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.

I've seen a couple of people play this now and it seems to be a really nice way to play the game in a friendly setting.

Essentially, after after sharing lists but before deployment each player selects a number of strats depending on the game size (3 for up to 1k, 5 for up to 2k, seems common but you could agree whatever)

Datacards are useful for this - and essentially explain to your opponent what each of them can do.

You then have these strats along with the BRB ones such as command rerolls etc to use in the game and no others.

It totally eliminates the 'gotcha' moments caused by strats and also gives you a fighting chance if you're playing against an army you're not familiar with.

Not to mention, it really simplifies the game and saves the time spent flicking through codexes for that strat you're sure you have somewhere but can't remember what its called or costs...

I actually think GW should implement this rule as part of the game, either choosing strats pre-game or could even be in the list-building stage!

Thoughts? Has anyone tried this?

An issue is that you’ll usually pick the best strats, and won’t pick the “situational but cool” strats since they’re not as good.

There aren't Strats that are considered "gotcha" as much as they're just universal. Nobody is going to stop picking Transhuman Physiology.

JNAProductions wrote:An issue is that you’ll usually pick the best strats, and won’t pick the “situational but cool” strats since they’re not as good.

Pretty much this. Limiting the stratagems players have available pretty much removes the situational and fluffy-but-bad strats from the game. I'm all for overhauling stratagems or removing them from the game entirely, but any such overhaul should probably start with steps to preserve some of the more flavorful and interesting strats. Turn wargear strats back into wargear. Treat unit upgrade strats as wargear or separate datasheets. Maybe make unit-specific strats into abilities or "orders" issued by characters. Etc.

Without getting too off-topic, I think I like the idea of turning most strats that represent special maneuvers into guard style "orders" issued in the command phase by characters and coms-related units, and then having the remaining "stratagems" be things like orbital strikes, army modifications that let you treat some units as troops, reserve-related strats, etc.

EviscerationPlague wrote:There aren't Strats that are considered "gotcha" as much as they're just universal. Nobody is going to stop picking Transhuman Physiology.

Assuming I understand you, I have to disagree. There are so many books and so many stratagems per book that it's pretty hard to know every stratagem that a given opponent might have up their sleeve unless you've played against that faction quite a bit. It's not uncommon for me to face a faction that got a new book and have my eyes glaze over as my opponent explains the handful of strats they're comboing together.

"So these two strats combine with my subfaction bonus, so the AP on my guns turns into AP-2 on to-wound rolls of 6, but to-hit rolls of 6 auto-wound, and I hit on 2+ this phase thanks to this other strat that I used pre-game... Oh, and if you charge me, I'll use another strat to make you swing last with one unit within 6" of this model that just came out a few months ago..."

No shade to players for using the tools in their books, but "gotcha" is very much the impression I get when running into some strats the first few times. Generally, I just mentally short-hand the jumble of rules into either "die slower" or "kill better", and then try to learn the nuances of t hose options over time.

JNAProductions wrote:An issue is that you’ll usually pick the best strats, and won’t pick the “situational but cool” strats since they’re not as good.

Yeah, there's an argument for that, but it still allows for a quick 5 minute pregame discussion of 'these are the strats i'm taking, they allow me to do x, y and z.'

Perhaps if GW were to look at this in a more official way they would also add rules which stop players selecting more than 1 strat, maybe 2, which occur in the same phase? Dunno, i'm just spitballing i suppose.

EviscerationPlague wrote:There aren't Strats that are considered "gotcha" as much as they're just universal. Nobody is going to stop picking Transhuman Physiology.

As has been said, I have to disagree. May players will prewarn you before making a decision that they have a strat to counter it - though even if they do, often you've already moved into a position based on your original plan anyway so you can be pigeon-holed into continuing regardless. In any case, plenty won't tell you knowing that they have a strat up your sleeve that will turn your tactic on it's head. Obviously they have no obligation to tell you, especially in tournament games - let's not get into that.

All i'm saying is that this sort of change would mean that even if you're playing against an army you've never encountered before, you can have a little more confidence with key decisions.

Although, i will admit, that the odds are players would routinely pick the same strats in 90% of their games. There are always a few that you seemingly use in every single match.

Gotchas are unavoidable for those who aren't exeprienced. But after 1-2 games they won't get gotchad by that army anymore.

My point is players already rely on a handful of stratagems per army. They have no obligation to tell you, but after 1-2 games you'd know pretty much everything about the enemy, so this proposal wouldn't be much of a change. And sometimes gotchas make people better players, making them learn from their mistakes rather than "educating" them pre-game.

 Blackie wrote:
Gotchas are unavoidable for those who aren't exeprienced. But after 1-2 games they won't get gotchad by that army anymore.

My point is players already rely on a handful of stratagems per army. They have no obligation to tell you, but after 1-2 games you'd know pretty much everything about the enemy, so this proposal wouldn't be much of a change. And sometimes gotchas make people better players, making them learn from their mistakes rather than "educating" them pre-game.

Eh. That still feels like more of a bug than a feature. In addition to "gotcha" moments being unpleasant for the newbie, knowing that the gotcha strat is just one option in a pile of options can make the enemy's strat pile feel overwhelming. I could see newer players being turned off by the prospect of having to muddle through multiple games before they stop getting gotchad. But even putting newbies aside, I personally find the pile of stratagems I have to manage, let alone those of my opponent, kind of mentally fatiguing. Like, 40k is a strategy game, but trying to remember a couple dozen special rules that may or may not get used in a given game takes up a little more brainpower than is my preference. I see benefits to cutting down on the number of strats you have to think about at once, is what I'm saying.

JNAProductions wrote:
An issue is that you’ll usually pick the best strats, and won’t pick the “situational but cool” strats since they’re not as good.

Yeah, there's an argument for that, but it still allows for a quick 5 minute pregame discussion of 'these are the strats i'm taking, they allow me to do x, y and z.'

A couple passing ideas that might help:
A.) Give stratagems tiers of cost effectiveness. So let's say all strats are divided into Good, Better, and Best. You could require that players take a certain number of strats from each tier. So you might get 1 Best tier strat, 2 Better tier strats, and 3 Good tier strats. Maybe you choose strats during list creation; maybe after exchanging lists with your opponent, maybe a combination of both. The idea is that you're basically forcing players to take some of the subpar strats. Now, this will probably mean that players end up taking the best options available at each tier, but the intention is that by the time you get to Good tier, you're talking about strats that are situational/weak enough that you don't feel bad about taking a fluffy option. If a couple of strats are chosen after seeing your opponent's list, this might even be a good way to promote the use of the more situational strats. Picking blind, I'd probably take Haywire Grenade (chance of doing mortals against a nearby vehicle) over Crucible of Malediction (chance of doing mortals to each psyker within a short range), but maybe the Crucible' wins out if I see that I'm facing Grey Knights.

B.) You could also just have players choose from a preset list of strats at the time they build their lists. Not build a list of strats themselves, but choose a premade list that fit one of several themes. So for instance, my tau might choose between a list that has a higher number of mobility-related strats, a list that has more raw firepower strats, and a list that has a bunch of markerlight-related strats. I don't like this suggestion as much as I do A, but I could see something like this working if we overhauled chapter tactics/doctrines to be less about power stacking and more about playstyle changing.

I have been thinking a bit more on the issue and I don't think it's a big deal if smoke launchers, melta grenades, haywire grenades and disruption fields are removed from the game. Death Guard also lost Eye of the Gods which is a shame, but not really a huge deal.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Give stratagems tiers of cost effectiveness. So let's say all strats are divided into Good, Better, and Best.

Or just recost them at 1, 2 and 3CP.

 Blackie wrote:
Gotchas are unavoidable for those who aren't exeprienced. But after 1-2 games they won't get gotchad by that army anymore... And sometimes gotchas make people better players, making them learn from their mistakes rather than "educating" them pre-game.

Great I'll just have 30 bad games then. If by better player you mean one that knows your gotcha Stratagems you don't need to do that to me over the course of 6 hours, we can just have a 5 minute pre-game discussion where you explain them, there, better and more educated player. You don't send athletes on a plane to Iceland to train in a volcano if they need somewhere hot, you loan a sauna or a room heater.

 vict0988 wrote:
I have been thinking a bit more on the issue and I don't think it's a big deal if smoke launchers, melta grenades, haywire grenades and disruption fields are removed from the game. Death Guard also lost Eye of the Gods which is a shame, but not really a huge deal.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Give stratagems tiers of cost effectiveness. So let's say all strats are divided into Good, Better, and Best.

