Friendly games, ethics question

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

-snip-

I think this example is really good because it sums up a middle ground that I think people are missing. This doesn't have to be all or nothing. I think the feel of it is important, and I think this will be different for every player. 

 

Despite my arguments in opposition earlier, I personally would not want to win this way. To me, there is a big difference between setting a trap with unknown information and exploiting someone who is just trying to expedite the game. To use this as an example, I would easily consider this the latter. However, had I set up my unit in a way that made my opponent want to keep their units within 6" of me, say for instance, if by moving more than 6" away, they were now off of the objective, then no, I would not consider it an issue. 

 

 

I agree with you for the most part, but it is outside of our control how GW designs stratagems. When I say I rarely use my HI strat I'd be surprised if I had used it more than 5 times, and I was playing about 2 two games a week for a big chunk of it, so I'd say I'm comfortably over 100 games with my wolves at this point. One of those times was recently against an opponent who didn't want to go over rules (and then whined about being surprised :(... but it wasn't like he was pulling punches  ). It's just really tough to get it off on people who know you can do it. If I didn't warn people I'm sure I would get it a lot more often and that's with me having regular opponents.  

 

For me that makes this issue have a lot of gray area. It's not like my opponents are like "thank you Jorrin pick one of my strats that you don't want me use". That basically means that I give my opponent a handicap, and I don't think that is right to expect everyone to do it in a tournament. I will but I'd rather lose than deal with someone whining about a dice game, with poor balance. Ironically when I'm playing 2d fighters I like it when I can tell i'm frustrating my opponent, but I'm not using a top tier so it's typically because I'm more skilled they just need to lab more.

[Tawnis]

 

 

-snip-

I think this example is really good because it sums up a middle ground that I think people are missing. This doesn't have to be all or nothing. I think the feel of it is important, and I think this will be different for every player. 

 

Despite my arguments in opposition earlier, I personally would not want to win this way. To me, there is a big difference between setting a trap with unknown information and exploiting someone who is just trying to expedite the game. To use this as an example, I would easily consider this the latter. However, had I set up my unit in a way that made my opponent want to keep their units within 6" of me, say for instance, if by moving more than 6" away, they were now off of the objective, then no, I would not consider it an issue. 

 

 

I agree with you for the most part, but it is outside of our control how GW designs stratagems. When I say I rarely use my HI strat I'd be surprised if I had used it more than 5 times, and I was playing about 2 two games a week for a big chunk of it, so I'd say I'm comfortably over 100 games with my wolves at this point. One of those times was recently against an opponent who didn't want to go over rules (and then whined about being surprised ... but it wasn't like he was pulling punches  ). It's just really tough to get it off on people who know you can do it. If I didn't warn people I'm sure I would get it a lot more often and that's with me having regular opponents.  

 

For me that makes this issue have a lot of gray area. It's not like my opponents are like "thank you Jorrin pick one of my strats that you don't want me use". That basically means that I give my opponent a handicap, and I don't think that is right to expect everyone to do it in a tournament. I will but I'd rather lose than deal with someone whining about a dice game, with poor balance. Ironically when I'm playing 2d fighters I like it when I can tell i'm frustrating my opponent, but I'm not using a top tier so it's typically because I'm more skilled they just need to lab more.

 

Yeah, that's another thing, a lot of strats just become threats of activation. For example, the one most people remember is Auspex Scan. How many times have any marines players actually used that? Unless they are out of CP, chances are, you're not Deep Striking within 12" and getting hit by that. 

 

I know what you mean about the HI strat though. I play a lot of Kroot and they too have a 6" HI strat that also gives them +1 attack. I think I've used it two or three times in about 20 games. 

[Rogue]

Just spit-balling, but what would happen if you could only use stratagems in your own turn (aside from the universal ones, like counter-charge, which everyone knows about because they're in the main rules)?

 

You could even retain defensive stratagems, but would have to commit to them in your turn, maybe in a new phase after the morale phase. So if you want Transhuman you can still have it, but only once per turn, and I know where it is before I start my turn.

 

I feel like the 'gotcha' element would be dramatically reduced, because you can't spring stuff on me in my turn, and I always start my turn knowing the state of your force.

 

On the other hand, you sacrifice a degree of interaction and counter-play, so this isn't a solution as much as a different approach with different problems.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

-SNIP-

 

Yeah, that's another thing, a lot of strats just become threats of activation. For example, the one most people remember is Auspex Scan. How many times have any marines players actually used that? Unless they are out of CP, chances are, you're not Deep Striking within 12" and getting hit by that. 

 

I know what you mean about the HI strat though. I play a lot of Kroot and they too have a 6" HI strat that also gives them +1 attack. I think I've used it two or three times in about 20 games. 

 

 

Yeah, the threat of a stratagem does have an effect, but it's really hard to measure. What I do know is when I get off that 6" intervention with my Wolves I tend to win. It means one of my squads gets an extra round of combat and a lot of extra movement. My SoB don't have any stratagems that feel as Gotcha. That said I don't think the package is weaker than what wolves have and that's counting counter charge as surprise. They have a lot of good ones, I just think people handle it better because it doesn't feel like they made a mistake their opponent just did something special.

 

Just spit-balling, but what would happen if you could only use stratagems in your own turn (aside from the universal ones, like counter-charge, which everyone knows about because they're in the main rules)?

 

You could even retain defensive stratagems, but would have to commit to them in your turn, maybe in a new phase after the morale phase. So if you want Transhuman you can still have it, but only once per turn, and I know where it is before I start my turn.

 

I feel like the 'gotcha' element would be dramatically reduced, because you can't spring stuff on me in my turn, and I always start my turn knowing the state of your force.

 

On the other hand, you sacrifice a degree of interaction and counter-play, so this isn't a solution as much as a different approach with different problems.

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of stratagems I just think they add a lot of variables and make the game really hard to balance. I'd really like to see the interaction be caused by an alternating activation system, and a damage phase. That isn't very likely though, so my suggestion would be to greatly expand the universal stratagems and then give each fraction a couple of unique ones. You won't be surprise by HI if everyone has it.

 

I've also seen people recommend having a "hand" where you basically pick a few and those are the only ones you have access to in the game. The ones you choose are public knowledge. 

[Valkyrion]

Stratagems are unnecessary.

 

Dark Angels, for instance, have;

+1 to hit when stationary

ignore combat attrition

7 chapter command upgrades

23 warlord traits

30 relics

18 psychic powers

7 chaplain litanies

6 secondary objectives

obsec terminators

obsec bikes

always on transhuman on many units

5++/4++ save on many units

an extra -1 AP on heavy weapons in the first turn

faster bikes in the first turn

an extra -1 AP on assault and rapid fire weapons in the 2nd and 3rd turn

can shoot rapid fire and assault weapons in melee in the 2nd and 3rd turn

an extra -1AP on pistol and melee weapons in the 4th and 5th turn

terminators can reroll wounds against big things in the 4th and 5th turn

bolter discipline

shock assault

 

How does access to 51 stratagems, not including core, make them any more flavourful or unique than all those rules already do?

[Beams]

I really like the intent behind strategems and command points -- 

 

A very limited use "feels good" moment for the player who uses them, and an extra layer of customization -- Like, having you spend that resource for extra warlord traits and what not was great, and the old "the bigger force org you take, the more CP you have" was a cool idea -- especially since it made armies like Guard have a lot more of the resource to narratively work like the guard would -- they have way more supplies and structure to draw on then custodes and marines, but the units they use it on matter a lot less.

 

Like, having a "re-roll one dice per phase" and "don't panic!"  universal strategems are fine. The issue becomes each army having 20+ unique ones. There should really only be like 3-10 generic ones, and maybe +1 per faction and +1 per subfaction as flavor.

 

Like, Marines get Transhuman as marines, and then maybe the Salamanders get the "BURN EVERYTHING max hits on flamers" while Ultramarines get the "TACTICOOL shoot at something when it deepstrikes" kind of thing, and then it's still flavorfull without having to memorize 20+ strategems per opponent you play against.

[Tawnis]

Just spit-balling, but what would happen if you could only use stratagems in your own turn (aside from the universal ones, like counter-charge, which everyone knows about because they're in the main rules)?

 

You could even retain defensive stratagems, but would have to commit to them in your turn, maybe in a new phase after the morale phase. So if you want Transhuman you can still have it, but only once per turn, and I know where it is before I start my turn.

 

I feel like the 'gotcha' element would be dramatically reduced, because you can't spring stuff on me in my turn, and I always start my turn knowing the state of your force.

 

On the other hand, you sacrifice a degree of interaction and counter-play, so this isn't a solution as much as a different approach with different problems.

While that does remove the "gotcha" feel, it has one major issue. Most defensive strats will functionally all do the same thing, make your opponent target a different unit. This was the issue with Hidden Hunters in 8th, you had to pop it at the start of your opponents shooting phase and they would just never shoot the unit you used it on. 

[Rogue]

That is very true. However, you could argue that this becomes part of the tactical use of the stratagem - you're forced to commit to using it early, but it also then gives me a decision to make: do I target the squad on the objective that has transhuman active, or the squad that's further away, less of a threat, but easier to kill?

 

Equally, if I have multiple viable targets, why are you wasting a CP on transhuman in the first place? By playing in your turn, you need to have a plan and purpose, rather than just reacting to my plan.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

That is very true. However, you could argue that this becomes part of the tactical use of the stratagem - you're forced to commit to using it early, but it also then gives me a decision to make: do I target the squad on the objective that has transhuman active, or the squad that's further away, less of a threat, but easier to kill?

 

Equally, if I have multiple viable targets, why are you wasting a CP on transhuman in the first place? By playing in your turn, you need to have a plan and purpose, rather than just reacting to my plan.

 

But what happens if you go first and have a drop pod. I couldn't use transhuman because I went second or even respond to your deep strike. Whereas you have every defensive option available to you for all of your turns.

 

I think expanding the universal stratagems or restricting players to a certain number of them makes more sense if they keep them.   

[MARK0SIAN]

I really like the intent behind strategems and command points --

 

A very limited use "feels good" moment for the player who uses them, and an extra layer of customization -- Like, having you spend that resource for extra warlord traits and what not was great, and the old "the bigger force org you take, the more CP you have" was a cool idea -- especially since it made armies like Guard have a lot more of the resource to narratively work like the guard would -- they have way more supplies and structure to draw on then custodes and marines, but the units they use it on matter a lot less.

 

Like, having a "re-roll one dice per phase" and "don't panic!" universal strategems are fine. The issue becomes each army having 20+ unique ones. There should really only be like 3-10 generic ones, and maybe +1 per faction and +1 per subfaction as flavor.

 

Like, Marines get Transhuman as marines, and then maybe the Salamanders get the "BURN EVERYTHING max hits on flamers" while Ultramarines get the "TACTICOOL shoot at something when it deepstrikes" kind of thing, and then it's still flavorfull without having to memorize 20+ strategems per opponent you play against.

You’re right about the quantity and the fact GW even included the option “there are too many of them” when asking about stratagems in their last survey suggests they might be aware it’s an issue.

 

However it’s not just a quantity issue. There’s also a power issue. Some of the stratagems are just really powerful and often not costed appropriately. They’re so good in fact that they’re just defaults picks. There’s no thinking about it, a unit is about to be shot so you stick transhuman on it. Something deep strikes in so you use auspex scan, they’re just no brainers. The other issue is that some of them are abilities a unit should just have like smoke launchers.

 

It feels like they want the game to revolve around stratagems rather than stratagems just be a flavourful or interactive layer and it’s warping the game. Like they want all the cool events and power etc to come from stratagems which is not a fun way to play for me.

[Rogue]

 

 

That is very true. However, you could argue that this becomes part of the tactical use of the stratagem - you're forced to commit to using it early, but it also then gives me a decision to make: do I target the squad on the objective that has transhuman active, or the squad that's further away, less of a threat, but easier to kill?

 

Equally, if I have multiple viable targets, why are you wasting a CP on transhuman in the first place? By playing in your turn, you need to have a plan and purpose, rather than just reacting to my plan.

But what happens if you go first and have a drop pod. I couldn't use transhuman because I went second or even respond to your deep strike. Whereas you have every defensive option available to you for all of your turns.

 

I think expanding the universal stratagems or restricting players to a certain number of them makes more sense if they keep them.

I'm not pretending I've put a ton of thought into this - just messing about with ideas. I mean, you could allow player two a chance to play defensive stratagems just after the roll-off, maybe. But it was more of a loose suggestion about depowering some of the 'gotcha' stratagms; I have no intention of defending it to the hilt.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

That is very true. However, you could argue that this becomes part of the tactical use of the stratagem - you're forced to commit to using it early, but it also then gives me a decision to make: do I target the squad on the objective that has transhuman active, or the squad that's further away, less of a threat, but easier to kill?

 

Equally, if I have multiple viable targets, why are you wasting a CP on transhuman in the first place? By playing in your turn, you need to have a plan and purpose, rather than just reacting to my plan.

But what happens if you go first and have a drop pod. I couldn't use transhuman because I went second or even respond to your deep strike. Whereas you have every defensive option available to you for all of your turns.

 

I think expanding the universal stratagems or restricting players to a certain number of them makes more sense if they keep them.

I'm not pretending I've put a ton of thought into this - just messing about with ideas. I mean, you could allow player two a chance to play defensive stratagems just after the roll-off, maybe. But it was more of a loose suggestion about depowering some of the 'gotcha' stratagms; I have no intention of defending it to the hilt.

 

 

sorry if I sounded more aggressive then I meant too, I just like the game design debates and wanted to point something out. 

[Rogue]

No worries - I didn't read it as aggressive, and you make a valid point. It's just that I'd thrown out an idea without really thinking it through, and wasn't geared up for making a robust defence of it :)