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.

Let's say there is a new suggested rule by GW that limits all armies to only allow a unit to have one friendly stratagem used on them per phase. How does this change the game? Does it really shake up the meta and do anything helpful? Does it eliminate really strong powerhouse combos or not have much of an effect. How does it effect your tactical gameplay and list building?

You need to go so far as to limit 1 stratagem per unit per turn to make an actual impact.

It doesn't really do that much. Most of the combos I see on the table are relic+stratagem+WT+faction trait or similar, not stratagem+stratagem+stratagem+stratagem.

Some armies would suffer more than others. But anything that buffs and lets you fight again/ shoot again would be gone. for example It would get rid of things like endless cacophony and VOTLW.

I would go further and say one strat per phase for each army.

Would maybe makes for harder more tactical choices and maybe allow different builds as some armies have crap troops so maybe they would not have to take a battalion. Lower CP count over all so everyone has to take a battalion id people don't like that.

Maybe I'm bonkers.... I'm sure it would cause unforeseen balancing issues my little brain cant think of right now.

One strat in total per phase would probably be a good start to nerfing the current combo-hammer game we seem to have ended up with. At my club we recently discussed changing stratagems to be once per game. Probably a bit too extreme but I think it would lead to players having to make choices about when to use stratagems rather than just "this unit's shooting, I'm using Stratagem X". You could even combine it with a one stratagem per phase limit.

The problem is that GW has designed a lot of armies to only work alongside certain stratagems. That's bad game design, IMO, but it's what we're stuck with.

We're going to start trying zero in-game stratagems shortly. Looking forward to it. We'll allow pre-game stratagems (deployment, relics, etc.) but nothing else in-game. We already play with no re-roll stratagem (which has been superb).

I think stratagems were a good idea in theory, but terribly executed and produce some of the most broken game components (often in sync with additional rules/buffs/auras).

 Elbows wrote:
We're going to start trying zero in-game stratagems shortly. Looking forward to it. We'll allow pre-game stratagems (deployment, relics, etc.) but nothing else in-game. We already play with no re-roll stratagem (which has been superb).

I think stratagems were a good idea in theory, but terribly executed and produce some of the most broken game components (often in sync with additional rules/buffs/auras).

So what happens to armies without pre-game stratagems?

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Let's say there is a new suggested rule by GW that limits all armies to only allow a unit to have one friendly stratagem used on them per phase. How does this change the game? Does it really shake up the meta and do anything helpful? Does it eliminate really strong powerhouse combos or not have much of an effect. How does it effect your tactical gameplay and list building?

This kinda screws over elite small count armies. They already have less CP due to the difficulty of filling out detachments.

 Orodhen wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Let's say there is a new suggested rule by GW that limits all armies to only allow a unit to have one friendly stratagem used on them per phase. How does this change the game? Does it really shake up the meta and do anything helpful? Does it eliminate really strong powerhouse combos or not have much of an effect. How does it effect your tactical gameplay and list building?

This kinda screws over elite small count armies. They already have less CP due to the difficulty of filling out detachments.

No, it would screw over battalion/brigade based armies because they would have excess CP's they can't spend by the end of the game.

 skchsan wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
We're going to start trying zero in-game stratagems shortly. Looking forward to it. We'll allow pre-game stratagems (deployment, relics, etc.) but nothing else in-game. We already play with no re-roll stratagem (which has been superb).

I think stratagems were a good idea in theory, but terribly executed and produce some of the most broken game components (often in sync with additional rules/buffs/auras).

So what happens to armies without pre-game stratagems?

They don't use them?

Slipspace wrote:

The problem is that GW has designed a lot of armies to only work alongside certain stratagems. That's bad game design, IMO, but it's what we're stuck with.

Yeah, that's the biggest issue I see. Many units either don't work without strats or else have their okay balance plummet to "underpowered" territory without access to their favorite tricks.

My favorite pet idea lately is get rid of most of the generic reroll auras in the game and give characters access to guard-style "orders" that are basically stratagems.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Let's say there is a new suggested rule by GW that limits all armies to only allow a unit to have one friendly stratagem used on them per phase. How does this change the game? Does it really shake up the meta and do anything helpful? Does it eliminate really strong powerhouse combos or not have much of an effect. How does it effect your tactical gameplay and list building?

Some of the most OP units and options in the game don't need any Stratagems, others need 1, hurting the ones that need a combo of two to be viable would not increase balance IMO. As part of a huge suite of sweeping changes to knock down everyone a peg? Good idea, as a one-off? Bad idea. I'd especially hate for Lychguard to lose the ability to have +1 S and fight twice, not really a fair nerf, the Guardian bomb definitely needs less of a nerf than aircraft spam does. You'd probably have an easier time just changing the individual abusive Stratagems like VOTLW and DAKKAx3 to only apply once each phase and change Plasma Specialists to cost 2 CP for units with 4+ plasma weapons.

CSM: VOTLW + fight twice/shoot twice
Orks: DAKKAx3 + shoot twice
Imperial Knights: re-roll all 1s and OATHBREAKER GUIDANCE SYSTEM.
Adeptus Mechanicus: PLASMA SPECIALISTS + re-roll everything or something, the combo hurts though.
Craftworlds: -1 to hit + 4++ Guardians.
Necrons: +1 S and fight twice.

One Strat per turn hurts BA and Tyranids because they have some mobility Stratagems that couple well with Fight-phase Stratagems.

 skchsan wrote:

 Orodhen wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Let's say there is a new suggested rule by GW that limits all armies to only allow a unit to have one friendly stratagem used on them per phase. How does this change the game? Does it really shake up the meta and do anything helpful? Does it eliminate really strong powerhouse combos or not have much of an effect. How does it effect your tactical gameplay and list building?

This kinda screws over elite small count armies. They already have less CP due to the difficulty of filling out detachments.

No, it would screw over battalion/brigade based armies because they would have excess CP's they can't spend by the end of the game.

Only if they didn't change their army builds to account for this. One of the reasons we see so many Guard Brigades or multi-Battalion armies is to get as many CP as possible. The reason for that is so they can use as many powerful stratagems as they want. Introducing a rule that limits powerful stratagems would likely change how people build armies.

The reliance on CP and strategems and detachments exists because the core gameplay mechanics suck