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.

Tyel wrote:
Apply that the 24~ factions in the game (and I suspect we'll see more) and that's 850+ stratagems in nearly 150 different detachments.

Ok, and? We have that right now, except they're all in play all the time (with the exception of a few sub-faction based strats).

Your army will have up to 6 unique ones, as opposed to 30-50. It's a big difference.

You don't have to memorise everyone else's strats.

Tyel wrote:

Now the counter argument will be that much like today, people will only "really" play the best Detachment, so the fact there are 5 inferior ones you don't know shouldn't matter. But if the criticism of 9th was "its hard to be a walking encyclopedia and know everything" then that could very quickly apply.

This is not the same thing. in 9th, you HAD to know all 50+ strats that your opponent had access to because they usually could use any of them in a game (barring the unit-specific ones). In 10th, you'll have 6 of them to learn, no parsing of a badly laid out book to read all the options, just look at their detachment printout and remember 6 of them, thats it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

'Oh you didn't realise that I was using a Mephrit Cohort? Well sucks to be you'

"Oh you didnt listen when i presented my list"

 Lord Damocles wrote:

'Too bad that you're too poor to be able to afford the Court of the High King Detachment. Now roll over while I stomp you'

what kind of argument is that lol?

 Dysartes wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
6 Stratagems is few enough that you don't need to do preparatory homework, you can just learn it at the start of the game.

Right now with one detachment its simple.

Flash forward though and say there's say 2 additional detachments in the codex plus 2 "armies of renown" detachments from supplements and a "we just thought it was cool" detachment in White Dwarf. So there's potentially 36 stratagems (and 24~ relics) in 6 groups to remember. Apply that the 24~ factions in the game (and I suspect we'll see more) and that's 850+ stratagems in nearly 150 different detachments.

Okay maybe at the start of the game you could say to your opponent "I'm playing X Detachment, that means I've got stratagems 1-6, try to remember them" - but I'm not sure its that easy.

Confirming the Detachment in use should be part of confirming which Army you're using at the start of the game. And people should have a copy of the card/page with the Detachment rules with them, so you'll only need to worry about the Detachment in front of you, not all the possible ones.

I can see WD using their card inserts for any Detachments that get printed in issues, for example.

A piece of paper with words printed on it is around 10 cents, or free if you print it at your local library. It should be the accepted practice to give your opponent a copy of you detachment page at the start of the game.

 Dysartes wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
6 Stratagems is few enough that you don't need to do preparatory homework, you can just learn it at the start of the game.

Right now with one detachment its simple.

Flash forward though and say there's say 2 additional detachments in the codex plus 2 "armies of renown" detachments from supplements and a "we just thought it was cool" detachment in White Dwarf. So there's potentially 36 stratagems (and 24~ relics) in 6 groups to remember. Apply that the 24~ factions in the game (and I suspect we'll see more) and that's 850+ stratagems in nearly 150 different detachments.

Okay maybe at the start of the game you could say to your opponent "I'm playing X Detachment, that means I've got stratagems 1-6, try to remember them" - but I'm not sure its that easy.

Confirming the Detachment in use should be part of confirming which Army you're using at the start of the game. And people should have a copy of the card/page with the Detachment rules with them, so you'll only need to worry about the Detachment in front of you, not all the possible ones.

I can see WD using their card inserts for any Detachments that get printed in issues, for example.

Oh yes. No rulesat hand, won't use. Don't have detachment rules to offer? Not getting any bonus, stratagej etc.

Not that it's different to now but reduces stuff to carry and fastens pregame check. Reading card lot faster thax multiple book.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

what kind of argument is that lol?

The point is, we've seen this before. We know that GW has no chill and won't be able to resist spaffing out detachments all over the place. And anybody with a basic degree of pattern recognition can see that this is going to go sideways.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

what kind of argument is that lol?

The point is, we've seen this before. We know that GW has no chill and won't be able to resist spaffing out detachments all over the place. And anybody with a basic degree of pattern recognition can see that this is going to go sideways.

Getting the rules for the game is the easiest thing tho. Even the weird White Dwarf rules were easy to get in the past

 Lord Damocles wrote:


'Oh you didn't realise that I was using a Mephrit Cohort? Well sucks to be you'

In a nutshell, this is my problem with 40k -- the burden of knowledge required to play the game has been steadily increasing over the years, exacerbated by the fact that the game has become less intuitive and more opaque as more of the gameplay is moved from core rules and stats to special rules, army rules, additional abilities, stratagems, etc. A bit of streamlining is helpful, but there still seems to be plenty of scope for these types of "gotcha" moments where a player can be caught unaware because they couldn't keep track of every special rule of every unit of every army in the game. I recognise that 40k isn't a game for me anymore, but the "simplified, not simple" slogan for 10th had me hoping that we might move back to the paradigm of only special units having special rules and for a greater emphasis on the classic core elements of playing warhammer: moving, shooting and close combat based on a unit's stat profile.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

what kind of argument is that lol?

The point is, we've seen this before. We know that GW has no chill and won't be able to resist spaffing out detachments all over the place. And anybody with a basic degree of pattern recognition can see that this is going to go sideways.

Difference is before you had to check multiple books so pre-game would take long time.

Now you check 1 card.

For player it is irrelevant is there 1 or 100000 detachments for opponent to use. He uses 1. Reading 1card with 6 stratagem is not too hard. No need to study every detachment.

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:


'Oh you didn't realise that I was using a Mephrit Cohort? Well sucks to be you'

In a nutshell, this is my problem with 40k -- the burden of knowledge required to play the game has been steadily increasing over the years, exacerbated by the fact that the game has become less intuitive and more opaque as more of the gameplay is moved from core rules and stats to special rules, army rules, additional abilities, stratagems, etc. A bit of streamlining is helpful, but there still seems to be plenty of scope for these types of "gotcha" moments where a player can be caught unaware because they couldn't keep track of every special rule of every unit of every army in the game. I recognise that 40k isn't a game for me anymore, but the "simplified, not simple" slogan for 10th had me hoping that we might move back to the paradigm of only special units having special rules and for a greater emphasis on the classic core elements of playing warhammer: moving, shooting and close combat based on a unit's stat profile.

Here's your burden of knowledge for 10th:

1 army rule.
1 detachment rule.
Up to 4 enhancements (though rarely will all 4 be in use; 2-3 will be way more common).
Six strats (because the generic ones will be the same as the ones YOU have access to).
Unit rules (for the units present).

That's it. They'll all be printed on separate sheets or cards.

"I might charge that unit- can I see its card?" is a question you're allowed to ask. No page numbers, no books.

It doesn't matter how many detachments there are in the game- you're playing against one at a time. During that game, the five line items listed above are what you need to know. Next game? The specifics will change, but you will still only need to know the five line items for the new opponent.

Look, we can argue about balance- that never ends. We can argue about whether or not we like a specific rule, whether it's OP, or unfluffy. We can hate the changes to combi-weapons, psychic powers etc. These things are all up for debate.

What isn't up for debate is whether or not you need to know more than the five line items above for your army, your enemy's army and the core rules + mission rules in order to play any given game. Objectively, emperically, you do not.

PenitentJake wrote:
[That's it. They'll all be printed on separate sheets or cards.

You could do this before too, so I'm not sure what's the big change. I think GW even sold all kinds of cards and stuff.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Overzealous perhaps, but if you were trying to make something more balanced then a more restricted set of options makes sense doesn't it?

Not really because it only sucks all excitement out of the game and thus incites people to look for broken combos (/excitement)... the broken combos that's going to stick out even worse due to how bland everything else is. Basically the current Hellfire Sternguards case in a nutshell. It is better to have a gajillion but carefully mapped-out options to swamp player attention, but it takes legit effort and commitment so I can see why GW didn't go for it.

I'm not sure wargear is really a good driver for excitement -- to a point. I didn't like how limited stuff like Warmachine was. I don't enjoy Bolt Action as much when basically every gun is the same. 40K is still miles from those systems.

People have long complained about winning the game at list selection. I don't think it's quite so simple to do that in 10th ( and it was greatly reduced in 9th ). Things are absolutely not bland at all. Christ, people are complaining that every unit has a rule. Many of these rules are more interactive than anything before, but that's bland? I guarantee you people are looking at tons of things they're eager to try out. You're just seeing the complaint ice berg.

We're in the index stage. GW changed a hell of a lot of stuff. There's bound to be issues. They got 9th to a good spot and they're set up to use the same process to get 10th there. The big question is what happens when codexes arrive and how well they manage that ( or not ).

