Switch Theme:

How do you feel about stratagems currently? (Multiple choice poll)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
How do you feel about stratagems?
They're great!
They're okay.
They're bad.
They should be cheaper.
They should cost more.
They cost the right amount.
There should be more.
There should be less.
There is the right amout
They have potential but need a rework.

View results
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 au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

This isn't a zero sum game. You're assuming that smoke is either the way it was (something apparently no one used), or the way it is now and too powerful enmasse.

My point isn't about smoke launchers. My point is that equipment shouldn't be strats. This whole damned thread is about strats, and how necessary they are, whether they work, whether they should be re-worked. And you're haggling about smoke launchers. You're missing the woods 'cause them pesky trees keep getting in the way.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 02:40:52


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




Annandale, VA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It creates a scenario where vehicles with smoke can roll up as fast as possible and shoot. They become the haves and anyone without smoke is a have-not.


So... why not make it work both ways? Or smoke in lieu of shooting?

I mean, this isn't exactly an unsolved problem for games without Stratagems.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 catbarf wrote:
So... why not make it work both ways? Or smoke in lieu of shooting?
Because no one - EVER! - used it before. Remember?

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

 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






I think that a lot of them should be 0cp once per game strategems. Cause they sound cool on paper but are too niche and not worth holding up cp for. For example, my current ork army at <2k games is spending most cp before game and has to spend around 6 first turn.
3 - outrider detachment
2 - extra relics
2 - extra traits
2- first turn 5++ force field booster
2 - first turn smokes

1st turn I regen 1 cp and have 2 to spare which go to a dice re-roll and careen.

So...i don't ever get to use like 30 other strats that eat up place in the book for no good reason, apparently.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 05:26:29


 
   
Made in gb
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot






'Gotcha' trash.


Before USR bloat in 6th, you could, with a bit of knowledge about the big USRs (which you pick up very quickly, and even if you didn't they only took up 2-3 pages if I recall) look at a unit, know exactly what it does, then go from there. This meant you could actually play the game itself and employ your own skill and units, and so could your opponent. It gave players agency (granted Strategems do allow more player agency for players when it is not their go, but this is something that could be included in the game without Strategems and the problems they bring with them).

Now a player can do everything right, but because they don't know of one of the obscure strats from one of the 3 books their opponent is using, their skill is for nothing, all because they don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the poorly written, bloated and ever changing trash GW publishes and has the audacity to call 'rules'.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Daedalus81 wrote:
It creates a scenario where vehicles with smoke can roll up as fast as possible and shoot. They become the haves and anyone without smoke is a have-not.

Practically everyone without smokes is open topped or flying, and has more bonuses then the supposed have bonus from one turn of smoke launchers. Plus it is clearly seen on what type of units are being used by armies. Who runs imperial smoke launcher platoforms? SoB because they can scout them with dominions, put 5 in the tank along side a heavy squad armed with MM or mix of MM and flamers.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Any strats that displaced upgrades should just go.

The quasi "no model no rules" paradigm we are in when it coems to upgrades and veriaty is dumb.

The only real acceptable use for strats should be:

- Take aditional relic
- Take warlord trait / promote character to get an extra buff
- Upgrade a unit to veterans/specialisation (minor buff for fluff)

In game uses only for things like desperate breakout and or overwatch plus morale hold and all having one time use.

Also you should get like 5 CP max.

Any abilities and things currently done by strats should go back to being upgrades baked into data sheets as options and associated costs. Then you can just get rid of strats all together.

Any starts that boost offensive / defensive capability of any unit is very prone to being disproportionate effective on certain units making costing them more of a nightmare then it already is...

E.G. An Oblitirator with endless cacophony should not cost the same points as an oblitirator without the acess to endless cacophony.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Someone floated the idea of limiting the amount of strats one could take based on game size. That idea has potential.

 Argive wrote:
Also you should get like 5 CP max.
Do that and people just hold onto CP to get re-rolls or pass the odd vital morale check. None of the others would get used, so now we have a complex system with tons of options that never get used as none of them are ever really better than a regular re-roll.

