Switch Theme:

Proof of Concept - Stratless Detachments - Eldar Skystrike Warhost  [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
Fixture of Dakka





So stratagems have been around for a while now. GW has progressively gotten better about implementing them, but on the whole, I feel like they've brought more negatives than positives to the game. Case and point, I find myself frustrated any time a stratagem is used to represent something that feels like it should be a baked-in army-wide option because it means that I can only do the thematic thing with a single unit at a time. And the prime example that always comes to mind for me are all the cool things my eldar skimmers and jetbikes used to be able to do that have since been replaced by stratagems. In the past, I could move-shoot-move with every jetbike in my army meaning bike-heavy lists (which are thematically appropriate based on the lore) had a very different playstyle from other lists. Now we have fire & fade which means that a single unit of bikes in a single detachment can move after shooting, which also means you probably aren't fielding more than one unit of bikes. Similarly, we used to be able to make the interesting choice to jink, giving up offense later for defense immediately. Now that's the Lightning Fast Reactions strat which again is only available to one unit at a time.

So with all that in mind, here's an example of what a detachment might look like if we ditched stratagems and instead spent their "rules budget" on some more broadly applicable effects.


Spoiler:
SKYSTRIKE WARHOST
Detachment Rule - Aerial Maneuvers:
Whenever a Fly unit from this detachment with the Mounted or Vehicle keywords completes a Normal, Fallback, or Advance move in your Movement phase, if every model in the unit ends that move at least 9" away from where it started, that unit gains an Aerial Token. A unit with one or more Aerial Tokens may spend a token to perform one of the maneuvers listed below. Unspent tokens are removed at the start of your Command phase.

Jink: When a unit with a token is targeted by an attack during your opponent's Shooting phase, spend 1 token. Attacks against that unit suffer -1 to-hit for the remainder of the phase.
Turbo Boost: During your Shooting phase, a unit that has not shot this phase may spend 1 token to immediately make a Normal Move. That unit may not shoot or charge for the remainder of the turn and has a 4+ invulnerable save until your next Command phase.
Strafing Run: When a unit with a token finishes shooting in the Shooting phase, spend 1 token. The unit may immediately move up to 6".
Hit & Run: At the end of the Fight phase, a unit within engagement range of one or more enemy units may spend 1 token. The unit may immediately make a Fall Back move.

Detachment Rule - Mobile Commanders:
Infantry Character units in this detachment may use their Fortune and Runes of Fortune abilities in the Movement phase instead of the Command phase. For each Autarch model on the table at the end of your Movement phase, you may give an Aerial Token to a unit that already has one. (A unit may only receive a token in this way once per round.)


Obviously you could add some more rules to that if you wanted to. You could add Enhancements. Maybe add unit upgrade options that fit the detachment's theme. Add extra maneuvers or tweak the special rules of units when they're taken within this detachment. Maybe guardian defenders get a rule that lets them attack out of wave serpents more effectively instead of a rule that rewards statically defending a location from outside of a transport. Maybe biketarchs are allowed to join shining spears squads in this detachment. Lots of possibilities.

But I don't want to get too distracted by the details. What I want to draw your attention to is that the above rules are potentially helping every single unit in your army on the same turn. If you field a bunch of windrider squads, they can all jink or move after shooting; not just a single squad. Needing to actually reposition units every turn (instead of just doing donuts to effectively stay still) means that you have to think about how you're going to be repositioning your army ahead of time and can create counterplay in the form of your opponent moving into areas you'd like to maneuver towards. Characters being able to use their abilities even if they started the turn inside a transport means that transports are no longer a liability for those wanting to quicken some storm guardians or Fortune a nearby ally.

All of which makes the army play in a very different fashion than it otherwise would.


So what do you think? Have I convinced you to shrug off the restraints imposed by stratagems in favor of more detailed detachment-specific mechanics?

