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 don't know how the game was before stratagem were intreduced, so it is impossible for me to say, if they made the game worse.

What I do know though, that in many cases they are a sudo system, that should be covered by points. Having a chapter master, better ammo, having relics or being a veteran should cost points per thing, and not some currancy which was, and probably still is, impossible to balance.

My main objection is how much of a gotcha they can be - you can't possibly explain everything you can do and it is so easy to surprise an opponent with one of these.

Also some are blatantly too good (Veterans! Shoot twice ones) and have broad usage whilst others don''t. Better a small handful than s many.

Conceptually they're good in the sense that it allows the room for design for reactive counter play (which is exactly what a IGOUGO system needs). It is also good that it curtails the abuse of certain tricks/mechanics by making them 'once per turn'.

In reality, they're bad because now everything revolves around handful of overly powerful stratagems with a list built around it.

They made the game as a whole significantly better, but there are definite stumbles in the execution. There's way too many strategems in general and too many tied to specific units that would be better if they were abilities on the datasheets activated with command points. They are VERY good for the game, but need some significant editing.

Worse, they can very strongly modify the usefulness of a unit, and make armies with poor units CP dependant.

They are an unbalanced band-aid to poorly balanced datasheets.

I'm totally against unit-specifics stratagem which are just disguised datasheet updates with a CP cost attached.

Also there are FAR too many of them. It would be better if all armies got access to the same small set of stratagems.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Understood, but then how do you point those things to keep them from being junk or auto-take? Was there really a choice?

Is it conceptually any different from any other vehicle or weapon upgrade?

I mean, track guards could be represented as a 1CP ability to move at full speed for a turn, but instead it's a wargear option that is priced right where it's neither junk nor an auto-take, but something to really think about.

A lot of the stratagems that unlock capabilities seem to me like they could be similarly represented as upgrades. Maybe your TS shouldn't all be able to cast at +2 all the time, but spending points to upgrade a squad to cast at +2 would seem reasonable to me.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
IMO no, a lot of units had special abilities and many of those abilities are now stratagems that a unit had for free but now is a resource and many other units can now share taking the uniqueness away from such units.

Here are a few examples for DE


Eviscerating Fly-by - When a wych unit with fly advances of a unit deal X MW's
This one really makes me mad actually. This was once only on the Reavers it was their Bladevanes rules, it was taken away and given to all Wych units with fly and now costs CP as well. Making the 1 unique thing about Reavers non-unique

Crucible of Malediction - In Psychic phase on a 4+ deal D3 MW's to each Psyker within 12", once per game
Even in the index the Haemonculus has this on their datasheets, it was a 1 time item for every haemonculus, not only is it once per game regardless how many Haemonculus you have but it is 2CP when it was a free piece of wargear.

Enhanced Aethersails - Do not roll for advance for a Raider instead it advances 8"
This was once just a vehicle upgrade, now only 1 can use it and a upgrade is gone.

There are many more in many books (even more in DE like SOul trap, and others etc..), but IMO it didn't make the game better, it just took unit rules. And it also makes learning and fighting against new armies harder b.c its just more rules you have to learn that MANY units can do instead of just 1 unit (or 1 type of unit) can do.

If stratagems was there to change how armies played like the relics, WL trait, bonus Auras, buffs to certain skills, etc.. then i think it woul dbe much better, a system that you the general (The Commander) can do to make your force the style of force you want it to be.

Understood, but then how do you point those things to keep them from being junk or auto-take? Was there really a choice?

And what of abilities that don't fit an upgrade or special rule?

Should my TS always get +2 to cast or pick spawn abilities?

This seems a bit of a strawman, if you'll forgive me saying so.

Amishprn86 had specifically brought up wargear being turned into stratagems. What wargear gave the entire TS army +2 to cast?


As for pointing the things Amishprn86 brought up, yes, it's absolutely possible. Far easier, I would argue, than trying to both point them as stratagems and point the units which might or might not be benefiting from them on any given turn.

Hell, Bladevanes were literally a standard part of Reavers. So costing them would just be a matter of costing Reavers based on them having that ability as standard.

As for the actual (previously) purchasable wargear, Crucible of Malediction managed to not be an auto-take in 5th, so I'm going to assume that that's possible to cost reasonably. Soul Trap should be pretty easy, especially given that it was much better with some builds than others (it increased strength - which was a lot more useful to Huskblade Archons than to Venom Blade or Agoniser Archons). And Enhanced Aethersails just seems like a cheap upgrade that you might or might not purchase, depending on your needs (specifically, Assault craft will probably want it, whilst gunboats will likely not bother).

Further, I'll add that for character wargear, I'd rather that it be slightly overcosted than nonexistant. That way, the competitive players are still free to ignore it but those of us trying to build characters around a specific theme aren't stuck choosing from an almost nonexistent selection of wargear.

I really like Stratagems as a concept, and just feel that they need to be better aimed. A few too many things in the game got moved to Stratagems that shouldn't be.

#1 - Things that represent a unit's major identity - should not be a stratagem:
If a unit just can't do something it's really known for, then it shouldn't be a stratagem. For example, Necron characters resurrecting. This should not be a stratagem. The ability for these guys to potentially get back up should not be dependent on whether someone else that turn already tried to come back or not, nor should it depend on whether they have enough strategic resources available. This really should be part of every Necron character's datasheet. If they want to limit it, limit it within the ability to once/game, rather than with stratagems. This stands separately from, say, Helbrutes, which have an ability on their datasheet already, but then have a stratagem that just gives you that bonus without needing to work for it (Helbrutes have a chance to shoot when injured, but can use a stratagem to just shoot a second time anyways).

#2 - Things that represent a very impactful piece of equipment - should not be a stratagem:
Honestly, this has more to do with the fact that this seems like they don't know which way to go. Why is a Haywire Grenade a stratagem, when a Meltabomb isn't? Why are there both stratagems AND upgrades for Hunter Kill Missiles? Unless a piece of equipment is just SO esoteric that no one would ever bother adding it to a list, it should be a piece of equipment you purchase, and not one that you spend command points on. Again, this should be like the above Helbrute example; if it's something it already does, but there's a super-special something for a super-niche case, that should be a stratagem.

#3 - Things that make a unit better pre-game - should not be a stratagem:
Seriously, why is a Chapter Master worth CP and not points? Why is this Dreadnaught the "legendary" Dreadnaught? I'm picking on Space Marines here because they are the worst offenders here, but many other factions do this too (Harlequins, GSC, Astra Militarum, etc.). These don't have to be their own separate datasheets, but they should cost some extra points. Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes have options in their datasheet to add wings and gain keywords at the cost of additional points AND power; why shouldn't a Chapter Master be the same?

So everything else; extra unique deployments (ie; Ravenguard sneakiness), units that push "a little bit further" (ie; Fight Again), challenging and potent abilities that would require significant resources (ie; Orbital Bombardment) super unique situations that shouldn't exist on a datasheet ("when a C'tan is attacked by a C'tan phase blade..." - and these should cost 0CP), army-wide ability that to make up for something (ie; Prepared Positions), etc - those things should be stratagems. It'd be a really cool thing to eject the decaying plasma cores of a Plasma Cannon and throw them at your enemy and you can't use the plasma weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost). It wouldn't be a really cool thing if you had to specially train unit to eject the decaying plasma cores of their Combi-Plasmas, throw them at their enemy, but then keep shooting those weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost).

 Yarium wrote:
I really like Stratagems as a concept, and just feel that they need to be better aimed. A few too many things in the game got moved to Stratagems that shouldn't be.

#1 - Things that represent a unit's major identity - should not be a stratagem:
If a unit just can't do something it's really known for, then it shouldn't be a stratagem. For example, Necron characters resurrecting. This should not be a stratagem. The ability for these guys to potentially get back up should not be dependent on whether someone else that turn already tried to come back or not, nor should it depend on whether they have enough strategic resources available. This really should be part of every Necron character's datasheet. If they want to limit it, limit it within the ability to once/game, rather than with stratagems. This stands separately from, say, Helbrutes, which have an ability on their datasheet already, but then have a stratagem that just gives you that bonus without needing to work for it (Helbrutes have a chance to shoot when injured, but can use a stratagem to just shoot a second time anyways).

#2 - Things that represent a very impactful piece of equipment - should not be a stratagem:
Honestly, this has more to do with the fact that this seems like they don't know which way to go. Why is a Haywire Grenade a stratagem, when a Meltabomb isn't? Why are there both stratagems AND upgrades for Hunter Kill Missiles? Unless a piece of equipment is just SO esoteric that no one would ever bother adding it to a list, it should be a piece of equipment you purchase, and not one that you spend command points on. Again, this should be like the above Helbrute example; if it's something it already does, but there's a super-special something for a super-niche case, that should be a stratagem.

#3 - Things that make a unit better pre-game - should not be a stratagem:
Seriously, why is a Chapter Master worth CP and not points? Why is this Dreadnaught the "legendary" Dreadnaught? I'm picking on Space Marines here because they are the worst offenders here, but many other factions do this too (Harlequins, GSC, Astra Militarum, etc.). These don't have to be their own separate datasheets, but they should cost some extra points. Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes have options in their datasheet to add wings and gain keywords at the cost of additional points AND power; why shouldn't a Chapter Master be the same?

So everything else; extra unique deployments (ie; Ravenguard sneakiness), units that push "a little bit further" (ie; Fight Again), challenging and potent abilities that would require significant resources (ie; Orbital Bombardment) super unique situations that shouldn't exist on a datasheet ("when a C'tan is attacked by a C'tan phase blade..." - and these should cost 0CP), army-wide ability that to make up for something (ie; Prepared Positions), etc - those things should be stratagems. It'd be a really cool thing to eject the decaying plasma cores of a Plasma Cannon and throw them at your enemy and you can't use the plasma weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost). It wouldn't be a really cool thing if you had to specially train unit to eject the decaying plasma cores of their Combi-Plasmas, throw them at their enemy, but then keep shooting those weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost).

I would agree with all of these.

@Yarium. Agree 100%, can't exalt enough.

I like the ones that apply to every army. I think all the others should be burned in a fire on the altar of game balance.

It’s impossible to balance a unit if you can’t even guess at whether it will get hugely value improving stratagems or not. And some factions have awesome ones while others have garbage.

9th should have dropped them.

Stratagems are horribly implemented. Just look.

Intercessors rapid fire stratagem compared to the rubric shoots twice stratagem.
Rapid fire - max effect is + 20 shots can cost 2 CP.
Rubrics strata is max + 40 shots and costs 1 CP.

The rubrics stratagem is 4x more efficient per command point.

How could a system intending to be balanced have such gross inequity?

The concept is fine, the execution is terrible, especially the move in the most recent PA books to give every unit a special stratagem of its own, instead of just having it as a base rule.

Stratagems should be generally usable stuff - restricting something to just INFANTRY or whatever is fine, but the Daemon PA book where literally every unit gets its own (usually deeply mediocre) stratagem is a massive step in the wrong direction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Stratagems are horribly implemented. Just look.

Intercessors rapid fire stratagem compared to the rubric shoots twice stratagem.
Rapid fire - max effect is + 20 shots can cost 2 CP.
Rubrics strata is max + 40 shots and costs 1 CP.

The rubrics stratagem is 4x more efficient per command point.

How could a system intending to be balanced have such gross inequity?

Honestly not sure if this is a joke or not. The strats aren't remotely the same. The rubric one can only be used if you didn't move, which is a massive limitation. Also not to nitpick but the aspiring sorceror doesn't have a boltgun so doesn't get any benefit from the strat, so it isn't a max +40 shots, it's a max +38, even putting aside how niche a block of 20 rubrics now is.

For the most part I like them but there is an awful lot of them and balnce is very iffy

and some things taht are strats should be rules and some things that are rules should be strats

Looks at the new super melta gun Marines.

In the current execution, worse.They feel like arcade power ups and the implementation is very arbitrary.

Some units may shoot twice, but only those...why?
They are restricted to 1 unit per turn, regardless of cost...why?
They make units behave in abnormal ways (e.g. all of a sudden your bolter deals mortal wounds), which breaks internal coherence for me.

In my book, command points should be command related abilities like guard orders, and the limitation should be modeled similarly to what we observe for orders. At most, I think it would be OK to add CP bought upgrades pre-battle, since that is just customization (but honestly, this probably would be handled better with point values).

Straragems as a concept are a great idea. GW just implemented it badly by doing stuff like converting unit special rules into them or using them as band-aids to fix crap units (looking at you Tyranids PA)

By far worse. Many units are only worth taking because of XYZ stratagem they gain access to, as well as previously mentioned the "shoot again" type stratagem completely break the game with multiplicitave effects on buffs etc

 vipoid wrote:
Basically just curious to see whether people think that Stratagems have been a good addition to 40k overall, or if their inclusion has made the game worse.

I think 40k is better without them, with the exception of pregame stratagems. Stratagems added this layer of "hold on a sec I think I have a thing" to the game. But the pregame ones like Vet intercessors are 1 and done which I prefer. There's a better pace

I don't mind the idea of them. It might even be a good idea.

That said, the implementation needs work, in the vein of "not all are created equal". They've created so many hideously unbalancing situations, especially combined with relics, warlord traits, subfaction traits, and now super doctrines that you don't pay for in the unit cost and all of which stack. Especially when they've returned to the 7e business model of selling books that should ostensibly be for narrative gamers by making them full of these aforementioned free stacking rules that critically break the game so that everybody else also buys them.

In fact, opinion, all of those things listed shouldn't be in the game or should be restricted to Narrative Play Only. Forging the Narrative doesn't require a bunch of random free stacking special rules that critically break balance.

[Doctrines, Rites, etc. themselves are probably okay because they're universal and you know what units they apply to and can price them appropriately.]

Gods no. Stratagems are horrible.

Almost all stratagems make no sense from a background perspective - Space Marines only have transhuman physiology sometimes? ...when they're ordered to..? - Cusodes don't have tanglefoot grenades until they're ordered to throw them, and then they fade out of existence again?

Most stratagems are garbage, so you only ever see a couple from any given book used; because GW has no idea how to balance a seesaw, let alone 40K.

Where do Command Points come from anyway? Why does having the overall commander of your Space Marine Chapter cost you command?

Strats are one of the worst things to happen to 40k....ever(well besides the Tau). CCG crap should stay with morons. They only serve to wombocombo gotcha and that just feels lame.

Either pay points for something or have it baked into the datasheet.

While stratagems basically mean the gameis unbalanceable, i find that they give a lot of flavor to armies.

All the night lords stratagem make sense and give the army a better representation of how they work than just the legion trait.

So for me its a positive and a negative at the same time.

I'd say the more casual you go, the more stratagems improved the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
While stratagems basically mean the gameis unbalanceable, i find that they give a lot of flavor to armies.

All the night lords stratagem make sense and give the army a better representation of how they work than just the legion trait.

So for me its a positive and a negative at the same time.

I'd say the more casual you go, the more stratagems improved the game.

Edit :

The unit upgrade stratagems need to go and be replaces by a pts cost instead. The best stratagems imo are the ones that add flavor : Vox scream, Phantasm, We have come for you, cloud of flies, etc. are all stratagems that i find would be hard to put on a datasheet.

I think a lot of stratagems could do just as well if they were rules, and I think they just add another currency (cp) to the game that has to be juggled, and it did get abused by some armies (namely hordes) in 8th, and in universe they don't make too much sense, like why would a mob of warbikers only do a drive by a when a stratagem is played, and not whenever they get the chance, like they would realistically do, but I do think that they have added a little more strategic depth to the game, but all in all, i'd rather go without them. Oh, and a lot of people are talking about how they add flavor to the game, but almost any stratagem could go as a rule with maybe a few tweaks and I think it would also give flavor to the armies, although some stratagems (like green tide I believe it's called) aren't that easy to make into rules. But I am a relatively new player who's only real experience with older editions is what I have heard or read, so I'm not an expert (duh).

I don't care for them, it was better when rules were tied to characters like swarmlord or ig officers. It's also pathetic as a resource management system compared to focus/fury, if you want to make command points a part of the game at least go all the way.

 Yarium wrote:

#1 - Things that represent a unit's major identity - should not be a stratagem:
If a unit just can't do something it's really known for, then it shouldn't be a stratagem. For example, Necron characters resurrecting. This should not be a stratagem. The ability for these guys to potentially get back up should not be dependent on whether someone else that turn already tried to come back or not, nor should it depend on whether they have enough strategic resources available. This really should be part of every Necron character's datasheet. If they want to limit it, limit it within the ability to once/game, rather than with stratagems. This stands separately from, say, Helbrutes, which have an ability on their datasheet already, but then have a stratagem that just gives you that bonus without needing to work for it (Helbrutes have a chance to shoot when injured, but can use a stratagem to just shoot a second time anyways).

So a possible consequence is that all Necron characters more expensive by way of giving them innate resurrect whether or not they die. This has a knock on effect in balancing the rest of the book. What could happen if you did that? Would certain characters become the most popular, because they'll directly get use from it?

Is it impossible? No, but constraint is a tool for balance.

- Rule of 3
- Tactical restraint
- Smite increasing cost and once per caster
- No AIRCRAFT holding objectives
etc

We probably all agree that these are reasonable rules. There are things that are either rare or tend to have a cinematic or dramatic effect on the game. Things like double tap shouldn't be paired with other strats and should be costed in accordance with the size of the unit. GW has done some of this already. Why there is inequity I do not know - it may be they feel like CSM/TS needs the help at the moment?

#2 - Things that represent a very impactful piece of equipment - should not be a stratagem:
Honestly, this has more to do with the fact that this seems like they don't know which way to go. Why is a Haywire Grenade a stratagem, when a Meltabomb isn't? Why are there both stratagems AND upgrades for Hunter Kill Missiles? Unless a piece of equipment is just SO esoteric that no one would ever bother adding it to a list, it should be a piece of equipment you purchase, and not one that you spend command points on. Again, this should be like the above Helbrute example; if it's something it already does, but there's a super-special something for a super-niche case, that should be a stratagem.

Haywire Grenade does 1.7 to a Knight. Melta bomb does 1.2 with a lot more chance for failure and is not available on characters. Maybe that's a distinction not worth a difference? I don't know. Additionally if the haywire grenade was stock then what is the point of a fusion pistol?

#3 - Things that make a unit better pre-game - should not be a stratagem:
Seriously, why is a Chapter Master worth CP and not points? Why is this Dreadnaught the "legendary" Dreadnaught? I'm picking on Space Marines here because they are the worst offenders here, but many other factions do this too (Harlequins, GSC, Astra Militarum, etc.). These don't have to be their own separate datasheets, but they should cost some extra points. Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes have options in their datasheet to add wings and gain keywords at the cost of additional points AND power; why shouldn't a Chapter Master be the same?

If a CM cost points then what is the correct points for that? When would anyone NOT take a CM? What is the additional cost for full rerolls and is that cost truly enough for that it provides rerolls to? Isn't a much more limited resource a better place for such an ability? At present you can get a CM for points through named characters, but then you're forced to their army trait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Strats are one of the worst things to happen to 40k....ever(well besides the Tau). CCG crap should stay with morons. They only serve to wombocombo gotcha and that just feels lame.

Either pay points for something or have it baked into the datasheet.

I agree that wombocombo is stupid. I don't agree that there is no value to the idea of stratagems.

Hell no.

An awful, awful thing in the game. Far too much bookkeeping, far too gimmicky and far too open to abuse.

They ruin so much verisimilitude and make fighting armies a total mystery sometimes, too much of "F'nar! You've activated my trap card!" going on with 40k now. 8th is the first edition of 40k (granted I say out 6th and 7th...) where most of the time I genuinely have no clue what the feth is going on and have no general grasp of what an army can do just by looking at it, when in previous editions you could; and stratagems are totally to blame there. You just cannot keep up.

I think that on the whole they make the game better. They are a centralised command resource that needs to be managed carefully and introduce some very important decision making which for me make the game far more interesting. They also add some much much needed flavour to many niche factions so that they aren't just another chapter/legion/hive fleet

However some (most after PA) are just awful. Where a unit must be balanced because of an OP stratagem, it should be the stratagem removed, not the unit balanced. Chaos are the worst offenders here imo- Flat shoot twice, flat +1 to wound, plus all the other stupid tricks they have.

 Yarium wrote:
I really like Stratagems as a concept, and just feel that they need to be better aimed. A few too many things in the game got moved to Stratagems that shouldn't be.

#1 - Things that represent a unit's major identity - should not be a stratagem:
If a unit just can't do something it's really known for, then it shouldn't be a stratagem. For example, Necron characters resurrecting. This should not be a stratagem. The ability for these guys to potentially get back up should not be dependent on whether someone else that turn already tried to come back or not, nor should it depend on whether they have enough strategic resources available. This really should be part of every Necron character's datasheet. If they want to limit it, limit it within the ability to once/game, rather than with stratagems. This stands separately from, say, Helbrutes, which have an ability on their datasheet already, but then have a stratagem that just gives you that bonus without needing to work for it (Helbrutes have a chance to shoot when injured, but can use a stratagem to just shoot a second time anyways).

#2 - Things that represent a very impactful piece of equipment - should not be a stratagem:
Honestly, this has more to do with the fact that this seems like they don't know which way to go. Why is a Haywire Grenade a stratagem, when a Meltabomb isn't? Why are there both stratagems AND upgrades for Hunter Kill Missiles? Unless a piece of equipment is just SO esoteric that no one would ever bother adding it to a list, it should be a piece of equipment you purchase, and not one that you spend command points on. Again, this should be like the above Helbrute example; if it's something it already does, but there's a super-special something for a super-niche case, that should be a stratagem.

#3 - Things that make a unit better pre-game - should not be a stratagem:
Seriously, why is a Chapter Master worth CP and not points? Why is this Dreadnaught the "legendary" Dreadnaught? I'm picking on Space Marines here because they are the worst offenders here, but many other factions do this too (Harlequins, GSC, Astra Militarum, etc.). These don't have to be their own separate datasheets, but they should cost some extra points. Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes have options in their datasheet to add wings and gain keywords at the cost of additional points AND power; why shouldn't a Chapter Master be the same?

So everything else; extra unique deployments (ie; Ravenguard sneakiness), units that push "a little bit further" (ie; Fight Again), challenging and potent abilities that would require significant resources (ie; Orbital Bombardment) super unique situations that shouldn't exist on a datasheet ("when a C'tan is attacked by a C'tan phase blade..." - and these should cost 0CP), army-wide ability that to make up for something (ie; Prepared Positions), etc - those things should be stratagems. It'd be a really cool thing to eject the decaying plasma cores of a Plasma Cannon and throw them at your enemy and you can't use the plasma weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost). It wouldn't be a really cool thing if you had to specially train unit to eject the decaying plasma cores of their Combi-Plasmas, throw them at their enemy, but then keep shooting those weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost).

I agree that a units identity should never be a stratagem. That e.g Hammer of Wrath on many units got removed in favour of stratagems takes away from their character.

I also agree that wargear stratagems should be points upgrades before the battle, however I fear that here some wargear would become autoincludes, and some would get left untouched. For the example of haywire grenades, I prefer it being a flavourful trick that the units can use if needs be- were it wargear, it would not only overcost and punish the basic units if they were to take them and not use them, it would mean that the points would often go to waste as your opponent now knows only certain units can use it.
Admittedly, this is somewhat stupid as CP is framed as a command resource. 'the unit is commanded to use a piece of wargear they can't usually use' doesn't make much sense- however I prefer it to being a units innate ability. It adds flavourful tricks to factions.

And on unit upgrades for CP, I agree with you completely. Upgrades like Chapter Master- where you spend CP to make a unit something different- should be moved to a points upgrade that can only be used on one captain, or a seperate datasheet. Again though I fear that some datasheets/upgrades would become clearly more efficient than the other choices (like demon princes with wings). However, unit upgrades like Victor Of The Blood Games or the marine 'take two WL traits on this character' which add something to a unit that is neither wargear or make it something different are fine and should stay where they are.


Stratagems are quickly going down the road of bloat in 7th where there are far too many to keep track of and make the game horribly unbalanced. I hope that there is a major errata/reform soon to improve how they work across all armies

I like most of them, but there are a few which are decidedly rubbish and immersion breaking.

I like stratagems like boarding actions for orks, and I like the pre-game ones like loading into the tellyporta - tactical maneuvers transcribed into the game.

I dislike stratagems like shoot twice (hey, what if we stop pausing every few minutes to let them run towards us?), and definitely dislike the "dying model can shoot or fight before being removed" ones. They are all far too "nuh-uh!" for my liking.

I feel like strategems would work better if they were purchased out of points, like the armies.