Giving out more CPs in 9th and having them regenerate during the game was actually a good idea. The problem are the strats themselves and how they're implemented.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 23:18:46


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

 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Someone floated the idea of limiting the amount of strats one could take based on game size. That idea has potential.

 Argive wrote:
Also you should get like 5 CP max.
Do that and people just hold onto CP to get re-rolls or pass the odd vital morale check. None of the others would get used, so now we have a complex system with tons of options that never get used as none of them are ever really better than a regular re-roll.

Giving out more CPs in 9th and having them regenerate during the game was actually a good idea. The problem are the strats themselves and how they're implemented.



My point was to actually get rid of like 95% of all strats with only having basic ones available and move everything else to either data sheet abilities or upgrades to be paid for by pts.
Id get rid of the reroll start as well though.. If strats are to remain id give each army like 3 faction sepcifi ones that are verey very tame and then have like 5 core ones for everyone with a very small CP pool.

You can only use morale once and some armies don't even fail morale. This would also make things that lower leadership actually useful..

If yo build an elite army that does not care about morale you will use CP for overwatch or something.

I just don't think the CP resource should offer anywhere near that much of an advantage as it currently does...

As things stand, giving units transhumans left right and center, rerolls 1s, +1 to this +1 to that etc ... Its all the same crap regurgitated for 95% of strats for 100% of the armies.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/06 03:31:11


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This isn't a zero sum game. You're assuming that smoke is either the way it was (something apparently no one used), or the way it is now and too powerful enmasse.

My point isn't about smoke launchers. My point is that equipment shouldn't be strats. This whole damned thread is about strats, and how necessary they are, whether they work, whether they should be re-worked. And you're haggling about smoke launchers. You're missing the woods 'cause them pesky trees keep getting in the way.



Well, my take was a point on that not everything should necessarily be equipment. There's nuance and usefulness in stratagems.

The too powerful en masse scenario was if we presumed an old smoke that was 4++, but the core rules do not prevent shooting like the old one. That'd be way too much. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

If everyone just had smoke as -1 to hit that they could use and shoot still? Sure, I guess. So then it has to be one use or you kind of have this weird scenario where tanks are just rolling around in clouds of smoke all game. Then it is no longer an interaction. It's just something that would happen the first time a tank gets shot. It just...is.

On the stratagem side you have a legitimate choice to make on whether smoke is the right use of resources or whether you can convince your opponent that the use of resources is wise, which reduces their options later in the game for interrupts, morale, and force multipliers.

Or we could just have a thing that just happens, because we don't like strats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 koooaei wrote:
I think that a lot of them should be 0cp once per game strategems. Cause they sound cool on paper but are too niche and not worth holding up cp for. For example, my current ork army at <2k games is spending most cp before game and has to spend around 6 first turn.
3 - outrider detachment
2 - extra relics
2 - extra traits
2- first turn 5++ force field booster
2 - first turn smokes

1st turn I regen 1 cp and have 2 to spare which go to a dice re-roll and careen.

So...i don't ever get to use like 30 other strats that eat up place in the book for no good reason, apparently.


That's a sacrifice you make. If the outriders, relics, and traits aren't providing more benefit than the CP would otherwise then you need to trim or change strategy.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
It creates a scenario where vehicles with smoke can roll up as fast as possible and shoot. They become the haves and anyone without smoke is a have-not.

Practically everyone without smokes is open topped or flying, and has more bonuses then the supposed have bonus from one turn of smoke launchers. Plus it is clearly seen on what type of units are being used by armies. Who runs imperial smoke launcher platoforms? SoB because they can scout them with dominions, put 5 in the tank along side a heavy squad armed with MM or mix of MM and flamers.


Right, so, would you rather Sisters spend the CP for smoke or that they just get it for like 0 to 5 points? Which of those do you think is of more consequence to the outcome of the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Someone floated the idea of limiting the amount of strats one could take based on game size. That idea has potential.


Then you just limit the player's ability to make decisions during the game. I thought we didn't want games that were decided at the list level?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/08/06 03:38:30


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

The issue I'm seeing Daedalus, between this thread and the other one when talking about morale, is that you only see two possible outcomes:

1. The way it's done now.
2. The way it was done prior to now.

... and if you don't like the way it was done prior to now, you assume that the way it's done now is therefore the better way.

