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
Longtime Dakkanaut





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?
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





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.


so instead of having the strat in an astartes codex you have an astartes codex in the core book?

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

drbored wrote:
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.
Can I just say that I think this specific strat is the poster child for what's wrong with stratagems in general. It's meant to represent the resilience of Marines, yet why is it just one unit that is suddenly more resilient than the rest? And why just Primaris?

Strats are a good way of adding interactivity into the game so you're not just rolling armour saves and removing models during your opponent's turn, but this is not the way to do it.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 02:16:07


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

 
   
Made in ca
Stormin' Stompa






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
drbored wrote:
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.
Can I just say that I think this specific start is the poster child for what's wrong with stratagems in general. It's meant to represent the resilience of Marines, yet why is it just one unit that is suddenly more resilient than the rest? And why just Primaris?

Strats are a good way of adding interactivity into the game so you're not just rolling armour saves and removing models during your opponent's turn, but this is not the way to do it.


Pretty much this. It takes away the "strategy" away from stratagems and definitely breaks the immersion at some level as well for the gameplay when certain stratagems are must takes and spike the defense/offense of a unit like Transhuman and Veterans of the Long War. Stratagems should act as the equivalent of "trap cards" or other reactive abilities that doesn't just result in CP management between the few ones that you can spam. Frankly I find that the best stratagems are the ones that affect movement and reserves since it requires you to actually think ahead rather than slamming it down every other phase whenever its time for shooting/combat.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Grimskul wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
drbored wrote:
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.
Can I just say that I think this specific start is the poster child for what's wrong with stratagems in general. It's meant to represent the resilience of Marines, yet why is it just one unit that is suddenly more resilient than the rest? And why just Primaris?

Strats are a good way of adding interactivity into the game so you're not just rolling armour saves and removing models during your opponent's turn, but this is not the way to do it.


Pretty much this. It takes away the "strategy" away from stratagems and definitely breaks the immersion at some level as well for the gameplay when certain stratagems are must takes and spike the defense/offense of a unit like Transhuman and Veterans of the Long War. Stratagems should act as the equivalent of "trap cards" or other reactive abilities that doesn't just result in CP management between the few ones that you can spam. Frankly I find that the best stratagems are the ones that affect movement and reserves since it requires you to actually think ahead rather than slamming it down every other phase whenever its time for shooting/combat.


I totally agree with you, but it's still a generic enough stratagem since it affects so many different forces that could be put into the Core Rulebook if GW intends to keep it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




drbored wrote:

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?

I don't think you really want to roll stratagems into the core rules. I think what you've identified here is that you could reasonably roll most of the marine books into a single document rather than reprinting 80% of the content into the special marine books.

Something like transhuman doesn't make a ton of sense in the core rules given that it only applies to a relatively small number of armies in the game. Similarly, all my aeldari armies have a stratagem that basically lets you advance 6" automatically instead of rolling, but it doesn't make sense to put that in the main rulebook given that it isn't meant to apply to just about anything that isn't a space elf.

The "temporary top profile" strat is more prevalent throughout the game, but what units it applies to tends to be fairly limited within a given book, and it doesn't apply to every book. I don't think drukhari or craftworlders have it, for instance, so how would you word that stratagem to exclude all aeldari vehicles and any other units that aren't meant to benefit from it?

If we want to lump more content into the core rulebook and bring back more USRs, you want to look at things like Deepstrike (any rule that lets you plop down X+ inches away from the enemy), Feel No Pain (ignore unsaved wounds on an X+), and any other rule that appears repeatedly.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




More universal stratagems?

- Shooting a unit after they deep strike, with a -1 to Hit.
- Repairing a vehicle/monster D3 or 3 wounds.
- Charge after advance.
- Shoot/charge after fallback.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can I just say that I think this specific strat is the poster child for what's wrong with stratagems in general. It's meant to represent the resilience of Marines, yet why is it just one unit that is suddenly more resilient than the rest? And why just Primaris?



Because allowing one unit to do it once per turn at a resource cost allows the characteristic resilience of the faction to be demonstrated on the battlefield in a situation where it matters enough to be worth the opportunity cost, without it becoming the overpowered, every-unit-does-it every-turn ability which never feels special or pivotal because it's always on- something which would be taken for granted by those who play it and universally hated by those who play against it.

In this sense, I think it's actually the poster child for what's right about strategems.

As for the Primaris part? Well, this something that is worth talking about and examining. I don't read enough marine stories to know whether or not my headcannon is acurate (of all the stories in 40k, marine ones interest me the least), but I feel like the extra organs, the larger size and the more advanced armour do justify the fluff of transhuman being Primaris only. The way I see it is Primaris are physically superior, where old marines are more experienced and tactically flexible.

Again though, not enough of a marine fanboy to assert this with any degree of credibility.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wyldhunt wrote:


Something like transhuman doesn't make a ton of sense in the core rules given that it only applies to a relatively small number of armies in the game. Similarly, all my aeldari armies have a stratagem that basically lets you advance 6" automatically instead of rolling, but it doesn't make sense to put that in the main rulebook given that it isn't meant to apply to just about anything that isn't a space elf.



This part made me giggle. Yes, a relatively small number of armies, just, y'know, ONLY the Space Marines, the faction that makes up more sales than most of the other factions combined. I'm being facetious but I do get what you're saying. I also agree with your point about the 'top bracket' strats, I hadn't considered that you'd probably have to adjust the price of that strat based on which faction is using it. It's much more valuable for a space marine vehicle that's been reduced to hitting on 5's than an astra militarum vehicle that's been reduced to hitting on 5's, for example.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Jarms48 wrote:More universal stratagems?

- Shooting a unit after they deep strike, with a -1 to Hit.
- Repairing a vehicle/monster D3 or 3 wounds.
- Charge after advance.
- Shoot/charge after fallback.


That's a good list of fairly common strats. However, those strats are also probably a good example of why it's probably a bad idea to make those strats universal. Charging after advancing is one of the defining features of some units or armies. If your hormagaunts can do it, then your genestealers seem less impressive, and the turn 2 benefit of Power From Pain gets devalued a bit. Shoot/charge after falling back is, if I'm not mistaken, currently restricted to more elite armies like marines and aeldari. Is it too good if you can use it on a blob of ork boyz or gaunts? My eldar currently have a stronger version of the intercept/auspex scan thing but a weaker version of the repair strat. So depending on the specifics of making those strats universal, you end up adjusting the power of my craftworlders a bit. Basically, I worry about creating balance issues and eroding army identity if you make some of these available to all armeis.

PenitentJake wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can I just say that I think this specific strat is the poster child for what's wrong with stratagems in general. It's meant to represent the resilience of Marines, yet why is it just one unit that is suddenly more resilient than the rest? And why just Primaris?



Because allowing one unit to do it once per turn at a resource cost allows the characteristic resilience of the faction to be demonstrated on the battlefield in a situation where it matters enough to be worth the opportunity cost, without it becoming the overpowered, every-unit-does-it every-turn ability which never feels special or pivotal because it's always on- something which would be taken for granted by those who play it and universally hated by those who play against it.

In this sense, I think it's actually the poster child for what's right about strategems.


Speaking as a primarily aeldari player, being limited to only allowing a single unit in my army to be good at dodging each phase (Lightning Fast Reactions stratagem) doesn't really feel satisfying or dramatic. Instead, I'm just very aware of the lack of speed-as-defense in the rest of my army. While making Transhuman Physiology an always-on army-wide ability wouldn't be a good idea (and I don't think anyone is calling for that), HBMC's criticism seems valid to me. Rather than conveying fluff through mechanics, the stratagem leaves me wondering why only one unit is durable at a time.

Do people find Disgusting Resilience too powerful/annoying to play against? Do DG players find it underwhelming to have?
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Space Marine of Slaanesh




New hot take: since they want it to play more like a trading card game why not cut back on most of the rules always present and use stratagems and cp costs to deploy those stratagems. You get maybe 1 special rule for faction that can be taken in conjunction with a sub faction trait armywide, (maybe not; one armywide special rule ought to do), and most models have maybe 1 special rule if even on the profile. HQ’s and elites maybe get more, etc. otherwise it’s the stat line and weapon profile, and strategems. Mind you I hate this idea and kind of wish strat bloat would go away but I figure we may as well go all in since strat bloat is here to stay.

Also another idea that may be worth experimenting with is making aura abilities cost cp to activate per turn.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





macluvin wrote:
New hot take: since they want it to play more like a trading card game why not cut back on most of the rules always present and use stratagems and cp costs to deploy those stratagems. You get maybe 1 special rule for faction that can be taken in conjunction with a sub faction trait armywide, (maybe not; one armywide special rule ought to do), and most models have maybe 1 special rule if even on the profile. HQ’s and elites maybe get more, etc. otherwise it’s the stat line and weapon profile, and strategems. Mind you I hate this idea and kind of wish strat bloat would go away but I figure we may as well go all in since strat bloat is here to stay.

Also another idea that may be worth experimenting with is making aura abilities cost cp to activate per turn.


The latter suggestion is how they do it in Age of Sigmar. They've started to add 'strats' to AoS, but there are only like 6 of them and they're very consistent and all generic. That said, units will have 'command traits' that also cost command points to use, and you don't get nearly as many command points (2-3 each turn, rather than starting with a pool and getting +1 each turn)

the system adds that strategic complexity that people like without any gotcha moments (everyone has access to the same strats) and the command traits are written on the datasheet for the unit, instead of in a big index in the back. It works so much better.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Do people find Disgusting Resilience too powerful/annoying to play against? Do DG players find it underwhelming to have?
I think people would find it far more annoying if it only applied to one Death Guard unit per turn, and if you had to expend an abstracted strategic resource to make it happen.

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

 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

I'd like unit specific stratagems to be once per game special abilities (included in their datasheet) and generic army stratagems to be also once per game but for any unit that does satisfy the requirements. No CPs needed, which in fact I wish they get removed at some point, maybe a dice roll to see if the stratagem works.


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




How about these being moved into core rules next to Overwatch et al:
Extra relics
2nd trait for Warlord
Trait for non Warlord
Lesser relic for non character
   
Made in bh
Longtime Dakkanaut





Zustiur wrote:
How about these being moved into core rules next to Overwatch et al:
Extra relics
2nd trait for Warlord
Trait for non Warlord
Lesser relic for non character


These are the only ones that I feel would make sense as generic stratagems.
Except the lesser relic for non chars. Many factions don't even have the non chars, and in any case the list of selectable relics is severely limited and defined dex by dex.
   
Made in cz
Regular Dakkanaut




Generic -1 to hit reinforcements
Generic +1 to cover save (Take Cover)
Generic +1 to hit (melee or ranged)
Generic Transhuman stratagem, but limited to T*2. Change the marine one as well, marines have no reason to face-tank S9+ weaponry.
Characters fighting or shooting on death.
Shooting without penalty after moving with heavy weapon or advancing with an assault weapon.
A psyker getting one extra cast (from his known powers, usual restrictions apply).
Deny a psyker power on 4+ when not having any psykers on the list.
Use 3d6 and drop lowest when charging with a unit that has arrived from reserves this turn.
Shoot or charge after falling back
Investigate - get CP after killing enemy character in melee.

----
I would remove most of the codex specific stratagems, and keep just say 6 (+1 per subfaction)

Individual factions would then get CP cost reductions on stratagems, modifiers, potentially a free use per game or per turn, or even an option to use a stratagem twice.

Ex1: Everyone gets Take Cover for 1CP, but AM and GSC get it for 0CP and AM can use it an additional time for 1CP for being well trained.
Ex2: Everyone gets auspex scan, but Eldar would get increased range and Tyranids could also opt to counter charge.
Ex3: All psykers can cast an extra known spell for 1CP, but the psychic armies (TS, GK, Craftworlds, possibly Nids) could also use it to cast a spell known to another psyker on the battlefield.

And so on.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/17 08:45:00


 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






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?

You have to rebalance points around such an initiative and decide how much 1CP should be worth.

Deepstrike, bonus C'tan/Psychic power, -1 to hit, bonus Relic and bonus WL trait Stratagems would be obvious IMO. While it's not common a gain D3-1 CP for killing a CHARACTER with a CHARACTER stratagem would work as a generic Strat as well. I still think having 20+ generic Stratagems + WL traits + Relics + Combat Doctrines and/or Super Doctrines + Chapter Tactics + 1 Chapter Stratagem is too much.

I want 5 Stratagems per army, picked from a list of 20-30 generic Stratagems, 0-6 bonus Stratagems from Specialist Detachments. No Chapter Tactics, no Combat Doctrines and/or Super Doctrines. The Stratagems, WL traits and Relics you pick serve to flavour your list. If the points are right you can take Imperial Fist heavy bolters for days or White Scars bikes without upgrades mandating your choice of faction. No faction or chapter WL traits except for Specialist Detachment WL traits and 18 generic ones. Then as many Relics as GW cares to print, I don't care if there are 20 Iron Hands Relics and 7 Iyanden Relics or if Imperial Fists have a unique relic that makes them able to support artillery in a way no other SM chapter can, if it's just relics then I think it'd be fine.

Specialist Detachments should only be for cases where fluffy armies are impossible to make viable without breaking the game, like if Terminators inside Land Raiders is garbage and buffing Terminators will make them too good as deep strikers, buffing Land Raiders will make them too good at transporting Vanguard Veterans, so GW makes a Land Raider Terminator Specialist Detachment with 2 Stratagems, 1 Relic and 1WL trait that supports this fluffy option but also costs 1 CP to get access to so that it's an addition to an army rather than something that every SM player just gets. If Land Raiders aren't tanky enough in terms of fluff they shouldn't get a Stratagem that makes them more tanky, they should get more wounds. If Land Raiders aren't killy enough in terms of fluff they should get better BS and WS. If Land Raiders aren't viable they should cost less points. Specialist Detachments should be a scalpel to make very specific builds and tactics viable, not to fix mistakes in the CA points cost or the Codex Datasheet.

Armies of Renown could simply be Specialist Detachments. I think both the Mechanicus Defence Cohort and Skitarii Veteran Cohort are silly, the restriction of not having any Skitarii or Cult Mechanicus units respectively is kind of silly when you can still ally in units from Astra Militarum or Adeptus Custodes. If someone wants to build a list without Skitarii or Cult Mechanicus it shouldn't take an awesome amount of rules to make that viable, Skitarii-less lists really just require enough cost-effective Cult Mechanicus units, I think it's totally fine mono-Skitarii is slightly weaker than a mixed list, extra rules should only be added if Skitarii are auto-include while at the same time somehow not being OP.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 12:08:56


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Kitane wrote:
Generic -1 to hit reinforcements
Generic +1 to cover save (Take Cover)
Generic +1 to hit (melee or ranged)
Generic Transhuman stratagem, but limited to T*2. Change the marine one as well, marines have no reason to face-tank S9+ weaponry.
Characters fighting or shooting on death.
Shooting without penalty after moving with heavy weapon or advancing with an assault weapon.
A psyker getting one extra cast (from his known powers, usual restrictions apply).
Deny a psyker power on 4+ when not having any psykers on the list.
Use 3d6 and drop lowest when charging with a unit that has arrived from reserves this turn.
Shoot or charge after falling back
Investigate - get CP after killing enemy character in melee.

----
I would remove most of the codex specific stratagems, and keep just say 6 (+1 per subfaction)

Individual factions would then get CP cost reductions on stratagems, modifiers, potentially a free use per game or per turn, or even an option to use a stratagem twice.

