But soup genuinely is how the Imperium fights, so mono-imperial armies are really unrealistic. Marines are so rare that PDF forces almost always engage the enemy to hang on until the cavalry comes. PDF forces will often consist of a mix of Mlitarum and Ministorum units, and depending on the foe, the Inquisition sometimes get in as well.

Furthermore, if you've got 3 friends, or kids or a partner who likes to play but hates painting or is too broke to buy an army, having 4 small detachments from differing allied factions allows you to provide small campaign battles with your unfortunate friends while still being able to assemble the components into an army for pickup games against opponents who do have armies.

This is especially true with the release of Kill Team. Assuming you were the player with the four small detachments for 40k, you're now also the person who facilitates a Kill team campaign for your friends. The best thing about this Kill Team campaign is that you already have the tools to run it as an escalation game, so that Kill Team missions have the capacity to unlock other units in order to gradually build the detachment for 40k scale play.

Where soup does fall apart for me is that some armies don't soup as well as the Imperium. As I understand it, Kroot and Vespids don't have the HQ necessary to be fielded as homogenous detachments, nor the unit diversity to be interesting, leaving the Tau a soup fail.

Drukari were specifically constructed as a collection of three allied forces, so they feel like soup even when they aren't. Same can be said about craftworld eldar- imagine detachment for each Aspect. And then you've got harlequins and Ynari to multi-dex. Aeldari, regardless of faction, not at the level of the Imperium or Chaos, but still decent.

Chaos soup is good too, especially since the followers of chaos gods are as likely to fight each other as they are outsiders. Intra-daemon wars play like old school realms of chaos, with campaign play impact the pool of daemons available for summoning by their space marine brethren back in realspace. Unfortunately, without daemon kill teams for now, the investment only pays for 40k, not Kill team.

Orks have gretchin- it remains to be seen whether gretchin will have the HQ and unit diversity to be fielded in homogenous detachments. There is enough diversity in the ork range that you could probably field two really distinctive ork armies. They don't have another dex or faction that's particularly suited to allies though, so technically a soup fail.

Tyranids can soup with GSC. I think GSC should be able to soup with either Nids or Militarum, but I'd not bring all three together often- it would have to be a very special scenario to make that work. So these armies are soup light.

Anyway, the point is that while things like strategems and soup may really break competitive play and the tournament scene, they are amazing storytelling tools for people whose preferred method of play is immersive narrative campaigns that span the full breadth of the 40k Universe from kill team to apocalypse and everything between.

It would be a real shame to take those tools away or damage the flexibility they currently offer by imposing sweeping fixes to the game as a whole just so that a few tournaments in a handful of cities per year run a bit more smoothly.

Stratagems are fine.

CP generation is botched. Each faction has vastly different needs for CP in the game, and vastly different ways of getting it. If we take pure armies (no allies of any kind) then you can hardly say that the 9 CP that an Imperial Knights list can make is comparable to the 20+ CP that guard can get, on top of relics like Kurov's Aquila that Imperial Knights don't get access to.

I much prefer the way that Age of Sigmar and Kill Team are generating CP, by having them generate on a per-turn basis. This stops crazy wombo-combos of stratagems turn 1, keeps both players in the game when it comes to CP generation, and makes it so that you don't have to worry about running out of CP by turn 2 and be out of luck while your opponent continues to use their 20+ CP all the way to turn 7.

We'll see what happens. I foresee a change by the next Big FAQ, which is actually not too far away by now.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Also I think I should point out that part of why Guard are popular as a CP source is the relic they can take that gives CP back when spent. I feel like relics should be restricted to the army that your warlord belongs to in order to restrict this kind of abuse.

The Guard dude is also the warlord. There a Warlord trait and a relic, and together they make you generate CP on a 5+ whenever your opponent uses a strategem or you use a CP.

You're giving up your main faction's warlord trait, but... personal buffs are rarely as good as army buffs, and regenerating CP is a very flexible army buff.

Raven Guard armies wouldn't be happy, same for Blood Angels, but yeah, a there are too many Imperial armies that wouldn't care.

I feel like the regenerating/stealing CP options should be more heavily restricted than they currently are since they're basically an auto-include that can get out of control.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I like the idea but it seems odd that the unwieldy horde armies seem best poised to generate them.

it would be nice if eliter armies had access to other ways to generate CPs. IMHO the biggest screw up was giving guardsmen the CP generation relic. if you saw stuff like that on the elite armies it'd make them less dependant on guard CP batteries.

The relic you're referring to is something many factions have access to.

What you're probably thinking of is the "Grand Strategist" warlord trait - which I agree is abused by Imperial "Soup-er Friends" players. I think it is easily fixed however, by stipulating that your warlord may only be taken from your majority (as determined by points/power level) faction. It's quite immersion breaking to have someone declare the 30-pt barebones Company Commander in his barebones 180-pt detachment as their side's "Commander in Chief" when there's a trio of Custodes Shield Captains or a smattering of Knights present.

drbored wrote:
Stratagems are fine.If we take pure armies (no allies of any kind) then you can hardly say that the 9 CP that an Imperial Knights list can make is comparable to the 20+ CP that guard can get, on top of relics like Kurov's Aquila that Imperial Knights don't get access to.

Of course I can say they're comparable. IK get few CP, but each CP is applied to a LoW class unit. IG get more CP, but to buff an IK worth of points they have to spend multiple CP putting different stratagems on multiple units. The problem is when you have an IK list that throws in a cheap CP farm detachment, breaking the MSU vs. elite balance.

I much prefer the way that Age of Sigmar and Kill Team are generating CP, by having them generate on a per-turn basis. This stops crazy wombo-combos of stratagems turn 1, keeps both players in the game when it comes to CP generation, and makes it so that you don't have to worry about running out of CP by turn 2 and be out of luck while your opponent continues to use their 20+ CP all the way to turn 7.

This overwhelmingly favors death star armies. If both players have the same CP pool then the player spending 1 CP to buff a 500 point unit has a huge advantage over the player spending 1 CP to buff a 100 point unit.

They are a wretched idea ripped bleeding from CCG's but without the random draw / deck concept, they add barely any thinking to the game beside blow as many CP as you can early to make your numbers bigger and betterer

The CP system feels like a band-aid to add more complexity to the system. The base rules for 7th felt a lot more tactically rewarding than they do in 8th (note, I am not saying that 7th was better but it required more positional strategy than 8th). If 8th didn't have strategems, it would be incredibly boring. The transition from 7th to 8th lost a lot of strategy which they tried to fix, (and halfway successfully imo) by implementing strategems.

Just think about fighting knights, if there are multiple knights that you want to shoot you generally try to force your opponent into RIS the one you care about the least w/o overcommitting damage to it.