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.
Why not just have strategems tied to a unit and add a point cost to the unit. Limit it to one use of a stratagem per army (so no stratagem can be used by two units). Allow a person to stack as many stratagems on a unit as they can afford. I know that if I saw a unit that was really beefed up with strats then I would certainly either single it out for damage or avoid it altogether (whichever is more appropriate). This way everyone knows from turn 1 what unit can do what. No gotchas and no changing which unit can do what. It's all fixed and part of list building.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Why not just have strategems tied to a unit and add a point cost to the unit. Limit it to one use of a stratagem per army (so no stratagem can be used by two units). Allow a person to stack as many stratagems on a unit as they can afford. I know that if I saw a unit that was really beefed up with strats then I would certainly either single it out for damage or avoid it altogether (whichever is more appropriate). This way everyone knows from turn 1 what unit can do what. No gotchas and no changing which unit can do what. It's all fixed and part of list building.
Notionally I'd prefer weaker stratagems. We seem to have inflation there as with everthing else. If something is going to be powerful have it cost say 5-6 CP so you are really spending resources.
But I fear having fewer will just mean faction A always uses Stratagem B as much as they can. Which, to be fair, basically happens now. I don't think the game would be improved by pruning "never used stratagems C & D".
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Why not just have strategems tied to a unit and add a point cost to the unit. Limit it to one use of a stratagem per army (so no stratagem can be used by two units). Allow a person to stack as many stratagems on a unit as they can afford. I know that if I saw a unit that was really beefed up with strats then I would certainly either single it out for damage or avoid it altogether (whichever is more appropriate). This way everyone knows from turn 1 what unit can do what. No gotchas and no changing which unit can do what. It's all fixed and part of list building.
so like wargear upgrades? yes
Yes, that was my idea. Treat them like unique wargear.
Tell you what I did not want to see, and that's 6-10pt flying troops with S5 ranged attacks that can be taken in groups of 10-20. NO. This is wrong GW.
Hecaton wrote: I feel that there should be less Stratagems available during the game - give people access to core Stratagems, then pick 4-6 to have access to from your faction's list, and you can't use the rest during your game. That way people aren't overwhelmed with options. You could even have certain Stratagems be mutually exclusive with each other. Make what Stratagems you bring to the field an actual choice with tradeoffs.
warhead01 wrote: I had a similar thought. something like one stratagem for ever 500 points in your army. If that's too much than maybe something like every stratagem in a once per game use no exceptions.
That's basically what I want to see for strats, like I said on the last page, although I would use the existing mechanics of game size (Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force, Onslaught) rather than just per X-points.
And then on top of that remove all equipment and 'gotcha' strats.
kirotheavenger wrote: There's no way you can rules lawyer something as vague as that, unfortunately.
Closest you could get is something like "Squads Pliny and Tertullian may fall back and still charge once per game" would be as close as you'd get.
Ultimately that's more pre-battle planning, which I want to avoid.
No plan survives contact with the enemy, so what I want to wargame is how I handle that friction. Setting it all up before hand is homework I don't want to do.
I'd guess that would be a smaller issue to solve than the long pause after setup to work out where and when these Strats would be deployed.
"Ok, I'm going to shoot that unit." "Ha! Transhuman! Now they're tougher for no apparent reason!"
That kind of strat. There should be reactionary strats, but not like that. Not one that just makes a unit of Primaris Marines (or Cadians, FFS... ) suddenly tougher out of no where.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/15 04:22:19
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Why not just have strategems tied to a unit and add a point cost to the unit. Limit it to one use of a stratagem per army (so no stratagem can be used by two units). Allow a person to stack as many stratagems on a unit as they can afford. I know that if I saw a unit that was really beefed up with strats then I would certainly either single it out for damage or avoid it altogether (whichever is more appropriate). This way everyone knows from turn 1 what unit can do what. No gotchas and no changing which unit can do what. It's all fixed and part of list building.
Because a lot of them started out that way, nobody took them - or they didn't do anything, and GW figured this would be another way to get them used. Land Raider Assault Launchers, Hunter Killer Missiles, Hellfury Bolts, Haywire, Starhawk/Flakk, and so on. These things were usually in this no-man's-land where during list building you looked at it and said not worth the points - then in a game every so often - Man wouldn't it be funny if I had that now. - for example the Flakk/Starhawk missiles and such. Facing an aircraft in a random game is too unlikely to dedicate points to, but when you do, you wish you had them. Now maybe they just give the AA missile to Missile Launcher troops free with Frag and Krak. And all tanks get a free Hunter Killer Missile, etc. But that just feeds the power creep.
GW has its own version of Death and Taxes: They absolutely LOVE some Ideas they can't make work, and they break a lot of things that used to work in their quest for those things they love.
Thudd Gun to Thunderfire Canon (multi-barreled field artillery piece with a WWI/Civil War vibe)
Tarantula to Firestrike (Two Heavy Gun Turrety Thing)
Land Raider Assault Launchers
Auto Launchers/Smoke Screens
People who have played other armies for a long time can probably list more things from their armies. Many of these things are somewhat a catch-22. They're not good enough to charge for, and too good for free.
"Ok, I'm going to shoot that unit."
"Ha! Transhuman! Now they're tougher for no apparent reason!"
That kind of strat. There should be reactionary strats, but not like that. Not one that just makes a unit of Primaris Marines (or Cadians, FFS... ) suddenly tougher out of no where.
That's not much of a gotcha. Maybe we're using Gotcha differently. And its basically a squad version of the Armor Indomitus. How many books don't have something like this? Lightning Fast Reactions in CWE -1 to hit when selected as a target - Veterans Of The Long War is similar just going the other direction +1 to Wound when selecting a target. Exceptional Proficiency +1 to hit. Unbridled Carnage, Hit 'Em Harder and so on. If we should have reactive strats, but not ones that make units tougher, accurate, agile, or mobile what do they react with?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I kind of wonder what it would look like if we went back to 2nd Edition List Building.
I think it was 0-25% on characters, 25%+ on Squads, and 0-50% on Support. - that's mostly self explanatory - Independent Characters were Characters, Squads were the Elite, FA, Troops, and Heavy Support that are.. Squads. Support was your vehicles, soup, and so on - they've already been moving that direction ever since the strict Formations relaxing into several pretty customizable detachments that can avoid Troop choices entirely.
I don't really think that's the answer, but maybe some sort of hybrid. I just started wondering what it would look like. Knights would need some sort of special rule, but they already do. I was just wondering what it would look like.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/15 07:10:42
That's not much of a gotcha. Maybe we're using Gotcha differently.
Nah, it's a Gotcha, just because everyone knows it doesn't make it not one. Personally in terms of reactionary Gotchas I'd define a Gotcha as something that invalidates or weakens an opponents choice of action that they can't do anything about. So in the case of Transhuman if an opponent chooses to use his expensive points sink unit and sinks several CP into making it even better and the opponent uses a Strat to turn into a suboptimal choice then I'd say thats a Gotcha. There is no way to work around the Strat such as baiting it out earlier in the phase or negating it somehow.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/03/15 07:58:22
That's not much of a gotcha. Maybe we're using Gotcha differently.
Nah, it's a Gotcha, just because everyone knows it doesn't make it not one. Personally in terms of reactionary Gotchas I'd define a Gotcha as something that invalidates or weakens an opponents choice of action that they can't do anything about. So in the case of Transhuman if an opponent chooses to use his expensive points sink unit and sinks several CP into making it even better and the opponent uses a Strat to turn into a suboptimal choice then I'd say thats a Gotcha. There is no way to work around the Strat such as baiting it out earlier in the phase or negating it somehow.
Isn't that the point of a reactionary Strat? Wouldn't NOT having these then make the opponent's choice of action a Gotcha?
That's not much of a gotcha. Maybe we're using Gotcha differently.
Nah, it's a Gotcha, just because everyone knows it doesn't make it not one. Personally in terms of reactionary Gotchas I'd define a Gotcha as something that invalidates or weakens an opponents choice of action that they can't do anything about. So in the case of Transhuman if an opponent chooses to use his expensive points sink unit and sinks several CP into making it even better and the opponent uses a Strat to turn into a suboptimal choice then I'd say thats a Gotcha. There is no way to work around the Strat such as baiting it out earlier in the phase or negating it somehow.
Isn't that the point of a reactionary Strat? Wouldn't NOT having these then make the opponent's choice of action a Gotcha?
You know what you in the past also could do, when we had no strats? for a unit that needed to be tougher to survive?
USR: going to ground / take cover. And you know what the cost was associated to it, less accuracy and movement.
An actual cost, not limited to 1 unit and an actual decision, save the unit but sacrifice movement / firepower for another time, or attempting to weather the storm but risk the unit being obliterated.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
That's not much of a gotcha. Maybe we're using Gotcha differently.
Nah, it's a Gotcha, just because everyone knows it doesn't make it not one. Personally in terms of reactionary Gotchas I'd define a Gotcha as something that invalidates or weakens an opponents choice of action that they can't do anything about. So in the case of Transhuman if an opponent chooses to use his expensive points sink unit and sinks several CP into making it even better and the opponent uses a Strat to turn into a suboptimal choice then I'd say thats a Gotcha. There is no way to work around the Strat such as baiting it out earlier in the phase or negating it somehow.
Invalidate and weaken are completely different cases though. Transhuman is not really a gotcha, since it just turns the roll into a slightly worse one and people should expect not to get average results everytime. Transhuman is basically the equivalent to roll a bit more poorly than expected, and despite all the ways to fix the results and the amount of dice involved we're still playing a dice game.
A gotcha is when an impossible result is achieved out of that unexpected tool. Like charging more than 12'' for example, or getting/removing Obj sec for a turn and score differently thanks to that. With this definition of gotchas I don't think there are that many gotchas combinations at the moment.
I kind of wonder what it would look like if we went back to 2nd Edition List Building.
I think it was 0-25% on characters, 25%+ on Squads, and 0-50% on Support. - that's mostly self explanatory - Independent Characters were Characters, Squads were the Elite, FA, Troops, and Heavy Support that are.. Squads. Support was your vehicles, soup, and so on - they've already been moving that direction ever since the strict Formations relaxing into several pretty customizable detachments that can avoid Troop choices entirely.
I don't really think that's the answer, but maybe some sort of hybrid. I just started wondering what it would look like. Knights would need some sort of special rule, but they already do. I was just wondering what it would look like.
Nah, factions with good options in all army roles would be much better than others then. Just allow troops to do unique and rewarding activities so the players might be incentivized to take them but they'd also get a plan B in case their troops are not worthy and rely on different tactics. Otherwise divide the roster into Generals, Core, Rare, Super Rare with basically all the infantries and bikers (except models in heavy armour and some expensive specialists) into the core section, like WHFB. This would give enough flexibility even if it forces players to invest X% of points into specific categories.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/15 08:58:08
A gotcha is when an impossible result is achieved out of that unexpected tool. Like charging more than 12'' for example, or getting/removing Obj sec for a turn and score differently thanks to that. With this definition of gotchas I don't think there are that many gotchas combinations at the moment.
The ObSec is getting more popular - between giving ObSec away to Non Troops, Making Units/Models who already have it count as 1 more - and the Teaser about the Parasite of Mortrex. They're slow about it, but they appear to making sure their mechanics have ways for you to manipulate them - i.e. counting more or less on Objectives.
Blackie wrote: A gotcha is when an impossible result is achieved out of that unexpected tool. Like charging more than 12'' for example, or getting/removing Obj sec for a turn and score differently thanks to that. With this definition of gotchas I don't think there are that many gotchas combinations at the moment.
I kind of like this definition, although I'd possibly go even further.
To my mind gotchas are trap cards. The best examples are interception stratagems. (Forewarned with Eldar, Auspex Scan for Marines etc). You deepstrike within a certain range, I can shoot you outside of sequence, and because damage is ludicrous, there's a good chance your DSed unit is just deleted before getting to do anything. If you get "caught" it tends to feel bad - because you had other immediate options - often just putting you models a few inches over which wouldn't have made much difference (in a casual game anyway). Some heroic intervention stratagems can fall into the same space. If you are used to playing by intent with some mild take backs if your intention didn't quite match up it feels a bit jarring to be told "haha, I got you, gg no re".
To a degree this applies to things like turning Obsec on and off, or charging more than 12" - but at least in some instances (more casual games perhaps) this wouldn't necesarilly instantly impact how you play.
Like charging into a unit which can make you fight last. Its obviously annoying - but what was the alternative? Just standing there waiting to be charged/shot in your turn? You just have to learn that said unit can do that.
Certainly calling things like Transhuman a gotcha seem to be stretching it. To my mind that's not far off going "if I'd known Custodes were T5 2+ I wouldn't have shot them with my bolters". I mean maybe that would be true but its not obvious you were "got".
Certainly calling things like Transhuman a gotcha seem to be stretching it. To my mind that's not far off going "if I'd known Custodes were T5 2+ I wouldn't have shot them with my bolters". I mean maybe that would be true but its not obvious you were "got".
How is that different than "If I'd known you could shoot reinforcements within 12 inches I would have placed them 13 inches (and outside the Good Melta Distance) away."? I mean at a certain point any of the ones we choose to delete or keep can be worked into that sentence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/15 10:58:39
How is that different than "If I'd known you could shoot reinforcements within 12 inches I would have placed them 13 inches (and outside the Good Melta Distance) away."? I mean at a certain point any of the ones we choose to delete or keep can be worked into that sentence.
I feel "I didn't realise unit X was so strong/tough/fast" is different to "I didn't realise that ability even existed in the game".
To a degree yes, you can say "you just have to learn" - but some things are more of a trap than others.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/15 11:37:06
Sim-Life wrote: There is no way to work around the Strat such as baiting it out earlier in the phase or negating it somehow.
If your opponent only has one unit of troops that can use it, this is sort of true.
A lot of folks say that 9th doesn't have strategy or tactics; what they mean by that is that strategies and tactics don't fit their definition of what strategies and tactics are. Doing this kind of thing- teasing a transhuman out of someone- IS a strategy or a tactic.
So first- you want to force a player to use it early in the game so you can whack them with an Agents of Vect or equivalent, which will make Transhuman more expensive for the rest of the game- this is one way to guarantee you see it less.
Then you have to attack a unit that qualifies to use it which ISN'T the unit you really want to take out. The trick is it has to LOOK like the unit you want to take out. So it should be a unit whose disappearance would give you an edge. And if your opponent doesn't declare transhuman right away, you want to drop a strat on it to sweeten the deal.... But not the strat you're saving for your real target.
Now I get that this doesn't feel the same as using facings or positioning or suppressive fire, or all the other stuff that people say IS strategy or tactics. But there is strategy at work.
BTW, if gotcha strats are terrible, than wouldn't suppression fire be a gotcha tactic? There's even less you can do to mitigate it than there is that you can do to mitigate transhuman. So why does everyone love one and hate the other?
(I already know the answer- it's because one feels like it SHOULD be associated with a miniature game and the other feels like it should be associated with a card game- but it's crazy to me that people don't actually mind GOTCHA, as long as it's their particular flavour of GOTCHA)
Sim-Life wrote: There is no way to work around the Strat such as baiting it out earlier in the phase or negating it somehow.
If your opponent only has one unit of troops that can use it, this is sort of true.
A lot of folks say that 9th doesn't have strategy or tactics; what they mean by that is that strategies and tactics don't fit their definition of what strategies and tactics are. Doing this kind of thing- teasing a transhuman out of someone- IS a strategy or a tactic.
So first- you want to force a player to use it early in the game so you can whack them with an Agents of Vect or equivalent, which will make Transhuman more expensive for the rest of the game- this is one way to guarantee you see it less.
Then you have to attack a unit that qualifies to use it which ISN'T the unit you really want to take out. The trick is it has to LOOK like the unit you want to take out. So it should be a unit whose disappearance would give you an edge. And if your opponent doesn't declare transhuman right away, you want to drop a strat on it to sweeten the deal.... But not the strat you're saving for your real target.
Now I get that this doesn't feel the same as using facings or positioning or suppressive fire, or all the other stuff that people say IS strategy or tactics. But there is strategy at work.
BTW, if gotcha strats are terrible, than wouldn't suppression fire be a gotcha tactic? There's even less you can do to mitigate it than there is that you can do to mitigate transhuman. So why does everyone love one and hate the other?
(I already know the answer- it's because one feels like it SHOULD be associated with a miniature game and the other feels like it should be associated with a card game- but it's crazy to me that people don't actually mind GOTCHA, as long as it's their particular flavour of GOTCHA)
Transhuman at most is tactics, and no it isn't realistically. NVM that some factions don't get the options to bait something out with strats.
Contrast that with how most games actually are handling surpressive fire and that you CAN play around, e.g use weapons like a mortar to remove an mg, or infiltrating units etc. whilest the other is just inconsistent on demand bs that has nothing to do with tactics in a wargame.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
I think I would throw out all the strats the way the are and replace them with strats that ae focused on the larger battle taking place not the individual units. So things like Orbital strike would stay but better represent an orbital strike.
I'd bring back, from 2nd, virus outbreak as I feel that under the current system it would be reasonable or at least more reasonable than it was back in 2nd due to the current method of scoring. We'd need about 20 to choose from and the game would need more cleaning up to make these fit. Even something as simple as "Smoke screen", giving a -1 or -2 to hit again ever unit in an area as a strat. remember I'm thinking larger than a single unit so like an 12 in radius or maybe as large as 18 inches. not sure. I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to come up with more. Even a reinforcement strat to replace a destroyed unit or two would be fine.
Over all I don't care for the current game. I want it to feel more like a wargame and less like a card game with models and or a pc game gone analog.
Overall I have no positive expectations from more Nu-hammer editions. Living rule book games are just no fun for the very casual player, didn't like it with bloodbowl don't like it with 40K.
Really 10th edition would be amazing if it wasn't at all an editions but more of a surprise! we're rereleasing ever edition with faq's and support and oh by the way ever new model we make will have rules for ever edition.
But that's asking way too much in this digital age.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
I want as i have wanted for years balance through algorithm. to that end 10th includes an app where you input game into and keep track of lists and games results. let the players provide more granular data if they want to keep track of it all there but a simple list vs list and game result score would be enough.
I would also like to see alternate unit activation by phase but that seems unlikely. i think that would actually help vs the now top codexes of Tau, Eldar, Harlie and Custodes as many other armies with mroe units to activate could counter move to thier firepower or moves into assault range.
I would not eliminate strategems, but some would just be built into the game. any unit charged could either overwatch or set to defend as an example. Only let them overwatch one unit charging in the order charged as an example.
Sim-Life wrote: There is no way to work around the Strat such as baiting it out earlier in the phase or negating it somehow.
If your opponent only has one unit of troops that can use it, this is sort of true.
A lot of folks say that 9th doesn't have strategy or tactics; what they mean by that is that strategies and tactics don't fit their definition of what strategies and tactics are. Doing this kind of thing- teasing a transhuman out of someone- IS a strategy or a tactic.
So first- you want to force a player to use it early in the game so you can whack them with an Agents of Vect or equivalent, which will make Transhuman more expensive for the rest of the game- this is one way to guarantee you see it less.
Then you have to attack a unit that qualifies to use it which ISN'T the unit you really want to take out. The trick is it has to LOOK like the unit you want to take out. So it should be a unit whose disappearance would give you an edge. And if your opponent doesn't declare transhuman right away, you want to drop a strat on it to sweeten the deal.... But not the strat you're saving for your real target.
Now I get that this doesn't feel the same as using facings or positioning or suppressive fire, or all the other stuff that people say IS strategy or tactics. But there is strategy at work.
BTW, if gotcha strats are terrible, than wouldn't suppression fire be a gotcha tactic? There's even less you can do to mitigate it than there is that you can do to mitigate transhuman. So why does everyone love one and hate the other?
(I already know the answer- it's because one feels like it SHOULD be associated with a miniature game and the other feels like it should be associated with a card game- but it's crazy to me that people don't actually mind GOTCHA, as long as it's their particular flavour of GOTCHA)
Sure, I'll get right on making those key strats more expensive with my Necron army...no, wait, my Blood Angels...still no? How about my Deathwatch?
Everything else you write here is literally just relying on your opponent being bad at maths or the game in general. The problem with strats is you can just count up your resources, figure out what you need to keep alive and apply the strat you need where you need it. That's because everything is already known ahead of time barring dice rolls (and they're becoming less and less variable too). I know what your secondaries are and what the current board state means for both primary and secondary points. I might plan to Transhuman Unit A and you may want to kill them so you target Unit B. It's really not difficult for me to look at the expected damage and make a decision about whether to change my plan given the resources you've already committed. You may then get to destroy Unit A, but I know that's a possibility so you haven't really baited out anything.
Now consider even a minor change to strats that meant you had to draw them from a pre-built deck. I might be fairly certain Transhuman is in the deck, but I don't know if you have it available. Furthermore, if each strat is only useable once, even if you do have it, you may decide it's not optimal to play it yet. There's much more uncertainty there. Compare that to how it is now, where a SM player not using Transhuman during your turn is more than likely doing something wrong.
I think people are getting hung up on the idea of a "gotcha strat" as if we're speaking strictly in tournament terms. If you're playing in a tourney you should probably know most of what an opponent can throw at you and similarly you should probably know what your friends codices can do in friendly games after awhile. That being said I don't have a friend for each different codex and I haven't played in a tourney in years, so yeah there are still plenty of moments where I get surprised by something new. I think the issue isn't so much that these strats allow one to trick an opponent so much as it's another layer of gimmick that can be fudged with edition to edition to provide an appearance of change or "balance". Someone mentioned CP tanks from 8th and I think that's a prime example of how you can go wrong with stratagems and how they can negatively effect the game. How many people actually enjoyed the Loyal 32? I mean really enjoyed it and made a cool army around the concept. One? Two? That creepy guy who paints swastikas on his toys?
GW listened to valid complaints and took action.
Removal of no model, no rules.
Clean, not a mess of if/and/or/thans.
Points neatly in the sidebar for easy reference.
7000 
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
Competition Index