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.

As I watched the LVO games it became apparent to me that many players were doing massive CP dumps. Nayden dropped literally all of his turn 1 for example.

Marines are driven by this, but with the addition of leaning on warlord traits. However, with a TFC not getting double shoot AND tremor, or players deciding between transhuman or duty eternal this turn could drastically reduce issues.

There may be some caveats. Just as Thousand Sons get unrestricted smite the armies that operate on strats like GSC may need to be allowed two or more.

Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

Hmm. Would basically virtually kill command rerolls from your turns(still used during opponent's turn to reroll saves). Could be good though. Less reliability. Or maybe give CP reroll excemption.

Let's see how it would change me:

Sisters. All death of character triggering stratagems would often die as you would be trying to save him via CP first.

Shooting blessed bolt(dominions) and retributor stratagem couldn't both be used. Not sure is that really issue those are used...Would basically delete one unit from lists.

What comboes were so horrible? Could similar get by same unit can't be affected by more than 1 stratagem per phase?

CSM, kyborgs / PG combit terms/ Reaper chaincannon bomb combos with Votwl would die.


Probably Votwl just as a whole.

Recycling stratagems most likely aswell.

Daemonengine lists would basically drop from somewhat functional to dead.


Short, all armies not getting just basic rules + (at this stage only marines get that) and therefore requireing CP to fuel the gameplan instead would literally collapse like the card house they are comparatively speaking atm


Also, stratagems like AA missile etc, stuff that allready doesn't see the light of day, would just entirely stop existing.

Well that kind of a depends if ones army is the one army that is going to get the exeptions. If yes, then why not. Anything that makes the game harder for others, makes it easier for me. But if my army is suppose to be able to use only bolts, and nothing else, then I want a new codex that makes blessed bolts a unit upgrade and not a stratagem. Hey they can even make it an ability granted to a unit by a character performing some sort of non psychic power action.

Maybe one per phase per detachment?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Maybe one per phase per detachment?

Still seems high though.

Personally I'd be happy with (and actively want) absolutely no stratagems at all.

If I was redoing them I'd have a smaller amount of CP per army, 1 per phase and a single generic stratagem list.

Not Online!!! wrote:
CSM, kyborgs / PG combit terms/ Reaper chaincannon bomb combos with Votwl would die.


Probably Votwl just as a whole.

Recycling stratagems most likely aswell.

Daemonengine lists would basically drop from somewhat functional to dead.


Short, all armies not getting just basic rules + (at this stage only marines get that) and therefore requireing CP to fuel the gameplan instead would literally collapse like the card house they are comparatively speaking atm


Also, stratagems like AA missile etc, stuff that allready doesn't see the light of day, would just entirely stop existing.

Good points. Hard to refute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
Personally I'd be happy with (and actively want) absolutely no stratagems at all.

If I was redoing them I'd have a smaller amount of CP per army, 1 per phase and a single generic stratagem list.

My other thought was reducing the CP back down again. Previously they bumped it to help elite armies, but now those elites are pretty silly.

Of course these are half baked ideas.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
CSM, kyborgs / PG combit terms/ Reaper chaincannon bomb combos with Votwl would die.


Probably Votwl just as a whole.

Recycling stratagems most likely aswell.

Daemonengine lists would basically drop from somewhat functional to dead.


Short, all armies not getting just basic rules + (at this stage only marines get that) and therefore requireing CP to fuel the gameplan instead would literally collapse like the card house they are comparatively speaking atm


Also, stratagems like AA missile etc, stuff that allready doesn't see the light of day, would just entirely stop existing.

Good points. Hard to refute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
Personally I'd be happy with (and actively want) absolutely no stratagems at all.

If I was redoing them I'd have a smaller amount of CP per army, 1 per phase and a single generic stratagem list.

My other thought was reducing the CP back down again. Previously they bumped it to help elite armies, but now those "elites" are pretty silly. Those like CSM have soup and their own CP batteries if needed.

