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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The issue I'm seeing Daedalus, between this thread and the other one when talking about morale, is that you only see two possible outcomes:

1. The way it's done now.
2. The way it was done prior to now.

... and if you don't like the way it was done prior to now, you assume that the way it's done now is therefore the better way.

This precludes two other options:

3. Another way it was done prior to now, but not specifically the immediate previous rule.
4. Something entirely different that attempts to resolve the issue.

I don't think that because it is done this way that it is the better way. I think that people dismiss the current rules, because they're nostalgic for the old without contextualizing why those rules did or didn't work for their time.

There can always be changes down the line that improve interactivity. And believe me - I want morale to be a strong phase, but I don't see people talking about working within the ruleset to effect good change that much, but I could be skimming through posts too fast so that could be my fault.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The issue I'm seeing Daedalus, between this thread and the other one when talking about morale, is that you only see two possible outcomes:

1. The way it's done now.
2. The way it was done prior to now.

... and if you don't like the way it was done prior to now, you assume that the way it's done now is therefore the better way.

This precludes two other options:

3. Another way it was done prior to now, but not specifically the immediate previous rule.
4. Something entirely different that attempts to resolve the issue.

I don't think that because it is done this way that it is the better way. I think that people dismiss the current rules, because they're nostalgic for the old without contextualizing why those rules did or didn't work for their time.

There can always be changes down the line that improve interactivity. And believe me - I want morale to be a strong phase, but I don't see people talking about working within the ruleset to effect good change that much, but I could be skimming through posts too fast so that could be my fault.

Probably because we now sit pretty firmly in 9th edition releases and basically no faction has Morale issues except for 1. I actually can not remember the last time I forced my opponent to make a morale check where it ended with them losing models. GW in their hamfisted manner decided morale needed to be a thing very late in the release cycle and honestly I see it as just one more nail in the coffin for horde players.

Slipspace wrote:
It's possible to want to move some strats to be equipment again without turning all of them into paid-for upgrades. Just because you could easily make Haywire grenades a thing you can pay points for, doesn't mean you need to even keep the strats that really up lethality, like the various shoots twice strats or extra damage ones.

Part of why people dislike strats is, I think, because most of the time they just make the game more killy with little thought. That means they're likely to want those things removed completely, rather than shifted around

This isn't an either/or thing. There's middle ground to be found.

My point is: how does every unit using haywire grenades every turn make the game less killy than one unit doing it every turn, and only if I have sufficient CP without a better use for them?

Or any other strat that you want to move to equipment or data card abilities?

As for "very little thought", knowing when to use a strat and when to wait, or knowing when the strat alone is enough to get the job done or if you need to stack it with an aura in order to make sure it has the impact you need it to have for CP cost is an important part of using a strat.

Because there is no in-game cost to using equipment once it's purchased with points, and because it is connected to a specific unit, there's actually far less thought required if you make it equipment. And truth be told, I think that is the whole reason people don't like equipment strats- is smoke worth the opportunity cost of using another strat? People just want to be able to use smoke AND everything else without having to make tough choices. That desire just doesn't square with an underlying belief that the game is to lethal, because it would be far more lethal if you could use strat based equipment on multiple units per turn without it coming at the expense of using other strats/ abilities (extra detachments/ reserves/ requisitions).

Now I'm not saying that ALL equipment strats are lethal- obviously, smoke is not. But even in the case of smoke, if you didn't pay CP to use it, the thing that you did use that CP for might be something that increases lethality.

SemperMortis wrote:

They took Burna's -2 AP on their weapons away and turned it into a strat. This is how the math works out if they had left well enough alone.

5 Burna boyz = 55pts In CC that is 10 attacks, 6.6 hits, 3.3 wounds and 2.2dmg vs Marines.
6 Boyz = 54pts In CC that is 18 attacks, 12 hits, 6 wounds and 3dmg vs Marines.

With that said, i am not disagreeing with you inherently. I'm just pointing out that not all the strats if added back would break the game.

But you left the other end of that out where those burnas do D6 hits now ( and also there's a spanner per 5 ).

14 * .5 * .333 = 2.3
5 * .333 * .666 * .3333 = 0.4
8 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 1.8
2 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.2

6 * .333 * .5 * .333 = 0.3
18 * .666 * .5 * .5 = 3

5.1 v 3.3

Without it they lose 0.9 damage ( so they effectively double their damage in melee ). For a Trukk sized unit they'll have 10 burnas, do 5.8 in shooting and 4.4 in melee.

