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.

 Nazrak wrote:

Aash wrote:
The biggest hurdle to this is that many factions have too few HQ options if the number in a detachment is limited, but too few HQ options is a problem that should be rectified anyway! Space Marines certainly don't suffer form too few options and I'd welcome a limit on the number of specific HQs that can be taken.

Deffo agree it'd be nice for some armies to have more options, but it's a less pressing problem now people won't be trying to maximise the number of detachments they're taking, which required you to load up on HQs. Which, in my book, is another reason to like the new system.

That's true, it would be nice though if it were possible for every faction to make a Battalion (Knights/Chaos Knights being an understandable exception) without having the the same set of HQs in every list. Whether that's because there are too few choices, or because the choices that are available have clearly "better" and "worse" choices.

 Nazrak wrote:

Aash wrote:
The biggest hurdle to this is that many factions have too few HQ options if the number in a detachment is limited, but too few HQ options is a problem that should be rectified anyway! Space Marines certainly don't suffer form too few options and I'd welcome a limit on the number of specific HQs that can be taken.

Deffo agree it'd be nice for some armies to have more options, but it's a less pressing problem now people won't be trying to maximise the number of detachments they're taking, which required you to load up on HQs. Which, in my book, is another reason to like the new system.

It's not a less pressing problem if the other HQ's are junk, because you still have to fill out the slots.

More wargear options for the substandard HQ's would help - Fireblades currently have a markerlight or a pulse rifle (not even the snazzy MC bolt weapons that the {substandard by Primaris standards} Phobos characters get) - even if they got the option to take an Ion or Rail Rifle it would make the choice between weapons a bit more interesting.

Yeah, there needs to be a gradual recalibration of HQs across the board. Get limitations in there for X per army (Such as a single Captain or Tau Commander), 1 per Detachment (Marine Chaplains and Librarians), and introduce some medium-weight HQ options for everyone missing them.

Heck, I'd go so far as to redo the Command HQ logo to have stars floating over it (1-4 stars) saying that a game has to be at that point level or more to take 'em… so Chapter master would be ****, only showing up at games of 3000+, while a Tau Fireblade would be a *, showing up at Patrols or greater.

This gets around the silliness of Chapter Master Dante going on patrol, for instance.

I want more fluff in army composition, and adding more options, like an Ork Big Boss, who can lead small forces alone or be taken as middleweights for bigger battles (Like Marine Lieutenants) only helps that.

And give us more customization options for all HQs. Not, you know, 2nd ed levels of insane, but more than just "This is what is in box. You take only this." I mean, I can convert my Painboy to have things other than a Power Klaw, let me do it! Harumph.

Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to do that with BS 2+ in play. Just like its hard to make regular marine dreads desirable with BS 2+ FW dreads in play.

No your just flat out wrong here.

The issue is Crisis suits are way too many points period.
Those new Marines with their assualt multiMeltas.

T5 3W 3+ Sv Ws3+, BS3+
Crisis suit Ws5+, BS4+ without any weapons is 24 points give him a fusion blaster and he's 38 points for 1 shot of assulat melta with 18 inch range
These new primaris are less points and get free double shooting with additional 6 inches of range.

Wakshaani wrote:
Yeah, there needs to be a gradual recalibration of HQs across the board. Get limitations in there for X per army (Such as a single Captain or Tau Commander), 1 per Detachment (Marine Chaplains and Librarians), and introduce some medium-weight HQ options for everyone missing them.

Heck, I'd go so far as to redo the Command HQ logo to have stars floating over it (1-4 stars) saying that a game has to be at that point level or more to take 'em… so Chapter master would be ****, only showing up at games of 3000+, while a Tau Fireblade would be a *, showing up at Patrols or greater.

This gets around the silliness of Chapter Master Dante going on patrol, for instance.

I want more fluff in army composition, and adding more options, like an Ork Big Boss, who can lead small forces alone or be taken as middleweights for bigger battles (Like Marine Lieutenants) only helps that.

And give us more customization options for all HQs. Not, you know, 2nd ed levels of insane, but more than just "This is what is in box. You take only this." I mean, I can convert my Painboy to have things other than a Power Klaw, let me do it! Harumph.

Nothing I don't like here in terms of suggestions, would be delighted with any of this happening.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to do that with BS 2+ in play. Just like its hard to make regular marine dreads desirable with BS 2+ FW dreads in play.

No your just flat out wrong here.

The issue is Crisis suits are way too many points period.
Those new Marines with their assualt multiMeltas.

T5 3W 3+ Sv Ws3+, BS3+
Crisis suit Ws5+, BS4+ without any weapons is 24 points give him a fusion blaster and he's 38 points for 1 shot of assulat melta with 18 inch range
These new primaris are less points and get free double shooting with additional 6 inches of range.

I'm not wrong. The jump from BS 4+ to BS 2+ is dumb. I don't even think FW dreads should have BS 2+.

Suits being miscosted has nothing to do with the jump from BS 4+ suits and BS 2+ commanders.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not wrong. The jump from BS 4+ to BS 2+ is dumb. I don't even think FW dreads should have BS 2+.

Suits being miscosted has nothing to do with the jump from BS 4+ suits and BS 2+ commanders.

BS2+ Commanders are only an issue because almost every one of them is quad fusion or quad Ion. They used to have to take at least one support system.

OTOH, crisis suits only get 3 slots, so have to choose between 3 weapons or 2 and (generally) ATS.

Making them both have 4 slots, but only 3 can be weapons (much like in the old days) would close the gap without needing to mess with BS scores.

The commanders shouldn't have BS 2+ at all. And yes, they should have equal slots. They should just make all suits BS 3+ because of computers.

Martel732 wrote:
The commanders shouldn't have BS 2+ at all. And yes, they should have equal slots. They should just make all suits BS 3+ because of computers.

Between this and the Eradicators thread, I can only assume you are trolling.

I will no longer be directly responding to your posts.

Thanks.

sanguine40k wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The commanders shouldn't have BS 2+ at all. And yes, they should have equal slots. They should just make all suits BS 3+ because of computers.

Between this and the Eradicators thread, I can only assume you are trolling.

I will no longer be directly responding to your posts.

Thanks.

I'm amazed there's still anyone without him on Ignore, tbh.

sanguine40k wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The commanders shouldn't have BS 2+ at all. And yes, they should have equal slots. They should just make all suits BS 3+ because of computers.

Between this and the Eradicators thread, I can only assume you are trolling.

I will no longer be directly responding to your posts.

Thanks.

You passed up a perfect opportunity for a "Good day to you, sir"?

 Dysartes wrote:

sanguine40k wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The commanders shouldn't have BS 2+ at all. And yes, they should have equal slots. They should just make all suits BS 3+ because of computers.

Between this and the Eradicators thread, I can only assume you are trolling.

I will no longer be directly responding to your posts.

Thanks.

You passed up a perfect opportunity for a "Good day to you, sir"?

Damn!

In my defence, I have been up since 4am...

The biggest issue I am seeing with 9E, is the advent of units with advanced rules and/or built in rules which provide benefits almost akin to Stratagems.

Let's use Imperial Guard as an example.

Valkyries have several rules, that when put together make them just *THAT* much more than merely another transport flyer... When combined with Scions, they can conduct a turn 1 melta/OC plasma drop right on top of an important unit for the grand cost of 0CP.

Orders, are essentially mini-stratagems, and when utilized with the right relics, actually become equally strong as full fledged stratagems.

Some armies could definitely do with more of their mundane stratagems being baked into some of their units' profiles, some examples can include:
Tyranids - Grisly Feast, and Implant Attack - these could be basic unit rules, in the case of the former, and the latter as an upgrade for X points.
Orks - Grot Shields comes to mind, as it's just a fallible version of Tau's Saviour Protocols.
Tau - Kroot stratagems could be baked into the various profiles, maybe this would entice their use a bit more.

GW actually explained this rather nicely in one of their streams. They view Stratagems as thematic abilities that it would be cool for units to be able to do, but not for them to do all the time. You are left to decide which of those heroic actions you want to happen in your story and use them at the appropriate time, based on your available CP.

 alextroy wrote:
GW actually explained this rather nicely in one of their streams. They view Stratagems as thematic abilities that it would be cool for units to be able to do, but not for them to do all the time. You are left to decide which of those heroic actions you want to happen in your story and use them at the appropriate time, based on your available CP.

Which makes sense until you realize a lot of units/armies depend on their theme to be expressed trough CP. Until of course you run out of them and say (for me) my plague marines are suddenly mostly regular marines whose bolters are suddenly no longer plague weapons because I run out of magic juice. My main issue with stratagems is the thematic ones that really should just be baked into data sheets/points costs like they used to be. For example one of the most powerful Chaos one, Veterans, you are trying to tell me only one squad at a time remembers they are 10k old veterans, and also it varies from turn to turn which squad is the veteran one? Thematic abilities abilities should be mostly baked into the datasheet/payed for with points, which both makes it easier to balance and doesn't create the weird sensation that I play the right faction for 3 turns and after that my army forgets what it is all about and does nothing special anymore.

It's like you didn't read what I wrote. Do you want to imagine the game where every one of those thematic rules was a permenant part of the unit's datasheet?

Chaos Space Marines who always have +1 to Wound?
Space Marines who can never be damaged on an unmodified Dice roll of 1-3?
Deathwing Terminators who always get a free round of shooting when they deploy via teleportation?
GSC units that always get to move d6" after deep striking and then immediately fire?

I can go on and on and on.

The point of the stratagem is these thematic things happen at key parts of the story. Yes, all those Chaos Space Marines are Veterans of the Long War. That doesn't show up in the story every time they fire a bolter or swing a chainsword.

Indeed. Only Primaris get to be heroes all the time.

Really? I'm missing the Primaris models with permanent Transhuman Psychology in their base rules.

But not the ones that get to fire twice (now two varieties of those!), or the ones that get +2 extra attacks on the charge beyond the normal ones they also get for being Space Marines. Or the repulsor with built in disembark-after-moving that is a stratagem for other factions, etc etc. Or all the doctrines, super doctrines, reroll bubbles, etc that all Space Marines just get for being the heroes that replicate what other factions have to pay CP for, for that matter.

But it was meant more to be a tongue-in-cheek observation about the way the game went in 8th edition than a serious comment.

 alextroy wrote:
Do you want to imagine the game where every one of those thematic rules was a permenant part of the unit's datasheet?

I played that game. It was called Warhammer 40,000. My Terminators were Relentless and ignored penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons all the time.

I think the main issue is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of rhyme and reason between how abilities get divided between "that unit should just have it period, always" and "let's make that a stratagem that costs CP." The latter are often no stronger than the former.

This has become even more blurred as PA started giving basically every unit its own special stratagem. Something like Vets of the Long War is interesting design because you can slap it on almost anything, meaning there is a reason for it not to just be on a datasheet. A lot of the unit-specific stratagems lack that aspect, though, and feel like they're things that could just as easily be on the datasheet as a base ability - especially the 1CP ones.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Do you want to imagine the game where every one of those thematic rules was a permenant part of the unit's datasheet?

I played that game. It was called Warhammer 40,000. My Terminators were Relentless and ignored penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons all the time.

I seem to recall playing a game that allowed jump infantry to reroll charges. And any infantry could attack a vehicle in close combat by planting bombs on it if they were equipped with them, which somehow makes more sense than hitting a tank with swords......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think the main issue is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of rhyme and reason between how abilities get divided between "that unit should just have it period, always" and "let's make that a stratagem that costs CP." The latter are often no stronger than the former.

This has become even more blurred as PA started giving basically every unit its own special stratagem. Something like Vets of the Long War is interesting design because you can slap it on almost anything, meaning there is a reason for it not to just be on a datasheet. A lot of the unit-specific stratagems lack that aspect, though, and feel like they're things that could just as easily be on the datasheet as a base ability - especially the 1CP ones.

It's a "new unit vs old unit" thing. New units get new stats and bespoke rules that make them competitive with other new units. Old units generally have the same stats as in older editions without their previously inherent special abilities, and are made competitive by either giving them those old abilities back or getting new ones through strategems. For some reason gw just doesn't want to rewrite older units data sheets so they can compete with the new stuff without strategems.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But not the ones that get to fire twice (now two varieties of those!), or the ones that get +2 extra attacks on the charge beyond the normal ones they also get for being Space Marines. Or the repulsor with built in disembark-after-moving that is a stratagem for other factions, etc etc. Or all the doctrines, super doctrines, reroll bubbles, etc that all Space Marines just get for being the heroes that replicate what other factions have to pay CP for, for that matter.

But it was meant more to be a tongue-in-cheek observation about the way the game went in 8th edition than a serious comment.

See here is the thing, every non primaris marine army are just filled with the soldiers we needed them to be. Primaris Marines have a monument built for their sins of greatness. It makes total sense when you look at it that way. Primaris are just that good baby, all that, a bag of chips and a sweet a**foot massage, it don't be tickling or nothing.

 alextroy wrote:
Yes, all those Chaos Space Marines are Veterans of the Long War. That doesn't show up in the story every time they fire a bolter or swing a chainsword.

That seems more like a flaw than a feature. I've played a number of cinematic, fun games that didn't need layered card-game-esque resource management to give the different factions unique flavor. A well-designed system makes it emergent through the core rules or specific unit traits.

I mean, there are a couple of categories of stratagem that really don't need to be stratagems:
-Stratagems that represent equipment can just be upgrades (eg 'Ard Boyz).
-Stratagems that represent unique units can just be their own unit (eg Chapter Master).
-Stratagems that represent unit-specific abilities can be unit-specific abilities, toned down as necessary or priced appropriately.

And when you have stratagems that represent innate army-wide abilities, but not tangible support assets, I'd think really long and hard about whether it needs to be a stratagem or if it can be better represented as an army-wide rule, or baked into the unit profiles. Case in point, why is Transhuman Physiology a stratagem, but Bolter Discipline isn't? Marines getting disciplined volleys of precise bolter fire is pretty thematic and cinematically appropriate, right? And surely you could represent transhuman physiology through, I don't know, maybe an innate 6+ invuln to Marines- or just accept that having transhuman physiology is what makes them T4 and not T3 to begin with.

The stratagem implementation where these abilities are extremely potent but only once-per-turn adds another level of resource management (and complexity) to the game, but as a means of reflecting the fluff I would say it is generally worse than just having the unit's core capabilities reflect the fluff.

Also, what stops GW from putting abilities on unit datasheets that they can't do all the time? It certainly doesn't stop them when it comes to Orbital Bombardments, or Montka/Kauyon, or stuff like that.

once per game abilities are already a thing. Always have been.

Well, Stratagems are clearly a big feature of 9th just like they were in 8th. I think that the new CP generation/costing system will certainly change things up, except for those who didn't really need or use Stratagems.

I've been playing around with my lists. The HQ restriction is the big obstacle I face in getting full CP at 2000 points. I've gotten used to having Azrael, Lieutenant, Librarian and (since PA) a Chaplain. Heck, some of my lists had at least six HQ choices. Now I'll have to add at least a Patrol or consider building a Brigade. I can certainly get by with 9 to 10 CPs to start, but its something to consider. My Astra Militarum will likely now be a single Brigade and maybe a Scions Patrol. My Drukhari will happily run the 3 Patrol set.

Will GSC players still take three different forces to be able to mix and match abilities (is the Brood Brothers rule in the Preview of allowing "AM" units to be included in a GSC Detachment without breaking Cult benefits new to 9th?)? Will Orks have a mixture of Klans/Kultures or focus on one?

 alextroy wrote:
It's like you didn't read what I wrote. Do you want to imagine the game where every one of those thematic rules was a permenant part of the unit's datasheet?

Chaos Space Marines who always have +1 to Wound?
Space Marines who can never be damaged on an unmodified Dice roll of 1-3?
Deathwing Terminators who always get a free round of shooting when they deploy via teleportation?
GSC units that always get to move d6" after deep striking and then immediately fire?

I can go on and on and on.

The point of the stratagem is these thematic things happen at key parts of the story. Yes, all those Chaos Space Marines are Veterans of the Long War. That doesn't show up in the story every time they fire a bolter or swing a chainsword.

I´ll be honest I rather they would not be in the game to begin with. GW´s own LoTR seems to play perfectly fine without random magical power ups and so did WHFB in the past. Lots of thematic stuff that used to be upgrades are now stratagems and I dislike that, especially since it seems like a balancing nightmare. Do we price oblits around being able to fire twice as Slaanesh or not? I can see were you are coming from, don't get me wrong, but for me the game is about being an actual game not a way to make some weird narrative come about. CCG style power ups don't belong in a wargame for me.

A valid opinion. GW thinks players want cool stuff to toss around, so that is what we got. Players seem to like it, so we keep getting more.

 catbarf wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Yes, all those Chaos Space Marines are Veterans of the Long War. That doesn't show up in the story every time they fire a bolter or swing a chainsword.

That seems more like a flaw than a feature. I've played a number of cinematic, fun games that didn't need layered card-game-esque resource management to give the different factions unique flavor. A well-designed system makes it emergent through the core rules or specific unit traits.

I mean, there are a couple of categories of stratagem that really don't need to be stratagems:
-Stratagems that represent equipment can just be upgrades (eg 'Ard Boyz).
-Stratagems that represent unique units can just be their own unit (eg Chapter Master).
-Stratagems that represent unit-specific abilities can be unit-specific abilities, toned down as necessary or priced appropriately.

And when you have stratagems that represent innate army-wide abilities, but not tangible support assets, I'd think really long and hard about whether it needs to be a stratagem or if it can be better represented as an army-wide rule, or baked into the unit profiles. Case in point, why is Transhuman Physiology a stratagem, but Bolter Discipline isn't? Marines getting disciplined volleys of precise bolter fire is pretty thematic and cinematically appropriate, right? And surely you could represent transhuman physiology through, I don't know, maybe an innate 6+ invuln to Marines- or just accept that having transhuman physiology is what makes them T4 and not T3 to begin with.

The stratagem implementation where these abilities are extremely potent but only once-per-turn adds another level of resource management (and complexity) to the game, but as a means of reflecting the fluff I would say it is generally worse than just having the unit's core capabilities reflect the fluff.

I see your point, but I think there's a narrow lens here, and if you open it up to include people who play the game in different ways, it helps give a more complete picture of why the rules work the way they do.

Take the chapter Master type option that you talk about as being just a unit choice. If they go with this option, taking it impacts the player by limiting how many points are available and that's it. Simple choice- boil it down to another stupid math hammer formula and choose based on the highest number. But if they leave it as is, there's this other cost to making that choice, that could be anything from an outflanking manoueuver later in the game, to a set of allies, to an additional detachment for a specialist army to a heroic single action, which may change the course of a battle. That makes the choice so much more interesting- it isn't just a formula that determines inclusion or exclusion- it's potential.

Some people HATE strats, and think they ruin the game. Others hate rerolls. Having character upgrade strats, or secondary warlord strats, or extra relic strats give people an alternate way to make meaningful choices with regard to their usage of a core mechanic. The fact that 9th is giving us even more ways to spend CP, while simultaneously rebuilding the CP system to take away one of the reasons people used to HQ spam, while simultaneously rebuilding the detachment system to actively de-incentivise HQ spam... Well, really it's just such a sweet little package of game improvement rolled into a nice little package.

One of these days, just to say I've done it, I'm going to spend every single command point I get upfront on pregame choices- I'll run 2 subfaction detachments, one optimized to support shooty units and one optimized to support close combat units; I'll make the leader of the non-core detachment a virtual warlord and give it an extra relic. I'll set key units in reserve, and do any other pregame augmentation I can- heck, maybe even blow the dust off Vigilus and see if there's a cool specialist detachment. I just want to see how much of a difference it makes- I don't want to isolate it in a mathematical equation and compare it to other equations based on isolated units; I want to play it in army with other unit interactions against an enemy army full of unique unit and upgrade interactions and actually see what happens.

PenitentJake wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Yes, all those Chaos Space Marines are Veterans of the Long War. That doesn't show up in the story every time they fire a bolter or swing a chainsword.

That seems more like a flaw than a feature. I've played a number of cinematic, fun games that didn't need layered card-game-esque resource management to give the different factions unique flavor. A well-designed system makes it emergent through the core rules or specific unit traits.

I mean, there are a couple of categories of stratagem that really don't need to be stratagems:
-Stratagems that represent equipment can just be upgrades (eg 'Ard Boyz).
-Stratagems that represent unique units can just be their own unit (eg Chapter Master).
-Stratagems that represent unit-specific abilities can be unit-specific abilities, toned down as necessary or priced appropriately.

And when you have stratagems that represent innate army-wide abilities, but not tangible support assets, I'd think really long and hard about whether it needs to be a stratagem or if it can be better represented as an army-wide rule, or baked into the unit profiles. Case in point, why is Transhuman Physiology a stratagem, but Bolter Discipline isn't? Marines getting disciplined volleys of precise bolter fire is pretty thematic and cinematically appropriate, right? And surely you could represent transhuman physiology through, I don't know, maybe an innate 6+ invuln to Marines- or just accept that having transhuman physiology is what makes them T4 and not T3 to begin with.

The stratagem implementation where these abilities are extremely potent but only once-per-turn adds another level of resource management (and complexity) to the game, but as a means of reflecting the fluff I would say it is generally worse than just having the unit's core capabilities reflect the fluff.

I see your point, but I think there's a narrow lens here, and if you open it up to include people who play the game in different ways, it helps give a more complete picture of why the rules work the way they do.

Take the chapter Master type option that you talk about as being just a unit choice. If they go with this option, taking it impacts the player by limiting how many points are available and that's it. Simple choice- boil it down to another stupid math hammer formula and choose based on the highest number. But if they leave it as is, there's this other cost to making that choice, that could be anything from an outflanking manoueuver later in the game, to a set of allies, to an additional detachment for a specialist army to a heroic single action, which may change the course of a battle. That makes the choice so much more interesting- it isn't just a formula that determines inclusion or exclusion- it's potential.

The problem with that is, just like with points, the CP cost has a chance to be wrong and unbalance things and adding more levers to pull just seems to give GW more avenues to break their own game. The Chapter Master stratagem is a perfect example. You mention mathammer, which seems odd since it's almost certainly the best stratagem in the game right now, to the point where I don't think there's any choice at all as to whether you take it: if you want the most effective army and wat to spend your CPs as effectively as you can you take the CM upgrade without hesitation. I'm not really sure what CP cost would be balanced for it, such is its effectiveness. Your comparison is like taking something that's massively underpointed and saying it's fine because taking it means you have fewer points to spend elsewhere.

I think Catbarf is spot on that too many stratagems represent things that they just shouldn't and in many cases it break immersion too. Why can my SM unit hold firm in the face of withering fire from an entire artillery company or the most powerful weapons the siege specialist of the Iron Warriors can throw at them for an entire phase thanks to their Transhuman Physiology...then die ignominiously in the next phase to a single PF because I didn't spend the CP to buff them again? Stratagems representing strategic things are actually a good idea IMO. One of the things I like about 9th is the idea of spending your CPs on strategic resources like expanding your army's flexibility through extra detachments or allies, or sending units on outflanking missions. That's what CPs should be for, not just arbitrarily making units better. The approach isn't even consistent. Why is the RF2 ability a strat but Bolter Discipline a core rule, for example?

Taking the CM stratagem as a perfect example, that's a unit that should be paid for in points. That way you can more effectively balance it in a couple of ways. First, it costing more means there are fewer units to benefit from its brilliant aura ability and secondly you can make the unit more thematic so he's not just a random Captain with a bolter and a chainsword but is a mighty champion equipped with the best gear his Chapter has to offer, eager to wade into the fight and smite the Emperor's enemies as an example to the troops around him.