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.

StrayIight wrote:

Greywing wrote:

 mew28 wrote:
I dislike them mostly because the entire command point system is just pushing even harder towards MSU.

Huh?

Strategems that affect a unit are far more efficient on large units that small ones.

They didn't say Stratagems, they said the command point system.

You gain the vast majority of CP by filling out detachments right? Now what's generally the cheapest way of fulfilling a detachment requirement and therefore accessing CP?

That's right. MSU.

Seems to be a working trade off. You need MSU for generation purposes but some bigger targets to benefit from them.

The day I learned to hate strategems

Match 1 vs ad mech:
I see some random rifle dudes and I ask what their guns do.
Him:"oh they are like lasguns but they do 2dmg on 6s"
I proceed to charge a robot in ruins nearby with my fancy chaplain, confident my 2+save in cover will be enough to protect me against pesky lasguns.
His turn, pulls out a strategem.
"now they do mortal wounds on 6s too", proceeds to kill my full health chaplain with 6 mortal wounds....

Well that was lame...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Match 2 tyranids.
2 huge blocks of genestealers hold objectives on the flanks. A broodlord hides behind los block terrain in the center.
I conclude I can draw out the broodlord to be targetable by putting my 3 scout bikes far up the center.
I move them up and he has to charge in the broodlord, wich kills the bikes but puts him targetable for my marines. Yes the plan will work!
Opponent pulls out a card. "now i can move and advance my broodlord after he has fought", proceeds to move 20" backwards, making my sacrifice useless

I hate strategems...

@Gitdakka- You've got stories about not liking strategems used against you; do you have any luck using them yourself? I haven't read enough codices to know which armies lack a selection of strategems. I've seen the Daemon and Drukari dexes and there are some cool ones in there.

@fithos- If you're a tournament/ competitive type guy, I get ya- you want to know the exact capabilities of each unit before you make a decision. But the thing about strategems is that they make ANY unit capable of doing extraordinary things. For my money, that adds a layer of realism, because in my (admittedly limited) experience, life works that way.

Sometimes it's not the quarterback who makes the winning play- sometimes it's an otherwise anonymous lineman that makes a critical block at exactly the right time.

And again, you have access to your own strategems- your analysis tends to focus on times when you've been the victim of a strategem, rather than times when you've used them to confound or surprise your enemies. (And again, maybe I just haven't read your dex, and you are starved for effective strategems to choose from)

@ Blastarr I think it's unfair to say strategems aren't strategic. I'm sure they could be made more strategic than they already are, but there is a lot of thought that goes into executing certain strategems, and they can be game changers, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Just an example- I play sisters, so I only have 2 strategems. Martyrdom is awesome- anytime one of my characters dies, a unit in my army gets a 2+ act of faith. Using this strategem affects decisions I make when I build my army, how I deploy and how I advance and fight. And it's crazy flexible, so the strategy is not just in setting up its use, but also what to do with it once it's triggered.

And as for tyranid blood the strategem doesn't represent the acidity of the blood- it represents whether or not the tyranid in question has the ferocity and determination to bleed on it's foe before it dies. Rules create the circumstances of the battle; we create the narrative based upon those circumstances.

I like the idea but it seems odd that the unwieldy horde armies seem best poised to generate them.

But Tyranids are driven by the hive mind-wouldn't they ALWAYS have the willpower to bleed on their foes?

I like the idea of them, I like some of the special rules being moved to "once per turn", I like the resource management element of them.

I do wish there were more of them, more scenario specific ones, more generic ones, then have the faction specific ones less bland.

I also wish CP were limited to the formation faction that generated them to cut down the CP farming

PenitentJake wrote:

@ Blastarr I think it's unfair to say strategems aren't strategic. I'm sure they could be made more strategic than they already are, but there is a lot of thought that goes into executing certain strategems, and they can be game changers, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.

I think they are an unnecessary layer of rules that may have been intended to add strategic depth to the game, but don't really create interesting opportunities for decision making. Stratagems are really just a buff mechanic and are a consequence of a core that doesn't support much more than rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, and casting psychic powers. I don't agree that stratagems are the right way to add meaningful choices to the game, or that they accomplish that goal. They do simple things like shoot twice, fight twice, interrupt combat order for a unit, shoot after falling back, cause mortal wounds and the like. Essentially "Pick a unit/model. Make it more powerful"- It's the same few things repeated ad nauseum. Unlike MTG, which despite using a similar approach has great depth because the designers aren't stuck in a narrow mindset that forces them to use only the same few things over and over again- and that's with a functioning keyword/USR system.

Strategems are cool but they need to be more varied and probably weaker-ish.

I want to select from a bunch depending on the situation, not just always use the same one over and over because its the best.

Also, I still think the idea of CP being negatively generated instead of positively generated (so smaller, more elite armies get more; and larger armies get less (representing the unwieldiness/difficulty in ordering around more troops).

I like making decision against a limited resource. I like synergy bonuses that don't swell point costs. I like choosing who gets the extra defense or mobility but only one per phase. Chapter specific option stratagem is nice too.

I don't like roll to recover cp, surprise traps, or just how many are useless to me.

I like them as an occasionally cool, flavourful thing, but I think they’re over available and overused at the moment.

I’d prefer if a list generated MAYBE enough command points to use two or three per game.

But having multiple cool re-rolls or extra abilities per turn, and the chance of generating more and more, really skews the game.

As an eldar player, they're an amazing addition. Really lets the eldar trickery shine through.

4++ on guardians, fire and fade, phantasm, seer council, linked fire, unparalleled mastery are all fantastic, quite unique stratagems that exemplify what the army, IMHO, should be about.

Some are a bit questionable, I'm not a huge fan of the costing and power of pathfinders and forewarned.

I don't feel nearly as strongly about stratagms as I do about stratagems.

I think they're the best addition to 40k we've seen in a while. The reroll one alone goes a long way towards letting players make plans that rely on an important charge or ability going off. They also help make armies feel unique in a way that the psychic phase has never properly accomplsihed.

The implementation could be better, but its not awful. I'd prefer a regenerating pool that's a little less alpha strikey, but there are advantages to the way the current system directs list building as well.

I also think their could stand to be fewer of them. The card stack is pretty thick and a number of them rely on a specific unit or weapon but don't have a clear way to sort those out. Again, its one of those things that's fine as is, but could certainly be made a little cleaner.

 Eldarain wrote:
I like the idea but it seems odd that the unwieldy horde armies seem best poised to generate them.

it would be nice if eliter armies had access to other ways to generate CPs. IMHO the biggest screw up was giving guardsmen the CP generation relic. if you saw stuff like that on the elite armies it'd make them less dependant on guard CP batteries.

Greywing wrote:

 mew28 wrote:
I dislike them mostly because the entire command point system is just pushing even harder towards MSU.

Huh?

Strategems that affect a unit are far more efficient on large units that small ones.

Ya but to generate CP you want lots of small cheap units to fill up the formations. So you can get by with on big unit to use the buffs on and then a ton of MSU making the points.

PenitentJake wrote:
@Gitdakka- You've got stories about not liking strategems used against you; do you have any luck using them yourself? I haven't read enough codices to know which armies lack a selection of strategems. I've seen the Daemon and Drukari dexes and there are some cool ones in there.

For my orks... No. But im still thinking about getting 2x10 meganobs to MOB UP for CP, then warpath and jump them. The other strat called DAKKA DAKKA that orks has sucks in all ways.

For my black templars I have the psychic deny strat, but I allways say pregame that's what black templars can do. So it has never come as a surprise to my foe. I also use the hellfire/flakk missle strat to sucess most games.

For my templars I have also tried wisdom of the ancient (dreadnough gives reroll 1s), midgame combat squad strategem (to get heavy weapons out of CC) and orbital bombardment. None of the these was usefull/game effecting. Might try the shoot with - 1 on enemy deepstrikers strat some day.

D3 mortal wounds with one HB is really the only strat that has impressed any of my opponents.

I like them very much, but just as with special rules and units that suck or are too OP, things need tweaking and the current rules format doesn’t really make that realistic. I give the entire stratagem/CP system a B-.

I like them because they bring an element of tactics/decision making.

I think there is plenty of room for improvement. I'd like to see a few more universal stratagems, ten or so. Also, I'd try and balance how certain armies can access CPs. For example, an efficient CP farm can dilute the decision making process because you have access to everything.

I am Neutral on the matter, mostly because the design of some stratagems is completely redundant.

Take AA missiles for exemple. Why is this even a stratagem, is my Chaos Lord also my master of logistics and hands out boltshell a piece? "No Dedirok the Havoc, you won't get AA missiles or another Frag missle, No i won't discuss this, now feth off" 10 minutes later whole warbad dead because of lack of AA coverage.....

Jokes aside, such Stratagems have nothing to do with decision making and more to do with the fact that they either were or could've or should've been equipment with a price tag.
Then there are stratagems that may sound innocent at first but are completely insane. Doubleshooting slaanesh stratagem for exemple. Bunch of slaaneshi CSM? No problem. Noise Marines? ok allready quite the firepower. Shocking Obliterators? Oh that was your centerpiece unit? RIP.
Other Stratagems are just plain bad. (Have you ever used AA missiles on a CP heavy army? No? Me neither because the CP is for those armies way to much worth then AA coverage.)

Then there are the Stratagems that should've been unit upgrades. Grenadiers for exemple. Iron Within. Etc. Not good enough to be a Stratagem or might aswell should've been the Faction trait.

Now there are some good designend or done Stratagems: Alpha Legion stratagem comes to mind. Those do add tactical depth to the game, decision making etc., but the others could've easily been special rules, upgrades to units or equipment.

It is still better then the whole Formations and get x buff/ bonus or ammount of free razorbacks but still the balance even within certain Codices is off and compared in between, there are massive differences in power of the avilable stratagems.

I think they're a great way of tailoring your army in a fluffy respect, like many have said, by squeezing everything you can in terms of firepower and durability from typically disposable units. I have a friend on a bit of a Gaunt's Ghosts high, and he does everything he can to make his troops as versatile and cinematic as possible. I like it. Relics are great for this too, especially as Lord Commissar Guant and a squad of Veteran Ghosts appear like shadows behind my lines, Dagger of Tu'Sakh betwixt teeth (pre Errata!)

Although they can be rather vexing too. Facing opponents that just pull Defensive Gunners and Fire on My Position etc has taken me by surprise from time to time. These kind are the most frustrating, because it's like you've triggered a metaphorical trip-wire. It has certainly got me paying attention to every army's codex more so than usual. It gives you lots of eventuality to prepare for, and a well-read general should be prepared to see certain Stratagems played in certain situation and can flex tactics and spring traps accordingly.

I really like them. I just wish that we had more CP in order to use them more often.

I like them, but my biggest gripe is that they are being used as one of the *only* methods of adding complexity to player decisions. It's rare to find a unit itself that has an interesting, thought provoking ability.

I like the concept, but it should have been done the way they recently did it for AOS 2.0: Very limited, extremely few CP in most cases. It's too easy to abuse command points and detachments to get a ton of OP stratagems all the time.

I really like stratagems.

Any additional layer of tactical choice in a game like this is great.

It's also a good way to have some abilities that are too powerful to be used every turn still available to an army.

Once some of the problem units like Guardsmen are appropriately costed the system will be in really good shape.

The best use of strategems is to give armies fluffy choice that they can situationallly use, or wargear options that otherwise you wouldn’t take. But I agree with some of the other posters: strategems shouldn’t be so valuable that an army needs them in order to function or be competitive.

Blastaar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Negative. It's a pointless mechanic that nobody was asking for and it just adds to the rules bloat.

Stratagems are another one of GW's non-solution solutions. Stratagems are not strategic and add nothing to the depth of the game, but their existence allows GW to claim that they have added a meaningful element because there are more rules. Much like many of their balance band-aids that do not fix the real issues, but give the appearance of having done so.

The strategem mechanic is extremely lazy.

 greyknight12 wrote:
The best use of strategems is to give armies fluffy choice that they can situationallly use, or wargear options that otherwise you wouldn’t take. But I agree with some of the other posters: strategems shouldn’t be so valuable that an army needs them in order to function or be competitive.

Why, though? That's like arguing you don't need special rules to make armies function.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I like them, but my biggest gripe is that they are being used as one of the *only* methods of adding complexity to player decisions. It's rare to find a unit itself that has an interesting, thought provoking ability.

Very much this.

Most of the mechanics in the game are only done using command points and a good amount of them are REALLY uninteresting. Without stratagems most units are boring as gak to use and even then a vast majority of stratagems are very niche, useless, or just flat out uninteresting. Also doesn't help that if you have multiples of a unit that your only able to use a particular stratagem once per turn despite having 3 of the same unit on the field.

Breacher Team Shas'ui: "Attention Shas'la! The Gue'la are held up in their trench networks and our objective is to claim this for the Greater Good. Initiate Breach and Clear protocols and remember the teachings of Mont'ka.

*The Shas'o Commander speaks over the MarkerNet 4.3(TM) comms* "Breach and Clear protocols are not authorized, proceed with trench network engagement without"

BT Shas'ui: "But honorable Shas'o, we are in position for the killing blow, why must we engage without maximum efficiency?"

Commander Shas'o: "Because Breacher Team 2 is engaging the Gue'la in the ruins by objective 4 and will be initiating Breach and Clear protocols"

Shas'ui: "So why can't we both engage breach and clear protocals?"

Shas'o: "Same reason we only use one emp grenade at a time"

 Marmatag wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
The best use of strategems is to give armies fluffy choice that they can situationallly use, or wargear options that otherwise you wouldn’t take. But I agree with some of the other posters: strategems shouldn’t be so valuable that an army needs them in order to function or be competitive.

Why, though? That's like arguing you don't need special rules to make armies function.

I guess I should be more clear: strategems can exist to (for example) allow Cadians a bonus against Chaos without baking it into basic units cost, especially if it’s a minor fluff point. Likewise it can exist alongside an actual wargear option for, say flakk missiles so you always have the option to deal with flyers without always having to build your list around that capability.
The second point is simply that strategems shouldn’t be so valuable that people feel they must build their army around getting more CP, or that if you use a certain strategem every turn it moves your army up a tier.

Elbows wrote:Concept is great, execution is "okay". I'm still getting my head around planning my armies around my stratagems, as they're one of the most important pieces of the puzzle now (except Chaos Space Marines, their stratagems are gak).

Yes, using a strat to infiltrate a 40 man unit with rapid fire, that you can buff in multiple ways with spells, and use a strat to give it double shoot, is just complete gak. Top notch competitive analysis. Fairly certain the strats are what keeps CSM competitive tbh.

Ice_can wrote:Strategums as a mechanic seemed like a nice idea untill inevitably GW let their fluff bunnies loose without balance checking.
Like don't give people with -2 to hit armies strategums to add additional -1 to hits, though the same could be said of pshycic powers.

Also some units realy didn't realise any benifit from the implementation of strategums while others did benifit.

Also as others have said the dependence on CP's for strategums means that the CP mechanics being out of kilter (see Astra Millafarm) leads to strategums scaling terribly when you introduce soup.

Ok but stratagems as a mechanic itself is fine right? Otherwise it's like saying "yeah different armies were a bad idea, some got really OP!"

pm713 wrote:
I find them a bit silly. Tyranids have acid blood but only some of the time for example.

This one probably makes sense thematically, sometimes Tyranids do have acid blood sometimes they don't. Anyway, I think it's intended that you envision the enemy unit as getting covered in acid blood only some of the time.