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.

How do you feel about the current state and trend of strategms and why?

I dislike them mostly because the entire command point system is just pushing even harder towards MSU.

Best thing about 8th edition. Brings actual important decisions to 40K which the system lacked so far. Also allows to implement fluffy rules without breaking the game like formations in 7th. did.

Broadly speaking, I like them. There were certain abilities that used to cost points in old codicies that were rarely (if ever) taken because they were situational. Why buy something that you did not know if you would need rather than some more guns or warm bodies that would always come in handy?

Now you get a pool of points to spend on situationally useful abilities rather than having to hard-bake them into your army list. I find they make armies more flexible and interesting.

That said, it does encourage MSUing in an edition that already pushes this aspect and certain armies (cough-IG-cough) can abuse CP generation, even when just included as a small detachment of allies.

As a whole i like them, some are wildly undercosted and some are way over costed.

Overall I like them, there are a few which need re-visiting eg. I don't like the Astra Militarum cp regen combo.

I don't care for them at all. Mainly because their effects aren't "strategic" in the slightest, and just give units buffs to make them more lethal or more survivable. The resource part was a good idea, but poorly implemented, being based on what detachments were chosen rather than, say, command units in the field, and with so many ways to regain CP they don't really require much thought to use.

I love the idea of stratagems more than their execution. I like that you have an extra resource to manage. I like how they can make lackluster units suddenly pop. I like how you feel that a unit becomes extra heroic. I like how they flavour an army to better represent a faction and fighting style. I don't like how they make good units even better. I don't like how broad some stratagems are. I don't like how some factions mostly ignore the resource management aspect by having seemingly unlimited command points.

Concept is great, execution is "okay". I'm still getting my head around planning my armies around my stratagems, as they're one of the most important pieces of the puzzle now (except Chaos Space Marines, their stratagems are gak).

I will agree with some others that there are too many extremely good "recover CP" methods which are too strong.

 mew28 wrote:
I dislike them mostly because the entire command point system is just pushing even harder towards MSU.

Huh?

Strategems that affect a unit are far more efficient on large units that small ones.

But gaining CPs is done through use of the cheapest HQ/troop combinations, etc.

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.

Greywing wrote:

 mew28 wrote:
I dislike them mostly because the entire command point system is just pushing even harder towards MSU.

Huh?

Strategems that affect a unit are far more efficient on large units that small ones.

They didn't say Stratagems, they said the command point system.

You gain the vast majority of CP by filling out detachments right? Now what's generally the cheapest way of fulfilling a detachment requirement and therefore accessing CP?

That's right. MSU.

StrayIight wrote:

Greywing wrote:

 mew28 wrote:
I dislike them mostly because the entire command point system is just pushing even harder towards MSU.

Huh?

Strategems that affect a unit are far more efficient on large units that small ones.

They didn't say Stratagems, they said the command point system.

You gain the vast majority of CP by filling out detachments right? Now what's generally the cheapest way of fulfilling a detachment requirement and therefore accessing CP?

That's right. MSU.

MSU was also the most efficient way of playing all previous editions, especially on Troops. You weren't encouraged to take 10 man squads of Tactical Marines, you took 2 5 man teams, so you could load up on all those Elites and Heavy Supports.

If there's no reason to have a large squad, because the firepower or potential in that squad isn't worth the cost, why bother trying to take one? I can guarantee that even if the CP system was fixed where your detachment didn't matter, so you didn't need X many types of Y unit, people still would go MSU because there's hardly any incentive to go for a large one.

Meh, I thought they were going to be a nice bonus to fluffy armies but they've just become abused, unlimited and a crutch. So I'm neutral.

Ix_Tab wrote:
Overall I like them, there are a few which need re-visiting eg. I don't like the Astra Militarum cp regen combo.

Those aren't stratagems.

Hate em they are unbalanced between armies severely disadvantaging some armies.

Another area for GW to creep? What could go wrong?

Skaorn wrote:
Another area for GW to creep? What could go wrong?

Creep implies steady progression. GW power levels are more or less random.

 Elbows wrote:
(except Chaos Space Marines, their stratagems are gak).

They have some great ones! Fight again, shoot again, tide of traitors. There's some absolute gold there. Sure, there's also plenty of sub par ones but that's true for every faction.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
MSU was also the most efficient way of playing all previous editions, especially on Troops. You weren't encouraged to take 10 man squads of Tactical Marines, you took 2 5 man teams, so you could load up on all those Elites and Heavy Supports.

I loved people doing MSU during 3.5, 4th and what I played of 5th.
It made winning so easy for my guard having so few models to kill.
Especially mech armies combined with MSU. they were so easy to beat it was boring.

Stux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
(except Chaos Space Marines, their stratagems are gak).

They have some great ones! Fight again, shoot again, tide of traitors. There's some absolute gold there. Sure, there's also plenty of sub par ones but that's true for every faction.

I am going to have to disagree with you there. Suppressive fire, hit-and-run and so forth would be so much more interesting and tactical than "Pick a unit. Make it better."

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

I preferred Formations and I would have been happier if GW bothered putting work in for once in their life but stratagems are okay.

I really like them

I would like them to be optional, as my army doesn't really have any worth using. But I can easily imagine that someone playing an army or a build that requires the use of stratagem loves them.

Strategums as a mechanic seemed like a nice idea untill inevitably GW let their fluff bunnies loose without balance checking.
Like don't give people with -2 to hit armies strategums to add additional -1 to hits, though the same could be said of pshycic powers.

Also some units realy didn't realise any benifit from the implementation of strategums while others did benifit.

Also as others have said the dependence on CP's for strategums means that the CP mechanics being out of kilter (see Astra Millafarm) leads to strategums scaling terribly when you introduce soup.

I like them and also I like tactical objectives. More options to play

Negative. It's a pointless mechanic that nobody was asking for and it just adds to the rules bloat.

I started the edition intrigued but I have come to really dislike stratagems. There is a gleam of a good idea in there but what we ended up with really leaves me wanting.

First of all, my initial thought was it was a cool way to allow you to interact with the game in your opponents turn and in a sense it is. However this aspect left me feeling hollow very quickly as it served two negative purposes. One, it stretches an already rather long game even longer (hold on while I decide if I really want to reroll that or save my reroll for something later in the phase). Two, and much more damaging to me, it has led t a lot of YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD moments in the game. In previous editions I could point at a squad and ask "What do they do?" and I would be given a list of what exactly they were capable of accomplishing ("They have two plasma guns and they deepstrike"). Now in order to get an idea I need basically a comprehensive rundown of all the applicable stratagems. "That squad has 2 plasma guns in it. They can scout, sometimes they get to reroll hits, sometimes they can shoot at things that have just come in from reserves, sometimes they can all throw grenades, sometimes they can be fearless..."

I also agree with pm713. Why is tyranid blood only acidic some of the time? Why does the radio sometimes stop working on my chimera? Why do Guardians only remember to turn their energy shield on sometimes? The list goes on but you get the point.

That's why I voted negative. Stratagems were a good idea but the result has been nothing but time wasting and immersion breaking for me.

 Peregrine wrote:
Negative. It's a pointless mechanic that nobody was asking for and it just adds to the rules bloat.

Stratagems are another one of GW's non-solution solutions. Stratagems are not strategic and add nothing to the depth of the game, but their existence allows GW to claim that they have added a meaningful element because there are more rules. Much like many of their balance band-aids that do not fix the real issues, but give the appearance of having done so.