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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Stratagems should never have involved mathematical benefits (such as re-rolls, bonuses to hit/wound etc.) or the ability to attack twice.

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.).

AL stratagems come to mind, being more maneuvre orientated.

in general i agree with the sentiment, and in the case of former "equipment" options now being stratagems are just garbage.

This specifically would not work for 40k, but Infinity has a stratagem like system, where you have 4 command tokens that can do various things. One is to change an irregular order into a regular order, meaning that you can have someone go from contributing their order to themselves to giving it to others. Another is a reroll for engineers/doctors. Another is having multiple models act with one order, but at a limited capacity. Another is to remove 2 orders from your enemy's order pool. I might be remembering some wrong, and there's more than what I mention, and if you know about Infinity, I'm sorry for explaining this. But a reasonable list of stratagems could work out pretty well for all armies. Similar to how USRs used to exist. But I do think a few army specific ones is better than only having a basic list for 40k.

The reason it works for infinity is that there is no bloat-

You have 4 tokens total for the entire game, you never get them back and they can be used for only 7 (IIRC) very specific things, and they are the same things for every faction in the game. no matter the unit/model involved. special skills for unit abilities are still built into their rules.

So, it is quite a different animal than what GW has done.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
This specifically would not work for 40k, but Infinity has a stratagem like system, where you have 4 command tokens that can do various things. One is to change an irregular order into a regular order, meaning that you can have someone go from contributing their order to themselves to giving it to others. Another is a reroll for engineers/doctors. Another is having multiple models act with one order, but at a limited capacity. Another is to remove 2 orders from your enemy's order pool. I might be remembering some wrong, and there's more than what I mention, and if you know about Infinity, I'm sorry for explaining this. But a reasonable list of stratagems could work out pretty well for all armies. Similar to how USRs used to exist. But I do think a few army specific ones is better than only having a basic list for 40k.

Don't know infinity (like at all), but just looking at pictures judging, it doesn't seem that units vary as much as they do in 40k.

When units range from 50 to 800 points, unit sizes vary from one to 30 and single models range from gretchin to castellan knights it's hard to make stratagems that can cover all that.

And speaking of USR - at least those from 6-7th did a very poor job covering anything that wasn't marines or craftword eldar, for precisely those reasons.

 Sim-Life wrote:

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.

Read my posts Sim. I usually don't claim the game is balanced,

I tell people that balance is not and never has been my priority. This version of the game is closer to an RPG than it has ever been, which is why I like it.

If you like competitive wargames, you probably won't like it. The vast majority of my post on Dakka express these sentiments in one way shape or form. It does frequently bother me that Matched players want the whole game overhauled, not just the matched play part of it, but I'm not sure that translates into something that could be misinterpreted as saying the game is balanced.

I may once or twice have said something along the lines of "the game is balanced enough for people like me, whose primary interest is narrative and storytelling" but if you can find a post of mine that goes any further than that, I'd be surprised.

 Jidmah wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
This specifically would not work for 40k, but Infinity has a stratagem like system, where you have 4 command tokens that can do various things. One is to change an irregular order into a regular order, meaning that you can have someone go from contributing their order to themselves to giving it to others. Another is a reroll for engineers/doctors. Another is having multiple models act with one order, but at a limited capacity. Another is to remove 2 orders from your enemy's order pool. I might be remembering some wrong, and there's more than what I mention, and if you know about Infinity, I'm sorry for explaining this. But a reasonable list of stratagems could work out pretty well for all armies. Similar to how USRs used to exist. But I do think a few army specific ones is better than only having a basic list for 40k.

Don't know infinity (like at all), but just looking at pictures judging, it doesn't seem that units vary as much as they do in 40k.

When units range from 50 to 800 points, unit sizes vary from one to 30 and single models range from gretchin to castellan knights it's hard to make stratagems that can cover all that.

And speaking of USR - at least those from 6-7th did a very poor job covering anything that wasn't marines or craftword eldar, for precisely those reasons.

The units vary in special skills, but the entire type of game is different. it is a pure skirmish rection system with d20s. every model gets 2 short or a single long action (there is a list) when they activate.

The average game consists of only 10 models and as normal with skirmish systems because less models are involved it has very complex rules. including different levels of defensive cammo penalties, range brackets for every weapon type that gives bonuses and penalties to hit etc... weapons are standardized across all factions. a heavy machinegun used by one faction has the same stats as one used by any other faction. the unit equipped with it has the special rules.

I love infinity but it is not an army/squad battle game scale like 40K

I won't claim that the rules for Infinity need to be brought to 40k, it was just my example for command points. And there can be a lot of variety. My list contains both 14 point models that have advance move, extra orders for just themselves, and a flamethrower like gun to make up for their bad gun skill while being able to dish out the hurt in CC, and a 136 point monster that is the Avatar, which focuses on being a giant model that can both take the hits and give them back.

Infinity also manages to have a lot of unit diversity and different factions with USRs and specific stratagems, but it's a very different game. I just want to use it as proof that it is possible for USRs and only generic Stratagems to work, though bespoke rules and stratagems in addition to universal would be best for a codex by codex approach like 40k. Universal for things like deepstrike, feel no pain, invulnerable saves.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I won't claim that the rules for Infinity need to be brought to 40k, it was just my example for command points. And there can be a lot of variety. My list contains both 14 point models that have advance move, extra orders for just themselves, and a flamethrower like gun to make up for their bad gun skill while being able to dish out the hurt in CC, and a 136 point monster that is the Avatar, which focuses on being a giant model that can both take the hits and give them back.

Infinity also manages to have a lot of unit diversity and different factions with USRs and specific stratagems, but it's a very different game. I just want to use it as proof that it is possible for USRs and only generic Stratagems to work, though bespoke rules and stratagems in addition to universal would be best for a codex-by-codex approach like 40k. Universal for things like deepstrike, feel no pain, invulnerable saves.

I understand what you were getting at. as an old school player i know the game was fine without them. USRs and unit special rules worked just fine. there was just always something in the edition of the main rules that GW usually screwed up in every edition. unfortunately, the best rules tended to get smattered across multiple editions instead of all being in the same one.


It doesn't help that the current staff at GW does not understand their own game or their own universe. all the original creators have long since left. Now (say the last 3 editions) the marketing department is driving the game more than they had in the past That and the current GW actions against the fan community have driven many people to play old editions or just stop playing all together (a boon for classic battletech fans though) many of the "hardcore" 40K players i know in fact have switched to other games. i see them playing infinity, flames of war, classic battletech and at my store a variety of indie games.

For an idea of what kind of fusion, you are thinking about i suggest you just look through the core miniature terrain rules for DUST tactics (battlefield) or 1947(the last updated rule set) as they are something of a mix between the infinity system at the scale of the 40K game type. they were written by Andy Chambers the lead game designer for GW from 1990-2004 who gave us everything (40K, blood bowl, BFG, space hulk, WHFB, etc... ) GW game wise up to that point. It will give you an idea of the game design strategy that could work at the scale you are looking for.

I don't really hold much hope out for GW at this point though. they have proven time and again that they are incredibly capable at taking a workable idea and totally screwing the implementation. But hey if it drives model sales do they really care all that much?

I quite like the idea of stratagems and I don't mind having a number of them in the codices to choose from, but perhaps it would be better if you had to select only a few you were allowed for your army before the battle, a bit like psychic powers, perhaps you could have 2 or 3 stratagems per 1k pts, or maybe a number of stratagems depending on the number of commanders/characters in the army?

Right now it's far too much of an ordeal trying to remember all the stratagems in the various books you can play in any given situation for an army. I haven't played that many games of 9th and I only played on of 8th but I find I am frequently burning through CP very quickly. I had a game a few nights ago and both me and my opponent were almost out of CP by turns 2, partly because it is effective to use stratagems to gain an advantage early on. I feel like there must be a better way to implement stratagems

I like the extra layers of complexity. I think a few need balance, but overall I like them.