Is it something you're going to use often? Probably not. But it does take a unit that performs better than boyz to a higher level for a small cost and can easily swing a combat since it's pretty easy to flub 5+ armor.

I think the larger point was that this was a rule Burna Boyz have had for ages, and suddenly it was removed and turned into a strat.

For what gain, exactly? What did adding that further complication to the rules actually achieve?

PenitentJake wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
It's possible to want to move some strats to be equipment again without turning all of them into paid-for upgrades. Just because you could easily make Haywire grenades a thing you can pay points for, doesn't mean you need to even keep the strats that really up lethality, like the various shoots twice strats or extra damage ones.

Part of why people dislike strats is, I think, because most of the time they just make the game more killy with little thought. That means they're likely to want those things removed completely, rather than shifted around

This isn't an either/or thing. There's middle ground to be found.

My point is: how does every unit using haywire grenades every turn make the game less killy than one unit doing it every turn if I have sufficient CP without a better use for them?

Or any other strat that you want to move to equipment or data card abilities?

For one thing you now have to pay for it with points so you may just decide not to, whereas strats are pretty much always available if required. Also, if we imagine the points are relatively well balanced for these upgrades maybe you don't want to slap haywire grenades everywhere and only a couple of units have them. You now need to think about their positioning and movement more than you do right now if you want to get the most out of that upgrade. With the way strats work you can have upgrades miraculously teleporting to where they're needed most which is yet another way 40k has been dumbed down over the years.

Personally, I'd remove pretty much every strat that increases a unit's lethality from the game or shift some equipment-based ones to be paid-for upgrades. No more shoots twice, or bonus AP exactly where it's needed because you have CP available.

SemperMortis wrote:
Probably because we now sit pretty firmly in 9th edition releases and basically no faction has Morale issues except for 1. I actually can not remember the last time I forced my opponent to make a morale check where it ended with them losing models. GW in their hamfisted manner decided morale needed to be a thing very late in the release cycle and honestly I see it as just one more nail in the coffin for horde players.

I have to autopass morale with Crons all the time. That's with a reanimator around the corner. Many people neglect to deploy in a way that lets them get enough shots off on a block, but those that do can easily knock 8 to 10 models off and it really isn't worth the risk of taking more.

I also made Vanguard take morale 3 times with Thousand Sons and much more rarely marines, because they MSU almost all the time. My Rubrics on the other hand come in 10s or more and if I don't have the CP I will lose them. Morale is certainly a risk to bigger units or those with weak leadership. It shouldn't be as large of an issue for small elite units, which it is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the larger point was that this was a rule Burna Boyz have had for ages, and suddenly it was removed and turned into a strat.

For what gain, exactly? What did adding that further complication to the rules actually achieve?

It was a trade-off. Gain D6 shots instead of D3, but lose that ability. Otherwise that unit becomes objectively better than other similar Ork units in total ( especially when Waaagh is applied ), but they still allowed it to exist for a cost.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Morale is certainly a risk to bigger units or those with weak leadership. It shouldn't be as large of an issue for small elite units, which it is not.

Which is backwards, because an elite, highly trained unit shouldn't die faster because they have more squad members.
The pre-8th ed retreat rules were fairer, imo.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It was a trade-off. Gain D6 shots instead of D3, but lose that ability. Otherwise that unit becomes objectively better than other similar Ork units in total ( especially when Waaagh is applied ), but they still allowed it to exist for a cost.

That only assumes that they'd have D6 attacks in melee. The melee profile can be different to the ranged profile.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It was a trade-off. Gain D6 shots instead of D3, but lose that ability. Otherwise that unit becomes objectively better than other similar Ork units in total ( especially when Waaagh is applied ), but they still allowed it to exist for a cost.

That only assumes that they'd have D6 attacks in melee. The melee profile can be different to the ranged profile.

Not familiar with the dex, but my assumption is that the biggest difference is that now you can't do it 3x per turn, every turn until the end of the game without missing out on other opportunities because of your choice.

Which IS something that I assume you would have been able to do before the change, though again, I'm not familiar with that dex.

I don't see any real problem with a specialist unit carrying special weapons having better offensive profiles than the regular dudes all the time. The downside to Burna Boyz was always that they were no harder to kill than regular Boyz. Same deal with Guard's Special Weapon Squads.