Ex1: Everyone gets Take Cover for 1CP, but AM and GSC get it for 0CP and AM can use it an additional time for 1CP for being well trained.
Ex2: Everyone gets auspex scan, but Eldar would get increased range and Tyranids could also opt to counter charge.
Ex3: All psykers can cast an extra known spell for 1CP, but the psychic armies (TS, GK, Craftworlds, possibly Nids) could also use it to cast a spell known to another psyker on the battlefield.

And so on.


Like so?



The problem you'll run into is bloat in the generics - especially when other armies might have their own restrictions.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

Might be something to think about how one-off rules like Strategems work in 40k. I think buying them with army points rather than command points would be a better option. Then they could act as a way to balance out people's armies.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Not all players / ways to play use points.

Status quo allows PL players to use strats. If you make them cost points, you have to figure out how to make them work with PL.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Personally I think every stratagem that isn't the core re-roll/fight 2nd should be one use...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no more than 1 stratagem in a phase can be used on a unit...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 16:13:24


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The_Real_Chris wrote:
Personally I think every stratagem that isn't the core re-roll/fight 2nd should be one use...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no more than 1 stratagem in a phase can be used on a unit...


That could be fine - you'd probably want to drop the CP pool to make it meaningful. It sure would make using Transhuman a lot more delicate.

   
Made in us
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator





Everyone should get a cancel Stratagem Stratagem. Make it 3 cps or whatever. One time use. I kind hate stratagems as is, so let's just allow that crutch to fall every once in a while.
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

Now we have a wild growth of Stratagems.
USR implemented as Stratagems would be useful and restricting the number of Stratagems to a certain size like 10 or so would be beneficial.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut






PenitentJake wrote:
Not all players / ways to play use points.

Status quo allows PL players to use strats. If you make them cost points, you have to figure out how to make them work with PL.


Then make it cost PL. Say 1 CP per PL or 25 points, or whatever the conversion rate is. If that's not enough or too much, you can always make package deals.

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 wuestenfux wrote:
...USR implemented as Stratagems would be useful...


It...really wouldn't. One unit with meltaguns a turn doing extra damage at close range for a CP cost rather than building it into the gun? One unit of Swooping Hawks a turn able to move over buildings a turn, but only if you pay CP? Flamers roll to hit most of the time, but you can pay CP to make one unit a turn auto-hit?

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 de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
...USR implemented as Stratagems would be useful...


It...really wouldn't. One unit with meltaguns a turn doing extra damage at close range for a CP cost rather than building it into the gun? One unit of Swooping Hawks a turn able to move over buildings a turn, but only if you pay CP? Flamers roll to hit most of the time, but you can pay CP to make one unit a turn auto-hit?

Not like this.
Just like loosing cover, +1 on attack or damage characteristic, +1 on movement.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 wuestenfux wrote:
USR implemented as Stratagems would be useful...

I am not sure how similar it is to what you would like but I turned the USRs from 7th into generic Stratagems for 8th https://1d4chan.org/wiki/The_Angrier_Initiative.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Central California

If they did take a lot of the "everyone has this" strats and made them generic core rulebook it might make them a bit easier to balance between armies. Oh wait, gw and 40k, balance is anathema. . .

I would also like to eliminate the really narrow target strats. The idea sort of makes sense, but they turn into "I only take this unit for the really powerful strat they get" that seems to find its way into each codex (or perhaps this really is the design idea, but of course not to sell those particular miniatures or anything...) Any strat that can ponly trarget say 3 or less units, just add it to the unit (like maybe smoke and such)

And sarcasm aside I would be for it. Most codices have X stratagems of which 1 seems used every turn, 5 are used every game, 2-3 are used every third game, and the majority are looked at once and laughed at. Shrinking the number in the book would be best.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/19 15:37:34


Keeping the hobby side alive!

I never forget the Dakka unit scale is binary: Units are either OP or Garbage. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: