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.

It seems like CP and Stratagems have caused some contentious issues in regards to the game. I'm wondering how playing without them might change things up and if people would be willing to try it. The only thing you would really need to be done would be something with the detachment system for building armies to curb doing things like taking all supreme command detachments all the time or something my idea would be that each type of detachment would be worth a number of points with the detachments with the biggest requirements for units (like battalions) being worth fewer points, specialist detachments being worth more, and supreme command is worth the most. The players add their detachments up and the person with the lowest score gets to go first. You can also do things like having an extra relic and additional factions add points too. I'm sure someone could probably think of something better than this though.

I personally think this would be a fun experiment to see how it would affect the game personally but realize that this is scraping the frosting off of the cake, which a lot of others might be all about. I think it would be an easy enough hack to try though. What do,you think?

Why not.

I know stratagems are very much the flavor and tactics of many armies (particularly tournament-wise), but a codex should be able to stand without stratagems ---- obviously if both sides are not using them.

Id be happy to give it a go. Not a fan of stratagems anyways. It was okay at first with the universal 3 but got pretty stupid pretty quick. I agree a game should be able to stand without them.

Necrons have only two useable anti high T units, one is destroyers, who need a stratagem to be effective. The other is the DDA, which is unreliable, because of D6 shots and D6 damage.

That's what i'm doing as an ork player

IG stratagems suck anyways so it be to our benefit. Some of the stratagems affect us badly like -1 to hit, or 3++, or infiltrate and deepstrike. Bring it on lol

Orks say hi.

Are Orks trying to be hipsters now and I've just missed out on this trend?

Wouldn't you Ork players like to see what it's like if your opponents didn't get to use any Stratagems in your games too?

But orks have stratagems.

8th becomes even more boring without stratagems. Core rules are really bare bones and the units themselves are often fairly cookie cutter in their mechanics. It would sorta revert the game back to the index era of 8th but without the 3 basic stratagems but replaced with "chapter tactics" for everyone except the still index only armies.

Skaorn wrote:
The only thing you would really need to be done would be something with the detachment system for building armies to curb doing things like taking all supreme command detachments all the time or something my idea would be that each type of detachment would be worth a number of points with the detachments with the biggest requirements for units (like battalions) being worth fewer points, specialist detachments being worth more, and supreme command is worth the most. What do,you think?

No. I'm tired of being penalized for taking a fluffy all Ravenwing list. Want to drop the Supreme Command Detachment? OK, I'll buy that, but no more penalties for taking all Outrider sqds, etc. It's bad enough that we currently get next to nothing in regards to CPs (waits for the "just take scouts" comments, from people who don't understand that there are no scouts in the Ravenwing)

 Vankraken wrote:
8th becomes even more boring without stratagems. Core rules are really bare bones and the units themselves are often fairly cookie cutter in their mechanics. It would sorta revert the game back to the index era of 8th but without the 3 basic stratagems but replaced with "chapter tactics" for everyone except the still index only armies.

On the other hand, you remove things like CP batteries and the inevitable problem of stratagems that some armies have much better stratagems than others. As I said, it's scraping the frosting off the cake, which might not be to everyone's taste. Personally I believe that if the game isn't good without such a mechanic that can be so easy to remove without affecting the core game play, like trying to remove saves from the game as an example, it makes me wonder how good it actually is. I'm curious how people would find the game without stratagems. If the consensus is that the game is too boring and/or unbalanced then it shows that stratagems are a positive element. I might still be left with the feeling that 8th is too shallow and be worried about another vector for creep in 40k, but I'd have to admit that stratagems do add a clear benefit to the game.

I do think that the codexes do provide enough new options, changes, and even a few armies to make things different from the indexes though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:


No. I'm tired of being penalized for taking a fluffy all Ravenwing list. Want to drop the Supreme Command Detachment? OK, I'll buy that, but no more penalties for taking all Outrider sqds, etc. It's bad enough that we currently get next to nothing in regards to CPs (waits for the "just take scouts" comments, from people who don't understand that there are no scouts in the Ravenwing)

Well that would depend on how many points specialist detachments are actually costed at. In 8th, I honestly don't think FA slots are as valuable as Elites or HS due to the rules changes. I do think an Outrider detachment is still more valuable than a Patrol detachment but clearly less valuable than a SC detachment. You might get more points for Outriders than Battalions but you have very expensive units and won't need as many slots as a cheaper army. For a cheaper army that goal is to go first, they might beat you out by taking all Battalions to your all Outriders, but they have more mandatory choices they have to fill that might not include all the cool units they want. I also suggested extra points being added for taking different factions in an army, which is something your fluffy ravenwing army would have over many popular soup lists.

As I said though, this is just a suggestion and I'm sure someone could come up with a better idea.

Play Renegades & Heretics - good to go.

 mew28 wrote:
But orks have stratagems.

I think we can survive without the rerolls.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Play Renegades & Heretics - good to go.

Never seen the rules for the army. Do they have a special rule that stops your opponent from using all of their stratagems?

Skaorn wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Play Renegades & Heretics - good to go.

Never seen the rules for the army. Do they have a special rule that stops your opponent from using all of their stratagems?

Sadly not. But their rules, being as bad as they are, do let your opponent practically autowin irrespective of whether they use strategems or not.

Skaorn wrote:
Are Orks trying to be hipsters now and I've just missed out on this trend?

Wouldn't you Ork players like to see what it's like if your opponents didn't get to use any Stratagems in your games too?

Why would I want my opponent to have as boring a game as what I have without stratagems?

Fewer card gamey gimmicks the better imho.

I don't think Stratagems should be ignored... I think they need to be leveled out though.

Perhaps a new plan that other than the BRB stratagems you can only play the others once per game.

Strategems are the only really interesting thing the game has going. Without them, its pretty bare bones target priority as the only real decision making to be had. AoS has much more of a "roll for all your rules to see what happens" kind of decision making and its pretty miserable compared to how 40k's system works.

Did it once and the game was slightly faster but a lot more boring. A lot of the other random or thematic elements were removed to make way for strategems, so it becomes a much more 'march towards the enemy and roll dice' game.

 koooaei wrote:
That's what i'm doing as an ork player

Almost do the same with GKs. Techniclly there is one stratagem I could use when my HQs die, but by the time that happens I normally used up my CP trying to re-roll invs or saves.

Easy with my SOB lists lol, only use re-roll CP and thats it. SO wont be to hard.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
Are Orks trying to be hipsters now and I've just missed out on this trend?

Wouldn't you Ork players like to see what it's like if your opponents didn't get to use any Stratagems in your games too?

Why would I want my opponent to have as boring a game as what I have without stratagems?

Why would you continue to play something you found boring? I get that you'll finally be getting your codex in another month, but taking your post at face value, you have been bored when you play for more than a year now.

I try to use all CP's before the game starts if I can. Deep Strike, extra relics, Great Harlequin, raiding force 3 warlords, etc. Feels nice not needing to dig through the cards. If anything, I'll use a point for a reroll. But I'd be fine without it.

For DE, just make it so if you use the Raiding Force (3 patrol detachment) that you get 3 warlord traits anyways. Great Harlequin should just exist in the book.Deep Strike should not cost CP's to use.

I mean, if you play some factions you basically do now.

That said, strategems have significantly addressed the power level of some factions, and the heirarchy may change, but otherwise, it wouldn't be that different.

Stratagems aren't the issue, the issue is how they have been handled.

A few way to fix the issues that crop up are:

I crease the core number found in the rule book and missions. Personally I think adding infantry can fire twice, character/monstrous creature/vehicle can regain D3 wounds, unit can fight twice, unit can be deployed after standard deployment, unit can move twice. That sort of thing.

An army only gets Command Points from the detachment that has the Warlord. Any other detachments don't add any command points and/or command points gaining ability.

Simple and adds enough flavour without swamping the core mechanics.

A lot of key rules for units and sometimes even whole armies (Chaos Demons?) have been moved into the stratagems.

GW see it as a way to balance abilities that would be too strong if everyone could do it all the time, I guess.

But that means these aren't really optional stratagems anymore. You need them to play the unit/army at all. The only decision left is how much SP you invest into doing so.

Skaorn wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
Are Orks trying to be hipsters now and I've just missed out on this trend?

Wouldn't you Ork players like to see what it's like if your opponents didn't get to use any Stratagems in your games too?

Why would I want my opponent to have as boring a game as what I have without stratagems?

Why would you continue to play something you found boring? I get that you'll finally be getting your codex in another month, but taking your post at face value, you have been bored when you play for more than a year now.

Because Orks are cool even if we aren't as spicy as all these other armies are right now.
For myself, Orks are the only army I play. They are the only army I like, that's why.

As far as playing with out stratagems, I almost already do but the command reroll is nice and keeping a unit from bleeding off models to morale is nice some times I need it. Interrupting in combat is nice when I remember it's a thing. But as far as Ork stratagems Mobbing up is the only one that's continuously useful.

With only the three from the rule book it definitely felt like I had no place to spend command points, or I'd burn through them on rerolls. Which felt like not having any stratagems at all really.

I'll ask this question again, if you find a game boring or just think it will be, why play it? If you like stratagems in 8th as they are, then this suggestion is not for you. Plenty of people seem to have issue with CP and the variable power of stratagems that it seems like some people might be willing to try this.

Yes it will shake things up in the game. I'm willing to bet that BA will effectively loose more than vanilla SM. That's not necessarily a bad thing but is something that could only really be determined by play. Again, stratagems aren't a core mechanic. They can easily be removed without serious alterations to the game like changing dice to a d10 would require. It's not even as complex a change as playing DnD without magic or playing 40k without psychic units (only really complex due to GK and Ksons). If I'm a DG player going up against Orks or SoB I could decide, to be fair, to use my codex so I can use my new units but limit my stratagems and warlord traits to what Chaos had access to in the index. My opponent and I could decide to just not use those things either. It's not like it changes the point costs for the army or anything. We could even solve the issue with detachments by just using the FOC or point percentage system. Ultimately the value of stratagems, warlord traits, and faction traits is based on how much we actually like them since they don't add to the cost of the models.