High concepts for other detachments that would get a similar stratless treatment:
Spoiler:
* Sneaky Elves: Infantry units can take actions to hide. "Hidden" units can't be targeted by attacks from more than 12" away. When an enemy gets close to a hidden unit or when a hidden unit is attacked, the unit can stop being "Hidden" to gain various benefits. Ex: A reactive move, a bonus to attacks, being untargetable by overwatch. Autarchs augment those benefits i.e. letting you make your attacks Precision when you pop out of hiding, or letting you move farther during that reactive move.
* Sword Wind: Gain access to a series of Tactics (similar to maneu
vers above) which allow multiple units to help eachother out in some way. Think crossfire mechanics, suppressing fire from a shooty unit that allows a melee unit to avoid getting overwatched, heroic intervention type rules that allow your banshees to charge those incoming intercessors before they can charge your dark reapers, etc. Each unit can only participate in one Tactic per round. Autarchs let you use a unit for an additional Tactic.

* Wraith Host: Anyone fielding this many wraiths already has their back to the wall. So in this detachment, you fight twice as hard to make sure the survivors and fallen alike find their way back home. Dead allies drop spirit stone markers. Eldar units gain benefits when targeting enemies near spirit stone markers. Wraiths can "see" enemies standing near spirit stones more clearly, granting them additional benefits. Spirit Seers can manipulate markers in various ways.

* Seer Council: Warlocks become battleline. Psykers generate the eldar version of Cabal Points and can do elf-flavored rituals in a similar fashion to the Thousand Sons army mechanic. Think casting powers through a psyker who doesn't know that power, summoning an Eldritch Storm to do mortal wounds on a delay in a targeted area, extending the benefits of Farseers' Guide and Fortune powers to any units with warlocks leading them, etc.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2025/01/02 04:38:18



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

I like it.

I’m hesitant on power level-I can see this being a bit much. But conceptually? I like.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Thanks! Yeah, the power level is obviously a little tricky to compare to existing 10th edition detachments. But in theory, this would be more of a game-wide change to all detachments rather than something that exists alongside current detachments. So you'd just have to try and balance things against each other as part of that overhaul.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Not convinced, I love Stratagems, of course they can be imbalanced but I think choosing the one time per phase you want an effect is a cool skill check as is the management of CP. I'd sell Stratagems if I could have proper cheesy melee rules back. When you still get access to generic Strats I think the extra power budget you get from not having Strats is limited, I don't think not having Strats is a good way to increase the power budget of a detachment ability. Increasing points costs or building rules into enhancements, like a 200 pt enhancement that gives your army JSJ might be more to my liking. You are losing out on a lot of flavour as well.

Jink would be a hassle with split fire on everything. It was basically free on some units and felt quite bad on gunboats and made limited sense for skimmers that shouldn't be nimble. Not losing shooting makes this a lot better, but then you're basically just -1 to hit when you're not using JSJ and still get the hassle of resolving 1 boltgun or 1 lascannon at every unit until you fold and jink.

I'd rather get rid of bespoke unit abilities and insert a nimble rule where appropriate that gives stealth when a unit advances or during the first turn of the game.

I think it makes sense that everyone makes evasive manouvers when shot at, some Eldar Warlords employ stratagems to do it better than most.

I wouldn't like tokens on everything, but as a detachment I don't dislike it, lets people pick whether they want to bother with tokens.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/04 14:51:01


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 vict0988 wrote:
Not convinced, I love Stratagems, of course they can be imbalanced but I think choosing the one time per phase you want an effect is a cool skill check as is the management of CP.

Yeah. I get the appeal on paper. But in practice, that "skill check" is a big part of what makes modern 40k feel like "a card game" in some ways. And the way GW has handled things, a lot of the rules that ended up being once-per-phase strats are things that really feel like they ought to be happening multiple times per turn. More than one squad of bikes should be able to do a drive by. More than one squad should be able to throw a grenade. More than one tank should be able to ram into the enemy. Etc. In effect, we're making units feel less fluffy so someone can feel good about knowing which unit is mathematically most optimal to use Fire & Fade on each turn. And personally I don't like that trade-off.

When you still get access to generic Strats I think the extra power budget you get from not having Strats is limited,

To clarify, I'm proposing that generic/core strats go away too. There would be no stratagems in the game and no command points.

I don't think not having Strats is a good way to increase the power budget of a detachment ability. Increasing points costs or building rules into enhancements, like a 200 pt enhancement that gives your army JSJ might be more to my liking. You are losing out on a lot of flavour as well.

Whether or not detachment abilities should cost points is kind of its own discussion though, right? Theoretically, penitent units should cost more in a penitent host than they do in a bringers of the flame army, for instance, but that's true regardless of whether some of their extra power comes from access to stratagems or from expanded detachment rules.

Jink would be a hassle with split fire on everything. It was basically free on some units and felt quite bad on gunboats and made limited sense for skimmers that shouldn't be nimble. Not losing shooting makes this a lot better, but then you're basically just -1 to hit when you're not using JSJ and still get the hassle of resolving 1 boltgun or 1 lascannon at every unit until you fold and jink.

Fair point regarding split fire. I think you'd generally know whether or not you wanted to jink by the time the enemy was shooting at you though. Of the 4 options for spending Aerial Tokens I pitched, 2 of them would have to be used prior to the end of your own shooting phase. So if you have a token left over after that, you probably have a pretty good idea of what you'll want to spend it on by the time your opponent starts shooting. If your opponent has a melee threat nearb, you'll probably need the token to fall back before your own turn. Otherwise, you'll need it for shooting. I guess you could have Jink trigger the first time a unit is targeted by shooting in the enemy shooting phase so that units have to commit to jinking or not. Or just have it trigger at the start of the shoting phase.

Note that I'm not pitching Jink as a game-wide rule here, so the comment on Jink feeling weird for skimmers that "shouldn't be nimble" probably doesn't apply unless you think something like a wave serpent is too slow/clumsy to take evasive maneuvers. (In which case, does it feel weird to you currently that they have access to the Lightning Fast Reactions strat?)

I'd rather get rid of bespoke unit abilities and insert a nimble rule where appropriate that gives stealth when a unit advances or during the first turn of the game.

I'd be open to something like that too. But I do want to reiterate that my main intention is to discuss ditching strats in favor of expanded detachment rules; not necessarily the specifics of this particular example detachment.

I think it makes sense that everyone makes evasive manouvers when shot at, some Eldar Warlords employ stratagems to do it better than most.

Asking this sincerely, no sarcasm intended: does it make sense to you that an eldar commander is personally giving permission to his soldiers to take evasive action when they see missiles flying towards them? And if so, does it make sense to you that he's only able to give permission to one unit at a time instead of issuing blanket orders to the whole army?

I wouldn't like tokens on everything, but as a detachment I don't dislike it, lets people pick whether they want to bother with tokens.

Yeah, I definitely have a bad habit of leaning into tokens when designing things. In theory, there would be plenty of detachments with few or noextra tokens to manage. They seemed appropriate here because the emphasis on the sample detachment was to make the maneuvers feel tied to having moved quickly. Which meant having units actually move a certain distance. And then tracking which units had already done their special maneuvers in various phases after that made me think that tokens would be an easy way to track that. There's probably a way to revise this general idea to use less tokens. Maybe have all maneuvers execute as soon as the unit shoots or something; we're already tracking whether units advanced or not for Assault weapon purposes, after all.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Whether or not detachment abilities should cost points is kind of its own discussion though, right? Theoretically, penitent units should cost more in a penitent host than they do in a bringers of the flame army, for instance, but that's true regardless of whether some of their extra power comes from access to stratagems or from expanded detachment rules.

That's just a question of design intent right? If you want a Penitent spam detachment then you don't increase the points costs or you might make Penitents bad in the Penitent Detachment. If you want power budget above what a detachment ability can do, then it'd make sense to add points to balance some wild abilitiies/stat buffs/Stratagems.

Stratagems could affect any number of units if you don't think the 1 unit restriction is interesting. I think getting rid of Stratagems is probably good for most people, Detachments are a great way to make it an option so the few people who like them can continue to use them.

My thoughts on jink was just an aside, it's not a rule I want for Necrons is all. 40k being as random as it is, you'd very often be punished for taking the right mathematical choice.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Just printing 99% of 9th Ed. Stratagems straight onto the datasheets as "abilities" and dropping the balancing-option of having a resource-cost associated with it was IMO one of the bigger mistakes in the new edition.

Stripping those back off to clean up the datasheets to just basic statlines and having some type of cost/resource management for "abilities" IMO works better.