Just to reiterate.

my opinion is, Get rid of stratagems, ( AA missiles get just a basic attack profile, Unit upgrades like butcher terminators, get to be an buyable / pts upgrad for certain subfactions, stratagems like cacophony or Votwl and any such BS from the same vein get outright deleted), Traits get a price point / model attached including keyword ( want AL; good troops pay 2ppm more WB +0 ofcourse adapted to the unit type.) Movement stratagems get switched up, the basic table size increases due to the basic premise of even more models due to seize creep, so that we finally may again have manouevre that matters for more then just deepstrike this Alphastrike unit with this combination to the face and are done with.


but again that is me, also can we please get back the old cover system, or modify the ones used atm into something that isn't as bonkers as either ITC baseline BRB ? Would that be a possibility?

Increasing the basic table size required to play wouldn't sit well with a lot of places and people, that'd get expensive to implement.

 Melissia wrote:
Increasing the basic table size required to play wouldn't sit well with a lot of places and people, that'd get expensive to implement.

well then we will just have to desize creep then don't we?

Kick out knights and other superheavies,
go back down to 1500 pts.

Because atm my regular R&H army has more models then my ork army had some editions back....

Returning the CP reward for Battalions and Brigades back to what it was before the bump would be my preference. I liked multiple small detachments for the thematic separation of units within an army into distinct battlegroups.

Then GW basically passed a rule that if you don't take brigades and battalions, you lose. When they did so, they completely invalidated the thing that made DE armies feel unique, because a single CP for patrol detachments couldn't compete anymore.

The really frustrating thing? The problem they were trying to solve by doing this was already solved by things like battle brothers and the rule of three.

I don't support one stratagem per turn at all. Strat combos are the only tools that some armies have, and as pointed out, some strats become absolutely unviable with a limit.

As for no strats, just play open. No battleforged armies = no cp = no strats. You already have the tools to do this. Use them.

Can't find people who want to play that way? Maybe that version isn't as fun as you think it is.

PenitentJake wrote:
Returning the CP reward for Battalions and Brigades back to what it was before the bump would be my preference. I liked multiple small detachments for the thematic separation of units within an army into distinct battlegroups.

Then GW basically passed a rule that if you don't take brigades and battalions, you lose. When they did so, they completely invalidated the thing that made DE armies feel unique, because a single CP for patrol detachments couldn't compete anymore.

The really frustrating thing? The problem they were trying to solve by doing this was already solved by things like battle brothers and the rule of three.

I don't support one stratagem per turn at all. Strat combos are the only tools that some armies have, and as pointed out, some strats become absolutely unviable with a limit.

As for no strats, just play open. No battleforged armies = no cp = no strats. You already have the tools to do this. Use them.

Can't find people who want to play that way? Maybe that version isn't as fun as you think it is.

Battalion to 3 and Brigrade to 6 or 7, perhaps?

In theory it's a nice idea, in practice half the armies in the game lose all functionality as they rely so heavily on CP.

As far as stratagems go, it's nice when they afford more agency and points of decision to the player.

Something like zapping a character with Bolt of Change? It would be great to drop 1CP to create a Spawn rather than retain 20 Reinforcement Points in your roster which might otherwise never be used effectively.

Something like Prepared Positions, or methods to Infiltrate or DS units? Really useful and not abusive in the majority of cases. It also creates a mechanic for alternating activations with things like Counter-Offensive.

Associating stratagem cost with Power Levels would help a lot in the short term. In the long-term, I think it should be more of a tradeoff between pregame customization, deployment effects, ways to affect your VP objectives and then finally the offensive and defensive effects somewhere mixed up in the rest.

Moving to 40k Proposed Rules

I think its 100% fine to dump it all at once, its a limited resource. Now what i don't agree with is how many stratagems there are, how easy it is to make 3 detachments and get lots of CP and that some stratagem are even in the game.

Stratagems and CP should be highly viable, game changing and limited, a strong tactical tool that if used at the wrong time its basically wasted. But.... sadly that nots 8th.

And for when i was playing nids all the time, Nids ONLY WORKED b.c i could use 15-17 CP turn 1, without that it was impossible for me to even win.

Given how 8th is, this would be a terrible change even if i don't like the system. We need a full new system or do nothing but balance the CP cost of more stratagems than what they are doing now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As I watched the LVO games it became apparent to me that many players were doing massive CP dumps. Nayden dropped literally all of his turn 1 for example.

