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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The trouble here is the if. It’s such a big if, were that particular if were a but, I fear Sir Mixalot would be driven to such a fit of sheer fondness and ardor nobody would come out of it looking particularly good.

I'm beyond caring about which rules exploit GW sees fit to unleash on us next, but I just had to applaud this reference. Well done.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I generally hate “I interrupt your turn to do extra things with my models” in a game with such a heavy mental load as 40K. They’ll have to really streamline to make them work.

theyre dropping strats to ~6 per subfaction, i'd say the mental load just got almost completely destroyed

Any reaction play is still mental load, whether it’s called an Ability or Stratagem. At least they’ll all be on unit cards, but it just feels like shuffling the deck not changing anything.

I'm sorry you think Gaunts having a special rule is super taxing on you. Best not play anything.

Even for Dakka this is pathetic. You try a nuanced, adult discussion then get childish absolutist gakposting. Great times.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I generally hate “I interrupt your turn to do extra things with my models” in a game with such a heavy mental load as 40K. They’ll have to really streamline to make them work.

theyre dropping strats to ~6 per subfaction, i'd say the mental load just got almost completely destroyed

Any reaction play is still mental load, whether it’s called an Ability or Stratagem. At least they’ll all be on unit cards, but it just feels like shuffling the deck not changing anything.

I'm sorry you think Gaunts having a special rule is super taxing on you. Best not play anything.

I think this rule is Candidate #1 for the "Oh, crap I forgot I can move them" Award for Most Commonly Forgotten Special Rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I generally hate “I interrupt your turn to do extra things with my models” in a game with such a heavy mental load as 40K. They’ll have to really streamline to make them work.

theyre dropping strats to ~6 per subfaction, i'd say the mental load just got almost completely destroyed

Any reaction play is still mental load, whether it’s called an Ability or Stratagem. At least they’ll all be on unit cards, but it just feels like shuffling the deck not changing anything.

I'm sorry you think Gaunts having a special rule is super taxing on you. Best not play anything.

Even for Dakka this is pathetic. You try a nuanced, adult discussion then get childish absolutist gakposting. Great times.

Where am I wrong? Did Necron Deathmarks in 5th have you sweating?

I dunno man, Rule 1 of this forum seems to be perplexing you so it’s a bit rich to sling mud.

Changing what you call reaction moves and where they appear doesn’t affect needing to remember them, where they appear, when to use them and/or change how much the interrupt can affect the flow of your turn. Could all add up. Just postulating, clearly have no way of extrapolating from one Datasheet but could mount up to the same.

If you fancy discussing properly, do. If you want to randomly attack me do drop me a PM and go off, as it saves everyone else the performance.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I dunno man, Rule 1 of this forum seems to be perplexing you so it’s a bit rich to sling mud.

Changing what you call reaction moves and where they appear doesn’t affect needing to remember them, where they appear, when to use them and/or change how much the interrupt can affect the flow of your turn. Could all add up. Just postulating, clearly have no way of extrapolating from one Datasheet but could mount up to the same.

If you fancy discussing properly, do. If you want to randomly attack me do drop me a PM and go off, as it saves everyone else the performance.

Nah, an interactive game is a good game. If you want to do whatever you want with no input from an opponent, go play Solitaire. The further we get from IGOUGO the better.

It’s still an IGOUGO game, guaranteed. A few reactions doesn’t massively change that. I guess it doesn’t feel more interactive than Stratagems just by another name. On the plus side, unit abilities are unit abilities again instead of units randomly forgetting how to do their special thing partway through a game, or only one at a time being able to be special.

(Can you dial it back a wee bit further? You’re almost getting this conversation thing but “go play Solitaire” is reductive gak again. Just… discuss without the edgelordiness! It’s fun!)

Suggesting a game with no opponent interaction isn't being an edgelord

Until we know a little more, it’s hard to decide on it.

Is the reaction for the normal 40k or the other game mode?
I was thinking it was for the other mode.

But this is way better than strats, drop more strats, they suck.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s still an IGOUGO game, guaranteed. A few reactions doesn’t massively change that. I guess it doesn’t feel more interactive than Stratagems just by another name. On the plus side, unit abilities are unit abilities again instead of units randomly forgetting how to do their special thing partway through a game, or only one at a time being able to be special.

Like I said on the last page, I do share your concern about it trading one kind of bloat for another. However, I do think there are a number of key elements that make this fundamentally different from stratagems by another name. The biggest thing is that isolating the ability to the unit creates a one-to-one mapping that is far easier for everyone involved.

In 9th Ed you can ask me 'what do those Termagants do?' and I can't reasonably answer that. There's like two dozen stratagems I could apply to them depending on the context and my subfaction and all that other silliness. When you do actually move or shoot at them or whatever, then I need to try and remember 'do I have a thing for this?' and go flipping through my stratagem list.

With this datasheet, you can ask me 'what do those Termagants do' and I can tell you they move if you get close to them. You can remember that Termagants move when you get close to them, and I can remember that when you do stuff near them they can move. Straightforward, simple.

Now, if it does get to the case of every unit having its own weird ability, then that could be pretty troublesome. But I don't expect GW is going to give every unit an ability that triggers in the opponent's turn. More likely it'll only be a subset, and I imagine they'll be fairly easy to divide into things like 'acts when you move near them' or 'acts when you shoot them' and so on.

Even if every unit does have some sort of reaction, I could still write up a cheat-sheet of all the abilities I can use in your turn and what unit they're tied to, maybe even divided into categories like 'acts when you move near them' or 'acts when you shoot them'. If we were playing a casual game I would be happy to give you a copy before the game starts. With the current stratagem system I can't do that. Every unit can use multiple stratagems and nearly every stratagem could be used by multiple units. The many-to-many mapping and the fact that those abilities are concealed in a giant list rather than actively tied to the unit reference material is what creates the 'trap card' perception.

I do agree with EviscerationPlague that more interactivity is a net positive for the game. It's certainly more to keep track of, but I feel the benefits outweigh the cognitive load abilities like this impose- which I don't feel about stratagems.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s still an IGOUGO game, guaranteed. A few reactions doesn’t massively change that. I guess it doesn’t feel more interactive than Stratagems just by another name. On the plus side, unit abilities are unit abilities again instead of units randomly forgetting how to do their special thing partway through a game, or only one at a time being able to be special.

(Can you dial it back a wee bit further? You’re almost getting this conversation thing but “go play Solitaire” is reductive gak again. Just… discuss without the edgelordiness! It’s fun!)

I feel like the missions played quite well - so much so that no one has mentioned go first win rate for a year at least.

IGOUGO seems workable so some token reactions help keep the opponent mentally active when it isn't their turn.

It feels win-win.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Copy/paste the reactions from Horus Heresy.

Move in op movement phase
Shoot them when they shoot you
Go to ground/evade
Overwatch in charge phase
Improve combat ratings in OP charge phase

Do the WAAAGH! rule like that

Charge in op movement phase
Charge when they shoot you
Charge when they go to ground

I'm on board with this

I like the idea of giving players things to do in their opponent's turn. It can add a lot of depth to the game, as long as it's handled properly.
On the other hand, though? It will probably not be handled properly. =)

Tsagualsa wrote:
Charge in op movement phase
Charge when they shoot you
Charge when they go to ground

Does anyone remember when Black Templars used to fall forwards, rather than back?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
Charge in op movement phase
Charge when they shoot you
Charge when they go to ground

Does anyone remember when Black Templars used to fall forwards, rather than back?

I remember
I think Repentia did something similar.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:


High concept, I'm absolutely onboard for that. Repositioning on gaunts was a bit surprising to me though as I don't really think of them as an especially mobile/agile unit. In the past, we've seen rules like this one on eldar corsairs. I'm not against more positioning/mobility rules and fewer rerolls, but it makes me wonder what kind of abilities we'll see on units that I do think of as being fast and agile. Would be a bit weird for gaunts to have this and something like wyches or dire avengers not to.

It is rare that a biped can outrun a quadruped.

It happens when the biped is significantly larger than the quadruped (bigger stride)- but even then, the quadruped can change direction faster, so they may lose the straight-away race, but they're still harder to catch.

The other time it might happen is when the quadruped is particularly heavy.

It’s only a rabbit!

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Suggesting a game with no opponent interaction isn't being an edgelord

Politely, without ad hominems? No, it wouldn’t be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s still an IGOUGO game, guaranteed. A few reactions doesn’t massively change that. I guess it doesn’t feel more interactive than Stratagems just by another name. On the plus side, unit abilities are unit abilities again instead of units randomly forgetting how to do their special thing partway through a game, or only one at a time being able to be special.

Like I said on the last page, I do share your concern about it trading one kind of bloat for another. However, I do think there are a number of key elements that make this fundamentally different from stratagems by another name. The biggest thing is that isolating the ability to the unit creates a one-to-one mapping that is far easier for everyone involved.

In 9th Ed you can ask me 'what do those Termagants do?' and I can't reasonably answer that. There's like two dozen stratagems I could apply to them depending on the context and my subfaction and all that other silliness. When you do actually move or shoot at them or whatever, then I need to try and remember 'do I have a thing for this?' and go flipping through my stratagem list.

With this datasheet, you can ask me 'what do those Termagants do' and I can tell you they move if you get close to them. You can remember that Termagants move when you get close to them, and I can remember that when you do stuff near them they can move. Straightforward, simple.

Now, if it does get to the case of every unit having its own weird ability, then that could be pretty troublesome. But I don't expect GW is going to give every unit an ability that triggers in the opponent's turn. More likely it'll only be a subset, and I imagine they'll be fairly easy to divide into things like 'acts when you move near them' or 'acts when you shoot them' and so on.

Even if every unit does have some sort of reaction, I could still write up a cheat-sheet of all the abilities I can use in your turn and what unit they're tied to, maybe even divided into categories like 'acts when you move near them' or 'acts when you shoot them'. If we were playing a casual game I would be happy to give you a copy before the game starts. With the current stratagem system I can't do that. Every unit can use multiple stratagems and nearly every stratagem could be used by multiple units. The many-to-many mapping and the fact that those abilities are concealed in a giant list rather than actively tied to the unit reference material is what creates the 'trap card' perception.

I do agree with EviscerationPlague that more interactivity is a net positive for the game. It's certainly more to keep track of, but I feel the benefits outweigh the cognitive load abilities like this impose- which I don't feel about stratagems.

Yeah I think I’ll keep doing cheat sheets too, hopefully condensed ones. I have my fingers crossed bu5 always wary because GeeDub gonna GeeDub.

Just a question for folks:

Before: ONE termagant unit can scuttle in response to enemy movement, if you have enough CP to do it and deem it worth paying CP based on how much you have and how many other tactics you need to execute based on other goals.

After: Every unit of Termagants always gets to run in response to enemy movement every turn because there's no limit or cost.

Which do you prefer?

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Yeah I think I’ll keep doing cheat sheets too, hopefully condensed ones. I have my fingers crossed bu5 always wary because GeeDub gonna GeeDub.

GW is gonna be providing cheat sheets... thats the point of these datasheet + the one page of rule per army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Just a question for folks:

Before: ONE termagant unit can scuttle in response to enemy movement, if you have enough CP to do it and deem it worth paying CP based on how much you have and how many other tactics you need to execute based on other goals.

After: Every unit of Termagants always gets to run in response to enemy movement every turn because there's no limit or cost.

Which do you prefer?

the second, because the ability to do so is right there on the datasheet. not hidden in 3 pages of lawyer-speech stratagems

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Yeah I think I’ll keep doing cheat sheets too, hopefully condensed ones. I have my fingers crossed bu5 always wary because GeeDub gonna GeeDub.

GW is gonna be providing cheat sheets... thats the point of these datasheet + the one page of rule per army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Just a question for folks:

Before: ONE termagant unit can scuttle in response to enemy movement, if you have enough CP to do it and deem it worth paying CP based on how much you have and how many other tactics you need to execute based on other goals.

After: Every unit of Termagants always gets to run in response to enemy movement every turn because there's no limit or cost.

Which do you prefer?

the second, because the ability to do so is right there on the datasheet. not hidden in 3 pages of lawyer-speech stratagems

Most importantly it's easier to price them consistently if they can all do it on demand.

PenitentJake wrote:
Just a question for folks:

Before: ONE termagant unit can scuttle in response to enemy movement, if you have enough CP to do it and deem it worth paying CP based on how much you have and how many other tactics you need to execute based on other goals.

After: Every unit of Termagants always gets to run in response to enemy movement every turn because there's no limit or cost.

Which do you prefer?

The 'after', by far. It scales better, it makes it easier to appropriately price the unit since it's always available, it's an impactful part of unit selection rather than a once-in-a-while trap card response, and it's on the datasheet instead of hidden in a list somewhere.

I would be completely okay with every unit-specific stratagem being incorporated into the datasheet as an ability like this. Giving units discrete roles (something they mentioned on-stream) through abilities would help a lot with mitigating the shallowness of the core mechanics.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Just a question for folks:

Before: ONE termagant unit can scuttle in response to enemy movement, if you have enough CP to do it and deem it worth paying CP based on how much you have and how many other tactics you need to execute based on other goals.

After: Every unit of Termagants always gets to run in response to enemy movement every turn because there's no limit or cost.

Which do you prefer?

The 'after', by far. It scales better, it makes it easier to appropriately price the unit since it's always available, it's an impactful part of unit selection rather than a once-in-a-while trap card response, and it's on the datasheet instead of hidden in a list somewhere.

I would be completely okay with every unit-specific stratagem being incorporated into the datasheet as an ability like this. Giving units discrete roles (something they mentioned on-stream) through abilities would help a lot with mitigating the shallowness of the core mechanics.

Once you step away a bit from seeing it per unit, and look at a whole army instead, and at factions, subfactions, allies etc., it's quite clear that the 'before' grows in complexity in a way that is somewhere between quadratic and exponential, while the 'after' is essentially linear. That should reduce mental load nicely.

Tsagualsa wrote:
Once you step away a bit from seeing it per unit, and look at a whole army instead, and at factions, subfactions, allies etc., it's quite clear that the 'before' grows in complexity in a way that is somewhere between quadratic and exponential, while the 'after' is essentially linear. That should reduce mental load nicely.

That's a fantastic way to describe it, thank you.

Speaking of complexity, from today's Warcom article-

Are Universal Special Rules returning?

The short answer is yes! Ultimately the Warhammer Design Studio decided that having the same special rule under a dozen or more separate faction names had become a bit of a barrier to the smooth running of the game – not least because many players simply referred to them by a single name anyway, such as Deep Strike and Feel No Pain.

Sure sounds like they're recognizing the issues with clarity in the current ruleset, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

Hurrah for the return of USRs

(so can i assume the game is dead and its not 40k anymore if the 10 monthly posts about USRs being bad)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
GW is gonna be providing cheat sheets... thats the point of these datasheet + the one page of rule per army.

Until the Codex comes out, at which point they will stop providing them and start charging for them.

You want the rules for the new units that weren't in the Index? Better pony up!

Apologies if this post should be wearing a dunces cap, but unit reaction type things do essentially mean no more stratagems? Or at least far fewer.

They’re one of the things I’ve found daunting about trying to write an effective list as someone trying to get back into the gaming side.

Time was, I’d just take more or less what tickled my fancy, and find a way to make it work (even if that way meant swapping out units for stuff which didn’t objectively suck). Stratagems however seem to be an extra layer of consideration that, if you’re good at it and your opponent isn’t, will see you have a much easier game than them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
GW is gonna be providing cheat sheets... thats the point of these datasheet + the one page of rule per army.

Until the Codex comes out, at which point they will stop providing them and start charging for them.

You want the rules for the new units that weren't in the Index? Better pony up!

yeah yeah i know, GW bad for selling their rules and i agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Apologies if this post should be wearing a dunces cap, but unit reaction type things do essentially mean no more stratagems? Or at least far fewer.

They’re one of the things I’ve found daunting about trying to write an effective list as someone trying to get back into the gaming side.

Time was, I’d just take more or less what tickled my fancy, and find a way to make it work (even if that way meant swapping out units for stuff which didn’t objectively suck). Stratagems however seem to be an extra layer of consideration that, if you’re good at it and your opponent isn’t, will see you have a much easier game than them.

they said thered only be around 6 strats per army now, so much smaller mental load and they should much less specific

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Reactions……

If the rules get them right, and keep them relatively straight forward? Can add some decent dodges when it’s not your turn. Once per phase, you get the chance to pull your [unmentionable] from the [thing which our ancestors mastered many years ago].

Done like that, it gives an out against lazy attacks, without being able to entirely dodge poor positioning against a canny foe.

The trouble here is the if. It’s such a big if, were that particular if were a but, I fear Sir Mixalot would be driven to such a fit of sheer fondness and ardor nobody would come out of it looking particularly good.

Well we know already the termagaunt rule is once per unit per phase.

So if you have 6 termagaunts that's up to 6 moving.

Plus whatever equilavents in other units have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

Now, if it does get to the case of every unit having its own weird ability, then that could be pretty troublesome. But I don't expect GW is going to give every unit an ability that triggers in the opponent's turn. More likely it'll only be a subset, and I imagine they'll be fairly easy to divide into things like 'acts when you move near them' or 'acts when you shoot them' and so on..

Well it's not exactly encouraging that the first one they introduce is on bog standard unit...If it's rare for units to have such abilities one would expect it on more elite rarer units.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yeah yeah i know, GW bad for selling their rules and i agree.

They can charge for their rules all they like. My point was that this whole "the rules are free" thing is such a lie by omission - and a repeated one at that - that it amazes me anyone here is falling for it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yeah yeah i know, GW bad for selling their rules and i agree.

They can charge for their rules all they like. My point was that this whole "the rules are free" thing is such a lie by omission - and a repeated one at that - that it amazes me anyone here is falling for it.

I think the important extra factor is the distribution method post-index. From their post it read as you can get your rules via:

1. Codex
2. Digital rules in the app
3. The cards

They may all have different price points, availability and it's unclear how much they'll combo/be interchangeable.

To get back on topic, if the whole armies rules are capable of being contained to some flash cards, I'm sure more reactionary mechanisms won't hurt.