If you hate the name / branding of "stratagems" and "command points", name it something else (abilities and ability points?). Re-branding worked for power level too, I suppose.


"Aerial Tokens" are ultimately also just command points with some added bureaucracy. Moving to unlock them aside, your proposal is just command points (aerial tokens) and strats (e.g. 4++ or out of phase move).

Rules wise, it's no different than a strat with a requirement to have moved a certain distance first

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/22 09:13:11


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





vict0988 wrote:
Stratagems could affect any number of units if you don't think the 1 unit restriction is interesting.

Yeah, that's more or less the goal of the proposal. But a single strat impacting, let's say, 6 units in your army at the same time seems out of scope for how strats are handled now. It made more sense to me to just do away with the whole framework and ask, "What are the cool things a unit should be able to do in an army with X, Y, or Z theme, and how can we best facilitate that?"

In other words, why bother with CP and strats and all that if the end goal is just to let bikes and skimmers act like bikes and skimmers? You could probably keep CP as a detachment-specific mechanic for armies themed around commanders giving orders or whatever, but it seems like an awkward duck as a universal mechanic.

Sunny Side Up wrote:Just printing 99% of 9th Ed. Stratagems straight onto the datasheets as "abilities" and dropping the balancing-option of having a resource-cost associated with it was IMO one of the bigger mistakes in the new edition.

Well, devil's advocate, points costs theoretically reflect a unit's capabilities with those former-strat style rules, and some good has come out of making GW's designers stop to consider what each unit in a codex is actually meant to be doing.

Stripping those back off to clean up the datasheets to just basic statlines and having some type of cost/resource management for "abilities" IMO works better.

I'm open to it, but I think the obvious problem comes from how finite the resource you're managing is. If I'm running a bike/skimmer heavy list, will every bike in my army be allowed to jink out of the way of incoming fire? And if they do, does that mean my infantry squad's grenades suddenly stop working? The question here is whether or not thematic detachment abilities should actually *be* finite/limited use in the first place. I feel like, as-is, there are a lot of strats that feel arbitrarily added into a detachment to meet a quota, and there are other strats that feel like they should be getting used by half your army every turn instead of only once per phase.

If you hate the name / branding of "stratagems" and "command points", name it something else (abilities and ability points?). Re-branding worked for power level too, I suppose.

It's really not about how things are named.

"Aerial Tokens" are ultimately also just command points with some added bureaucracy. Moving to unlock them aside, your proposal is just command points (aerial tokens) and strats (e.g. 4++ or out of phase move).

Rules wise, it's no different than a strat with a requirement to have moved a certain distance first

There is at least one key difference: every unit that should be able to jink or move-shoot-move or turbo boost has the option to do so every turn. The minimum move requirement was mostly just a flavor thing; I don't love the idea of someone beign able to take evasive action every turn when they're really just sitting still in a gunline. But the main point of doing things this way was to let the whole army do The Thing instead of being limited to a single squad per turn.

Just like it's weird when only one genestealer unit per turn can prioritize killing enemy leaders or be sneaky or how only one wave serpent per turn is allowed to deepstrike in the armoured warhost. It feels artificial and actively gets in the way of making armies behave in thematic ways.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/22 19:50:40



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






How much did a (non Eldar) grenade actually matter? Especially if we look back at scattering frag grenades, what an utter waste of time. Models ducking behind cover when they are under fire, throwing a tiny useless grenade, etc. can be assumed without the core rules having to spend time on them. Bikes and skimmers should act like bikes and skimmers without any extra stuff by relying on core rules and USR. But showing that Astra Militarum are all about trench warfare, letting them use Stratagems to do it better representing them preparing or executing going to ground behind cover is thematic and adds an additional layer to the game (call it card game-ish if you want).
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Just printing 99% of 9th Ed. Stratagems straight onto the datasheets as "abilities" and dropping the balancing-option of having a resource-cost associated with it was IMO one of the bigger mistakes in the new edition.

Only because most units don't need a bespoke ability or Stratagem, way too much bloat to have 20+ Stratagems per faction and having 20+ bespoke abilities is equally bloated. Units do not need a CP cost for the basic rules USR they should have, it can be balanced by points.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: