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.

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

Thanks, you hit the nail on the head!

Who, when playing competitively as Marines, does NOT take a Chapter Master?

For 2 CP, it's basically an auto-take.

CP upgrades to a unit are fine but they're clearly not equal. For example, Great Harlequin or whatever it's called should have something in addition to the Reroll 1s to Hit if it's gonna cost two CP.

I like stratagems as a concept, they add some depth and strategy to the game - but they need to be revamped: There are simply too many of them, and some are no-brainer to use as often as possible, while some are utterly useless and will never get used.

A codex doesn't need 4+ pages of stratagems, and every unit doesn't need it's own unique stratagem.

In the "nice idea, poor execution" camp. Interesting reactions and a useful resource outside of army comp are great. But I feel like 8th more than any edition I can remember was about rules bloat through pseudo-errata scattered in other books as special rules/stratagems.

Some interesting points made in this thread. One of the more interesting ones for me is the point that they can provide an opportunity for counter-play within the IGOUGO system, so I think that's a solid point in their favor.

How would you all feel if we did this:

1. Everyone has access to the same core strats in the BRB
2. Strats that currently should just be unit abilities get removed so that the relevant units can just have the ability again
3. You have x number of strategem slots and the strats you want to use in the game must be selected pre-game

IDK - maybe step 3 doesn't work, but I do feel like most competitive players kind of already do that, and for the more casual games it would cut down on the players of certain books endlessly paging through their codexes to "see if they have something for that" ...

Tycho wrote:
Some interesting points made in this thread. One of the more interesting ones for me is the point that they can provide an opportunity for counter-play within the IGOUGO system, so I think that's a solid point in their favor.

How would you all feel if we did this:

1. Everyone has access to the same core strats in the BRB
2. Strats that currently should just be unit abilities get removed so that the relevant units can just have the ability again
3. You have x number of strategem slots and the strats you want to use in the game must be selected pre-game

IDK - maybe step 3 doesn't work, but I do feel like most competitive players kind of already do that, and for the more casual games it would cut down on the players of certain books endlessly paging through their codexes to "see if they have something for that" ...

I would call that an improvement, but #3 would definitely be pretty predictable, given the wild variety in stratagem usefulness.

My main concern would be that it could cause issues with armies/units that depend on stratagems to be useful, and further push towards one-trick-pony builds. For example, Tyranids rely on stratagems a lot more than Guard do; if as a Tyranid player I had to spend all my stratagem slots on the essential ones for melee, then I'd be incentivized to go all-in on melee and forgo shooting. Although I suppose since the CP needs to be spent anyways, there's already an element of that present in the game; banking on fight-twice every turn doesn't leave a ton of CP for other stuff.

Still, a limited roster of stratagems would certainly reduce the amount of page-flipping and bloat that currently goes into them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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?

Gonna nitpick on this a bit as a Necron player and say isn't that what points are for anyway? To balance abilities like these? I mean I've payed money for a faction that's entire theme is to get back up when they die, and then payed points to use characters in said faction (who are repeatedly slated to have THE BEST bodies of the entire race) but they don't actually get back up when they die, at least not unless I use an arbitrary currency to do so and forgone giving another unit +1 Str for example. At the risk of a bit of hyperbole, there's no reason for factions to lose their thematic identity once you've run out of CP. That's a terrible crutch that doesn't belong in the game.

Finally on points at the very least GW has implemented yearly CA for points fixes. While it'd rustle some jimmies if they don't get points right first time, if you have a yearly patch for these kinda things then you might as well use it.

I would call that an improvement, but #3 would definitely be pretty predictable, given the wild variety in stratagem usefulness.

That was kind of my thought as well. Maybe the real solution is to just trim the fat at the design stage and call it a day. When was the last (or first for that matter) time you saw someone bring 3 Predators for "Kill Shot", or saw someone use the Boon table from the Chaos book. We could probably just cut the bad ones, change the ones that should just be natural unit abilities back into abilities and call it a day. lol

It'd require rebuilding the stratagem system from the ground up, but I do think it might have been smarter to limit stratagems to once per phase period, not just once per phase per stratagem.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It'd require rebuilding the stratagem system from the ground up, but I do think it might have been smarter to limit stratagems to once per phase period, not just once per phase per stratagem.

Hell maybee gw would get it right this time.

Too many stratagems took the approach of "thing this unit/army used to have permanent access to now has limited access to."

 JNAProductions wrote:
Who, when playing competitively as Marines, does NOT take a Chapter Master?

For 2 CP, it's basically an auto-take.

Someone who wants to cram aggressors down your throat as Salamanders and would rather have the room for extra stand still and +1 to wound (yes, combo wombo). Salamanders in general right now (it will change) can captain reroll 1s and trait reroll a 2 and not be far off of a CM's ability.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Too many stratagems took the approach of "thing this unit/army used to have permanent access to now has limited access to."

Inferno Bolts.

Let's say I want to pay 1CP to make the combi-bolters on a rhino Inferno. Used to be meh, but with shooting into combat its a little less so. If I otherwise had to pay perhaps 3 to 4 points each for this what is to stop me from wanting to max slots for transports? 83 points would get me 4/8 S4 AP2 shots and 5 S5 AP0 on a M10 T7 W10 body. Compare to Intercessors for 100 points.

No one will spend 6 CP to do such a thing, but they might if it were just points.

I'm on board with those who say it's a great idea with poor execution. A lot of stratagem bloat spread across so many different books makes armies impenetrable and allows for some awful "gotcha" moments, such as what would happen if you deep strike an expensive blasty unit near some Flamestorm Aggressors with Long Range Marksmen and didn't know about Auspex Scan and how it combines with Flamecraft. The worst offenders being Space Marines contradicts the unwritten design goal of them being an easy to understand and use army for beginners.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Too many stratagems took the approach of "thing this unit/army used to have permanent access to now has limited access to."

Inferno Bolts.

Let's say I want to pay 1CP to make the combi-bolters on a rhino Inferno. Used to be meh, but with shooting into combat its a little less so. If I otherwise had to pay perhaps 3 to 4 points each for this what is to stop me from wanting to max slots for transports? 83 points would get me 4/8 S4 AP2 shots and 5 S5 AP0 on a M10 T7 W10 body. Compare to Intercessors for 100 points.

No one will spend 6 CP to do such a thing, but they might if it were just points.

Well, yeah, but then doesn't that just say that 3-4 points is too low a point cost?

I like them conceptually, but in execution I feel like they've just served as another avenue of power creep for the game. Also I don't like how potent they are as force multipliers. It's hard to gauge the power of a unit when there are a slew of strategems that can buff its firepower twice or even three times over.

I often wonder if the game would have been better off with stratagems being universal rather than faction specific. Stuff like insane bravery and counter-offensive are powerful tactical tools but don't break the game.

Tycho wrote:
Some interesting points made in this thread. One of the more interesting ones for me is the point that they can provide an opportunity for counter-play within the IGOUGO system, so I think that's a solid point in their favor.

Maybe the IGOUGO system is the problem once again here.

 CEO Kasen wrote:


Well, yeah, but then doesn't that just say that 3-4 points is too low a point cost?

Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it , which means you need a separate entry for an ICB on vehicles, but maybe only for Rhinos as other vehicles pay a lot so punishing them for a single ICB doesn't seem right. It becomes a whole separate balance point.

Perhaps the whole idea of that list is silly, but you can't ignore the effect.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but isn't "potentially worth it" pretty much exactly where you'd want an upgrade to be?

As opposed to 'always worth it' or 'never worth it'.

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but isn't "potentially worth it" pretty much exactly where you'd want an upgrade to be?

As opposed to 'always worth it' or 'never worth it'.

Eh, I only say potentially, because there's a fine line between usable and not and there's more to it than just looking at a single unit and it is a debate I didn't want to drag out into minutia based on a hypothetical.

Strategems and IgoUgo are the two reasons why 9th is a NoGo for me.

There's good and bad.
There shouldn't be any fight/shoot twice/on death abilities especially from strats where they aren't even factored into the unit cost.
Like codices a lot of the problems come from bad balance, both internal and external. Take the ynarri strat "whispering secrets" 2 cp to minus 2 from the leadership of a single enemy unit within 1" of a ynarri unit, or chapter master for 2cp or flyin' 'eadbut for 1 cp. Some strats are almost never used, some are spammed, that shows there are big issues.
Hopefully the new codices will get the balance better, the concept is great, the execution much less so.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but isn't "potentially worth it" pretty much exactly where you'd want an upgrade to be?

As opposed to 'always worth it' or 'never worth it'.

Eh, I only say potentially, because there's a fine line between usable and not and there's more to it than just looking at a single unit and it is a debate I didn't want to drag out into minutia based on a hypothetical.

Fair enough.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but isn't "potentially worth it" pretty much exactly where you'd want an upgrade to be?

As opposed to 'always worth it' or 'never worth it'.

Eh, I only say potentially, because there's a fine line between usable and not and there's more to it than just looking at a single unit and it is a debate I didn't want to drag out into minutia based on a hypothetical.

Broadly, then, and so I understand the argument, you are stating that there exists useful stratagems that apply to a specific unit or weapon that are better balanced as stratagems rather than as an upgrade for a points cost?

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Broadly, then, and so I understand the argument, you are stating that there exists useful stratagems that apply to a specific unit or weapon that are better balanced as stratagems rather than as an upgrade for a points cost?

Yes, but I don't think it is universal. It was also just a particular point I focused on. CP and points are both susceptible to 'getting it wrong'.

My overall impressions of stratagems are positive even despite wombo combo. I might find myself using warptime to bring 3 casters together to let me drop a gateway with an extra +2 to take advantage of my opponent's bad positioning. Or being able to infiltrate Rubrics, which lets me build a list that doesn't require Nurglings. And I need to actively manage that resource during the game in anticipation of future needs based on a developing battlefield.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but isn't "potentially worth it" pretty much exactly where you'd want an upgrade to be?

As opposed to 'always worth it' or 'never worth it'.

Eh, I only say potentially, because there's a fine line between usable and not and there's more to it than just looking at a single unit and it is a debate I didn't want to drag out into minutia based on a hypothetical.

Broadly, then, and so I understand the argument, you are stating that there exists useful stratagems that apply to a specific unit or weapon that are better balanced as stratagems rather than as an upgrade for a points cost?

I would say so. I remember the older editions were you had lots of upgrades that were rather situational like EMP grenades with my Tau. They increased the cost of FW by 30% with the original codex. Were they worth it? Sometimes they were useless other times they were great. How do you properly pt cost something like that? Now the EMP grenade is just a strat which is fine. If I need it I can spend the CP, if not I can just spend the CP on something else.

I think strats that are situational are fine. Things like the fight on death, or fall back and shoot, or reserve a unit, etc. are fine as strats.

Voted worse, for most of the reasons explained above. However, my biggest frustration lies in the "Create stratagem to sell units" that seems to be part of the new attempt to hide the blatant power creep.

DarknessEternal wrote:Too many stratagems took the approach of "thing this unit/army used to have permanent access to now has limited access to."

"nail, meet head" as introduced by MC Hammer with Peter Gabriel's Sledgehammer playing in the background.

Like virtually everything GW does, I love the concept behind stratagems, but not their ham-fisted execution.

I think strats that allow you to do interesting things, or add unique options to units (like the Red Corsair reinforcement one) are good.

I think strats that are just:

1. A special rule the unit should have by default.
2. Just allow more re-rolls.
3. Change units into something else (Chapter Master, Vet Intercessors, etc.)

... are terrible.


All that said, my biggest problem with strats was actually CP generation. Tying them to the Force Org Chart (and thereby making the FOC meaningless by allowing you to take endless alternate FOCs that give you the slots you want, meaning that you can technically take whatever you want, defeating the purpose of an FOC in the first place) was a terrible idea. Absolutely awful. I am extremely happy that this is a thing of the past.

It’s a good idea, with the usual GW not really well implemented.
There are other parts of the game that I think need overhauls and these have end up being a sell cards and books mechanic than a good part of the game.

With apologies, I'm never played using the current system of stratagems. Our rules use stratagems more akin to the 1st Apocalypse book (4th Ed?). Instead of Command Points, we use allotted Re-rolls (D4 + an army's strategy rating) to purchase stratagems, items from a universal armory when available, or a few other pregame abilities. Stratagems are purchased for a cost (in points or re-rolls which we rate = 20 pts) where available in our scenarios and are usually placed within a side's deployment zone and affect a single unit within 3" of an appropriate marker. For example a unit within 3" can re-roll To Hit (ammo store). If a transport is also purchased most stratagems can be made mobile for double their cost but then may be destroyed along with that transport.

Armory items are available in a scenario, depending somewhat on if it's an asymmetrical point total and includes costs for various field works (razorwire, anti-tank traps, etc.) or offensive assets (smoke grenades, preliminary bombardment, etc.). Some may grant abilities to a unit that normally would not have such a capability, like rapid insertion which allows a unit to deep strike but for an additional 25% cost to that unit.

Other abilities include adding or subtracting units after deployment, changing the position of a single unit after deployment, etc. Re-rolls also affect reserves rolls (yes, we still do that) and can hamper enemy reserve rolls.

In our games we have found that our stratagems when used properly can be very strong, but they are seldom overwhelming since they have an inherent cost. As others have said, the concept of stratagems is solid but Games Workshop often falters when it comes to execution.