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 would actually love to see two things integrated into the game: Strategy Ratings and Stratagems.

Each army type has its own base Strategy Rating. Every HQ entry you fill gets you a +1 Strategy Rating (so the formula is always Strategy Rating + HQ Slots Filled). This could lead to special characters having new abilities which increase this Strategy Level.

Then you have Stratagems. Each player selects a "hand" of three Stratagems when they create their army list. The level of each Stratagem must be equal to or lower than your army's Strategy Rating.

The player with the higher Strategy Rating may choose to go first or second. If there is a tie, the players each roll a D6, the player with the highest dice result may choose to go first or second. Seize the Initiative may still be used normally.

The player who goes first receives no Stratagems, but sets up their army first and takes the first turn. The player who goes second may play one of the three Stratagem cards during the course of the game.

I'm hoping this will help players who have to go second to help mitigate potential first turn alpha strikes, while there actually being incentive to want to go second for that potentially wonderful Stratagem play.


STRATEGY RATINGS



STRATAGEMS (Work in Progress)
Currently a work in progress, I'm trying to get together a bunch of lists (one for each army) instead of just making a bunch of generic lists. So far the overall list ideas I have were for Imperium, Eldar, Tau Empire, Tyranids, Chaos, Necrons, and Orks. Some stratagems within each list are exclusive to a certain army that uses those Stratagems, for example there would be stratagems within the Imperium Stratagems list which can only be used by Adepta Sororitas.

Imperial Stratagems
Defensive Line (SR 5)
Imperial Guard only. This stratagem is used at the beginning of the game before deployment is started but after the turn order is decided. Your army may deploy and use an Aegis Defense Line at no additional cost.

Holy Wrath (SR 4)
Adepta Sororitas only. This stratagem is revealed at the beginning of your turn. All friendly models and units from Codex: Adepta Sororitas have the Rage and Relentless special rules until the end of the turn.

Huh? 10 for daemons? 2 for Necrons?

Reminds me very much of the strategy elements of 2nd Ed, which is cool. I'm not 100% sold on your initial ratings, or the additions from HQ choices though. I feel like it needs to be a simpler mechanic to really be popular.

Strategy Ratings and secret abilities or whatever are very cool.

However, the way you've given different armies different ratings is terrible. The only way I'd accept different ratings is literally as a way to comp weaker or older codexes

I'd like to clarify that the ratings are placeholders and are based off of certain in-game values as well as the army's background. They are just placeholders at this point and are in dire need of being changed.

An army's strategy rating should be based on several factors: the army's average Initiative, the army's preferred military tactics, and the overall military acumen.

For example, armies like Dark Eldar should have a naturally high rating due to their high natural Initiative values, their hit & run and raiding tactics, and the level of intricacy they can carry out in their operations. They're an army, lore-wise, that makes sense for them to have a very high Strategy Rating. I don't believe that older or weaker armies should automatically have a higher Strategy Rating though. I'd be happier with an innate stop-gap rule that gives pre-6th Edition armies a +1 or +2 Strategy Rating boost (as armies being outdated is going to be pretty easily solved at the rate GW is releasing codexes).

So yeah, there's some kinks that need to be worked out for this to work properly.

In this case, fluff <<< crunch. The game is unbalanced, and will only become moreso when you hand out additional bonuses to two of the top three armies.

Give everyone the same number of points, and let the cards they can choose reflect their army playstyle.

Sorta like how IG gets the same points as Space Marines, despite being billions of times more numerous.

Agreed with Dakkamite, it doesn't make any sense.

Why does Initiative, a measure of on-the-spot dodging and reaction time have any bearing on an army's ability to strategize? Necrons are very slow, but their plans are so ludicrously detailed in the fluff that the Imperium doesn't even know that they are strategies.

Many of your Strategy Ratings are odd. Imperial Guard 3? Daemons 10? Orks 4? Dark Eldar 8 because they are fast? Sounds... random.

 Dakkamite wrote:
In this case, fluff <<< crunch. The game is unbalanced, and will only become moreso when you hand out additional bonuses to two of the top three armies.

Give everyone the same number of points, and let the cards they can choose reflect their army playstyle.

Sorta like how IG gets the same points as Space Marines, despite being billions of times more numerous.

This sounds good to me. But I would point out that it also makes sense from a "fluffy" point of view.
Every army has its tactical geniuses.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
Agreed with Dakkamite, it doesn't make any sense.

Why does Initiative, a measure of on-the-spot dodging and reaction time have any bearing on an army's ability to strategize? Necrons are very slow, but their plans are so ludicrously detailed in the fluff that the Imperium doesn't even know that they are strategies.

And Orks can outsmart marines if the leader is cunning enough.
And we have Macharius and Creed in the Guard.
And I am missing the Inquisition. I wasn´t expecting them, of course, but it would be nice.
Adepta Sororitas 4? Tau 3?? Anyway, Daemons 10 and Necrons 2 are the most wtf ratings.

I kinda like the idea, but those numbers...need some work
Honestly, it should be somewhat tied to the average morale in the army if anything.

I quite like it. The numbers need fixing but the concept is interesting.

 Marik Law wrote:
For example, armies like Dark Eldar should have a naturally high rating due to their high natural Initiative values, their hit & run and raiding tactics, and the level of intricacy they can carry out in their operations. They're an army, lore-wise, that makes sense for them to have a very high Strategy Rating. I don't believe that older or weaker armies should automatically have a higher Strategy Rating though. I'd be happier with an innate stop-gap rule that gives pre-6th Edition armies a +1 or +2 Strategy Rating boost (as armies being outdated is going to be pretty easily solved at the rate GW is releasing codexes).

But then you could also argue that IG have the best strategy rating because their sheer size means that any given battle will always have an appropriate powerful IG force available, or that marines should have the best strategy rating because their drop pods always allow them to choose when and where to fight, or that Tau should have the best strategy rating because they don't care about holding territory and will always fall back and refuse to fight if the situation doesn't give them an advantage, etc. Every army has a valid claim to deserving the highest strategy rating, so there's no fair or fluffy way to assign different ones to each army. The only way this kind of system would work is if every army has the same base rating and the same access to rating boosts, so that it becomes another resource to invest in, not an automatic "Eldar go first".

Not sold on all of it, but particularly not fond of the +1 for each HQ choice. Plans don't get better just because you have more people making them. Too many chiefs, not enough indians....

I like the concept and can see what you are trying to do. I feel you got the points pretty good. To add to it though I would add something that makes it more random on a 50/50 or a 2/3 chance the high numbers are first or quickest or whatever then the other chance is the lower numbers are superior or fast and get to go first. I think it works because it represents the 5's as being average and not being caught off guard. Eldar being 6 I think is perfect because they are analytical and if the dice defers that the low numbers are better or got the edge and it represents the eldar looking to deep and focusing only outside the box instead of looking inside as well good job!

This looks fun!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You sir got exalted!

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Seems like the Stratagems and how they work is something everyone is liking, but the Strategy Ratings aren't.

Perhaps Strategy Ratings should be based on who you choose as your Warlord rather than the army in general. This would require a bit of extra effort on the rules part, but would be a bit more fluffy and would add some more decision making to HQ and Warlord selection. For example, a Space Marine Captain is going to have a higher strategy rating than a Chaplain or Librarian is going to, and a Chapter Master higher than anything else. You could also go a bit further with the special characters, such as giving Pedro a higher Strategy Rating when fighting against Orks.