This precludes two other options:

3. Another way it was done prior to now, but not specifically the immediate previous rule.
4. Something entirely different that attempts to resolve the issue.

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

 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

I say OK and needs overhaul.

The first issue is that GW has put too many uses into the limited currency of Command Points. Detachments, Unit enhancers (Warlord Traits, Relics and other before the game uses), Strategic Reserves, and then finally during the game Stratagems. The first three should be on a separate army building budget with the other two being Command Points.

Then there is the issues of too many Stratagems in the Codex. While I can see they put some wargear into the Stratagems to make you pay for them only if you actually use them, they have gone overboard. I get why they made Flakk Missiles a stratagem, since players avoid spending points their opponent can negate by not spending points (not bringing any Aircraft). And the Melta Bomb stratagem has a certain allure of being available but not wasted if your opponent brings no Vehicles not the mention not wanting to the number of point necessary to actually get a Melta Bomb into an opponent unit. But Smoke Launchers? Every freaking Imperial vehicle has Smoke Launchers and it can often be useful to have more than one vehicles use their SL at the same time.

Trim down wargear Stratagems to the situational but useful. Change any single (or highly limited) unit stratagems into unit Abilities that cost CP if they can't be always available abilities (Smoke Launchers? Seriously?). Get rid of the highly situational ones so that you are left with just a small list of Stratagems.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Argive wrote:
Any strats that displaced upgrades should just go.

The quasi "no model no rules" paradigm we are in when it coems to upgrades and veriaty is dumb.

The only real acceptable use for strats should be:

- Take aditional relic
- Take warlord trait / promote character to get an extra buff
- Upgrade a unit to veterans/specialisation (minor buff for fluff)

In game uses only for things like desperate breakout and or overwatch plus morale hold and all having one time use.

Also you should get like 5 CP max.

Any abilities and things currently done by strats should go back to being upgrades baked into data sheets as options and associated costs. Then you can just get rid of strats all together.

Any starts that boost offensive / defensive capability of any unit is very prone to being disproportionate effective on certain units making costing them more of a nightmare then it already is...

E.G. An Oblitirator with endless cacophony should not cost the same points as an oblitirator without the acess to endless cacophony.

Uhhh.....you want stratagems that replaced things that used to be upgrades to go back to being things you pay for with points, but you want to keep the ones for extra relics, Warlord traits, and veterans? No, those things should cost points too, because they aren't all equal, and therefore shouldn't all have the same 1CP price. There's a reason that back in the day Siege Specialists was 1 PPM and Furious Charge was 3 PPM, because one was usually useless and the other was almost always a good thing to have. Why is giving one of my tanks or dreadnoughts a -1 to be hit for a single shooting phase for 1CP bad, but giving my Sorcerer a 2+ save and <ALWAYS COUNTS AS BEING IN COVER> for the entire game for the exact same price fine?
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Yeah this is why its a dumb idea to have starts to begin with.. I never said relics and traits should cost 1 CP in this hypothetical paradigm...

I think if you had to pay 2-3 CP for pre game upgrade from a very limited CP pool of 5-6 it would really mean you would have to pick if you want to upgrade your Genral with a cool beatstick or keep it for in-play game things.

I dont think the same relics or traits should remain as most of them are busted or so crap nobody remember they exists. So I say get rid of the auto take and only leave some of the crappy ones which are thematic enough to be relevant.

Part of the relic thing that really bugs me is lots of armies lost upgrades/felxibility option becasue no model no rules but at the same time you can have game defining relics an entire army is built around at no cost and not equally available to anyone and not a single bit of modelling required..

My whole points is to make CP and strats disapear entirely.