It's certainly easier to assign a fair points cost to than trying to take into consideration that they only situationally have a decent melee profile.

Strats had alot of potential, in that it was an additional resource players had control over, which if managed properly to swing the game would show more player skill.

Then they just became broken, offereing far too much damage output when stacked with buffs on certain units, more than doubling their efficiency on the table.



Either we start with too much CP, or the strats themselves need to be more conditional.

Personally I like the Custodes strats, which are defensive in nature. Keeping your guys alive should be what a commander (command points) tries to do. Point and click destruction strats require little to no brainpower and only offer fun to the player using them.

Like I said earlier, tying strats, cps, and their usage to specific HQs on the battlefield would go a long way to making them feel like they're actually a part of the game.

Look at LOTR and heroic actions for inspiration.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It was a trade-off. Gain D6 shots instead of D3, but lose that ability. Otherwise that unit becomes objectively better than other similar Ork units in total ( especially when Waaagh is applied ), but they still allowed it to exist for a cost.

That only assumes that they'd have D6 attacks in melee. The melee profile can be different to the ranged profile.

I don't know that that is relevant - if it were D3 in melee you'd have the same outcome at present.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't see any real problem with a specialist unit carrying special weapons having better offensive profiles than the regular dudes all the time. The downside to Burna Boyz was always that they were no harder to kill than regular Boyz. Same deal with Guard's Special Weapon Squads.

It's certainly easier to assign a fair points cost to than trying to take into consideration that they only situationally have a decent melee profile.

But they are at present better without the strat. If one was so inclined to jump a full-sized specialist mob of them given that they are core, 12", and min 3 shots, well...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And there should be in-game ZERO equipment strats (smoke launchers, tankbusta bombs, etc.). Those should remain wargear upgrades you pay points for.

Everyone had smoke in 8th. Nobody used it. In what form do you think people would use smoke as gear without it either being useless or auto-take ( illusion of choice )?

I used smoke in 8th. I often had armies that included4-6 Rhinos and sometimes bum-rushing into position was the thing to do. I could pop smoke for the whole lot of them as I pushed my army forward. The Storm Bolters couldn't fire after advancing anyways. Best case scenario meant my whole army had a -1 to hit at the start of the opponents shooting round.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

But you left the other end of that out where those burnas do D6 hits now ( and also there's a spanner per 5 ).
14 * .5 * .333 = 2.3
5 * .333 * .666 * .3333 = 0.4
8 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 1.8
2 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.2

6 * .333 * .5 * .333 = 0.3
18 * .666 * .5 * .5 = 3

5.1 v 3.3

Without it they lose 0.9 damage ( so they effectively double their damage in melee ). For a Trukk sized unit they'll have 10 burnas, do 5.8 in shooting and 4.4 in melee.

Is it something you're going to use often? Probably not. But it does take a unit that performs better than boyz to a higher level for a small cost and can easily swing a combat since it's pretty easy to flub 5+ armor.

You are correct, I in fact did leave off they went to D6 shots at 12' range...because that is literally what they were supposed to have been from the very start of 8th, but too many idiots working at GW assumed a D6 flamer would be OP in the hands of an ork.

The main point was that GW took our inherent abilities away and turned them into stratagems. So again, would it have really broken the game to let Burna boyz keep there natural -2AP in CC? No. An 11pt model with a flamer and 2 -2AP attacks in CC at S4 would not have been broken, especially when compared to the crap floating around right now in the meta. An Intercessor pays 2pts for a longer ranged Bolter that is -1AP and a +1 attacks vs a Tac Marine. I think a Flamer and -2AP would be fine for 2pts on an ork with a 6+ save

Also, in the future, if you could label your math I would appreciate it.

Taking what used to be a base unit rule and turning it into a strat is GW's favorite trick.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Taking what used to be a base unit rule and turning it into a strat is GW's favorite trick.

Cuttin Flames
Tankbusta Bomb
Breaking Headz
Gun Crazy Show offs
Lumbering Strides
ForceField Boosta


6 out of 25 of our Non-Klan specific strats are literally just old abilities that they turned into Strats. Ridiculous.

I've said before (and people do not like this, but)... They should be wargear and purchased with points, secondly, certain strats needs to honestly go away. The command re-roll is honestly one of the worst ones of the lot, it's just a really boring, unimaginative mechanic that players abuse (using 4 in one turn, one in each phase)... If it was once per game in total, I would be far happier with it, but currently it's just meh.