Opinions on Strategems as a game mechanic?

[infornography]

So something that has been bugging me with 8th and 9th edition is the proliferation and reliance on strategems. They add a lot of complexity to the game in an edition where supposedly GW was simplifying game mechanics and make it all but impossible to quickly comprehend an opponent playing a faction you are not already intimately familiar with. I think the idea has merit but I think GW has become overly reliant on them to shore up weaknesses and as a result the game is now kind of a mess of cards and printouts. They also substantially increase the difficulty in helping newbies learn the game.

Am I alone in this observation?

Don't get me wrong, I think the mechanic isn't all bad, but there is just too much of it.

[TheDeepestShadow]

Seems like most people (including myself) are in agreement with you. I would definitely prefer more of the power of units being baked into them, rather than being reliant on CP. The Haruspex thread in the general board is a prime example of this; strats should be useful in specific situations but not necessary for a unit to function. I'm tentatively optimistic this is the direction that GW is going based on the SM and Necron codexes, so hopefully it spreads to all the non-power armor factions.

[hivefleetkerrigan]

I'm in agreement. Heck, look at the core strategems from 8 to 9, they increased about 2x. For a newbie, I'd teach them with only the core strategems and no chapter buffs then would introduce faction specific items the 2nd or 3rd game.

Maybe they need to do an easy mode or a complex mode where strategems + chapter buffs are added in for the complex mode? I've seen that work well in other games.

[No One]

I think it's a good idea that's generally reasonably implemented: strats let you allow units to do things that they shouldn't be able to do consistently, but is OK to do as one offs/with additional costs attached. Since they're once per phase and cost CP, you've got restrictions in built. It's definitely better than 7th formations, which I thought was a good idea (give buffs for stuff at the cost of restricted options), which was generally very poorly implements (buffs with no restrictions you care about).

On the other hand, some strats definitely miss the mark, either allowing things that probably shouldn't be an option ever, or are just too efficient damage buffs. Or they're band-aids for units where the buff should be a base ability, but that's rarely an issue with strats so much as GW stuffing up the original unit.

[beetlejuice]

While I agree they raise the threshold for new players there are generelly about 5 for each faction you really need to be aware of and play around to avoid the worst feelbads and gotcha moments. You learn these in 2-3 games the hard way in my experience.

For experienced players and competetitive play I would say stratagems are super important. CP economy and deployment is what determines the outcome of games after the list building stage and is what really separates good and bad players. I really prefer a game with high skill cap and tough decisions and not just press play and see how the dice gods favour you.

[garg]

They can lead to some gotcha moments but i like the additional layer of strategy. Once you know your opponent's let strats there is an element of baiting their use so they run out of CP. It opens up a lot of options for units without being too powerful because they are limited by CP and one use per phase.

[infornography]

So based on the poll and feedback most people are pretty positive about them but on average think they need to be scaled back a bit and not used as a crutch for crippled units quite so much.

If they were not used to prop up crippled units, I think the game would be healthiest with the ability to play without them especially for beginners and then introduce them later, but as things are, with them used as a crutch, that really leaves some factions (like Tyranids) in a very bad (or even worse) place.

[kazetanade]

On the other hand, if strats do not have a good synergy with the units they're supposed to support, they become pretty useless. Look at the Necron codex for eg: most of the strategems, barring Novokh, are situationally helpful and most of the time will remain unused, but can create a big turnaround when used (for me, this is primarily Ctan strats, the scarabs strat, the really hard to set up canoptek strat, auto explodes, and auto wound strats). This is OK design. Then you have the super restrictive ones (rapid-fire exploes, but only on infantry; bikers weapons become assault, and shoot without advance penalty, flier suppressive fire) which are nigh useless because of the options on the units (Flayers are BAD options) or the weapon just not jiving (bikes don't need assault 2 on 30" weapons, and the other qeapon options just feel bad) or the unit just being super bad for their application (fliers, and the strategem effect is no use).

Overall its Defford going into the right direction though.

[gigasnail]

drop the stratagems that used to be unit abilities, and put those abilities back on units then cost them appropriately.

stratagems would be fine if there were a dozen, two dozen of them tops with only a couple of faction specific ones. redeployment, rerolls, things of that nature.

i like the idea, but the execution is ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh and it makes costing anything extremely handwavey and arbitrary.

[Hive Bahamut]

The fact Vect and Generations are a thing tells me poor execution. When factions like GSC hinge on 3CP Strats then get auto deleted by auspex equivalent, it is just pigeonhole. Illusion of choice but fact of the matter is 8CP gone before game starts. Every game. Same thing. No choice.

Contrasting to Custodes where the CP powers up the units instead of makes them function.

Nids don't have this problem. Not even Hive Guard auto shoot 2x or Metabolic mandatory. Closest thing is Adaptive Physiology and that is still sort of new.