Or if they have to be kept, make it a very thematic gimmick or a very minor tactical benefit that could be used in a crutch moment.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/06 04:41:27


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





A handful of Universal stratagems would be great - as AOS does. There are too many - I have absolutely no idea what the majority of my stratagems do and the act of looking at it during a game takes me out of the game to my opponent.
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Between Alpha and Omega, and a little to the left

I like the existence of strats, and I'll give a good example of why:

In Ork lore, teleportation was a vital part of the strategy to invade Armageddon, dropping ork mobs, vehicles, and even super heavies down onto the planet before the defenders could react, overwhelming them while the rest of Graz' Waaagh! came down though traditional roks and landaz. Teleportation is part of the sort of underappreciated concept that orks are masters of energy manipulation, as well as there general idea of using unpredictable and tempermental wild machines as part of their agility to surprise their enemies.

The problem with tying it to a character or an upgrade is the scalability. If I could take a Big Mek with a tekeporta pak or whatever to teleport one unit... then that's one unit (since generally abilites like that have always only effected one unit). One unit, per big mek, that would be taking up HQ to being in a unit that's meant to represent a very cool aspect that's very unusable at larger games and possibly broken in a smaller one. With a points upgrade, how do you point that? Per Model? Great for my meganobz, useless for my boyz.

Stratagems, *if done right*, could very well add a dimension to the game that upgrades and unit abilities can't really fulfill. I fully understand the flaws of them, and why people don't like them, but I think throwing them out completely is very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Want to help support my plastic addiction? I sell stories about humans fighting to survive in a space age frontier.
Lord Harrab wrote:"Gimme back my leg-bone! *wack* Ow, don't hit me with it!" commonly uttered by Guardsman when in close combat with Orks.

Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts.  
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






If anything, this thread is a monument to why it's impossible to discuss anything related to 9th edition in general has become impossible on dakka.

There some valid points of criticism but they are drowned out by all the people whole clearly have no fething clue what they are talking about, are throwing about buzzwords they've learned to repeat like brean-dead parrots or are suggesting fixes that are already being implemented. Oh and let's not forget the "I don't like 9th, so you shouldn't either!"-faction who can't manage to stick to the other five threads dedicated to their passion.

I don't think the poll is particularly well written, so I just voted "they are ok". All other options don't really make a lot of sense when you apply them to multiple stratagems across multiple codices.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




PenitentJake wrote:

RE: Necrons- I don't have the Dex, but I'm assuming every subfaction (dynasty?) has it's own bespoke relic, strat, WL Trait and Dynasty ability. Doubt that they did before 8th. So the question is do all the Dynasties feel the same like they would have before they had that stuff?

Distinguishing between factions has never been a problem, you're right- I think they've always felt different. But with the exception of Marines, no other faction has had distinct rules for its subfactions in every edition since 3rd. Yes, in some editions, some factions had distinct subfaction traits. But nothing like we see now.


Personally I think the endless sub-factions GW has started including since 8th are a mistake, especially form a company that struggles with balance at the best of times. In the case of Necrons, yes each dynasty gets its own WL trait and strat but their pretty low effort and in some cases go against the theme of the sub-faction. Mephrit, for example, are the long-range shooty dynasty, yet their WL trait is a S and A buff.

In a game the scale of 40k I really don't see why we need to distinguish which specific Order our SoB are from. All that usually ends up happening is one of the sub-factions ends up with the busted combination of WL trait, strat, relic and rules (hi Lucius!) and suddenly all this supposed narrative depth ends up just turning 90% of AdMech armies into Lucius ones. The idea you need endless piles of rules to make your sub-faction distinct is an insidious piece of marketing from GW that I wish people would stop falling for.

Nightlord1987 wrote:Strats are non narrative?

"In the clangour of battle the worshippers of Slaanesh hear sweet music, and they compete to be the loudest in this deafening chorus."

"A sudden, lethal beam of magic is released from a Silver Tower."

"Wave after wave of Orks overwhelm the enemy's defense lines."

Stratagems are supposed to represent turn of the battle events.

I get it. Some gamers like book keeping. I've been trying to teach new players at my club 40k and between Detachment bonuses, stratagems, faction traits, and every entries special rules, it's been a nightmare to navigate.