Or just recost them at 1, 2 and 3CP.

 Blackie wrote:
Gotchas are unavoidable for those who aren't exeprienced. But after 1-2 games they won't get gotchad by that army anymore... And sometimes gotchas make people better players, making them learn from their mistakes rather than "educating" them pre-game.

Great I'll just have 30 bad games then. If by better player you mean one that knows your gotcha Stratagems you don't need to do that to me over the course of 6 hours, we can just have a 5 minute pre-game discussion where you explain them, there, better and more educated player. You don't send athletes on a plane to Iceland to train in a volcano if they need somewhere hot, you loan a sauna or a room heater.

Talking about a matter isn't the same than experiencing it, and a gotcha moment is harmeless unlike training in a volcano. In my experience players don't really learn anything thanks to a pre-game talk. But if you get gotchad 30 times and always lost thank to that then yes, maybe you need to be educated before starting to play, although I'm not sure if your results would change significantly thanks to that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Eh. That still feels like more of a bug than a feature. In addition to "gotcha" moments being unpleasant for the newbie, knowing that the gotcha strat is just one option in a pile of options can make the enemy's strat pile feel overwhelming. I could see newer players being turned off by the prospect of having to muddle through multiple games before they stop getting gotchad. But even putting newbies aside, I personally find the pile of stratagems I have to manage, let alone those of my opponent, kind of mentally fatiguing. Like, 40k is a strategy game, but trying to remember a couple dozen special rules that may or may not get used in a given game takes up a little more brainpower than is my preference. I see benefits to cutting down on the number of strats you have to think about at once, is what I'm saying.

My point is that a gotcha moment isn't a bad moment, assuming it makes people learn from mistakes. And yes ignorance is a mistake.

A few days ago I was playing Mass Effect Andromeda and came across an Architect in early game. I was completely unprepared and died like 10 times in a row; for those who aren't familiar with the game is a boss that is extremely resilient, it inflicts tons of damage and summons allies: it's basically unkillable without finding the right pattern and making the right moves. A perfect gotcha moment. It happens, and thanks to that I learned how to use different tactics (like using the cloak or to rely much more on evasion) that were handy to use later on. If I knew how to face it in advance I would have ruined my whole experience, and never really understood why and when using some tactics. Should I have expected the monster saying: oh wait if you try to play your typical game I'll crush you with no effort, you need to do X and Y to have a chance against me?

I get that a pre-game talk in 40k isn't exactly a spoiler but still I don't think it's required for a game like 40k since there aren't many possible gotcha situations per game and most of them don't really ruin the gaming experience.

I'm much more for a pre-game talk to modify lists in order to make them more balanced, rather than explaining abilities, tactics and possible counter measures.

 Blackie wrote:

Talking about a matter isn't the same than experiencing it, and a gotcha moment is harmeless unlike training in a volcano.

Driving to your FLGS is not harmless, training in a volcano would of course happen under the strictest safety measure known to Icelandic shamans. Icelandic volcano training isn't the same as any other form of training, because by definition if it isn't happening in an Icelandic volcano, it's not Icelandic volcano training and must therefore be something different. Of course there might be better, less risky forms of training that don't require you to go to Iceland to participate.

Why do you think gotcha Stratagems cannot both be talked about and experienced? Can you only win against people that haven't done their hobby homework or you haven't dunked on a couple of times already?

A few days ago I was playing Mass Effect Andromeda and came across an Architect in early game. I was completely unprepared and died like 10 times in a row...

Do you think you would have praised Mass Effect if you had died to the Architect for 6 hours over and over and you had to go to a net cafe to try the game?

I get that a pre-game talk in 40k isn't exactly a spoiler but still I don't think it's required for a game like 40k since there aren't many possible gotcha situations per game and most of them don't really ruin the gaming experience.

The fact that there aren't many possible gotchas for an individual game is good reason why you should spend a few minutes to go over them before the game instead of expecting people to read and remember every Stratagem in the game in case they come across someone who might use the Stratagem some day.

I'm much more for a pre-game talk to modify lists in order to make them more balanced, rather than explaining abilities, tactics and possible counter measures.

Since I have no idea what your Stratagems do I reckon you better not use any units to compensate, you use your mysterious gotcha Stratagems I use my units, I'll tell you all their stats and abilities and we see who comes out on top.

 vict0988 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Give stratagems tiers of cost effectiveness. So let's say all strats are divided into Good, Better, and Best.

Or just recost them at 1, 2 and 3CP.

You could, but that would sort of defeat the point if our goal is to create a system where players have access to fewer stratagems during the game. Something like Lightning Fast Reactions tends to be one of the most useful and frequently used stratagems my eldar have access to, but pricing it at 3CP doesn't seem like it would accomplish anything. It would just make LFR a never-take. Whereas if I had to choose between LFR and Fire and Fade (another strat I use often) but neither of them could go into the same slot as, say, Tears of Isha, then I might actually use Tears of Isha. I'm probably not explaining that well. Basically, if LFR and F&F are competing for my Best Tier strat slot but Tears of Isha is competing for an entirely different slot with similarly situational strats, I'm more likely to take Tears of Isha; it's not being forced out of the rotation by the 5 best strats I have access to.

I'm sorry but how many times are y'all getting "gotcha'd" by Transhuman or VotLW? Or even Strats that lower your charge distance? 30 bad games? No, thats your own fault at that point.

I stand by the point that the problem isn't strats but specific strats and how universal they are. Transhuman shouldn't exist, nor does it make sense.

If anything, unit specific stratagems should be keyworded in datasheets, with army specific strats limited to a handful (5~6 max) so that it can fit within the 1-2 page army intro page.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Give stratagems tiers of cost effectiveness. So let's say all strats are divided into Good, Better, and Best.

Or just recost them at 1, 2 and 3CP.

You could, but that would sort of defeat the point if our goal is to create a system where players have access to fewer stratagems during the game. Something like Lightning Fast Reactions tends to be one of the most useful and frequently used stratagems my eldar have access to, but pricing it at 3CP doesn't seem like it would accomplish anything. It would just make LFR a never-take.

I disagree if we are talking about a system where they are costed according to the fact that each one has a CP cost and the cost of taking up one of your 5 Stratagem spots, having relatively expensive but versatile Stratagems could be worthwhile. You could also go the other way and make Tears of Isha 0CP to account for it maybe only coming up once every two games. There are already Stratagems like that, the Drukhari Agents of Vect Stratagem for example.

 skchsan wrote:
If anything, unit specific stratagems should be keyworded in datasheets, with army specific strats limited to a handful (5~6 max) so that it can fit within the 1-2 page army intro page.

Could you explain in a different way? Would Quantum Shielding (Stratagem for all QUANTUM SHIELDING keyword units) have to be part of army specific Stratagems or be removed? Would stratagems like the one unique to Skorpekh Destroyers be included in their datasheet in addition to the 6 Stratagems Necrons get?

 vict0988 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Give stratagems tiers of cost effectiveness. So let's say all strats are divided into Good, Better, and Best.

Or just recost them at 1, 2 and 3CP.

You could, but that would sort of defeat the point if our goal is to create a system where players have access to fewer stratagems during the game. Something like Lightning Fast Reactions tends to be one of the most useful and frequently used stratagems my eldar have access to, but pricing it at 3CP doesn't seem like it would accomplish anything. It would just make LFR a never-take.

I disagree if we are talking about a system where they are costed according to the fact that each one has a CP cost and the cost of taking up one of your 5 Stratagem spots, having relatively expensive but versatile Stratagems could be worthwhile. You could also go the other way and make Tears of Isha 0CP to account for it maybe only coming up once every two games. There are already Stratagems like that, the Drukhari Agents of Vect Stratagem for example.

I'm sure there's a way to make that work. I guess I just think of it like this: If you take a good strat and try to make it less desirable (so it's not an auto-include), you're basically just reducing its cost-effectiveness. So either it's still cost-effective enough to make it into your "stratagem deck", or it isn't. In the former case, you've not necessarily encouraged people to use some of the weaker strats; you've just nerfed the faction slightly by making one of the strats they're using less good. In the latter case, you've basically just turned the strat into a never-take with the same problems as other "weak" strats. So balancing strats using CP makes more sense in a system where you always have access to all stratagems (like what we have now), but it doesn't help as much in a system where stratagems have to compete for a position in your deck.

The advantage of breaking the strats up into tiers is that you only have to balance strats against other strats within the same tier. So if we assume three tiers and my faction has 24 strats with 8 strats in each tier, a given stratagem only has to compete against the 7 other strats on his tier. Or fewer if we assume you get multiple strats of a given tier. Basically, if I have to choose between Tears of Isha and the eldar version of Flakk Missile, there are times I could see myself taking each of those. But if Tears' and Flakk' are both competing against literally every stratagem in the codex, it's going to be pretty rare that they make it into my top 5 picks. And on the flip side, LFR can remain at its current level of cost-effectiveness instead of undergoing a CP increase because its existence doesn't make you less likely to take Tears or Flakk.

Actually, that would give GW some nice levers for game balance. Have a Better-tier strat that's turning out to be too powerful? Bump it up to Best-tier so that players have to give up one of their other powerful strats to use it.

My point is that a gotcha moment isn't a bad moment, assuming it makes people learn from mistakes. And yes ignorance is a mistake.

Apologies if I'm misinterpreting you. It kind of sounds like you're saying that having an unpleasant experiencing (getting gotcha'd) is okay because it leads to an increase in game knowledge which you seem to be presenting as inherently desirable. And if that's what you're saying, I don't think I agree. To my mind, the point of playing a game is to have an enjoyable experience. So having frustrating "gotcha" moments is counter-productive to that goal. And as expanding your game knowledge isn't an inherently positive/enjoyable thing to everyone, it doesn't necessarily act as a salve for the sting of the gotcha moment.

A crude analogy: A while back, I drove along a certain road for the first time at night. Turns out that road has really bad potholes. Bad enough to pop my tire. I now know that said pothole exists and how to avoid it when driving along that road, but I'd have strongly preferred that someone tell me said pothole exists in advance. Having first-hand experience with pot holes makes it easier for me to remember to avoid them now, but that extra-awareness doesn't really make me any happier about having to spend money on new tires.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Apologies if I'm misinterpreting you. It kind of sounds like you're saying that having an unpleasant experiencing (getting gotcha'd) is okay because it leads to an increase in game knowledge which you seem to be presenting as inherently desirable. And if that's what you're saying, I don't think I agree. To my mind, the point of playing a game is to have an enjoyable experience. So having frustrating "gotcha" moments is counter-productive to that goal. And as expanding your game knowledge isn't an inherently positive/enjoyable thing to everyone, it doesn't necessarily act as a salve for the sting of the gotcha moment.

A crude analogy: A while back, I drove along a certain road for the first time at night. Turns out that road has really bad potholes. Bad enough to pop my tire. I now know that said pothole exists and how to avoid it when driving along that road, but I'd have strongly preferred that someone tell me said pothole exists in advance. Having first-hand experience with pot holes makes it easier for me to remember to avoid them now, but that extra-awareness doesn't really make me any happier about having to spend money on new tires.

My point is that people shouldn't know everything in advance, trial and error is how I've always played the game. I've suffered tons of gotchas in the past since in older editions I never, not once, did any research before playing for the first time against an army I didn't knew. Nor I wanted to be educated about what is what and what they do. All I need to know is what is a tank, who's the leader, what is fast, what is melee specialists, what is anti tank, etc... and I don't need to be told these things in advance from the opponent, even if I never faced that faction before. But if it's not clear that's what I'm gonna ask the opponent, not the tactics and all the moves he's going to make. For example, how not knowing about transhuman "ruins" the whole game experience? In practise the targeted unit is just able to tank a few more hits, that's it. The equivalent or some bad rolls.

I had a gotcha moment in 9th when I played against an army with lots of "fight first" units, and charging with multiple units got me a fraction of the results I expected. But if I knew that in advance I wouldn't really played much differently, the units I charged with were mostly melee specialists so it was still better than waiting to be charged.

I don't really see a difference between older editions and now in terms of "gotchas", sure there are more rules overall but just a fraction of them are actually used and I don't think the majority of players was familiar with all the rules from all the armies in older editions. I definitely wasn't.

