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.

So, Its pre-order time and that means You-Tuber reviews of the new supplements are out along with the recent release of the Marine and Necron codexes of course (I wanted to see at least some things from 2 more books after the initial codex release before I made this thread). One thing that has struck me from what I have seen is the general removal of the most powerful stratagems (or at least the severe limiting of their use) in favor of more specifically situational ones.

I am all for this move. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the idea of strategems but have always thought they should be something you should use when the moment is right, rather than something to build your army composition around (an example that springs to mind is the shoot again strat for slaaneshi csm).

There are enough reviews available now that I shall not go through them individually ( though a good example is Luka's first impressions vid of the Space Wolf Supplement from miniwargaming).

Full Disclosure, I do not yet own a 9th edition codex in full myself (I'm a nid player) but am curious as to the opinions of those who do on what they have seen(for example, in 8th Transhuman Physiology was incredibly powerful but now its limited to primaris only...I dont't feel qualified to speak about this one as the only marine army I have played in over 25 years is Deathwing, and we all know what the recent index update gave us in regards to this).

I would be very happy to see the end of all fight/shoot twice strats in lieu of more strats that are powerful, but only if you can manipulate the board state appropriately.

Now, I know there are some army specific issues that must be addressed (especially as a xenos player myself there may well be cries of "but if I can't do x strat how do I compete against x army) so what I am asking is "do you think this is a good direction given a hypothetically same approach to all the future codexes...and yes Dark Eldar players before you say it, I know you're army needs a complete rebuild mechanically).

I don't mind if strats become more fluff orientated at all, but I do not believe they should be the driving force behind army construction, hence the need in 8th for such things as "agents of vect" as a counterbalance.

So there you are, a rather long winded way of asking"opinions on the new style of strats please!

Given that tacticals/termies have an edge on Primaris now it makes some sense to limit transhuman.

Otherwise you'd probably only see terminators.

It *feels* like a reasonable trade off.

I do look forward to toning down of combo wombo.

Yes, you're probably right (and I have to say as a deathwng secondary, its nice we now have something really good to differentiate us from other termies)

I'm agreed, but for a slightly different reason besides balance. It's for the sake of my brain...!
The game already has so much to keep track of with things like Warlord traits, Relics and so on. All Stratagems being available for all kinds of units meant that I could never remember all of the strats available to me, and I'm sure many (if not most!) are in the same boat.
With strats being limited to specific units, you're much more likely to remember and bother with the ones that you can actually use.

At the moment I think I don't like the new approach to stratagems. Or rather, I just like it less. I really liked the crazy combos you could come up with before, with stratagems more universally available across most units. Now with a lot of strats locked to a specific unit, it seems a tad bland, like the strat is just tacked on as part of the unit itself, and not a tool you can use in a multitude of ways depending on your requirements. Some strats shined under the right circumstances but could still be used in a pinch on a unit that maybe wasn't ideal. Now, you just don't get the option.

I do like how the strats are mostly 1CP now (going by the Necron codex) due to their more limited nature.

I like a discussion, so:

To answer your question, I hope they are trying to mitigate the Stratagem "Got you" moment. I am not sure they are.
The issue remains, stratagems retain an imbalance at the moment. It isn't as bad as before, but until we see all the codices and changes, it will remain so. (I still suspect strats designed to sell certain models as a factor...)
I would really like someone to keep track of Strats used in a large tournament, and see which ones get used every game, and which aren't touched, and all in between. I know in my 4 armies, I go through the strats before the game, and pull out the 6 auto users. This needs a solution, but I don't see one in the current system.

I like the idea of having a "go for it" type moment where a unit can save the day by going above its potential. I would rather see this in temporary modifiers or movement than go twice etc.

I also feel the arguments about strats limited to a very few units (of which one seems to be the go to) As stated, it almost seems the unit just has another ability that is paid for from another point total. The game remains decided on turn 2-3, and therefore CP is a factor, but not the limitation it should be. To use an American analogy: It's like pinch hitting for the pitcher in Baseball. The reality is 80% of the time, it's a no brainer, and only perhaps 1 in 5 games is it a critical and anxious decision. I feel the same way about using CP. 80% of the time it is a no brainer, and only about 1 in 4 games for me do I have an anxious moment of "save points or spend". This could be done better.

As pointed out, any act twice is very powerful, and currently not well-balanced. Shoot twice in particular is brutal, as it is really doubling the point value of a unit for 1 phase, and in leafblower 40k that is huge. I love the arguments of "It's balanced for this weaker unit"...yes it is, and that's why those who are competitive players buy their army to only use it on certain already good units. Fight twice isn't as bad (and probably balanced, which points out another whole can of worms...) and move twice is fine where it is.
You gave the best example of Strategem styles that don't work and have a whole set of rule-writing baggage with them: Slaanesh and shoot twice. It's basically included in the cost of Obliterators...and if you do not make your Oblits Slaanesh you have "nerfed" them on the table. That is poor game design.

Twilight Pathways wrote:
At the moment I think I don't like the new approach to stratagems. Or rather, I just like it less. I really liked the crazy combos you could come up with before, with stratagems more universally available across most units. Now with a lot of strats locked to a specific unit, it seems a tad bland, like the strat is just tacked on as part of the unit itself, and not a tool you can use in a multitude of ways depending on your requirements. Some strats shined under the right circumstances but could still be used in a pinch on a unit that maybe wasn't ideal. Now, you just don't get the option.

I do like how the strats are mostly 1CP now (going by the Necron codex) due to their more limited nature.

I don't have any strong feelings about this topic*, but I think you can make the argument that having unit-specific stratagems helps from a design perspective, because it avoids the issue where a stratagem that's merely okay on the unit it was intended for becomes very strong on another unit. As well, it allows stratagems to serve as a means of better differentiating units, rather than just differentiating armies as a whole, and can help to define unit roles beyond what wargear and special abilities do. The 'crazy combos' can be fun to work out, almost like a puzzle, but that's also the sort of unintended gameplay that causes balance issues and is a headache for designers.

* About unit-specific vs generic stratagems, that is- I still feel that most stratagems would be better implemented as unit-specific special abilities, army-wide abilities, or just fluff; but that ship has already sailed.

I see unit-specific stratagems as another layer to make units play different and have more specific roles. I would love for more to be tactical stuff like Reivers removing Objetive Secure instead of just damage.

I don't see it bad. Is a way to make some of your units use "special habilities" that are gated behind a general pool of resources, so you cannot use all of them all the time and have to chose. I have seen a ton of videogames and boardgames using similar sistems to great effect.

GW being GW will screw it of course, but I like the idea. Units should be worth their points by being themselves. Stratagems should be restrained but paid by CP. If one unit is just worth it because is stratagem unless is a one-type of unit like a character, thats bad design.