Marines are driven by this, but with the addition of leaning on warlord traits. However, with a TFC not getting double shoot AND tremor, or players deciding between transhuman or duty eternal this turn could drastically reduce issues.

There may be some caveats. Just as Thousand Sons get unrestricted smite the armies that operate on strats like GSC may need to be allowed two or more.

Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

One stratagem per phase... hmmm. I am assuming pregame strats would be unaffected. So, as GSC, who you mentioned there, I'm actually not...*that* restricted. The biggest thing is choosing between Lying in Wait and A Perfect Ambush on my turn 2 infiltrate. The biggest loss would be drive-by demolitions being made essentially useless because you pretty much have to combo that with extra explosives to make it worth spending CP on. +1 to hit and +1 to wound on one grenade shot for 1Cp is pretty terrible.

For my typical list, I've got a rusted claw bike bomb, some kind of large-ish unit of acos, some smaller cc units, and some mounted infantry. I start with 13cp for that list. I would definitely drop the biker bomb in favor of a single big assault unit.

Pregame: they came from below, extra relic, deliverance broodsurge, extra WL trait on my broodsurge iconward.
Move phase turn 1: Free use of perfect ambush on the sanctus
Rest of turn 1: nothing planned, maybe a reroll on a shooting attack.

Turn 2 movement: A perfect ambush
Turn 2 shooting: Nothing planned
Charge Phase: Almost certainly a reroll to get in with something, even with the +2 to charge bubbles there's no guarantee I won't roll a 2.
Fight Phase: 1CP for first in the fight with my big aco blob.

So that's 9/13 cp spoken for in just my initial big focal point unit and setting that combo up. This actually would make me more likely to invest in what currently in my army just goes into creating more of a cc bomb. Right now, I deploy the two huge units so I meet the requirements of tactical reserves, zoop them up with They Came from Below and just leave crap on the table to get blown away turn 1. Then I spend all my cp's turn 2 in getting the huge aco blob in business and doing the bike bomb combo to blow something up.

Heck, maybe I'd actually use a Hivecult detachment with a Jackal Alphus as my warlord with the hivecult trait and spend some CP's on the overlapping fields of fire strat they have. Get all my dudes laser-focusing down enemy units with 2s rerolling 1s to hit.

I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

I do like this, too. AoS has proven it out as well.

I think taking a lesson from Kill Team would be a good idea, and there should be a base amount to start (much less than what we have now, thinking not much more than 6 or so) and then 1 or 2 CP gained per turn with an additional 1 if your warlord is on the table. Detachments would be used to help build that base amount so they still have a point and so there is still a fair amount of CP to be used for pre-game stratagems. Obviously the points gained from each Detachment would have to be reworked and reduced for the bigger ones.

That approach would help prevent massive CP dumping in a single turn, while also still allowing combos and interesting decision making along the lines of "do I spend now or wait until I build a few more points for a bigger combo?"

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

But what about stratagems that are just gear, that cost 2CP, specialy for low CP armies. If a GK list has to wait till turn 2 to start to use their basic gear, then it would be a change that was not intended.

Plus it kills any 2 or 3CP stratagem that are designed for tanking.

on a more personal level this would mean everyone would call out for a GK nerf, because they have a psychic power that lets them 1CP after casting.

Karol wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

But what about stratagems that are just gear, that cost 2CP, specialy for low CP armies. If a GK list has to wait till turn 2 to start to use their basic gear, then it would be a change that was not intended.

Plus it kills any 2 or 3CP stratagem that are designed for tanking.

on a more personal level this would mean everyone would call out for a GK nerf, because they have a psychic power that lets them 1CP after casting.

No solution is perfect, especially one thought up fairly quickly in a forum thread. However, remember that if such a rule was in place it affects everyone so you need to adjust your expectations about what's possible and plausible for each army now instead of just analysing the negative impact on your own army.

Pre-game stratagems could easily be taken form turn 1 CPs. Given how powerful pre-game stratagems tend to be that might not be a bad idea. Now you need to think about trading in-game bonuses for pre-game advantages. Meaningful decisions are what 40k lacks enough of right now and that's doubly true of stratagems where there's almost always a very obvious right and wrong time to use a stratagem.

