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.

I've been reading through the new chaos codex trying to get up to speed and honestly something baffles me about current GW rules writing. It's kind of hard to digest all the data, especially the stratagems when there's literally 5+ pages of them and trying to figure out what is useful when. It got me thinking, why not put the more bespoke unit locked stratagems on that unit's datasheet and only have the broad use strats in their own section. For example, why not put Hatred Eternal on the Legionnaires datasheet, or Fire Frenzy on the Helbrute one? Even things like Wrath of the Chosen could just be on the Terminator and Chosen Datasheet. Just feels like it if the stratagems specific to certain units were on their page it would be easier to sift through the rest of them. I can't say how many games of 8th/9th I've played where I take my deck of cards pregame and sort out half the ones that don't apply that game because I'm not using particular units.

That could be helpful. Though I doubt GW will bother doing that. Afterall they can't often be bothered to list the stats of all a units weapons options.... Or even an actual useful picture of the unit.

Another easy improvement would be changing the layout of the strat itself to:
Name of strat & CP cost.
space
Requirement: (Speed Freaks, Havocs, whatever)
space
Text of strat

Instead of burying requirements within the text.

Or just make 'em unit special rules, rather than over-complicating it with unit-specific strats.

But yes, putting them on the dataslates would make far more sense.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or just make 'em unit special rules, rather than over-complicating it with unit-specific strats.

But yes, putting them on the dataslates would make far more sense.

Woah there, cool it with the good ideas.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or just make 'em unit special rules, rather than over-complicating it with unit-specific strats.

But yes, putting them on the dataslates would make far more sense.

Woah there, cool it with the good ideas.

I kind of like how Age of Sigmar handles it, unique command abilities on the warscroll that you can activate with CP. Honestly fingers crossed for 10th edition that they adopt that style for 40k. Each HQ can just have a "command ability" that's activated with CP. Honestly even special rules like you said for units that just have CP costs to activate. Get half or more of the stratagems on the datasheets in a fashion and cut down other stratagems to maybe 10 to 20 max otherwise. Would make the game so much more accessible.

Well aos has been going away with those. Was almost certain gone for good but few survived.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or just make 'em unit special rules, rather than over-complicating it with unit-specific strats.

But yes, putting them on the dataslates would make far more sense.

Woah there, cool it with the good ideas.

None of these are bad ideas, but to play devil's advocate, here's some of the thinking behind the way it's been done (not to say it's better, just to explain why I think they did it the way they did.

Making strats in general was two effects: first, it limits how many times each power can be used; second, it creates an economy of total powers that can be used throughout the game- ie. run out of CP, no more strats- regardless of what type of strats they are.

So, if you put the strat on the datacard, but keep all mechanics the same, both of these goals will still be achieved, and it would reduce the main list, and may make it easier to get through the big list. In practice, I think that many players probably get to know 10 or so strats really well- the ones they use most often, and the others are rarely used- you only have so many CP after all.

If you make them special rules on the datacard, it's still possible to achieve the goal, but it becomes more difficult. You can put a limit of one use per phase in the special rule... But you have to be careful, because you want to make sure that players know it isn't once per phase per unit- it's once per phase by any unit in your army that has the ability.

What gets REALLY difficult to do if it's a special on a datacard is to add the additional limitation of the CP economy. A special rule will be used as often as it can be- there's no reason not to use it. But if it stays a strat, you may choose not to use it, even when you might otherwise be able to, because there might be better uses for your CP given the game-state on any given turn.

Again, it's all debatable- some strats (smoke launchers), don't seem to be so powerful that they need limitations; other strats, the limitations feel like weird gamey mechanics that don't make sense from a narrative point of view (Transhuman).

Don't get me started on the Smokescreen stratagems. I've never been a fan of wargear things being strats, like the frag launcher on a LRC, or melta bombs etc. That said if smokescreen stays a stratagem I wish it was more like 1 CP to give a vehicle -1 to be hit, or spend 2 CP and get to give up to three models with smokescreen -1 to be hit. Seems so counterintuitive that three Rhinos can drive forward but only one a turn remembers how to activate their smoke launchers.

Or here is my take, just take these strats and make them base line part of the units abilities and change point cost to reflect it.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Or here is my take, just take these strats and make them base line part of the units abilities and change point cost to reflect it.

Not terribly practical. What if the ability is strong to warrant only one use? What if you never get to use it? What about the unit by unit book keeping for limited use abilities?

What about units with fewer abilities, but more traditional power becoming better than units with abilities that may or may not get used?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Or here is my take, just take these strats and make them base line part of the units abilities and change point cost to reflect it.

Not terribly practical. What if the ability is strong to warrant only one use? What if you never get to use it? What about the unit by unit book keeping for limited use abilities?

What about units with fewer abilities, but more traditional power becoming better than units with abilities that may or may not get used?

Then make it say once per battle. Once per battle or one use abilities and or war gear is nothing new to 40k, we have had it for many editions.

The book keeping argument i dont see as being any real legitimate argument against it, its not hard to remember if a unit did or did not use an ability.

I guess it depends on what stuff makes the cut.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Or here is my take, just take these strats and make them base line part of the units abilities and change point cost to reflect it.

Not terribly practical. What if the ability is strong to warrant only one use? What if you never get to use it? What about the unit by unit book keeping for limited use abilities?

What about it?
If it's deemed a stong enough ability, limit it. If not, don't. I have numerous units in AoS that have a once per battle ability. Ex: Draconic Onslaught on my Stormcast dragons. My Chaos chariots also have a 1 shot mv option.

What if you never get to use it?
?? Hows that different than right now?

Book keeping....
Well, players seem to be able to track this stuff easily enough in other games. And other editions of 40k. What's different about doing it in current/future 40k?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What about units with fewer abilities, but more traditional power becoming better than units with abilities that may or may not get used?

Again, different from now how?

It's bad writing in general. Why do Assault Intercessors suddenly have the vigor to remember they can fight twice compared to Bladeguard? Why does just one Aggressor squad remember they shrug off Lasguns better? Just awful.

Overall, straight up offensive/defensive buffs that have no real prerequisite need to be removed entirely for mechanical and fluff sake.

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Or here is my take, just take these strats and make them base line part of the units abilities and change point cost to reflect it.

Not terribly practical. What if the ability is strong to warrant only one use? What if you never get to use it? What about the unit by unit book keeping for limited use abilities?

What about it?
If it's deemed a stong enough ability, limit it. If not, don't. I have numerous units in AoS that have a once per battle ability. Ex: Draconic Onslaught on my Stormcast dragons. My Chaos chariots also have a 1 shot mv option.

What if you never get to use it?
?? Hows that different than right now?

Book keeping....
Well, players seem to be able to track this stuff easily enough in other games. And other editions of 40k. What's different about doing it in current/future 40k?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What about units with fewer abilities, but more traditional power becoming better than units with abilities that may or may not get used?

Again, different from now how?

Imagine if you had a Raptor/Talon heavy army that all had the ability to leave the table and redeploy.

This ability is traditionally reserved for Night Lords. Will sheets have bespoke abilities based on their allegiance? What if I don't ever intend to re-deploy with more than a unit or two. Why am I paying for the ability on 6 units? Will NL Raptors cost more?

These are some of the other things NL Raptors can perform -
- No fallback
- Deepstrike turn 1
- FB & Charge

And then the notable generics have:
- Reroll hits
- Spike a 6
- 6s auto wound
- +1 to wound
- transhuman
- become untargetable
- MW on charge

I'm sure you could totally trim this down, but at the same time you strip a lot of choice out. Do Talons get the Hammer of Wrath ability and then the NL redeploy? If so then what do Raptors get? Talons already have an anti-fallback measure so would that be appropriate on Raptors? What is the incremental point cost for preventing FB? For turn 1 DS?

If Raptors get turn 1 DS then what is the ability given to NL terminators that makes them distinct and valuable?

At the end of the day what you would be doing is forcing lists to live and die by the units selected rather than by the play style with options to be flexible, but limited by a resource.

I think there's a number of strats that are just clutter that could go away, but attempting to tie abilities to units and expecting the internal balance to not go sideways seems unrealistic.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What if I don't ever intend to re-deploy with more than a unit or two. Why am I paying for the ability on 6 units? Will NL Raptors cost more?

What if I don't want to deep strike all my [insert literally any unit with deep strike]? What if I bring anti-tank and you don't have any tanks?

You're presenting it like paying for abilities that you may not get to (or choose not to) use is something wild and new and difficult to balance but it's been part of the game since day 1.

Re: the list of potential capabilities, it sounds like you're taking the idea of rolling unit-specific stratagems into an innate ability and trying to apply that to every single stratagem that could potentially buff a unit. Nobody's suggesting that. Just the unit-specific things. Whether to then cull all the remaining stratagems is another discussion entirely.