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.

SemperMortis wrote:
So were Lootas good in 8th? Nope, they sucked horribly, but when you buffed them with your entire CP stash they became one of the best units in the game. And as such, GW priced them as if they were ALWAYS shooting twice, always had grot shields and always had exploding 5s.

That, I think, is a major core issue with stratagems- even with the worst offenders (shoot-twice/fight-twice) toned down, the fact that you get nearly all your CP up-front and have no limit to how many stratagems can apply to one unit really lets you stack on the buffs, and that's enormously difficult to balance around, particularly in a game where a unit receiving a 1CP stratagem could be six Guardsmen or a superheavy tank.

At the very least, I think shifting CP to explicitly per-turn generation would both curb the worst abuses (no blowing 7-8 CP in one turn) and create a strong tradeoff where putting all your CP into one unit means nothing else is getting buffed.

I like what they are doing with the different CP costs depending on the value of the unit. I just don't think they've managed to do it very well in general. Another good example of that mindset is the ork vehicle upgrades. You can give "more Dakka" to a Scrapjet AND a Dakkajet for 15pts.

"Each time this model shoots, roll a D6. On a 4+ make 1 additional attack with each dakka weapon this model is equipped with. On a 6, make 2 additional attacks with each Dakka weapon this model is equipped with"

Scrapjet has 4 Big shootas, so on a 4+ thats 4 extra shots...for 15ps....at best its 8 extra shots, or less than 3 max range big shootas but for the same price. why on gods green earth would i ever take that, but on a Dakkajet it has 6 Supa Shootas which cost 10pts each, so 15pts for 6 (Possibly 12) extra shots is almost about the same cost as just adding 1 additional Supa Shoota. Realistically it should have been a FREE or 5pt upgrade but because GW...yeah.

GW really needs better play testers who are army specific. A Space Marine testing an Ork army isn't very useful, likewise an Ork player play testing an Eldar army isn't going to yield as useful results as an eldar player would.

I think stratagems they way they are devalue the character aspect of units. Unit choice has less to do with the units stats, abilities, battlefield rolls and it’s cool factor and much more to do with how well the plug into a formula to achieve a massively over powered unit for the points price.

I think stratagems should A) be actually about battlefield strategy… when and how you can call in your reserves, teleport strikes or flying units for example. And B) should be liked to characters so your choice of warlord starts to have a much bigger affect on the performance of your army rather than radius buffs. They can then also reflect the tactic and character of the army

 catbarf wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
So were Lootas good in 8th? Nope, they sucked horribly, but when you buffed them with your entire CP stash they became one of the best units in the game. And as such, GW priced them as if they were ALWAYS shooting twice, always had grot shields and always had exploding 5s.

That, I think, is a major core issue with stratagems- even with the worst offenders (shoot-twice/fight-twice) toned down, the fact that you get nearly all your CP up-front and have no limit to how many stratagems can apply to one unit really lets you stack on the buffs, and that's enormously difficult to balance around, particularly in a game where a unit receiving a 1CP stratagem could be six Guardsmen or a superheavy tank.

At the very least, I think shifting CP to explicitly per-turn generation would both curb the worst abuses (no blowing 7-8 CP in one turn) and create a strong tradeoff where putting all your CP into one unit means nothing else is getting buffed.

I think that's a pretty smart thing to do. You could also make it harsher as an incentive for Battleforged and keeping your Warlord alive too. If, say, an army with a Warlord gets 1 CP per turn (so every army gets some by default). But then a Battleforged (any combo of Detatchments) army gets an additional 1 per turn, but an army that uses just a Battalion/Brigade generates 2 additional, per turn. (for plus 3 total, Warlord and Battalion). And if your Warlord dies you lose the +1.

You could also limit the available Strat pool, so even if you saved up, you could never have more than 4 CP or something.

I'd still cut like 80% of the Strats tho. And then re-price the remaining ones for the above paradigm.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think that's a pretty smart thing to do. You could also make it harsher as an incentive for Battleforged and keeping your Warlord alive too. If, say, an army with a Warlord gets 1 CP per turn (so every army gets some by default). But then a Battleforged (any combo of Detatchments) army gets an additional 1 per turn, but an army that uses just a Battalion/Brigade generates 2 additional, per turn. (for plus 3 total, Warlord and Battalion). And if your Warlord dies you lose the +1.

The thing I don't like there (specifically the Battalion/Brigade bonus) is that it reinforces how your pre-game administrative organization affects the ability of your commanders to lead their armies. I mean, in a historical wargame I'm all for armies with significant administrative friction having more trouble leading their troops, but a Marine Captain having a harder time inspiring his men because there's also a Spearhead of tanks in the next city block over seems weird to me. It's still maintaining the same conceptual overlap between pre-game administrative abilities and in-game command abilities.

If I were given free rein to overhaul the stratagem system, as a starting point I'd probably divide pre-game CP in half and double per-turn CP generation, then go and separate all existing stratagems into four categories:

1. Administrative/logistical- all the pre-game stratagems. Have these be paid for exclusively with pre-game CP, as determined by your army composition. Not much of a change from current, but with starting CP cut in half it would make for harder choices. I also like the idea of expanding the universal stratagems; maybe pay CP to infiltrate a unit, or start with prepared positions like in 8th, or potentially (if we want to get really crazy) change up your roster pre-game. Any leftover CP just goes into your pool for the first turn.

2. Command- things relating to leaders directing their troops to perform better. I'd tie these stratagems to characters (no more than 2-4 each), which would both reinforce the value of leaders and provide a mechanism to distinguish them. For example, you could give Tau both Mont'ka and Kauyon officers who otherwise have very similar profiles, but totally different sets of stratagems they could use to benefit troops around them. Make armies feel like their leaders are directing and guiding the troops around them, not just emitting bland auras. If you embrace the idea of 0CP stratagems, you could even roll mechanics like Astra Militarum Orders into this system.

3. Unit abilities- things that aren't commands and are more like special abilities, but not on the datasheet. These I'd give a long and hard look, and for unit-specific ones mostly change to either innate always-on abilities or once-per-game abilities (on the relevant unit datasheet either way). For the ones that are generic, it's a tougher question. I'm convinced there's got to be a better way to represent 'transhuman physiology' than a once-per-turn gotcha moment where suddenly lascannons only wound on 4s, and a better way to represent Drukhari speed than having one unit (and only one unit) per turn able to move after shooting.

4. Wargear- self-explanatory. Nix the smoke launcher and meltabomb stratagems, bring back smoke launchers and meltabombs as either freebie equipment or paid with points. This is a wargame.

Anyways, my axe is plenty sharp now. I'm hoping the 40K development team is at least aware of the grumbling; stratagems and bloat (of which stratagems are a form, really) are the two most common complaints I see about 9th in the wild, not just on Dakka.

I feel they aren't that necessary and slow up the game. Not too keen on them in Titanicus, neither.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think that's a pretty smart thing to do. You could also make it harsher as an incentive for Battleforged and keeping your Warlord alive too. If, say, an army with a Warlord gets 1 CP per turn (so every army gets some by default). But then a Battleforged (any combo of Detatchments) army gets an additional 1 per turn, but an army that uses just a Battalion/Brigade generates 2 additional, per turn. (for plus 3 total, Warlord and Battalion). And if your Warlord dies you lose the +1.

The thing I don't like there (specifically the Battalion/Brigade bonus) is that it reinforces how your pre-game administrative organization affects the ability of your commanders to lead their armies. I mean, in a historical wargame I'm all for armies with significant administrative friction having more trouble leading their troops, but a Marine Captain having a harder time inspiring his men because there's also a Spearhead of tanks in the next city block over seems weird to me. It's still maintaining the same conceptual overlap between pre-game administrative abilities and in-game command abilities.
. . .

Understandable. The reason I went that way with it is because really what CPs achieve is a mechanic that endorses detatchment organization, while not actually making it mandatory. My route is aimed at encouraging ye-olde FOC. The idea being a "typical" force org is more routine and operates more smoothly in battle. I'll grant you that it could be somewhat artificial in the nitty gritty, but abstracted a bit I think it's fine.

Rest of your post is good stuff, although maybe too complicated? There's always the push and shove between what I personally like, but the sort of accessibility targets of 40k.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think that's a pretty smart thing to do. You could also make it harsher as an incentive for Battleforged and keeping your Warlord alive too. If, say, an army with a Warlord gets 1 CP per turn (so every army gets some by default). But then a Battleforged (any combo of Detatchments) army gets an additional 1 per turn, but an army that uses just a Battalion/Brigade generates 2 additional, per turn. (for plus 3 total, Warlord and Battalion). And if your Warlord dies you lose the +1.

The thing I don't like there (specifically the Battalion/Brigade bonus) is that it reinforces how your pre-game administrative organization affects the ability of your commanders to lead their armies. I mean, in a historical wargame I'm all for armies with significant administrative friction having more trouble leading their troops, but a Marine Captain having a harder time inspiring his men because there's also a Spearhead of tanks in the next city block over seems weird to me. It's still maintaining the same conceptual overlap between pre-game administrative abilities and in-game command abilities.

If I were given free rein to overhaul the stratagem system, as a starting point I'd probably divide pre-game CP in half and double per-turn CP generation, then go and separate all existing stratagems into four categories:

1. Administrative/logistical- all the pre-game stratagems. Have these be paid for exclusively with pre-game CP, as determined by your army composition. Not much of a change from current, but with starting CP cut in half it would make for harder choices. I also like the idea of expanding the universal stratagems; maybe pay CP to infiltrate a unit, or start with prepared positions like in 8th, or potentially (if we want to get really crazy) change up your roster pre-game. Any leftover CP just goes into your pool for the first turn.

2. Command- things relating to leaders directing their troops to perform better. I'd tie these stratagems to characters (no more than 2-4 each), which would both reinforce the value of leaders and provide a mechanism to distinguish them. For example, you could give Tau both Mont'ka and Kauyon officers who otherwise have very similar profiles, but totally different sets of stratagems they could use to benefit troops around them. Make armies feel like their leaders are directing and guiding the troops around them, not just emitting bland auras. If you embrace the idea of 0CP stratagems, you could even roll mechanics like Astra Militarum Orders into this system.

3. Unit abilities- things that aren't commands and are more like special abilities, but not on the datasheet. These I'd give a long and hard look, and for unit-specific ones mostly change to either innate always-on abilities or once-per-game abilities (on the relevant unit datasheet either way). For the ones that are generic, it's a tougher question. I'm convinced there's got to be a better way to represent 'transhuman physiology' than a once-per-turn gotcha moment where suddenly lascannons only wound on 4s, and a better way to represent Drukhari speed than having one unit (and only one unit) per turn able to move after shooting.

4. Wargear- self-explanatory. Nix the smoke launcher and meltabomb stratagems, bring back smoke launchers and meltabombs as either freebie equipment or paid with points. This is a wargame.

Anyways, my axe is plenty sharp now. I'm hoping the 40K development team is at least aware of the grumbling; stratagems and bloat (of which stratagems are a form, really) are the two most common complaints I see about 9th in the wild, not just on Dakka.

I agree with almost all of this but do we really need pre-game stratagems at all?

Most of them seem like stuff that should be purchasable with points (artefacts, warlord traits) or stuff that should really be wargear, unit abilities, or even just basic game rules.

I agree with almost all of this but do we really need pre-game stratagems at all?

Most of them seem like stuff that should be purchasable with points (artefacts, warlord traits) or stuff that should really be wargear, unit abilities, or even just basic game rules.

The new people do not know anything different, those of us who play different game systems and can make a comparison or played other editions of 40K understand the difference.

Some people like the changes, many do not, as shown by the explosion of players going for oldhammer/prohammer where the things you want were the way things worked.

4. Wargear- self-explanatory. Nix the smoke launcher and meltabomb stratagems, bring back smoke launchers and meltabombs as either freebie equipment or paid with points. This is a wargame.

Well, it used to be. i would call it more of a strategy game or a board game with movable pieces with 9th ed than a wargame. as one of the old topics here on the forum pointed out the difference between a WARgame and a warGAME, emphasis on the part of the system it is focused on.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Rest of your post is good stuff, although maybe too complicated? There's always the push and shove between what I personally like, but the sort of accessibility targets of 40k.

Well, I'm more or less just suggesting paring down the entire stratagem list per faction to a couple of pre-game ones and then character-specific stratagems on the datasheets. I'd wager the significantly reduced cognitive burden (fewer stratagems to begin with, having them on relevant datasheets, and only the ones on currently-living characters being relevant to turn-to-turn play) would offset the marginal increase in gameplay complexity. It seems to work for AoS.

 vipoid wrote:
I agree with almost all of this but do we really need pre-game stratagems at all?

Most of them seem like stuff that should be purchasable with points (artefacts, warlord traits) or stuff that should really be wargear, unit abilities, or even just basic game rules.

To be clear, I don't think things that could easily be costed (relics, warlord traits, unit upgrades like Veteran Intercessors) should be pre-game stratagems, and agree that those should just be paid for with points. I was pleasantly surprised that the new synapse creature abilities in Octarius have points costs rather than CP costs.

I'm not wedded to pre-game stratagems, but I think a crucial difference is that pre-game stratagems can be chosen when your opponent is known, rather than being yet more options baked into your army list with no flexibility. I'm not sure how it works in Dust 1947, but in Dust Warfare, you had a number of points to bid pre-game on battlefield conditions or objectives, which you could use to favor your army or counteract a bad matchup. If you were a short-ranged army against a long-ranged gunline, for example, you could push for night fighting, or for an objective that will require the enemy to approach the middle of the table. It made for more interesting matchups than armies where you basically know how they're going to play at the listbuilding stage. I really like the idea of Strategic Reserves in 40K because it leans in that direction, and wouldn't mind seeing pre-game options expanded, but I'd also be fine with just ditching that altogether and scaling back stratagems to just command abilities a la AoS.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah I just don't get the narrative logic of stratagems.

My chaos character killed your astropath with a single punch, so I use Chaos Boon.

What's that? Later my mook lieutenant solo'd Guilliman in an epic, totally unexpected result?

Too bad. The gods were too busy rewarding the other guy for smacking a blind nerd around.

To me it's as bad as 7th psykers who learned powers at random the morning of the battle and then immediately forgot them as soon as it was over. Like...what?!

 Toofast wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah I just don't get the narrative logic of stratagems.

My chaos character killed your astropath with a single punch, so I use Chaos Boon.

What's that? Later my mook lieutenant solo'd Guilliman in an epic, totally unexpected result?

Too bad. The gods were too busy rewarding the other guy for smacking a blind nerd around.

To me it's as bad as 7th psykers who learned powers at random the morning of the battle and then immediately forgot them as soon as it was over. Like...what?!

and warlord traits.

egads that was an awful edition for narrative.

 warhead01 wrote:
But I also used to enjoy Maelstrom of war cards, which I felt really spiced up 7th and was my go to.

Yea it really spices up combat when your commander on the radio is changing your mission objective every 5 minutes.
"Quick kill their psyker!"
"Uh sir, they don't have one. That race isn't even capable of using psychic powers"
"Belay that order, actually we need you to kill their monstrous creature"
"uh sir, about that, they don't appear to have one of those either"

Super immersive and fun! /s

For those bemoaning the one per turn thing:
That's a Matched Play rule.

I've been playing only using PL, and the Open Play missions, we rarely use strats, but for the games we decide to, there's no limits, summon what you can, awesomeness, and it's makes games amazing and memorable.

Like, it's it smart to burn all my CP to blow up an entire squad of Scarabs? Probably not, but when it takes out a Monolith, or when you need something dead, it's glorious.

I don't mind them, but I don't love them.

I think a strategem deck that was the same for every army in the game, and actually involved strategies, would be far better than what we have now.

Doesn't Crusade work like that, kinda?
*Has never fully read the Crusade rules*

 Blndmage wrote:
Doesn't Crusade work like that, kinda?
*Has never fully read the Crusade rules*

No. You might be thinking of the universal honors/upgrades/scars from the BRB. But as soon as you use a 9e Codex things become non-universal. You gain access to stuff unique to your faction.

 Ordana wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
Seeing as you asked:
It made me feel like GW reworked their rules at the core and had a fresh start to make a good game on a solid set basic mechanics... and then immediately went back to piling on a load of bloat in a way that was easy to shake up.

That, the obvious lack of balance in the new codexes (including errata sent out between printing and release) and GW's continued gakky business practices to (that makes me feel like the games, lore and their fans are being taken advantage of).

40k 8th edition was my first major edition change since I stared with GW games (what AoS was doing was... not that) and I was thoroughly disillusioned.
Despite my starry eyed hopes it was clear that GW had no intention of making a good game.

I sold my armies, gave away my books and stopped playing GW games.
Never had a reason to regret this and plenty of confirmation (like this thread) that it was a good decision.

GW does that constantly.
I can't remember what edition it was, but GW started writing very basic minimalistic codexes as a new direction. That lasted for 2 or 3 books and then it was back to bloat and those unlucky few that got a minimalist book were stuck with it for years.

I had my suspicions, tried not to think about it. 8th was going to fix things!
When 8th came it became clear that "The Fix" is always coming in the next FAQ/codex/chapter approved/edition, but never arrives.

As soon as I realised that and that the last argument (it's popular and opponent's are easy to find) was true of Infinity too I left to spend my time, money and emotional investment on companies/indie writers who respect that their product is a hobby that I invest myself in.

 Toofast wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
But I also used to enjoy Maelstrom of war cards, which I felt really spiced up 7th and was my go to.

Yea it really spices up combat when your commander on the radio is changing your mission objective every 5 minutes.
"Quick kill their psyker!"
"Uh sir, they don't have one. That race isn't even capable of using psychic powers"
"Belay that order, actually we need you to kill their monstrous creature"
"uh sir, about that, they don't appear to have one of those either"

Super immersive and fun! /s

More immersive than you'd expect. We never actually even considered "our commanders" changing their minds or anything like that we were too busy puzzling out the turns. We'd been playing book missions for so long it was a good change of pace for us. My Orks stood a chance of winning a game, which for 7th was what I needed to keep playing. Worst Ork codex ever, so far.
We had a good time with those cards.

 Toofast wrote:
Yea it really spices up combat when your commander on the radio is changing your mission objective every 5 minutes.
"Quick kill their psyker!"
"Uh sir, they don't have one. That race isn't even capable of using psychic powers"
"Belay that order, actually we need you to kill their monstrous creature"
"uh sir, about that, they don't appear to have one of those either"

Super immersive and fun! /s

I'll take that over the drudgery of 9th's missions.

I actually like stratagems a lot when they are done right.

To me, stratagems should represent something that would be too much on the baseline data sheet, but add an element of play and abilities that is overall good. A few examples of this would be the -1 damage for Tsons in shooting, the -1 to wound for Skorpekhs.

I don't think stratagems should replace datasheet abilities that should already be included. For instance, there is no reason for Hexmark and Deathmarks to have to use a stratagem for interception when it should be on their base datasheet. There are quite a few examples of this.

Overall, I do actually like them a lot, but there is a lot of room for improvement.

Strategems feel like "gotchas" when I play them on people. And the number of them that exist out there just makes me not want to try and get into 9th edition at all.

I wish everything was just on the data sheet. There's just too many different rules and sub-rules and extra rules, and yadda yadda.

DarkBlack wrote:
I had my suspicions, tried not to think about it. 8th was going to fix things!
When 8th came it became clear that "The Fix" is always coming in the next FAQ/codex/chapter approved/edition, but never arrives.

As soon as I realised that and that the last argument (it's popular and opponent's are easy to find) was true of Infinity too I left to spend my time, money and emotional investment on companies/indie writers who respect that their product is a hobby that I invest myself in.

Herion hero sucks, try rehab hero...

/S

I still love my Salamanders, Metallica, Flawless Host/Emperors Children. But I don't love playing the game and with each ebb & flow of the game it makes me actively not give a flying feth about it. The models are why I have the armies I have, it most certainly is not the sheissenshoen that the game has become since I've been back(8th was first I'd played 40k since 2nd). Luckily I play in a very permissive environment locally and we can adjust the game to our preferences. But that has its limitations and unless I preplan a game with one of our more like-minded players(which are numerous but schedules change and life happens), I'd almost rather just build/paint.

Cuz I sure as gak don't play 40k for the balance.....I kinda hope nobody does, since it's unbalanced at the very core.

Racerguy180 wrote:


Cuz I sure as gak don't play 40k for the balance.....I kinda hope nobody does, since it's unbalanced at the very core.

Careful. This is how you summon Blackie and PenitantJake to come tell you that the game is balanced, you just aren't playing the one highly specific way that makes it so.

OT: Stratagems are a good idea, poorly implemented. If they worked more like Warcaster spells from Warmachine I think they'd work better, by which I mean they should overall be more expensive to use and and require you to be within a certain range of an HQ unit.

Ahahah lol. To be honest the most balanced 40k is the version I don't play at all, the overly competitive one. Looking at tournament stats the game definitely looks pretty balanced. It isn't for those who refuse to adapt their armies to current metas or have already started, which in my opinion is perfectly reasonable in both cases.

IMHO stratagems were a terrible idea from the beginning, they were probably the consequence to answer to those people complaining that during the opponent's turn they were doing nothing else than rolling for saves. I never minded the IGOUGO turn based game instead, and never felt the need to be more involved during the opponent's turn.

 Blndmage wrote:
For those bemoaning the one per turn thing:
That's a Matched Play rule.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The limit for using stratagems once per phase is part of the core stratagem rules.

 Blackie wrote:


IMHO stratagems were a terrible idea from the beginning, they were probably the consequence to answer to those people complaining that during the opponent's turn they were doing nothing else than rolling for saves. I never minded the IGOUGO turn based game instead, and never felt the need to be more involved during the opponent's turn.

I disagree (surprise). I think stratagems have a place because too often I've played or watched games where the player who is having down time almost completely disengages from the game during the opponents turn, effectively leaving the opponent to play a solitaire game until he informs his opponent that he has to roll some saves now. GW will probably never abandon IGOUGO but turning strats into a way to react to an opponents actions would be the way to go IMO. Overwatch is already in the game but I think there could be more charge reactions such as falling back or setting a defence. There could also be reactive moves, counter charges and ducking for cover.

However these would all be once per turn and should probably (based on the current economy) start at 3cp and get more expensive from there. It would add a layer of decision making to stuff if you actually had to be wary of consequences. If someone parks their bloodthirster or whatever 6" from an objective you need to start to think about whether or not moving to that objective is really worth it if the opponent might have put it there because he's going to dump 5cp on a counter charge when you move into range or if he's just doing it to mess with you.

 dracpanzer wrote:
I don't mind them, but I don't love them.

I think a strategem deck that was the same for every army in the game, and actually involved strategies, would be far better than what we have now.

No common stratagem deck will equally well for tau, marines, custodes, orks and knights at the same time. Previous editions of 40k have sufficiently proven that.
With the broad spectrum of armies and units that 40k has, you can't really make a one-size-fits-all solution. Something that would work just fine on a knight might be worthless on a squad of guardsmen, something that works great for a unit of terminators might become completely insane if dropped on a unit of boyz or gaunts.

From a recent thread I did, it seems fairly apparent that even 9th edition codices which heavily rely on stratagems like DG could easily be trimmed down to just 9 stratagems plus 1 per subfaction without really affecting game balance or army flavor.

I could go into more detail, but my experience with these kinds of thread is that it would be a waste of time anyways. The "stratagems bad!"-choir will shout down any contradicting opinion anyways.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


IMHO stratagems were a terrible idea from the beginning, they were probably the consequence to answer to those people complaining that during the opponent's turn they were doing nothing else than rolling for saves. I never minded the IGOUGO turn based game instead, and never felt the need to be more involved during the opponent's turn.

I disagree (surprise). I think stratagems have a place because too often I've played or watched games where the player who is having down time almost completely disengages from the game during the opponents turn, effectively leaving the opponent to play a solitaire game until he informs his opponent that he has to roll some saves now. GW will probably never abandon IGOUGO but turning strats into a way to react to an opponents actions would be the way to go IMO. Overwatch is already in the game but I think there could be more charge reactions such as falling back or setting a defence. There could also be reactive moves, counter charges and ducking for cover.

However these would all be once per turn and should probably (based on the current economy) start at 3cp and get more expensive from there. It would add a layer of decision making to stuff if you actually had to be wary of consequences. If someone parks their bloodthirster or whatever 6" from an objective you need to start to think about whether or not moving to that objective is really worth it if the opponent might have put it there because he's going to dump 5cp on a counter charge when you move into range or if he's just doing it to mess with you.

In my experience detachment like that increased the more GW turned 40k into listhammer and the actual "game" into a dice rolling simulator. If you don't have the means to turn around the game through use of tactics, you don't need to pay attention to how the situation develops. Knowing your influence is minimal at best, a lot of people can think of a better way of spending their time during the opponent's turn.

That's not an inherent flaw of IGOUGO and stratagems are at best a band-aid for that. The way GW implements them however, the way GW has implemented pretty much everything for a good while now, stratagems are more often than not designed to double down on a near-certain development instead of supporting a continued back and forth.

Stratagems should never have involved mathematical benefits (such as re-rolls, bonuses to hit/wound etc.) or the ability to attack twice, or just replaced wargear.

They should have been limited options to allow you to execute a manoeuvre on the battlefield.

What form this would take, I am not sure. It would likely require changes to the core rules of 40k to allow for more tactical depth and to reward positioning beyond just having line of sight (such as mechanics representing and rewarding establishing overlapping fields of fire, pinning enemies in place and flanking etc.).

An example off the top of my head:

Clear The Way
Select a vehicle with the <Tank> keyword. This vehicle may move through terrain so long as it does not have the <Impassable> keyword, however it may not fire any weapons this player turn or move on your next player turn. Any other units which move through terrain that the vehicle passed through after the vehicle has finished its move ignore the effects of that terrain until this players next turn.

So you sacrifice the firepower and movement of your tank in order to allow for a fast advance behind it by your other units, representing the first tank clearing out the path in front of it (smashing trees, blowing holes through buildings etc.) for the other forces to follow behind. This would allow you to emulate, for example, the German tank advance through the Ardennes on the tabletop. It also has a potential catch that it can be exploited by your opponent, by denying cover saves for units in the terrain or allowing them to quickly counter attack through the terrain.