The problem is the narrative rarely equates to the reality. Just like how the Land Raider is always described as this terrifying, nigh-unstoppable behemoth of destruction but has been consistently terrible for multiple editions, the description of something like Endless Cacophony sounds great until you realise it's just a way to double the damage output of your Obliterators. Adding a bunch of random background information doesn't make something narrative. For that it needs to produce a meaningful, interesting narrative result as opposed to just making stuff killier, or harder to kill.
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Sim-Life wrote:
Title.
I'm curious about this because GW are puting a lot of time and effort around strats and I'm wondering its paying off for them. From some discussion on here it looks like people generally don't like the direction they've gone with them but we'll see. Though this is Dakka so I doubt it, but then its Dakka so I'm sure there'll be complaints about the poll being biased or not including enough options.


Stratagems are a bandaid for the lack of tactical options and decision-making in the core rules.

There are too many of them, some so dramatically changing the utility of a unit that said unit is useless without it.

They slow the game down, they turn the game into a fest of devastating and unpredictable power moves, they are the opposite of what a "tactical wargame" should stand for.

I think they should be entirely removed from the game, if not, there shouldn't be any "army's/units specific" stratagem, only core rules stratagem that everyone knows about.

Alongside reroll auras, they are on of the 2 reasons playing 40k has become a chore.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





I really don’t like them. The feel like god powers that can be applied to any unit and being clever with this is the new skill of the game.

I’d be happy with units having some strat type abilities baked into them, like once per game melee units could do an enhanced charge or a unit being near an officer or hero can improve their performance or morale. But being able to choose any unit at a pint that convenient and buff a stat or get a load of re rolls is pants.

I think a good example is demonettes, the more demonetts you take the more attacks each mode has in the unit, but they are also easy to kill so if you want to deploy lots of demonettes and max out attack then you have to be clever about it and hope for the dice to be on your side. So there’s a trade off in using them this way and you have to be strategic in your approach.

The idea that you can spend a CP and buff any unit you want in a way that is convenient to what is happening on the table top at that time is silly.

And while I’m on it, can we get rid of re rolls. Especially on hit rolls, wound rolls and save rolls. The shot either hit or it didn’t.

After returning to the game for 2 years now I think I’ve realised GW totally lost sight where the strategy element should come into a table top war game.
   
Made in fi
Dark Angels Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries




I think they're fine for the most part, but...

1. There's too many of them which can slow game down when I'm searching correct one from codex etc. Naturally it'll speed up when they've been used plenty of times and players can recall them fresh out of memory. Or better yet, using datacards which are quicker to search through and what GW expects us to use anyway I concur.

2. They're unbalanced. Few are those you'd like to spam if possible and more than a handful are either too situational or too insignificant to ever use cp for.

I have to mention however that I'm very much in favor of keeping a single stratagem unique to specific order/cabal/klan along with warlord trit and relic to mke them more special.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I like the existence of strats, and I'll give a good example of why:

In Ork lore, teleportation was a vital part of the strategy to invade Armageddon, dropping ork mobs, vehicles, and even super heavies down onto the planet before the defenders could react, overwhelming them while the rest of Graz' Waaagh! came down though traditional roks and landaz. Teleportation is part of the sort of underappreciated concept that orks are masters of energy manipulation, as well as there general idea of using unpredictable and tempermental wild machines as part of their agility to surprise their enemies.

An excellent example of where some special rule can add flavour.
But does it need to be stratagems?


The problem with tying it to a character or an upgrade is the scalability. If I could take a Big Mek with a tekeporta pak or whatever to teleport one unit... then that's one unit (since generally abilites like that have always only effected one unit). One unit, per big mek, that would be taking up HQ to being in a unit that's meant to represent a very cool aspect that's very unusable at larger games and possibly broken in a smaller one. With a points upgrade, how do you point that? Per Model? Great for my meganobz, useless for my boyz.

Surely this stratagem scales worse than an upgrade/character would? You can only teleport one unit per turn, doesn't matter if that's in a 500pt game or a 3000pt game. It hardly scales at all.
But if it was an upgrade to a unit, whether that be related to a Big Mek or whatever, it does scale. You could give the upgrade to multiple units, and/or you could buy multiple Big Meks.
I also don't see the criticism about pricing. Teleporta currently costs the same regardless of what you're jumping it. Could be a 20pwr unit or a 4pwr unit, same price. If that's good enough it'd be good enough making Teleporting a flat points price as well.