 AtoMaki wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
[That's it. They'll all be printed on separate sheets or cards.

You could do this before too, so I'm not sure what's the big change. I think GW even sold all kinds of cards and stuff.

35 stratagems for my 9th ed thousand sons
6 for my 10th ed thousand sons

you tell me whats the big change

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
[That's it. They'll all be printed on separate sheets or cards.

You could do this before too, so I'm not sure what's the big change. I think GW even sold all kinds of cards and stuff.

35 stratagems for my 9th ed thousand sons
6 for my 10th ed thousand sons

you tell me whats the big change

A slimmer deck of cards? A slimmer deck of cards for a few months, to be more precise.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
[That's it. They'll all be printed on separate sheets or cards.

You could do this before too, so I'm not sure what's the big change. I think GW even sold all kinds of cards and stuff.

35 stratagems for my 9th ed thousand sons
6 for my 10th ed thousand sons

you tell me whats the big change

A slimmer deck of cards? A slimmer deck of cards for a few months, to be more precise.

The overall size of the "deck" doesn't matter in 10th, you're always only gonna need to remember the strats tied to the detachment

PenitentJake wrote:

Here's your burden of knowledge for 10th:

1 army rule.
1 detachment rule.
Up to 4 enhancements (though rarely will all 4 be in use; 2-3 will be way more common).
Six strats (because the generic ones will be the same as the ones YOU have access to).
Unit rules (for the units present).

That's it. They'll all be printed on separate sheets or cards.

"I might charge that unit- can I see its card?" is a question you're allowed to ask. No page numbers, no books.

It's not just volume of rules, it's the complexity they add to gameplay. Taking Nurgle's Gift as an example, it adds layers to decision making for both players -- "What units could be in the aura's range next turn? How will this impact the movement phase? What units can attack affected units? What weapons do they have and how does this impact the lethality? Are you keeping proper track of the aura's range each turn as it increases? What other special rules or stratagem interactions do I need to be aware of?" You have to be aware of all these things to make good in-game decisions and this is only one of line items you describe.

 nurgle5 wrote:

It's not just volume of rules, it's the complexity they add to gameplay. Taking Nurgle's Gift as an example, it adds layers to decision making for both players -- "What units could be in the aura's range next turn? How will this impact the movement phase? What units can attack affected units? What weapons do they have and how does this impact the lethality? Are you keeping proper track of the aura's range each turn as it increases? What other special rules or stratagem interactions do I need to be aware of?" You have to be aware of all these things to make good in-game decisions and this is only one of line items you describe.

litterally the exact same thing as any unit.....

 nurgle5 wrote:


In a nutshell, this is my problem with 40k -- the burden of knowledge required to play the game has been steadily increasing over the years, exacerbated by the fact that the game has become less intuitive and more opaque as more of the gameplay is moved from core rules and stats to special rules, army rules, additional abilities, stratagems, etc. A bit of streamlining is helpful, but there still seems to be plenty of scope for these types of "gotcha" moments where a player can be caught unaware because they couldn't keep track of every special rule of every unit of every army in the game. I recognise that 40k isn't a game for me anymore, but the "simplified, not simple" slogan for 10th had me hoping that we might move back to the paradigm of only special units having special rules and for a greater emphasis on the classic core elements of playing warhammer: moving, shooting and close combat based on a unit's stat profile.

This is where I am as well. These days I am playing mostly just Blood Bowl and MESBG, two rulesets that have not changed that much in 20+ years, as I cannot keep up with the edition churn of 40k plus the continuous FAQs and errata for poorly-designed and written rules. I came back to 40k the start of 8th (started with 2nd ed.), enjoyed it for a time until it got more bloated around the time of the second Space Marines codex, and did not play at all through 9th, though I have followed its progression/degeneration. I became interested in 10th (I still have 6+ 40k armies) with its "simplified, not simple" mantra, but the more rules and datacards that are released, the more I realize that this will not be a "simplified" edition. Hence my original post. Now I see that GW has already "fixed" some datasheet/stratagem rules for Deathwatch; rules for a game that has not even been released yet . . . the cycle continues . . .

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

It's not just volume of rules, it's the complexity they add to gameplay. Taking Nurgle's Gift as an example, it adds layers to decision making for both players -- "What units could be in the aura's range next turn? How will this impact the movement phase? What units can attack affected units? What weapons do they have and how does this impact the lethality? Are you keeping proper track of the aura's range each turn as it increases? What other special rules or stratagem interactions do I need to be aware of?" You have to be aware of all these things to make good in-game decisions and this is only one of line items you describe.

litterally the exact same thing as any unit.....

Yes, my point exactly -- the burden of knowledge required to the play the game has steadily increased over the years.

 nurgle5 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

It's not just volume of rules, it's the complexity they add to gameplay. Taking Nurgle's Gift as an example, it adds layers to decision making for both players -- "What units could be in the aura's range next turn? How will this impact the movement phase? What units can attack affected units? What weapons do they have and how does this impact the lethality? Are you keeping proper track of the aura's range each turn as it increases? What other special rules or stratagem interactions do I need to be aware of?" You have to be aware of all these things to make good in-game decisions and this is only one of line items you describe.

litterally the exact same thing as any unit.....

Yes, my point exactly -- the burden of knowledge required to the play the game has steadily increased over the years.

Yes but you're complaining about the most basic aspect.
You're asking for a game where you don't need to think ahead and plan your poisitioning based on your opponent's possible moves. Thats the very base of a strategy game and the core gameplay aspect that actually means anything.

If you're into wargaming purely to roll dice then i honestly don't know if 40k can fulfill that itch

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yes but you're complaining about the most basic aspect.
You're asking for a game where you don't need to think ahead and plan your poisitioning based on your opponent's possible moves. Thats the very base of a strategy game and the core gameplay aspect that actually means anything.

If you're into wargaming purely to roll dice then i honestly don't know if 40k can fulfill that itch

Well, I was told that 40K is more like a CCG so all of this is irrelevant!

Having to consider how an ability like Nurgle's Gift could impact your army, and incorporating that into your decision-making such that your tactics become more nuanced than 'point guns at optimal targets, move onto objectives', is a good thing.

The problem was when you had a system like that, then you also had to remember what turn you were on because that affected it, then you also had to factor in another couple of army-wide abilities because nobody had just one 'thing' by the end of 9th, and then 30+ stratagems that could interact with it, and all of these are scattered across a codex you have to flip through to remind yourself of what's going on.

There's a balance to be struck here, and giving each army an army-wide rule, a detachment rule, and a limited, concise set of stratagems really isn't that much to track when it's on a cheat-sheet right in front of you whenever you need it.

The cognitive load is going way, way down.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yes but you're complaining about the most basic aspect.
You're asking for a game where you don't need to think ahead and plan your poisitioning based on your opponent's possible moves. Thats the very base of a strategy game and the core gameplay aspect that actually means anything.

If you're into wargaming purely to roll dice then i honestly don't know if 40k can fulfill that itch

Well, I was told that 40K is more like a CCG so all of this is irrelevant!

'Strategy game' and 'CCG-like' are not mutually exclusive, particularly when we're talking about the tactical considerations that arise from special abilities rather than staple wargame mechanics.

 catbarf wrote:
'Strategy game' and 'CCG-like' are not mutually exclusive, particularly when we're talking about the tactical considerations that arise from special abilities rather than staple wargame mechanics.

I understand. I'm just in a snarky mood.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Yes but you're complaining about the most basic aspect.
You're asking for a game where you don't need to think ahead and plan your poisitioning based on your opponent's possible moves. Thats the very base of a strategy game and the core gameplay aspect that actually means anything.

If you're into wargaming purely to roll dice then i honestly don't know if 40k can fulfill that itch

I have to assume there's some sort of miscomprehension occurring here, rather than any kind of disingenuous attempt to mischaracterize me or my posts.

40k is now empirically more complex than many (though not all) of the previous editions, thinking that complexity has reached a level that's burdensome to track is not the same as wanting to play a game devoid of strategy.

 AtoMaki wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
[That's it. They'll all be printed on separate sheets or cards.

You could do this before too, so I'm not sure what's the big change. I think GW even sold all kinds of cards and stuff.

Yeah. Here's this big pile of books. Have fun browsing through and parsing which ones affect this unit in this army.

tneva82 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
[That's it. They'll all be printed on separate sheets or cards.

You could do this before too, so I'm not sure what's the big change. I think GW even sold all kinds of cards and stuff.

Yeah. Here's this big pile of books. Have fun browsing through and parsing which ones affect this unit in this army.

Why not just copy the relevant info out to cards and sheets?

So opponent is supposed to copy relevant info?


Nobody....i mean nobody writes stuff down on MY items.

Point is now opponent doesn't have to read through multiple books to figure out what abilities my army has. I provide 1 sheet that covers detachment rule and army rule. That's it.

Doesn't matter if there's 10000 other detachments with 60000 more stratagems. That one sheet is all he needs to know.

Klickor wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:

I always thought vehicle moving and shooting should've been less restrictive back then. This works fine in bolt action, for example. I think the issue wasn't with vehicle facings, it was with gw's implementation of facings and vehicles in general.

Don't forget lack of terrain and not much scoring that made movement relevant. On current tables with current mission design with old vehicle facing a tank that got to use their front facing value all the time is probably not doing anything of note. If there is less penalty for moving and more incentive to move, due to terrain/scoring, then it would actually be a decision between protecting the flanks or rear or expose them but get line of sight or contest an objective.

Hah, yeah I completely forgot about the traditional last turn objective rush. I agree the current ruleset would be a much better fit, I hadn't thought of that. Sadly that ship has sailed (for now )

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ok, and? We have that right now, except they're all in play all the time (with the exception of a few sub-faction based strats).

Your army will have up to 6 unique ones, as opposed to 30-50. It's a big difference.

You don't have to memorise everyone else's strats.

You do if you want to win and don't give them a chance to cheat you. And once the codex start popping out, you will have to go over each detachment and pick the according one for the most optimal version of rules for your army. And then your opponents are going to have to know what rules for all detachments and different stratagems too. Just so you don't try to use detachment A stratagems or upgrades in detachment B, especialy if some, but not all overlap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


Doesn't matter if there's 10000 other detachments with 60000 more stratagems. That one sheet is all he needs to know.

Well he has to prepare the army in advance. So in order to have the most optimal build he is going to go over all potential detachments and rules you could be ruling, and then adjust it for the collection they know you have.

For list check pre game not much will change, but if you play time, then you will have to memories all the detachments stratagems, just so someone doesn't pop one from one detachment in another one that doesn't have access to it.

Karol wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ok, and? We have that right now, except they're all in play all the time (with the exception of a few sub-faction based strats).

Your army will have up to 6 unique ones, as opposed to 30-50. It's a big difference.

You don't have to memorise everyone else's strats.

You do if you want to win and don't give them a chance to cheat you. And once the codex start popping out, you will have to go over each detachment and pick the according one for the most optimal version of rules for your army. And then your opponents are going to have to know what rules for all detachments and different stratagems too. Just so you don't try to use detachment A stratagems or upgrades in detachment B, especialy if some, but not all overlap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


Doesn't matter if there's 10000 other detachments with 60000 more stratagems. That one sheet is all he needs to know.

Well he has to prepare the army in advance. So in order to have the most optimal build he is going to go over all potential detachments and rules you could be ruling, and then adjust it for the collection they know you have.

For list check pre game not much will change, but if you play time, then you will have to memories all the detachments stratagems, just so someone doesn't pop one from one detachment in another one that doesn't have access to it.

You only need to know the set in play though.

At the start of the game your opponent tells you what detachment they are using and then you just need to look at the 6 strats and 1 rule associated with that detachment.

Ideally they’d have printed off a copy for you as well to sit in front of you.

All the other strats for other detachments they could have used are irrelevant.

 AtoMaki wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
[That's it. They'll all be printed on separate sheets or cards.

You could do this before too, so I'm not sure what's the big change. I think GW even sold all kinds of cards and stuff.

Yeah. Here's this big pile of books. Have fun browsing through and parsing which ones affect this unit in this army.

Why not just copy the relevant info out to cards and sheets?

Well yeah, if you ignore that GW is pre-packaging the rules into a quick-reference format for you rather than forcing you to do it yourself, and ignore that the play aids are being provided for free rather than as a product you have to buy, and ignore that there are now roughly a sixth as many stratagems and dramatically reduced layers of add-on rules and complexity to actually track, then sure, there isn't any big change.