Karol wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion you should get CP per game turn and detachments should just add to that.

1 cp per game round for battleforged army, 1 per detachment, 2 for batallion, 3 for brigade, and 1 more cp per turn for the player going second

that way in most cases a 3cp ability is... big i think most armies would use all or most of their cp on it.

added bonus it means people cannot drop all their CP for a devastating top of turn 1 round where the player going second cannot recover

But what about stratagems that are just gear, that cost 2CP, specialy for low CP armies. If a GK list has to wait till turn 2 to start to use their basic gear, then it would be a change that was not intended.

Plus it kills any 2 or 3CP stratagem that are designed for tanking.

on a more personal level this would mean everyone would call out for a GK nerf, because they have a psychic power that lets them 1CP after casting.

honestly relics i would like to see a slight rework 1 per detachment in this system. so if a person say wanted to run a mroe elite army then they can run 2-3 specialist without much extra in the CP depatment btu get the added bonus of extra relics. or say force the choice of more CP with 2 batallions or more relics with 1 batallion and 2 specialty detachments.

It's an interesting idea but IMHO it would shift the power in favour of Marines even further, as with how things are right now the only "weapons" non-SM armies are getting in PA to fight with are under the form of stratagems, limiting the use of these would mean that passive army rules would be even more impactful, these plus a single pre-game "Chapter master strat" would be just overbearing as most of the new combos release in PA would stop to exist, sure it would also prevent some of the Marine shenanigans like TFC+tremor+fire twice, but other armies would suffer a even bigger blow.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Maybe one per phase per detachment?

So you're encouraging armies to be made up of multiple small detachments? Isn't/wasn't CP farming the core problem of soup?

So 1st I'll max out the CP generated, then I'll make sure to max out detachments (some of wich may yield CP) - so that I can spend x CP/phase.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Thoughts? Do you think this would hurt you more than help the game? Can you separate your desire for crazy combos for the health of the game?

On the one hand I think stratagems introduce one of the most complex balancing aspects to the game and as such end up causing some of the most egregious problems.

On the other, I tend to think their interactions produce some of the most interesting tactics, so I feel it's worth the suffering.

Lastly, a change like this would require fundamentally rewriting the entire stratagem system, it would effectively require 9th edition.

It might be easier to tie the number of stratagems per turn to something like a combination of detachments and specific units, I have not thought this through seriously in any way.

Off the top of my head you could do something like 1/detachment/turn, 1/warlord, then have some additional knobs and dials you can tweak to get a couple more (like field commanders, or specific units, like the GSC Nexus for example or Master of Ordnance for AM, etc).

 Melissia wrote:
Increasing the basic table size required to play wouldn't sit well with a lot of places and people, that'd get expensive to implement.

It would be much easier to just reduce the points than to increase the table size. 1500 is a perfectly fine point level, which leaves plenty of freedom in the movement phase.

It allows all factions to work, since it is the old 2k points, which was selected because it was good for all factions.

Here's a crazy idea i just thought of this moment.

What about a quick "assign phase". So CP as normal, pre game as normal. But just before the battle round starts each player has to "assign" so many CP for that battle round. Any CP not used is lost.

So that means people who want to throw their entire CP into round 1 can, if they dont manage to use all CP points they're gone for good.

Or people can state Round 1 ill use 3 CP.

Maybe? It get's rid of opportunistic CP spams. Makes people think more tactically about how to use the stratagems, plan in advance. Makes the Dice roll's still fully eligible but risk=reward increases.

i think this would work if they would backpedal on a lot of the stratagems that should just be a static rule.
Lot of 1cp stratagems are either tied to a specific unit, or virtually useless except for a specific unit, and that specific unit is insanely bad w/o it. Stuff like that would need fixing to make a 1 strat per phase not completely cripple a lot of units.

Not to mention that often theres 2 such units in an army that uses a 1cp strat every turn with that mentality in mind. If you could only do 1, then a lot of list building would be stagnated as many choices flatout do not work with other choices by design, not by tactical differences.

Something this drastic would probably be reserved for 9th edition at worst, or the entire focus of a CA at best. Either way it would be confusing until the codex got updated for a lot of players that theres 2-4 pages of stuff that cant be used.