Stratagems, *if done right*, could very well add a dimension to the game that upgrades and unit abilities can't really fulfill. I fully understand the flaws of them, and why people don't like them, but I think throwing them out completely is very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I kinda agree, to a point.
Strategems can work but they need to be limited in scope.
Wargear is a difficult one. There's a lot of wargear that's really niche in use, to the point where it just wasn't taken. Auspex for example, currently lets you shoot a deepstriking unit. That's really too niche a use-case to buy that as an upgrade on every unit, and not very useful if just one one or two units. But is very useful if you can just buy it after it becomes relevant, as it were, using strategems. So this I'm not opposed to.
But there's a lot of wargear that isn't such a niche use-case. Like smoke launchers or grenades. There's no reason this stuff should be stratagems and they contribute a lot to the bloat.
There's also a lot of special rules that have no right to be stratagems. Transhuman Biology - are my guys resistant to damage or not?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Don’t all armies basically have the same strategems? Just with different names? How many unique strategems are there.

This round hit rolls do D3 mortal wounds, this round the unit can ignore hit penalties for loving and firing

If all strategems were very unique and did thematic things for each army instead of just negating rule or buffing stats they would be better.

Either that or All CP should be spent before the game starts
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

There's only a few strats which are direct copy/pastes, but almost all the strats smell distinctly like only two or three archetypes.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
There's only a few strats which are direct copy/pastes, but almost all the strats smell distinctly like only two or three archetypes.
You could say that about most of 40k's "bespoke" rules.

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

 
   
Made in ca
Excited Doom Diver






I like them.

Space Wolves 4k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
There's only a few strats which are direct copy/pastes, but almost all the strats smell distinctly like only two or three archetypes.
You could say that about most of 40k's "bespoke" rules.


And that why 40K is cumbersome and clumpsy without being deep or diverse.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think anyone who's ever complained about lethality should think twice about whether they want strats of any kind to revert to equipment or datacard abilities.

The thing about strats is that there are limits to their use.

The thing about datacard abilities and equipment is that the only limit is the pregame points cost (if you even play points; if you play PL, it's freakin gangbusters up in here).

It's true that bespoke limitations such as once per turn, once per round, once per game or one unit with this ability per turn/round/game can be added as bespoke rules to individual pieces of equipment or datacard abilities...

But who's talking about confusion, bloat and tracking now?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/06 12:50:10


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's possible to want to move some strats to be equipment again without turning all of them into paid-for upgrades. Just because you could easily make Haywire grenades a thing you can pay points for, doesn't mean you need to even keep the strats that really up lethality, like the various shoots twice strats or extra damage ones.

Part of why people dislike strats is, I think, because most of the time they just make the game more killy with little thought. That means they're likely to want those things removed completely, rather than shifted around

This isn't an either/or thing. There's middle ground to be found.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well since the majority of the ork ones that were good got removed and the "new" ones for hte most part are literally just abilities we used to have inherently that got removed from models...yeah, not feeling it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote:
I think anyone who's ever complained about lethality should think twice about whether they want strats of any kind to revert to equipment or datacard abilities.

The thing about strats is that there are limits to their use.

The thing about datacard abilities and equipment is that the only limit is the pregame points cost (if you even play points; if you play PL, it's freakin gangbusters up in here).

It's true that bespoke limitations such as once per turn, once per round, once per game or one unit with this ability per turn/round/game can be added as bespoke rules to individual pieces of equipment or datacard abilities...

But who's talking about confusion, bloat and tracking now?


They took Burna's -2 AP on their weapons away and turned it into a strat. This is how the math works out if they had left well enough alone.

5 Burna boyz = 55pts In CC that is 10 attacks, 6.6 hits, 3.3 wounds and 2.2dmg vs Marines.
6 Boyz = 54pts In CC that is 18 attacks, 12 hits, 6 wounds and 3dmg vs Marines.

With that said, i am not disagreeing with you inherently. I'm just pointing out that not all the strats if added back would break the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/06 13:03:47


 Xenomancers wrote:
It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: