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.

In my instance I actually completely forgot that some of those strategems are in the core (i was using it to reperesent the free GW rules) pdf.

My comments about shrinking the core rules down applies to this though, they've reduced tank shock and grenades to abstract MW attacks conditional to your resource management minigame, allowing them to be shrunk down and keep the core rules small.

The other strategems in the game that sit with the armies enlarge this.

The abstraction to MW is actually part of the problem. By making these abilities limited, they have to be correspondingly more powerful to make them worthwhile to bother with the minigame. Older versions of Tank Shock, or just d6 hits that wound and cause saves are not worth the resource expenditure.


So you end up with rules that turn into console gamification 'combo moves' that are more powerful to justify their rarity, which skews how the game plays and how you treat something like throwing grenades or trying to run over the enemy. From just another attack, to something valuable, powerful and useful enough to bother spending your limited resources on.


From my review of the current range of strategems, you have things like weapons, damage resilience/healing and restricted move or attack actions the latter of which can either be applied directly to a unit, or are the sort of thing a commander might order the unit to do.

But in most cases these strategems are designed to be powerful, not just useful, to give you a serotonin boost of a combo/super move attack. You clearly see the favourites and how they've had to strip them back over the last few editions to just the most potent ones to make them bother with.

I'm not saying there's a right or wrong way to design the game, but the argument seems to be between two styles of play - basic rules with punctuated uber attacks/actions, more rules with less uber attacks.

Strategems create peaks in excitement, while standard rules that are less powerful create a straighter curve.

If you take say 5th ed 40k, there were fewer strategem esque peaks in gameplay, just common rules that everyone used.


It's why I refer to the gamification of current 40k, the way they treat the rules as game first, simulation second means that it generates exciting mechanics, but sometimes at the cost of a connection to the setting it's representing.

My excitement came from seeing a thing in 40k do a 40k style thing. Modern 40k seems to generate a lot of excitement from seeing cool mechanic do a cool mechanic thing, the fact something in 40k did it isn't necessarily that relevant. The game was fun, whether it was 40k or not.

@Hellebore I agree with pretty much all of that.

I think it touches on some of my biases: that flatter curve effect of more rules/ less uber attack means that going back feels less exciting. For me, Crusade is also a big part of my reluctance to go back: it would be possible to make a 4th or 5th equivalent of Crusade, but none of the existing prototype progression systems included in earlier editions even come close to what Crusade is.

When equipment lists were outrageous, I was really into them- the Witch Hunters equipment list is pure gold. And some of the stuff in that equipment list probably ended up showing up in another way- a unit rule, a detachment rule or a strat. But there was something to being able to anchor that effect to something that could be modelled. If we returned to THAT level of detail and they solved the Crusade issue? That would make it sting less to remove the current "high drama serotonin hit."

But I think I'm also just satisfied enough with the current era of design that I don't see large scale change being necessary.

Never the less, I think your analysis is spot on.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The same was true about psychic powers (as demonstrated by 10th) and yet we still somehow all want parts of those non-core rules to return

Nuance though. We're allowed to think strats could be handled better (possibly by removing the stratagem mechanic entirely) and also miss being able to customize our psykers.

You are also allowed to just say, "I hate stratagems and I want them gone," without trying to justify that feeling with nonsense like "they are not part of the core."
Hating things that have changed since you started the game is fairly normal in the 40k community. You're free to feel that way-just like all those people who hate epic heroes, Primaris, or Grey Knights for their own reasons. I hate the search and destroy deployment and would love to see it deleted from the game. Vipoid, for example, was quite clear about his opinion by calling stratagems a tumor. Good for you. We agree to disagree-nothing left to discuss.

However, if you try to argue that stratagems are objectively bad for the game, I will call you out on your hypocrisy. If tacked-on rules are objectively bad and grounds for removal, then they are bad regardless of whether you personally like the rule in question or not.

They certainly add something to the game, it's just something that would be better expressed in a less tacked-on kind of way.

This. No one is saying that we want to rip out stratagems and make zero other changes to the game. We're mostly saying we want the mechanics currently accessed via stratagems to instead be accessed through some other means.

Excuse me if I’m oversimplifying some of the long posts, but in general, you want stratagems to be tied to characters, limited to a small area on the board, and without resource management.
That’s essentially the same as removing stratagems from the game. The ability to create or react to specific situations within limits is the whole point of stratagems-to give you another layer of decision-making beyond list building and movement. Without that, we'd be stuck watching our opponent play the game during their turn again.

We already have those types of abilities-bomb squigs, "fights first" leaders, reactive shooting-so no matter how you redistribute those mechanics back into the base rules or datasheets, the ability to make exceptional plays would be lost. And not a single suggestion has meaningfully tried to replace that. “We’ll figure something out” is not good enough. It took GW around seven years to refine stratagems. If you don’t have a solid alternative now, I doubt you’ll easily come up with a better one.

In general, I get the strong impression that most people suggesting rules here don’t really understand how 10th edition plays. Especially catbarf’s posts-his view of how the game works feels so outlandish to me that I honestly don’t know where to begin responding. It doesn't align with anything I read, experience, or observe in my games, in videos, blogs, or other communities. And yet many people agree with him and propose adding things to the game that already exist, or reinvent “new” mechanics that were removed in the past due to massive issues, or try to fix problems that no one outside this community even seems to recognize.

I do see what kind of game you guys envision, though-a hero-centric game like Warmachine/Hordes, but in a 40k setting, with more “warcasters” in each army who grant abilities to rank-and-file units. And, of course, with alternating activations.
I’ll be honest with you: that sounds like a great game, but it’s not 40k.

The game isn’t just about heroes. It’s also about giant robots, battle tanks, artillery, nameless hordes, mindless constructs, and inexplicable horrors. Core rules need to work equally well for Daemons, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, and Drukhari, as they do for Space Marines and Aeldari. That’s part of why 7th edition’s rules were a failure, while 30k-despite being very similar-has been more successful. All those fantasies about command structures and central heroes just don’t work when half the armies in the setting don’t have traditional command hierarchies. And even when they do, your command structure can be reorganized by a 10-foot chain axe at any point, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Plus, you don't want Nids, Orks, or Chaos to hide their most powerful melee fighter in the back just to preserve their command abilities-because that is what happened whenever we had rules that put the warlord in charge of the entire army.

Honestly, one of the biggest problems with stratagems is how GW keeps recycling names from older editions but completely changes what they do. Like, when you see Tank Shock or Go to Ground, you expect them to work like they used to - but now they're just CP abilities with totally different effects. GW is banking on nostalgia without respecting what those rules actually meant to players who’ve been around for a while. It’s confusing, especially for veterans who assume they know what something does, and it just adds to the overall mess of remembering which version of a rule you’re actually dealing with. If they're going to reinvent the mechanics, they should come up with new names instead of repurposing old ones
Tank shock should be "ram", because that's the mechanic it's actually portraying. Tank shock was something completely different.
Grenades should be a "detonation charge", because it's about a single explosive blasting through armor, not about plasma grenades or stikkbombs being thrown at a horde or a target in cover.
It gets worse when you get to codex stratagems.
I'd wager that if GW didn't do that, half of the people in this discussion wouldn't even be here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The same was true about psychic powers (as demonstrated by 10th) and yet we still somehow all want parts of those non-core rules to return

<psychic powers>

I think I already did a long post on this. In short, I agree with you, just not down to every detail. Current psychic powers are boring, and we need to go back to "be unpredictable, do great things and explode sometimes".

 Jidmah wrote:

If you actually play 10th regularly, you will find that counter-offensive, overwatch. rapid ingress and the defensive stratagems are an absolutely essential part of the current game.

(Emphasis mine.)

I wonder if, perhaps, you are misunderstanding my point?

You say that they are essential to the current game. However, I am not talking merely about 10th edition but the game as a whole. Remember, this is the 10th edition of the game, and Stratagems have only existed for the last 3 editions.

Which is 8 years now, the same amount of time that 5-7th lasted. "Go to ground" has been an action that every unit can do for the same amount of time it has been a stratagem. Grenades have been a stratagem for more years than they were a weapon type. Tempus fugit.
No matter how you try to split hairs, stratagems are a core part of 40k and will a full decade old by the time 11th is released. Feeling old yet?
Your point is essentially the same as that one veteran in our group that still claims that Grey Knights aren't a real army and refuses to play them because they are overpowered Matt Ward BS.

Moreover, I believe some of those stratagems you're referring to were introduced in 10th edition.

Yes, rapid ingress which is one of the greatest additions to the game. It has solved the ancient problem of melee units coming in from reserves either being worthless or delete buttons with no counter-play, by allowing you to set up a single unit in a way that it can still move before charging, but your opponent can possibly shoot and charge it first. It essentially replaced all those band-aids across dozens of codices that makes charges from deep strike reliable.
It works precisely because it is limited by opportunity cost and any unit can use it, irrespective of whether it's deep striking blood angel terminators, trukk boyz or a flanking dread.
I really don't see a way to solve this issue without a stratagem framework.

Thus, it's hard to see how these rules can be absolutely core to the game when we had at least 7 prior editions that didn't need them.

Considering how the game is a lot more popular and more balanced today than in any of those 7 editions combined, I'd be willing to argue that not having stratagems is not the same as not needing them.
Either core rules are rules which have a noticeable impact on every part of the game - how you play, how you build lists, which units you bring, on balance. The opposite of being tacked-on.
Or they are the rules which are listed in the basic rulebook in the chapter "core rules".
Magic core rules spanning across two decades of editions are just an arbitrary line drawn in the sand for the sake of winning an argument.

 Jidmah wrote:
Tank shock, grenades and epic challenge also serve a purpose in providing armies tools that allow them to not be helpless against certain things which are hard to counter otherwise - within limits, at a cost. Heck even damage stratagems serve a purpose to reward taking the right decisions and having the right unit in the right place.

I find this particularly puzzling. Why do we need stratagems to facilitate Tank Shock? We already had rules for that in prior editions, before Stratagems even existed.
Likewise, Grenade rules have long predated Stratagems. They were, far more sensibly, wargear items that units could purchase.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The same was true about psychic powers (as demonstrated by 10th) and yet we still somehow all want parts of those non-core rules to return

Nuance though. We're allowed to think strats could be handled better (possibly by removing the stratagem mechanic entirely) and also miss being able to customize our psykers.

You are also allowed to just say, "I hate stratagems and I want them gone," without trying to justify that feeling with nonsense like "they are not part of the core."
Hating things that have changed since you started the game is fairly normal in the 40k community. You're free to feel that way-just like all those people who hate epic heroes, Primaris, or Grey Knights for their own reasons. I hate the search and destroy deployment and would love to see it deleted from the game. Vipoid, for example, was quite clear about his opinion by calling stratagems a tumor. Good for you. We agree to disagree-nothing left to discuss.

However, if you try to argue that stratagems are objectively bad for the game, I will call you out on your hypocrisy. If tacked-on rules are objectively bad and grounds for removal, then they are bad regardless of whether you personally like the rule in question or not.

I'm allowed to hate strats, but I don't. I think strats are a neat concept, and they're not terrible in practice. But I also think a lot of what strats do could be done better without strats. I preferred moving flatout and jink to -1 to-hit strats, for instance. I preferred grenades with weapon profiles to the grenades strat. I think the "do more damage because I said so" strats are less interesting than using that design realestate for a crossfire mechanic, etc.

Not all of us are frothing at the mouth about strats, but we can still think the game would be better off replacing strats with something else.

They certainly add something to the game, it's just something that would be better expressed in a less tacked-on kind of way.

This. No one is saying that we want to rip out stratagems and make zero other changes to the game. We're mostly saying we want the mechanics currently accessed via stratagems to instead be accessed through some other means.

Excuse me if I’m oversimplifying some of the long posts, but in general, you want stratagems to be tied to characters, limited to a small area on the board, and without resource management.

I'd say that's a slight mischaracterization. One suggestion for a way to make the "commander shouts orders" thing feel more fluffy and less abstract was to tie those orders to character models. I'm not sure anyone is married to that particular approach, although it does have its merits. Other approaches have also been floated. "Without resource management" isn't quite right. Even if we did make a lot of the tactic-style orders into character abilities and got rid of CP, you'd still be managing resources. You'd be using up the resource of your commanders' special rules within that area of the board, the resource of how many commanders you took in the first place, and potentially additional trade-offs on top of that.

If a biketarch gains the ability to order nearby Fly units to Jink, Jinking might still come with some kind of penalty to offense in the subsequent turn.

That’s essentially the same as removing stratagems from the game. The ability to create or react to specific situations within limits is the whole point of stratagems-to give you another layer of decision-making beyond list building and movement. Without that, we'd be stuck watching our opponent play the game during their turn again.

Except that it's entirely possible to create mechanics that allow reactions without using strats to do so. Again, jinking is a good example of how this has been done without strats in the past.

We already have those types of abilities-bomb squigs, "fights first" leaders, reactive shooting-so no matter how you redistribute those mechanics back into the base rules or datasheets, the ability to make exceptional plays would be lost. And not a single suggestion has meaningfully tried to replace that. “We’ll figure something out” is not good enough. It took GW around seven years to refine stratagems. If you don’t have a solid alternative now, I doubt you’ll easily come up with a better one.

I mean, how detailed would we have to go to satisfy you? Is it enough for me to point out that limited use abilities could still exist as datasheet abilities or as detachment abilities or as limited use wargear? Or that mechanics like crossfire and tankshock or jink would give people a lot of options for how to tackle a given board state? Because that's quite a few different ways to produce "exceptional plays" (I think you're using that term to refer to decisions/abilities that are harder to predict and don't just boil down to throwing attacks at eachother).

In general, I get the strong impression that most people suggesting rules here don’t really understand how 10th edition plays. Especially catbarf’s posts-his view of how the game works feels so outlandish to me that I honestly don’t know where to begin responding. It doesn't align with anything I read, experience, or observe in my games, in videos, blogs, or other communities. And yet many people agree with him and propose adding things to the game that already exist, or reinvent “new” mechanics that were removed in the past due to massive issues, or try to fix problems that no one outside this community even seems to recognize.

Sounds like you might just be playing in a very different environment than the rest of us? And again, it feels like you might be creating a mental block for yourself here. Mechanics from the past that had problems in the past can be ressurrected and refined to address those problems. We didn't give up on strats just because they had flaws in 8th edition.

I do see what kind of game you guys envision, though-a hero-centric game like Warmachine/Hordes, but in a 40k setting, with more “warcasters” in each army who grant abilities to rank-and-file units. And, of course, with alternating activations.
I’ll be honest with you: that sounds like a great game, but it’s not 40k.

The game isn’t just about heroes. It’s also about giant robots, battle tanks, artillery, nameless hordes, mindless constructs, and inexplicable horrors. Core rules need to work equally well for Daemons, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, and Drukhari, as they do for Space Marines and Aeldari. That’s part of why 7th edition’s rules were a failure, while 30k-despite being very similar-has been more successful. All those fantasies about command structures and central heroes just don’t work when half the armies in the setting don’t have traditional command hierarchies. And even when they do, your command structure can be reorganized by a 10-foot chain axe at any point, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

I think you might be picturing a hyper-specific version of the game based on suggestions we've floated and strawmaning us a little. To reiterate, tying tactical maneuvers to characters was one possible suggestion floated because it sounded kind of neat. One of the nice things (hypothetically) about getting rid of strats is that it opens up rules realestate to lean into themes/mechancis that can fit a given detachment better than the off-screen commander shouting at a single unit to do a thing each turn. So you could take that page of stratagems and use the space for rules that feel fluffy and interesting for giant robots or for a tank/artillery column, or for hordes of mindless constructs.

So if I'm playing an Endless Hordes tyranid list, maybe my "one squad of gaunts can respawn once per game" mechanic gets replaced with more of a Reanimation Protocols type mechanic. Or maybe a more in-depth mechanic where I choose a spot on the table edge in a zone I control, and respawning reinforcements can start pouring in from there unless my opponent secures it. Maybe it comes with a drawback like needing to remove models closest to the attacking enemy first so that you get that cool push and pull of the approaching wave that we had with the Green Tide detachment in 7th. I'm just spitballing. My point is that by not tying cool stuff to the stratagem format, you open up the possibility to do a wider range of interesting things and don't have to lock those interesting things to one or two units a turn.