Sorry for not being convinced by the crude analogy, we're talking about games. Make an analogy about a game or a similar kind of experience. Learning from mistakes or ignorance during a game is not the same than learning from mistakes and ignorance after accidents or other real life bad stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Do you think you would have praised Mass Effect if you had died to the Architect for 6 hours over and over and you had to go to a net cafe to try the game?

Those things are impossible to happen, so no. I don't think getting 30 gotchas is real as well.

 Blackie wrote:

Sorry for not being convinced by the crude analogy, we're talking about games. Make an analogy about a game or a similar kind of experience. Learning from mistakes or ignorance during a game is not the same than learning from mistakes and ignorance after accidents or other real life bad stuff.

Actually, the following might serve as a pretty good analogy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Do you think you would have praised Mass Effect if you had died to the Architect for 6 hours over and over and you had to go to a net cafe to try the game?

Those things are impossible to happen, so no. I don't think getting 30 gotchas is real as well.

Vict's point, as I understand it, is that 40k is a game that can take several hours to play. Not usually 6 in my experience, but certainly 2 or 3. So a gotcha moment that turns the tide of the game in your opponent's favor can be pretty annoying, and the sheer number of strats to keep track of makes it more likely to run into those gotchas.

So, using the Mass Effect analogy, do you think you'd enjoy the portion of ME you've described if the fight you described took 2 or 3 hours, and then you lost because of a mechanic you've never experienced before? And then after reloading and avoiding the first gotcha mechanic, the enemy revealed a second gotcha mechanic. And then on the third playthrough, a third gotcha mechanic. So by the time you actually beat that portion of the game, you've spent about 12 hours being repeatedly killed by the same enemy because he keeps breaking out surprise mechanics?

And even if you say "yes," can you see why many people would not enjoy spending 12 hours doing that?

My point is that a game isn't ruined thanks to a gotcha. Not the whole 2-3 hours experience. If it happens early you might concede and try to re play. If it happens late well, it doesn't diminish the fun you had earlier. Just the last portion of the game maybe. And then there won't be another time experience than specific gotcha since lesson would be (hopefully) learned. I once won a game because in the last turn I used Ramming Speed to get a long charge and inflict MWs off a character that was sitting on an objective: the opponent didn't know that and lost the game. Totally a gotcha moment for him but the game so far had been amazing for both of us. The gotcha didn't change that. But maybe we have different standards and you don't enjoy the moments of the game, just the outcome.

About my analogy. Yeah, dying and re-doing 2-3 hours would be annoying. What happened is that I was not prepared, died immediately and then died a lot more times again not because of a gotcha but since I couldn't find a legit tactic to beat that thing. I don't think yours is an honest analogy though because I believe there are 4-5 possible real gotchas combinations across the whole GW roster. Definitely not 2, 3 or more from the same faction. I believe people could get 4-5 gotcha moments only by playing a hundred games or so.

In my experience I've had 2-3 gotcha moments so far at most, and I can only remember one: the first time I face an army with lots of fight first units. Things like transhuman, which shows up regularly as a primary example when talking about this matter, aren't even gotchas IMHO and don't really ruin/change anything. Most of the stratagems to keep track of don't really alter the game mechanics, they just enhance a unit.

So just to be clear what are the gotcha combinations in 9th of 40k? I mean all of them.

On the subject of Gotchas, it's as much a matter of sportsmanship and friendly play as it is rules, and I don't think trying to codify rules in order to prevent poor sportsmanship is a winning battle.

Outside of tournament games with prizes, (or games where both players have established that they want to 'go hard',) I think it's best practice to always warn your opponent of possible stratagems and abilities that you think might be relevant.
If your opponent has overlooked a key ability that will torpedo their plan, and I don't say anything so I can get an easy win, that's not fun for me and it's not fun for them. I don't expect anyone to show up at a friendly game with a comprehensive knowledge of the rules and don't want to punish them for lacking that.

During competitive events such as paid-entry tournaments, I do expect my opponents to be prepared and know what they're doing, and I expect the same of myself. I'll still answer questions and state abilities and stuff at the start of the game, (for example, pointing out relics instead of just expecting my opponent to find it buried in my list,) but I won't warn my opponent before they move into charging range that I'm going to use a strat to reduce their charge, and I don't expect my opponents to warn me either.

Honestly, I don't want to overemphasize the importance of the "feels bad gotcha" thing. It's an annoying thing that doesn't really need to exist, but it's not that big a deal.

To me, the bigger benefit of reducing the number of stratagems in play is that I just don't have to keep track of as many of them. Trying to remember which strats I can combo together to maximize my damage output is more an exercise in record keeping and memorization than clever tactics (to me).

Plus, there's arguably an element of customization to be had in choosing your stratagems. Are you a Lightning Fast Reactions guy or a Fire and Fade guy? Tears of Isha or Auto-Advance 6?

But how many stratagems would you want to keep? Because excluding pre-game general stratagems such as "adding more relics", "adding more warlord traits", "deepstriking a unit", etc... I already only use 6-7 per army typically, like pretty much every opponent I face.

Unless we're talking about restricting stratagems to really small pools of 2-3 I don't think reducing them from the beginning (assuming to keep all the useful ones) changes that much.

My 500 point list has 14 Stratagems, 3 of them are gotcha Stratagems.

 vict0988 wrote:
My 500 point list has 14 Stratagems, 3 of them are gotcha Stratagems.

Care to list them? So far no one provided a single actual example of gotcha mechanic, despite I've specifically asked for that. And that was not the first time that I ask that question and get no answer.

 Blackie wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
My 500 point list has 14 Stratagems, 3 of them are gotcha Stratagems.

Care to list them? So far no one provided a single actual example of gotcha mechanic, despite I've specifically asked for that. And that was not the first time that I ask that question and get no answer.

I deleted the answer where I explained it sorry.

gotcha wrote:Use this Stratagem in any phase, when a NECRONS QUANTUM SHIELDING unit from your army is selected as the target of an attack. Until the end of the phase, models in that unit have a 4+ invulnerable save.

NOT gotcha wrote:Use this Stratagem at the start of any phase. Select a unit of DAEMONS from your army; until the end of the phase, you cannot re-roll saving throws for this unit, but its invulnerable save is improved by 1 (to a maximum of 4+).

I have a Knight with two big melta cannons, I declare shooting at a unit that has been Warp Surged, I know the unit has an improved invulnerable save because my opponent has declared the use of the Stratagem before I pick targets.

If I shoot at a Quantum Shielding unit then I don't know whether the unit has a 5++ or 4++, a smart move would be to target two different QS units with my Knight such that no matter what some of my shooting will hit a unit with a 5++, but if I don't even know the Stratagem exists I might focus fire and get caught out by the sudden boost in invulnerable save and waste all my shooting instead of half my shooting. Especially painful against Necrons because they heal one wound at the start of their turn and they can use the top bracket with another Stratagem I might be unaware of.

https://imgur.com/a/5OwuNNx

Gotcha Stratagems outlined in purple. I added one Stratagem that wasn't supposed to be there, so 13 Stratagems instead of 14.

General defensive strats with no prerequisites aren't a "gotcha" in this day and age of information. It's just a lame strat is all because there's no thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also with your logic how is the Fight Twice strat with Flayed Ones not a gotcha?

Consider that many armies can have 40+ possible strats available in any given game, even if some of them are highly situational.

It can be somewhat disconcerting watching your opponent rifling through a deck of cards (or list) looking for that ONE that fits the exact situation he finds himself in just to get the "I have a special rule for that" strat.

It's hard enough keeping track of your own strats, never mind trying to stay current on the hundreds of others available to your opponents.

 Blackie wrote:
But how many stratagems would you want to keep? Because excluding pre-game general stratagems such as "adding more relics", "adding more warlord traits", "deepstriking a unit", etc...

Not to derail the topic, but I think a strong case could be made for turning relics and warlord traits into conventional wargear with a 0-1 limit that cost points instead of CP.

I already only use 6-7 per army typically, like pretty much every opponent I face.

Six-ish sounds about right. But there's a difference between only having six worthwhile stratagems and only having to worry about six stratagems. Like I said, trying to remember all my more obscure strats and deciding whether or not they're worth using in a niche situation is a small extra bit of brainwork that I could do without. Plus, certain forms of stratagem selection might mean that you actually have a reason to use some of the other stratagems you've been passing on.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Six-ish sounds about right. But there's a difference between only having six worthwhile stratagems and only having to worry about six stratagems. Like I said, trying to remember all my more obscure strats and deciding whether or not they're worth using in a niche situation is a small extra bit of brainwork that I could do without. Plus, certain forms of stratagem selection might mean that you actually have a reason to use some of the other stratagems you've been passing on.

I don't like this idea because it just makes those niche stratagems even worse. Many stratagems have extremely niche use cases and if I only get to pick a handful of stratagems from my book before every game, I'm just not going to pick them. For example, 'Careen' can be useful for an ork army in the very specific circumstance that a vehicle explodes while not within normal explosion radius of an enemy but close enough that moving six inches will get it that close, and is otherwise terrible. Given that I have no idea if any of my vehicles are even going to explode, let alone explode right next to enemy units, I'm never going to add that to my arsenal.

In order for Stratagems to make sense as a 'you can only pick a few of them' choice, they would need to be written and balanced with this in mind. Niche-case stratagems wouldn't get written, and that sucks, because stratagems like Careen are a lot of fun in the rare instances where it's appropriate to use it.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Six-ish sounds about right. But there's a difference between only having six worthwhile stratagems and only having to worry about six stratagems. Like I said, trying to remember all my more obscure strats and deciding whether or not they're worth using in a niche situation is a small extra bit of brainwork that I could do without. Plus, certain forms of stratagem selection might mean that you actually have a reason to use some of the other stratagems you've been passing on.

I don't like this idea because it just makes those niche stratagems even worse. Many stratagems have extremely niche use cases and if I only get to pick a handful of stratagems from my book before every game, I'm just not going to pick them. For example, 'Careen' can be useful for an ork army in the very specific circumstance that a vehicle explodes while not within normal explosion radius of an enemy but close enough that moving six inches will get it that close, and is otherwise terrible. Given that I have no idea if any of my vehicles are even going to explode, let alone explode right next to enemy units, I'm never going to add that to my arsenal.

In order for Stratagems to make sense as a 'you can only pick a few of them' choice, they would need to be written and balanced with this in mind. Niche-case stratagems wouldn't get written, and that sucks, because stratagems like Careen are a lot of fun in the rare instances where it's appropriate to use it.

Well, if you used a tiered system like the one I pitched above, you'd theoretically be picking between careen and other similarly situational or weak strats. So if your list were full of vehicles, you might take it. Especially if you chose a couple of your strats right before the game started and saw that your opponent had lots of melee units (likely to get close to your vehicles). And if careen is so weak and/or situational that it's a never-take even compared to the other bottom-tier strats, then at that point it could probably do with some tweaking. Granted, maybe that's a lot of extra work for limited gain.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Six-ish sounds about right. But there's a difference between only having six worthwhile stratagems and only having to worry about six stratagems. Like I said, trying to remember all my more obscure strats and deciding whether or not they're worth using in a niche situation is a small extra bit of brainwork that I could do without. Plus, certain forms of stratagem selection might mean that you actually have a reason to use some of the other stratagems you've been passing on.

I don't like this idea because it just makes those niche stratagems even worse. Many stratagems have extremely niche use cases and if I only get to pick a handful of stratagems from my book before every game, I'm just not going to pick them. For example, 'Careen' can be useful for an ork army in the very specific circumstance that a vehicle explodes while not within normal explosion radius of an enemy but close enough that moving six inches will get it that close, and is otherwise terrible. Given that I have no idea if any of my vehicles are even going to explode, let alone explode right next to enemy units, I'm never going to add that to my arsenal.

In order for Stratagems to make sense as a 'you can only pick a few of them' choice, they would need to be written and balanced with this in mind. Niche-case stratagems wouldn't get written, and that sucks, because stratagems like Careen are a lot of fun in the rare instances where it's appropriate to use it.

Well, if you used a tiered system like the one I pitched above, you'd theoretically be picking between careen and other similarly situational or weak strats. So if your list were full of vehicles, you might take it. Especially if you chose a couple of your strats right before the game started and saw that your opponent had lots of melee units (likely to get close to your vehicles). And if careen is so weak and/or situational that it's a never-take even compared to the other bottom-tier strats, then at that point it could probably do with some tweaking. Granted, maybe that's a lot of extra work for limited gain.

How many strats are we giving out, exactly? Because I'm really not seeing a great way to balance this without restructuring and rewriting the balance of strats in general, especially given the huge variance in how many 'good' strats a given codex has.