Honestly, one of the biggest problems with stratagems is how GW keeps recycling names from older editions but completely changes what they do. Like, when you see Tank Shock or Go to Ground, you expect them to work like they used to - but now they're just CP abilities with totally different effects. GW is banking on nostalgia without respecting what those rules actually meant to players who’ve been around for a while. It’s confusing, especially for veterans who assume they know what something does, and it just adds to the overall mess of remembering which version of a rule you’re actually dealing with. If they're going to reinvent the mechanics, they should come up with new names instead of repurposing old ones
Tank shock should be "ram", because that's the mechanic it's actually portraying. Tank shock was something completely different.
Grenades should be a "detonation charge", because it's about a single explosive blasting through armor, not about plasma grenades or stikkbombs being thrown at a horde or a target in cover.
It gets worse when you get to codex stratagems.
I'd wager that if GW didn't do that, half of the people in this discussion wouldn't even be here.

Eh. I don't know. I think recycling some of those names is GW's way of making it feel like they didn't remove a lot of the options/mechanics that they kind of *did* remove. Like, you can call the Tank Shock strat Ram, but it won't change my underlying criticism that I miss being able to ram with vehicles when and where I wanted to without having to budget command points for it. Similarly, the Smoke strat letting you protect a single vehicle once per turn doesn't really scratch the same itch as smoke launcher wargear being able to protect a whole tank column on a crucial turn.

What are your thoughts on detachments. Will it be more of the same in future editions, or do you think they'll require certain units to be taken for them to work (instead of just giving bonuses to certain units)

Also, Historical Detachments might be a thing, where you are rewarded for taking allies (from Imperial Knights or Agents).

 Quixote wrote:
What are your thoughts on detachments. Will it be more of the same in future editions, or do you think they'll require certain units to be taken for them to work (instead of just giving bonuses to certain units)

Also, Historical Detachments might be a thing, where you are rewarded for taking allies (from Imperial Knights or Agents).

Depends on the Faction. Getting rid of the requirement for having a minimum of Troops and maximums on Heavies, Specials, Fast Attack, etc. helped some Factions more than others.

Example: All of the Eldar Detachments are just the Craftworld-specific list by another name. Aspect Host is Biel-Tan, Spirit Conclave is Iyanden, etc. Literally nothing changed for them EXCEPT that the detachments can be more flexible than the older lists, in some ways, because there aren't any real limitations on what you can take in them besides the basic 10th Edition muster requirements, your own adherence to the fluff, and the fact that your Stratagems for a Detachment work much better with the units it's intended for.

OTOH, some armies ended up in the literal wild west, without any limitations other than 3 maximum of each non-Battleline. It's never been easier to bring a Tyranid Godzilla List, or an all-mechanized IG list, or run multiple Greater Daemons, etc.

Personally, I'd like to see some restrictions come back as far as list building goes. Not full-on charts telling you what you can take, what you must take, etc., because those were always meaningless anyway. There was always an exception for every variant Chapter/Craftworld/Hive Fleet/whatever, making the charts essentially pointless. But maybe see some Faction's lists have more 0-1 or 0-2 choices instead of just "I take 3 Keepers of Secrets and Shelaxi Helbane," or "I take 3 GUO and whatever special monsters I have available." Picking on Chaos there, but it's equally valid criticism of many Factions.

Allowing armies like that to proliferate is just...lame. Especially for those of us in the old guard who are used to actual armies being fielded, not just a half-dozen Titanic models and some objective-holding chaff adding up to 2000 points.

 Kagetora wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
What are your thoughts on detachments. Will it be more of the same in future editions, or do you think they'll require certain units to be taken for them to work (instead of just giving bonuses to certain units)

Also, Historical Detachments might be a thing, where you are rewarded for taking allies (from Imperial Knights or Agents).

Depends on the Faction. Getting rid of the requirement for having a minimum of Troops and maximums on Heavies, Specials, Fast Attack, etc. helped some Factions more than others.

Example: All of the Eldar Detachments are just the Craftworld-specific list by another name. Aspect Host is Biel-Tan, Spirit Conclave is Iyanden, etc. Literally nothing changed for them EXCEPT that the detachments can be more flexible than the older lists, in some ways, because there aren't any real limitations on what you can take in them besides the basic 10th Edition muster requirements, your own adherence to the fluff, and the fact that your Stratagems for a Detachment work much better with the units it's intended for.

Yeah. I don't think that minimum unit requirements really fixes much. You play aspect host because you want to field lots of aspects and not a lot of guardians/psykers. You run windrider host when you want to field lots of bikes. Etc. Generally you don't have to twist someone's arm to field fluffy units to take a detachment; they take the detachment because they want to field those units in the first place.

I guess you could like, put a dire avengers tax on aspect host, but that's just kind of feelsbad and would prevent Iybraesil people like me from fielding primarily banshees.

OTOH, some armies ended up in the literal wild west, without any limitations other than 3 maximum of each non-Battleline. It's never been easier to bring a Tyranid Godzilla List, or an all-mechanized IG list, or run multiple Greater Daemons, etc.

Personally, I'd like to see some restrictions come back as far as list building goes. Not full-on charts telling you what you can take, what you must take, etc., because those were always meaningless anyway. There was always an exception for every variant Chapter/Craftworld/Hive Fleet/whatever, making the charts essentially pointless. But maybe see some Faction's lists have more 0-1 or 0-2 choices instead of just "I take 3 Keepers of Secrets and Shelaxi Helbane," or "I take 3 GUO and whatever special monsters I have available." Picking on Chaos there, but it's equally valid criticism of many Factions.

Allowing armies like that to proliferate is just...lame. Especially for those of us in the old guard who are used to actual armies being fielded, not just a half-dozen Titanic models and some objective-holding chaff adding up to 2000 points.

It's tricky though, because who gets to decide what constitutes an "actual army"? Like I said a couple posts ago, I think making a collection of models "feel like an army" is usually more about making it look like it could move together or like it's following some kind of cohesive theme. Spamming lots of the same unit can even help with that so long as it doesn't come across as just spamming whatever the most powerful flavor of the month unit is.

The army of odd ducks with varying movement speeds and jobs that were clearly chosen to optimize your use of stratagems tends to feel less fluffy than a spam list that happens to have a coherent theme.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
What are your thoughts on detachments. Will it be more of the same in future editions, or do you think they'll require certain units to be taken for them to work (instead of just giving bonuses to certain units)

Also, Historical Detachments might be a thing, where you are rewarded for taking allies (from Imperial Knights or Agents).

Depends on the Faction. Getting rid of the requirement for having a minimum of Troops and maximums on Heavies, Specials, Fast Attack, etc. helped some Factions more than others.

Example: All of the Eldar Detachments are just the Craftworld-specific list by another name. Aspect Host is Biel-Tan, Spirit Conclave is Iyanden, etc. Literally nothing changed for them EXCEPT that the detachments can be more flexible than the older lists, in some ways, because there aren't any real limitations on what you can take in them besides the basic 10th Edition muster requirements, your own adherence to the fluff, and the fact that your Stratagems for a Detachment work much better with the units it's intended for.

Yeah. I don't think that minimum unit requirements really fixes much. You play aspect host because you want to field lots of aspects and not a lot of guardians/psykers. You run windrider host when you want to field lots of bikes. Etc. Generally you don't have to twist someone's arm to field fluffy units to take a detachment; they take the detachment because they want to field those units in the first place.

I guess you could like, put a dire avengers tax on aspect host, but that's just kind of feelsbad and would prevent Iybraesil people like me from fielding primarily banshees.

OTOH, some armies ended up in the literal wild west, without any limitations other than 3 maximum of each non-Battleline. It's never been easier to bring a Tyranid Godzilla List, or an all-mechanized IG list, or run multiple Greater Daemons, etc.

Personally, I'd like to see some restrictions come back as far as list building goes. Not full-on charts telling you what you can take, what you must take, etc., because those were always meaningless anyway. There was always an exception for every variant Chapter/Craftworld/Hive Fleet/whatever, making the charts essentially pointless. But maybe see some Faction's lists have more 0-1 or 0-2 choices instead of just "I take 3 Keepers of Secrets and Shelaxi Helbane," or "I take 3 GUO and whatever special monsters I have available." Picking on Chaos there, but it's equally valid criticism of many Factions.

Allowing armies like that to proliferate is just...lame. Especially for those of us in the old guard who are used to actual armies being fielded, not just a half-dozen Titanic models and some objective-holding chaff adding up to 2000 points.

It's tricky though, because who gets to decide what constitutes an "actual army"? Like I said a couple posts ago, I think making a collection of models "feel like an army" is usually more about making it look like it could move together or like it's following some kind of cohesive theme. Spamming lots of the same unit can even help with that so long as it doesn't come across as just spamming whatever the most powerful flavor of the month unit is.

The army of odd ducks with varying movement speeds and jobs that were clearly chosen to optimize your use of stratagems tends to feel less fluffy than a spam list that happens to have a coherent theme.

Yeah, I'm mostly just an old man yelling at clouds. I mean, SM Razorback Spam with tons of 5-man Tac Squads with heavy weapons and Plasma Guns definitely "felt like an army," but it certainly wasn't fun to play against back in the day.

I guess I'd probably put limitations on the most powerful units. 0-1 Greater Daemons. 0-1 Tyrannofex. 0-1 Wraithknights. 0-1 <insert huge, rare, powerful thing here.>

I mean, if someone can put out 3 Norn Emissaries and 3 Tyrannofex, 4 Greater Deamons (when you tack on a special character), 6 Gorkanauts/Morkanauts, 3-4 Baneblades/hammers/etc....the game just starts to not really feel like a game anymore. And what about the armies that get none of that, like Sisters or Dark Eldar?

Things like that are supposed to be large, terrifying, and powerful, the centerpiece of an army. It would be nice to see them limited in some fashion. If not, why can't someone put out 3 Avatars of Khaine? Surely Craftworlds fight side-by-side sometimes...

Maybe a limitation on models that cost more than 250 points each? I don't know, I'm just spitballing, not here to solve all of 40k's issues.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
"Without resource management" isn't quite right. Even if we did make a lot of the tactic-style orders into character abilities and got rid of CP, you'd still be managing resources. You'd be using up the resource of your commanders' special rules within that area of the board, the resource of how many commanders you took in the first place, and potentially additional trade-offs on top of that.

If a biketarch gains the ability to order nearby Fly units to Jink, Jinking might still come with some kind of penalty to offense in the subsequent turn.

The whole point of resource management is that there is a limited resource during the game that can be used by multiple things and require a decision what to use them for.

Listbuilding decisions is not resource management, there is no reaction to the game or the opponent happening here.
Using unit abilities is not resource management, there is no decision whether you use that unit's rule or not. If a unit has an ability, not using that ability is always the wrong choice. Why shouldn't every single unit able to overwatch, fire overwatch? Why shouldn't every single unit with grenades throw grenades? Why shouldn't every single vehicle ram a target worth ramming?
Drawbacks are not a cost. Drawbacks just change when it's the right time to use an ability - even if that time might be "never".

Therefore, I'm completely right that you want to get rid of resource management layer from the game without any replacement, effectively reducing impact a player can have on the game after lists have been written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Except that it's entirely possible to create mechanics that allow reactions without using strats to do so. Again, jinking is a good example of how this has been done without strats in the past.

What exactly was the counter-play to jink? Was there ever a reason for an eldar tank not to jink if they were shot at by a unit that could seriously damage them?
If you had said "go to ground", I would have agreed, but explicitly jink is something that works much better as a stratagem than as "chose between inconvenienced and dead" ability.

I mean, how detailed would we have to go to satisfy you? Is it enough for me to point out that limited use abilities could still exist as datasheet abilities or as detachment abilities or as limited use wargear?

Limited use abilities do exist right now.
Detachment abilities which require decisions also exist right now.
Limited wargear exists right now.

Your proposal takes away stratagems, replaces them with nothing and instead adds more abilities to datasheets which already have 2+ abilities.

Or that mechanics like crossfire and tankshock or jink would give people a lot of options for how to tackle a given board state?

Crossfire already went back to being a unit ability.
Jink? No. See above. Having a resource to limit powerful defensive actions has improved the game, as jinking was a decision that could be solved 9 out of 10 times with a spreadsheet before the game state even happened.
Tankshock, as in causing (hopefully more impactful) battleshock tests with vehicles? Maybe, if done right, and limited to one test per unit per turn. Ramming for damage? No.

The big difference between "my" approach and "your" approach is that keeping stratagems doesn't actually take away the ability to solve things without stratagems, or moving things that stratagems do badly back into core rules or abilities.
Your approach is taking a whole layer away from the game, and folding it into layers we have right now.
Therefore stratagems don't need to be better at everything than your ideas, but your ideas need to be better than stratagems in every way.

Because that's quite a few different ways to produce "exceptional plays" (I think you're using that term to refer to decisions/abilities that are harder to predict and don't just boil down to throwing attacks at eachother).

Exceptional plays are when player decisions decides over who will win the game, rather than the list you built two week ago.

Mechanics from the past that had problems in the past can be ressurrected and refined to address those problems.

Thing is, you aren't addressing the problems they caused in the past. You declare that there "could be cool rules" and that "the can be solutions" without providing examples of either. Which is exactly what I'm criticizing. We have cool rules and solutions right now, in 10th. To "satisfy", give me actual examples of better rules that aren't just old mechanics brought back unchanged or something that completely falls apart as soon as it's applied to a non-traditional army setup.

 Jidmah wrote:
Therefore, I'm completely right that you want to get rid of resource management layer from the game without any replacement, effectively reducing impact a player can have on the game after lists have been written.

Respectfully, Jidmah, the main reason I've been finding this conversation unproductive is because you keep hyper-focusing on what the mechanics provide for the current game environment and dismissing alternatives- mechanics that have worked in plenty of other games- for spurious reasons.

Take this example. Everyone has been telling you that the idea would be to shift these sorts of abilities from being tied to the resource management minigame to being capabilities that can be more freely exercised. You're right in that it's not really resource management, but that isn't 'effectively reducing the impact a player can have on the game after lists have been written'. That would be saying that only decisions that involve resource management matter and give the player the ability to influence board state, which is obviously not true.

A game where each unit has a variety of innate capabilities at its disposal, where your units' special capabilities are moment-to-moment decisions rather than expressions of a limited resource, could give a player more impact on the game rather than less. In the current state, the decision-making is tied to a finite resource, meaning once that resource is exhausted you lose the ability to exert that influence on the game state. It's also a mechanic that incentivizes optimal allocation of that resource, so for some units it's rarely or never relevant. A design paradigm that instead shifts the decision-making to per-unit selection of mutually incompatible abilities ensures that every unit is making that decision every turn.

It's a different sort of decision-making. It requires a different sort of balancing. Maybe Jink as a specific example was overtuned one way or the other- that can be adjusted. But statements like

there is no reaction to the game or the opponent happening here

If a unit has an ability, not using that ability is always the wrong choice

a decision that could be solved 9 out of 10 times with a spreadsheet

about the decision to essentially forgo shooting to double survivability: Completely incomprehensible. Flat out wrong. It's probably the cleanest example of an impactful, reactive player choice, and more importantly one that has been used successfully in a multitude of games.

As another example:

 Jidmah wrote:
The ability to create or react to specific situations within limits is the whole point of stratagems-to give you another layer of decision-making beyond list building and movement. Without that, we'd be stuck watching our opponent play the game during their turn again.

That is not something stratagems provide that nothing else could do. That is something stratagems currently do, because they are currently the only out-of-phase interactivity grafted onto a '80s pure IGOUGO structure.

There are tons and tons and tons and tons of games out there that incorporate reactivity during the opponent's turn, even within a IGOUGO structure, that don't involve special abilities with associated resource cost that you plop onto any of your units at will. Even GW has put out multiple games over the years that are IGOUGO with reactions. You don't need stratagems to have an interrupt mechanic.

I'm not going to give my recommendations on specific implementations. Frankly, the missing-the-forest-for-the-trees nitpicking is getting old. The point is there are valid ways to implement these ideas that aren't stratagems and nobody needs to write out their proposed 11th Ed rulebook to demonstrate that. If you're not open to discussion in abstract ideas- if you're really convinced that nothing is better for player agency than resource management, that tradeoff abilities can be solved via spreadsheet math but optimal use of CP for force-augmentation can't- then probably best to just move on.

EDIT: Catbarf beat me to it with a much more succinct and eloquent post. I've tried to lay out some possible specific changes in my post here, but it does feel like you're kind of digging your heels in, Jidmah. I (and others) have been willing to acknowledge the merits of stratagems. I encourage you to take a deep breath and make an honest effort to consider alternatives rather than simply looking to shoot them down.

 Jidmah wrote:

The whole point of resource management is that there is a limited resource during the game that can be used by multiple things and require a decision what to use them for.

Listbuilding decisions is not resource management, there is no reaction to the game or the opponent happening here.
Using unit abilities is not resource management, there is no decision whether you use that unit's rule or not. If a unit has an ability, not using that ability is always the wrong choice. Why shouldn't every single unit able to overwatch, fire overwatch? Why shouldn't every single unit with grenades throw grenades? Why shouldn't every single vehicle ram a target worth ramming?
Drawbacks are not a cost. Drawbacks just change when it's the right time to use an ability - even if that time might be "never".

*Hypothetically, if a unit is allowed to use only one of several abilities each turn, then that's resource management. When my harlequins have to choose whether to take a bonus to their too-wound rolls or a penalty to enemy to-hit rolls, I'm using up the resource of my once per phase ability to gamble on the outcome of either hitting harder or trying to survive the return attacks better.
* If overwatch is handled similarly to Boarding Actions (an action the unit performs), then you're basically choosing whether it's more worthwhile to shoot at an available target now or to try and do some damage to a different target on your opponent's turn when it arrives from reserves or moves out from behind ruins or whatever.
* If grenades go back to being regular weapon profiles, then you generally *would* throw grenades when you have the chance, but you'd have to get yourself close enough to use them. So your question is akin to asking, "Why shouldn't every unit with a meltagun shoot a meltagun?"
* If ram becomes a melee profile you can only use on the charge, then you might not ram because you might not want to get your vehicle stuck in combat with whatever it is you charged.

Therefore, I'm completely right that you want to get rid of resource management layer from the game without any replacement, effectively reducing impact a player can have on the game after lists have been written.

If we narrow our definition of "resource management" down to your pile of command point tokens, then sure. To my mind, it's less that you stop having a resource to manage and more that the resource being managed is now unit actions, opportunity costs, etc.

What exactly was the counter-play to jink? Was there ever a reason for an eldar tank not to jink if they were shot at by a unit that could seriously damage them?

Yep! Because fatalistic as we tend to be when we're salty, 40k players frequently don't actually know whether or not that incoming attacking is actually going to destroy their unit or just take a bite out of it. And if you opt to jink "too soon," you risk inviting your opponent to start going after another unit next. So there's tension regarding whether you decide to give up your next turn's offense sooner or if you gamble and try to bait out more attacks trusting that you'll survive enough of them to keep your other units from having to jink. And of course, sometimes you just know that you're going to need the shots from those jetbikes or that falcon on your following turn in order to keep your momentum up.

If you had said "go to ground", I would have agreed, but explicitly jink is something that works much better as a stratagem than as "chose between inconvenienced and dead" ability.

Interesting. To your mind, what's the difference there? I think of them as very similar mechanics. Plus, it irks me that only one unit per turn can try to dodge enemy attacks, and that's one of the main reasons I think of Jink/Lightning Fast Reactions as a great example of stratagems handled poorly.

Limited use abilities do exist right now.
Detachment abilities which require decisions also exist right now.
Limited wargear exists right now.

Your proposal takes away stratagems, replaces them with nothing and instead adds more abilities to datasheets which already have 2+ abilities.

Those concepts already exist, but you feel it's bad to utilize those concepts further? And giving a unit too many abilities is bad, but having an additional 6 abilities that you have to flip pages to look at and bookkeep an extra resource is fine? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It feels like you're trying to say that the fact that hunter killer missiles exist means that we must keep stratagems as they are? I don't see the connection.

Crossfire already went back to being a unit ability.

And I'm saying that I like the idea of it being a core ability to reward positioning.

Jink? No. See above. Having a resource to limit powerful defensive actions has improved the game, as jinking was a decision that could be solved 9 out of 10 times with a spreadsheet before the game state even happened.

Arguably, much of the game is still flowcharts as is. Especially when it comes to stratagems. Either it's worth my CP to use Lightning Fast Reactions/Smoke or it's not. I'm just suggesting we shift that from a decision that you can make for a single unit per turn to multiple units and swap the CP cost out for (arguably more impactful) offense/action costs on the following turn. If you're saying that a resource to limit powerful defensive actions is good because it gives people a reason to *not* use the defensive action, then I'd argue giving up your shooting (and in a modern context, probably charges and actions) on the following turn is potentially a bigger motivation not to use the defensive rule than spending 1CP is. Or, if you're saying that you think it's a good thing that only one unit can defend itself each turn, I simply don't agree with you.

The big difference between "my" approach and "your" approach is that keeping stratagems doesn't actually take away the ability to solve things without stratagems, or moving things that stratagems do badly back into core rules or abilities.
Your approach is taking a whole layer away from the game, and folding it into layers we have right now.
Therefore stratagems don't need to be better at everything than your ideas, but your ideas need to be better than stratagems in every way.

I guess I'm not entirely opposed to keeping strats if we move every mechanic that works better as a non-strat into core/army/detachment rules. My gut instinct is that the stratagems you'd have left after doing that might end up feeling kind of incomplete/unsatisfying. And as a result of that, I suspect having a game-wide subsystem to support those unsatisfying remaining rules might end up feeling awkward/unnecessary.

Basically, I think having expanded detachment rules is a more flexible approach to creating flavorful rules (because it doesn't have to follow the When/Target/Effect format), and it can potentially impact my whole army in a turn making it feel more like an army-wide mechanic and less like a video game ability being put on cooldown. I guess you could keep strats on top of that, but it seems like it would be getting busy/bloated.

Exceptional plays are when player decisions decides over who will win the game, rather than the list you built two week ago.

Cool. So in the moment, you make the decision to give up your shooting for a turn to perform the Overwatch action and shoot your flamer rubrics at your opponent's death company when they come out of hiding. As opposed to the current setup where you decided two weeks ago that you'd always allocate a command point to overwatching with your flamer rubrics. Or you decide in the moment to jink rather than deciding in the moment to pop smoke.

Thing is, you aren't addressing the problems they caused in the past. You declare that there "could be cool rules" and that "the can be solutions" without providing examples of either. Which is exactly what I'm criticizing. We have cool rules and solutions right now, in 10th. To "satisfy", give me actual examples of better rules that aren't just old mechanics brought back unchanged or something that completely falls apart as soon as it's applied to a non-traditional army setup.

Well, I feel like I've provided some examples in this post if not in my previous ones. Overwatch could be handled as an action or as a special rule that certain units get or as a special rule that can be given out by commander type characters. Ram can be a melee profile that can only be used on the charge. Jink could be some form of defensive buff (probably a to-hit penalty) that prevents you from shooting, charging, or doing actions on your next turn, and I'd *probably* make Jink be part of expanded detachment rules rather than a universal rule. Stealthy detachments could open up the ability to perform an action to make units untargetable outside of X" while wholly within terrain. Your commander/discipline-centric detachments (thinking stuff like Gladius) could have doctrines but allow characters to override that doctrine with a different one for units near them.

Like, if you're asking me to spitball ideas, I can spitball ideas. Most of what I'm saying is simply that I prefer for the flavor of a given army/detachment (in the form of its rules/abilities) to be felt army-wide throughout the game. Stratagems aren't the worst thing ever, but the way that they take concepts/actions that seem like they should be army-wide (being able to use grenades if you have them, being allowed to dodge, etc.) ends up feeling gamey/artificial. So if the choice is between stratagems that can only be used by a tiny portion of my army at a time or more widespread mechanics (Lightning Fast Reactions vs old Jink), I'd prefer to switch back to the latter.

If you want to make a case for having both strats and widespread mechanics, that's fine. It just feels like strats frequently end up having to "take those mechanics hostage" to help justify their own existence. Like, it doesn't feel like smoke became a stratagem because that was a huge improvement for the game; it feels like the designers were brainstorming for relatively common mechanics they could turn into strats so that the list of core strats didn't feel too empty.

Hmmm.

So the trade off seems to be that with strats, a unit that burns a CP gets to do something cool, without it making them suck more later.

Without strats, every unit can do the cool thing... But only if they are willing to suck more later.

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages... But personally I think I like option 1 better.

'Suck more later' is just one kind of cost that you can attach to an ability. It's a common one for reactive abilities, which was where this conversation started. It isn't so much about doing 'something cool' as it is about getting to front-load your actions, borrowing from the future to do something now.

It can also be 'suck more now' to do cool things later. Charge up an ability. Put yourself on overwatch. Fortify the position.

Or it can be discretionary capability. You get re-rolls to hit if you don't move. You can tank shock the pesky unit on the objective but don't shoot any weapons. Take cover or run faster but forgo shooting. It's choosing which capability you employ out of your toolbox of options.

Or it can be risk. Push your unit to do the cool thing, but it involves some kind of test, with a downside if you fail. AA games sometimes have the failure state be simply ending your activation, leaving your unit potentially exposed.

Or opportunity cost. Eg, do cool stuff, but only once per game for that unit. Or command abilities provided by characters can be once per turn, so the choice is which cool thing to do and which unit gets to do it. Or abilities selected pre-game that you hold in reserve until the right moment, but are gone once played.

Or if you're using a resource system, it can be tied to something more tangible than abstract points you rack up. Trench Crusade has you inflict blood markers on units by hitting them with attacks, then you cash in the markers to either get a buff to an injury roll against that unit, or force penalties to their actions. Warmachine has Focus generated by characters that gets spent on either spells or making your robots do cool stuff; Hordes has your beasts doing cool stuff generate Fury for their leader to cast spells with. The resources are directly integrated not only into the core mechanics, but the narrative as well.

This isn't about being better or being worse. Different mechanics have different characteristics that make them better suited to different things. As I've said before, I'm not opposed to stratagems (ie, resource-based abilities) as a concept- I simply feel that the implementation is threadbare and uninteresting, and has steadily grown to encompass mechanics that I feel would be better suited to one of the other above implementations.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Hmmm.

So the trade off seems to be that with strats, a unit that burns a CP gets to do something cool, without it making them suck more later.

Without strats, every unit can do the cool thing... But only if they are willing to suck more later.

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages... But personally I think I like option 1 better.

Not necessarily. That's how Jink would probably work, but other concepts currently handled by strats that wouldn't have to be could have different trade-offs.

If tank shock becomes a "Ram" melee weapon that can only be used on the charge, then the trade-off is that you might get punched back if the target doesn't die, or you might be bogged down in combat.

Different versions of overwatch as a non-strat have been pitched with trade-offs ranging from giving up your shooting on the prior turn to using up a character's special ability for the turn to tying it to specific weapons/units.

If grenades become weapons again, then the trade-off is that you have to get close to use them (similar to a meltagun).

But generally the advantage to all these is that you're not artificially stuck only using one grenade per turn or ramming with one vehicle per turn or telling one unit to "shoot 'em when you see 'em" per turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

This isn't about being better or being worse. Different mechanics have different characteristics that make them better suited to different things. As I've said before, I'm not opposed to stratagems (ie, resource-based abilities) as a concept- I simply feel that the implementation is threadbare and uninteresting, and has steadily grown to encompass mechanics that I feel would be better suited to one of the other above implementations.

This pretty much sums it up. Strats work. I just think there are non-strat approaches that might work better.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
This pretty much sums it up. Strats work. I just think there are non-strat approaches that might work better.

Yup, and I firmly believe that not a single one of those approaches even comes close to being as good as 10th edition's strat system, which itself still has room for improvement.

The only exception being, and I agree with catbarf on this one, moving the game to alternating activations. Playing a few games of one page rules really made that obvious to me, if only the game (OPR) wasn't so bent on replicating all of the other problems 40k had in the past. Sadly, no compatibility to crusade is a 100% dealbreaker for me.

So, let's agree to disagree on this, and let's move on to more interesting topics than stratagems. I highly doubt they will be going anywhere anyways.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Different versions of overwatch as a non-strat have been pitched with trade-offs ranging from giving up your shooting on the prior turn to using up a character's special ability for the turn to tying it to specific weapons/units.

If grenades become weapons again, then the trade-off is that you have to get close to use them (similar to a meltagun).

But generally the advantage to all these is that you're not artificially stuck only using one grenade per turn or ramming with one vehicle per turn or telling one unit to "shoot 'em when you see 'em" per turn.

Not arguing one side or the other here, but to go back to the "traditional" system for Overwatch, you're going to be re-writing every unit. Again. Overwatch typically means you forego shooting on your turn to put a unit into OW, then can shoot on your opponent's turn (typically at a penalty, used to be -1 to hit back in the day, IIRC) after they present a target you want to shoot at.

This would literally spell the end of assault-based infantry. Imagine trying to send something short of Termies into combat when your opponent could put the units we have today into Overwatch. Your unit moves, they pick up 40+ dice to shoot at them. There won't be anything left to charge with after. In the past, this was mitigated by rules that forced you to shoot at the nearest target, for example. So, you could throw a decoy/screen out a little closer than your melee unit, and hope you'd make it into combat. But implementing rules like Overwatch into the base game is going to require another entire re-write, essentially.

Similarly with grenades as gear instead of a Strat. Grenades have been everything from things you could throw for actual damage, to things that allowed you assault into cover, to things you could use against Vehicles in an assault (meltabombs/haywire grenades), to a CP-restricted Strat. And probably several things in between I'm forgetting. Again, you're looking at rolling everything backwards to a previous ruleset or re-writing this one in some fashion. Tank Shock is the same thing...are we going to bring back Death or Glory?

Again, I'm not saying another re-write is a bad thing, but I do sincerely doubt it's going to happen with 11th. It's probably going to be a "clean-up" edition, without a ton of major changes. Anything else would surprise me.

^How much of a rewrite depends on what other things you introduce to mitigate the balance issues. If you allow grenades to do all the great things they used to do, is that "full re-write" territory, or is that just a points adjustments for relevant units? Overwatch going back to it's old incarnation (or analogous implementation) means that balances would shift around, but if you stuck in another rule that says you can knock a unit off overwatch by firing at them, then you get your assault units into combat by applying some supporting fire first. and you don't need a dramatic rewrite.

Not that I'm against rewrites of the current system tho

 Kagetora wrote:


Not arguing one side or the other here, but to go back to the "traditional" system for Overwatch, you're going to be re-writing every unit. Again. Overwatch typically means you forego shooting on your turn to put a unit into OW, then can shoot on your opponent's turn (typically at a penalty, used to be -1 to hit back in the day, IIRC) after they present a target you want to shoot at.

This would literally spell the end of assault-based infantry. Imagine trying to send something short of Termies into combat when your opponent could put the units we have today into Overwatch. Your unit moves, they pick up 40+ dice to shoot at them.

No it won't.
If you're aiming to get stuck into melee you'll just have to evolve your strategy of how to do that.

ccs wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:


Not arguing one side or the other here, but to go back to the "traditional" system for Overwatch, you're going to be re-writing every unit. Again. Overwatch typically means you forego shooting on your turn to put a unit into OW, then can shoot on your opponent's turn (typically at a penalty, used to be -1 to hit back in the day, IIRC) after they present a target you want to shoot at.

This would literally spell the end of assault-based infantry. Imagine trying to send something short of Termies into combat when your opponent could put the units we have today into Overwatch. Your unit moves, they pick up 40+ dice to shoot at them.

No it won't.
If you're aiming to get stuck into melee you'll just have to evolve your strategy of how to do that.

Sure. Explain your thoughts then, instead of just shooting mine down. Because I'm not really seeing under the current ruleset how you can "evolve your strategy" to do that.

Did you make a move to get into assault range? You get shot.
Did you pile out of a transport at any point? You get shot.
Did you make an advance move? You get shot.
Did you enter from Reserves or Deep Strike? You get shot.

Starting to see the picture here? I played with these rules back in RT/2nd. Overwatch pretty much meant that there weren't a lot of CC units on the table, and those that were there were either too numerous to shoot all of them before some of them got there (Orks), or so tough they could just take it (Termies saving on a 3+ on 2D6). Anything in-between was just an organ donor. Or you waited until you'd whittled down your opponent with enough shooting they couldn't afford to use OW, THEN sent in the sword-swingers.

In 10th, the statlines of everything have become significantly more geared to rolling tons of dice. I mean, look at something like Dire Avengers. 10 of them are throwing out 44 shots with Sustained 1 if you're within 9" (and you will be if you have any hope of assaulting). Even with the traditional -1 to hit for OW, they'd be dumping 29 hits on average to whatever was wanting to get to them. S4, -1AP, and they're likely to be the ones in cover, not those assaulting. That's just one bog-standard unit in one Faction. There are plenty of things with much more hideous statlines when it comes to hitting, wounding, and ignoring armor.

And that's if they're the only ones on OW. Imagine running a transport up, and when your move is over, but before you can disembark, something on OW blows it up. Everything inside piles out, then something else on OW blows the hell out of them.

I'm not even saying this is a BAD thing. It definitely adds a layer of complexity and tactics to the game that isn't really there now. Do I put that unit on OW hoping my opponent gives me something juicy? Or shoot the available target now? Do I take a chance on moving this unit where I want it, and hope my opponent foregoes their OW, or whiffs on it? Those are fun decisions to have to make.

But to say it's not going to require a serious re-write of the units and rules is disingenuous at best.

 Kagetora wrote:

Not arguing one side or the other here, but to go back to the "traditional" system for Overwatch, you're going to be re-writing every unit.
...
Again, I'm not saying another re-write is a bad thing, but I do sincerely doubt it's going to happen with 11th. It's probably going to be a "clean-up" edition, without a ton of major changes. Anything else would surprise me.

I think it's fair to say that any significant change to the rules is going to require a lot of tweaking to avoid knockk-on problems. Removing strats would certainly do that. However, I also think it's worthwhile to attempt those big swing changes. I don't like the rules of the game enough as they are to be reluctant to change things significantly.

Regarding overwatch specifically, the vague notions I have in my brain are that we handle one of the following ways:

A.) Commander type characters (captains, lieutenants, autarchs, 'cron lords, etc.) have special rules that let them hand out one of several special rules each battle round, and one of those rule options is Overwatch. This version of overwatch would probably be at full BS (maybe at a -1 to-hit penalty, but that has problems of its own), and you'd have to give up your shooting in your own turn to use it. I imagine this version triggering when enemies begin or end movement and basically being a normal shooting attack (no range limitations other than the ones imposed by your own weapon profiles.)

So the captain hands out the ability in the command phase. The target squad foregoes shooting in the shooting phase of that turn, and on your opponent's turn, you've got some full-power shots ready to go. You've opted for the ability to use this rule instead ofa different rule from your captain, you've given up your shooting for a turn, and your opponent might still be able to hide from it if they leap from between pieces of cover, but in return you're giving yourself a chance to shoot at a juicier target than what was visible on your own turn.

B.) Everyone gets to overwatch if they perform an action to do so on their own turn, but it works basically the way overwatch does now. That is, the enemy has to get within 24" and line of sight for it to trigger, and you're only hitting on 6s with anything other than torrent weapons. I'd also be tempted to say that you have to keep "activating" overwatch units when a unit moves into range until that unit is no longer an eligible target (destroyed all the models in range or line of sight). Meaning that you'd be able to send in fodder units to eat the overwatch for your important units.

This approach makes it possible to have a bunch of overwatching stacked together in one area ("Blast them as soon as they come around the corner!"), but each unit's individual overwatch will be pretty lame unless they're a flamer unit or just have a ton of dakka with rerolls, lethal hits, etc. And because it's declared in advance (and cost you your previous turn's shooting to set up), your opponent will know where the danger zones are before they start moving and can avoid, those areas, avoid *some* of those areas, or send in sacrificial fodder units as they prefer. So generally you're better off just shooting normally instead of overwatching, but you can choose to set up traps/kill zones to discourage enemies from rushing in unsupported. Want to dive in with a scouting squad of death company turn 1? Go for it, but you're going to have to face tank a bunch of shots (even if they're just hitting on 6s) on your way in unless you maneuver through terrain to take a more cagey approach.

And with both A and B, you're giving up your normal shooting to use Overwatch, so we avoid the weirdness of OW magically making guns shoot faster that we've seen since the concept was reintroduced.

Giving up shooting before or after overwatch just to fish for 6's doesn't feel great to me compared to what we have now, but again, it's all just a matter of preference.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:

Not arguing one side or the other here, but to go back to the "traditional" system for Overwatch, you're going to be re-writing every unit.
...
Again, I'm not saying another re-write is a bad thing, but I do sincerely doubt it's going to happen with 11th. It's probably going to be a "clean-up" edition, without a ton of major changes. Anything else would surprise me.

I think it's fair to say that any significant change to the rules is going to require a lot of tweaking to avoid knockk-on problems. Removing strats would certainly do that. However, I also think it's worthwhile to attempt those big swing changes. I don't like the rules of the game enough as they are to be reluctant to change things significantly.

Regarding overwatch specifically, the vague notions I have in my brain are that we handle one of the following ways:

A.) Commander type characters (captains, lieutenants, autarchs, 'cron lords, etc.) have special rules that let them hand out one of several special rules each battle round, and one of those rule options is Overwatch. This version of overwatch would probably be at full BS (maybe at a -1 to-hit penalty, but that has problems of its own), and you'd have to give up your shooting in your own turn to use it. I imagine this version triggering when enemies begin or end movement and basically being a normal shooting attack (no range limitations other than the ones imposed by your own weapon profiles.)

So the captain hands out the ability in the command phase. The target squad foregoes shooting in the shooting phase of that turn, and on your opponent's turn, you've got some full-power shots ready to go. You've opted for the ability to use this rule instead ofa different rule from your captain, you've given up your shooting for a turn, and your opponent might still be able to hide from it if they leap from between pieces of cover, but in return you're giving yourself a chance to shoot at a juicier target than what was visible on your own turn.

B.) Everyone gets to overwatch if they perform an action to do so on their own turn, but it works basically the way overwatch does now. That is, the enemy has to get within 24" and line of sight for it to trigger, and you're only hitting on 6s with anything other than torrent weapons. I'd also be tempted to say that you have to keep "activating" overwatch units when a unit moves into range until that unit is no longer an eligible target (destroyed all the models in range or line of sight). Meaning that you'd be able to send in fodder units to eat the overwatch for your important units.

This approach makes it possible to have a bunch of overwatching stacked together in one area ("Blast them as soon as they come around the corner!"), but each unit's individual overwatch will be pretty lame unless they're a flamer unit or just have a ton of dakka with rerolls, lethal hits, etc. And because it's declared in advance (and cost you your previous turn's shooting to set up), your opponent will know where the danger zones are before they start moving and can avoid, those areas, avoid *some* of those areas, or send in sacrificial fodder units as they prefer. So generally you're better off just shooting normally instead of overwatching, but you can choose to set up traps/kill zones to discourage enemies from rushing in unsupported. Want to dive in with a scouting squad of death company turn 1? Go for it, but you're going to have to face tank a bunch of shots (even if they're just hitting on 6s) on your way in unless you maneuver through terrain to take a more cagey approach.

And with both A and B, you're giving up your normal shooting to use Overwatch, so we avoid the weirdness of OW magically making guns shoot faster that we've seen since the concept was reintroduced.

Every idea is valid. But, until it's playtested and balanced within whatever ruleset is the current paradigm, no one will know how it functions, if it's underpowered, overpowered, etc.

The problem we're dealing with isn't the actual rules, it's the corporation putting out different iterations of those rules with the sole purpose of selling wildly overpriced plastic models. Just when you start to get a firm grasp on the rules and playing the game, they change. And not in small ways.

Look at the previous editions. RT. 2nd. 3rd-3.5-4-5. 6. 7-9. 10.

Chase the meta, chase the rules. GW seems to think that's the way to shareholder profits, and, so far, none of us have proved them wrong.

Imagine a different world. One where the rules we played the game by lasted for decades, with tweaks here and there to balance things. Where you'd buy new minis and paint new armies just because you wanted to. A world where doing so was affordable, and GW's profits rose every quarter because they put out a stable product that people loved and wanted to be a part of.

Now, wake up. Realize that every 3 years, GW puts out a new set of rules designed to make the ignorant masses prop up their quarterly profits by chasing the latest meta.

Then slap yourself in the face and realize you're one of the ignorant masses. Because you do exactly that.

I'd argue a stable set of rules with people working on balance updates for the competitive scene would sell as many miniatures as they do now (or even more), but GW has never even tried to do that, they're wildly profitable without doing so, and they'll never even bother trying.

So either enjoy and play 10th and prepare to adapt to 11th by spending more money to make whatever you currently have competitive, or don't. GW doesn't give a gak.

If feel like the action approach doesn't work well, as often there isn't really a trade off.

For example, a unit holding backline objectives like plague marines or intercessors will never have a reason to not go into overwatch, just in case.
If there is a good target to shoot, just shooting it with all special rules and no negative modifier is always the right option.

Overwatch as an action works in 10th edition boarding action, because you really need every single unit to do something in order to win. Even if you don't see anything to shoot, there often are other actions that need to be done, like opening doors, blowing up walls or capturing objectives.
In order for this to work, you need additional actions that compete for your unit's shooting phase. Maybe overwatch should also require you to remain stationary.

The last problem is the custodes vs orks BS problem on modifiers. Currently this is much less of a problem, as there is just one unit shooting. But if you return to every single unit being able to fire overwatch, you would need to solve this issue. If you roll sixes, orks would have a huge advantage, as most units still shoot at half efficiency, while the custodes army loses 80% of their shooting when going to overwatch. If you do -1 to hit again, numbers are flipped. Orks and custodes being representative of all 2+ and 5+ units, of course.
In my opinion, the most fair way would be to give every unit a separate overwatch BS, but that feels bloaty. It would also prevent overwatch from being a waste of time where people are fishing for sixes.

 Kagetora wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:


Not arguing one side or the other here, but to go back to the "traditional" system for Overwatch, you're going to be re-writing every unit. Again. Overwatch typically means you forego shooting on your turn to put a unit into OW, then can shoot on your opponent's turn (typically at a penalty, used to be -1 to hit back in the day, IIRC) after they present a target you want to shoot at.

This would literally spell the end of assault-based infantry. Imagine trying to send something short of Termies into combat when your opponent could put the units we have today into Overwatch. Your unit moves, they pick up 40+ dice to shoot at them.

No it won't.
If you're aiming to get stuck into melee you'll just have to evolve your strategy of how to do that.

Sure. Explain your thoughts then, instead of just shooting mine down. Because I'm not really seeing under the current ruleset how you can "evolve your strategy" to do that.

Did you make a move to get into assault range? You get shot.
Did you pile out of a transport at any point? You get shot.
Did you make an advance move? You get shot.
Did you enter from Reserves or Deep Strike? You get shot.

Starting to see the picture here? I played with these rules back in RT/2nd. Overwatch pretty much meant that there weren't a lot of CC units on the table, and those that were there were either too numerous to shoot all of them before some of them got there (Orks), or so tough they could just take it (Termies saving on a 3+ on 2D6). Anything in-between was just an organ donor. Or you waited until you'd whittled down your opponent with enough shooting they couldn't afford to use OW, THEN sent in the sword-swingers.

In 10th, the statlines of everything have become significantly more geared to rolling tons of dice. I mean, look at something like Dire Avengers. 10 of them are throwing out 44 shots with Sustained 1 if you're within 9" (and you will be if you have any hope of assaulting). Even with the traditional -1 to hit for OW, they'd be dumping 29 hits on average to whatever was wanting to get to them. S4, -1AP, and they're likely to be the ones in cover, not those assaulting. That's just one bog-standard unit in one Faction. There are plenty of things with much more hideous statlines when it comes to hitting, wounding, and ignoring armor.

And that's if they're the only ones on OW. Imagine running a transport up, and when your move is over, but before you can disembark, something on OW blows it up. Everything inside piles out, then something else on OW blows the hell out of them.

I'm not even saying this is a BAD thing. It definitely adds a layer of complexity and tactics to the game that isn't really there now. Do I put that unit on OW hoping my opponent gives me something juicy? Or shoot the available target now? Do I take a chance on moving this unit where I want it, and hope my opponent foregoes their OW, or whiffs on it? Those are fun decisions to have to make.

But to say it's not going to require a serious re-write of the units and rules is disingenuous at best.

1) I didn't shoot your idea down.
I simply said those intent on getting into melee would have to adapt how they plan to do that.
2) I said nothing about re-writes.
3) I too was there in RT, 2e, etc. I assure you that assaults with non-terminator tough units happened. And didn't automatically end in the assault being blown up by Overwatch.

4) So you want me to use the rules of today to tell you how I'd get assault units through the hypothetical Overwatch of tomorrow?
Well, that'll be a bit tough since I don't know the rest of tomorrow's rules....
But off hand, as an example? I'll start by doing the same thing I do today when assaulting a torrent heavy target. I'll send 2 units to do the job. 1 to either eat the overwatch or tie them up, the 2nd to kill them. Don't worry. I've got other units to deal with nearby would-be overwatchers. This gas worked in the past, it works now, & it'll work in the future. And then I'll add in considering the rest of the future rules.

I'd probably just scrap overwatch. I think its just prompted an evolutionary arms war for decades.

I have an idea that everyone will hate - but I honestly want to see field tested.

In order to hold an objective, your unit must use an action to hold it. So no ranged attacks, melee, or assaults.

Units holding objectives can perform overwatch. No one else.

Is it an action to hold, or an action to claim- ie do burn an action once, or do you need keep burning actions to maintain possession?

And what's the activation cost of overwatch? Because if that's ALSO an action, or if you have to trade shooting to do it, then won't be able to overwatch for at least some of the time you're controlling that objective.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Is it an action to hold, or an action to claim- ie do burn an action once, or do you need keep burning actions to maintain possession?

And what's the activation cost of overwatch? Because if that's ALSO an action, or if you have to trade shooting to do it, then won't be able to overwatch for at least some of the time you're controlling that objective.

OK. I understand. Your unit takes actions on your turn to take the objective and an action to hold it.

This will change the dynamic of the game if you have to plan for units to actively hold objectives and not be fighting.

As a balance, units that spent their turn performing an action to secure an objective, they may be targeted with the Overwatch stratagem for 0 CP. This will not disrupt their objective securing action.

If the unit is in their own deployment zone, they need 5+ to hit, instead of 6.

Interesting idea.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Hmmm.

So the trade off seems to be that with strats, a unit that burns a CP gets to do something cool, without it making them suck more later.

Without strats, every unit can do the cool thing... But only if they are willing to suck more later.

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages... But personally I think I like option 1 better.

It's also easy to have both though.

USR Jink: A skimmer gets a 4+ invulnerable save for the rest of the turn but can't shoot or disembark next turn.

Flying Circus Stratagem: Pay 1 CP, an Eldar skimmer you control can Jink without any penalties next turn.

 Jidmah wrote:
The last problem is the custodes vs orks BS problem on modifiers. Currently this is much less of a problem, as there is just one unit shooting. But if you return to every single unit being able to fire overwatch, you would need to solve this issue. If you roll sixes, orks would have a huge advantage, as most units still shoot at half efficiency, while the custodes army loses 80% of their shooting when going to overwatch. If you do -1 to hit again, numbers are flipped. Orks and custodes being representative of all 2+ and 5+ units, of course.
In my opinion, the most fair way would be to give every unit a separate overwatch BS, but that feels bloaty. It would also prevent overwatch from being a waste of time where people are fishing for sixes.

You could expand on that concept and use the lowered value for concealment, stealth, and moving heavy weapons as well. And if the second number always corresponds exactly to BS there's no additional memorization needed (i.e. 5+ always becomes 6+, 4+ and 3+ always become 5+, 2+ always becomes 4+).