Pimpcron: 40k Stratagems are a Crutch

  • Posted by
  • at

Pimpcron whines about something else this week. Do strategems make you a strong or weak player?

I extend my warmest, sweetest salutations to you, dear readers. May the wind be at your back and the sun on your face dear friend. Unless, of course it is like really hot out, then just reverse those wishes. It’s kind of a subjective greeting I suppose. Ya know what? Screw you for questioning my good intentions. Now I don’t care what relationship the sun has with your face.

Okay, that was a little harsh. I apologize. I’m at least a casually concerned with your face-sun correlation. Wear sunblock.

Here’s my fake smile.

What is it I’m supposed to talk about again? Ah! Warhammer 40,000 is the random subject I drew out of my hat for the subject of this week’s article (and for the past 3 years, there may just be one slip of paper in there).

So let me put on my whining hat, work up a good sob, and pull the tissue box closer.


With no uncertainty I know this will be declared whining or crying by some, so I’m just rolling with it. It all started way back in my dark past one week ago. In case you don’t know, I have a 40k & AoS convention in Ocean City Maryland at the beginning of December each year. The main tournament is a Highlander, but the secondary tournament was my own brew called the Nutcrusher where you literally take whatever you want and it featured Kill Points, Maelstrom Objectives, regular Objectives, and a relic all at once. It was fun and crazy, but didn’t really fit the theme of my casual and fun convention. Attendance for that tourney was half of what the number for the Highlander was, so I decided to axe it. This year I’m going with something I’m calling the: 40k Danger Zone (Archer reference).

All the coolest models get the good stratagems.

It’s small points and each game in the 3-game series only allows certain force org slots and no codex stratagems allowed. It will be quite fun, and I found that the first thing I wanted to cut for this new format were codex stratagems. I am including the 3 basic stratagems, and adding some other ones that are unique to this tournament for use by all armies.

I Want My Mommy!

While I think Stratagems are way, way better than formations in terms of making units better, I feel like they have become a crutch for some gamers. I see the worst abuse with Chaos players, because they have quite a few good stratagems. Between Poxwalkers and Slaanesh Obliterators, it’s just rinse a repeat every turn. It gets very boring and there is no real thought in it.

And yes, I play Chaos Marines so I’m not just saying this out of butthurt. In fact, I haven’t even been angry over it from personal experience; I just find it lazy and a crutch. It was when I decided to take codex stratagems out, that I found that armies are much more even. No more Cultists returning at full-strength, no more double-shots for Slaanesh, no more Nid shenanigans. Noise Marines are still good, they just aren’t broken. Poxwalkers are still good, they just aren’t broken.

“Dammit, how does this go in again? Should have paid attention during the meeting.”

Suddenly playing this way makes all of the indexes and codices fairly balanced and equal. Of course it doesn’t solve all problems, but I realized that Stratagems help unbalance the game.

I May Need to be Changed

No, not into a more likeable person. Shut up. This got me thinking that stratagem points need a revision because some are auto-takes and others are never-takes due to their cost. Or instead of individual codex stratagems they could release a bunch of generic any-army stratagems. But that would probably too hard to balance, being that they can’t balance codex stratagems in a book that only pertains to one army.

I guess this is the old point-view issue of WAAC versus fluff in a way. My play style is to grab a random list with no intended synergy and see if I am able to make a win out of it. I take pride in not using net lists or the new hotness, and just trying to rely on strategy over cheese. Of course I use stratagems, but I don’t select units on their access to stratagems.

He’s not mad, he’s just disappointed.

I guess there is no real wrong answer here on how you approach a game, but it just seems like many players use stratagems in lieu of actual strategy. Just rinse and repeat the same under-costed, over-powered abilities just like they did with formations.

It’s kind of funny because stratagems make you feel like they give you more options as a gamer. But when they are so good they make you write a list around them, and they are auto-takes, isn’t that really limiting your options because you won’t take any others?

~So your honest opinion – Are powerful Strategems a boon or bane to the game?


Pimpcron signature 3

2017 Shorehammer Button for BoLS

Or contact me at brutalityskirmishwargame@gmail.com for the latest rules if you don’t do the Facebooks.

  • J Mad

    First; I want to say, your title/opening question doesnt match your article….

    Second; Are Stratagems fun? I think so.
    The Stratagems makes my Tyranids insanely more fun to play, many of them i wont use the same way the same times, gives a lot more variety and can change a game plan. I personally cant wait to see my DE.

    Third; Does it make you a better player? No, playing with or without them want change the outcome. Thats completely based on players skill/knowledge. A good player will use Stratagems to their fullest were a less killed player will not.

    • Pimpcron

      On your first comment, the tag line and title were edited by editors, and are not my original title and tag line. That is why you see a difference, it is not intentional baiting.

      • orionburn III

        But who edits the editors??

      • Drew_Da_Destroya

        Wait, there are editors?

        • Pimpcron

          I think so? Hmmm. I just post stuff and it usually gets censored, so Idk for sure. 😉

      • J Mad

        lol ok, just keep an eye out for it then.

  • ZeeLobby

    I mean again this just takes us back to the powerful vs weak detachments/formations of 6th/7th. If GW can’t balance them, both internally and externally, they’re simply going to dominate the game and dictate how we build lists and play. It’d be great if they we’re at least externally balanced, if each faction had at least one or several strategems that were equally powerful as other factions. Internally would mean more diversity on the table. The problem is when both are imbalanced and you throw them on top of units that already have poor internal/external balance, it just amplifies the issue.

    Personally I just think companies are rushing, as this is not something unique to GW. Theme lists in Warmachine/Hordes have similar issues (though the external aspect is somewhat stable now). When mk3 dropped I really expected for them to wait, and have several years of theme-free balancing before before they added them back to the games. Instead it’s been a rough ride as they try to rebalance the units and the themes, where either being changed effects the other.

    I think both have figured out that these mechanics can be used to drive sales, which is probably why they’re implemented and released as fast as possible to the detriment of the game systems. Now I’m not saying one codex every 10 years is the right solution either, but the rapid changes just result in a lot of chaos, and allow minimal time for reflection. It’d be great if they slowed and reworked things, and maybe that’s what we’ll see after the rush to release Codexes.

    • Kabal1te

      The problem is the damage is already done. The imbalanced strategems are out there. Like formations last edition once the books with them were printed and on shelves it is too late really unless errata gets heavier that it already is or they cook up a ban list of banned strategems for tournaments. Either way people will be unhappy. And of course this assumes the rule writers can successfully go back and find balance. The evident absence of play testing of the codices along with the fact that they didn’t actually playtest all the core rule book detachments are at the core of the problem

      • marxlives

        Well they could just move all the stats and rules into free digital formats. This way if a rule needs to updated or a unit, all you have to give players is a revision history so they can see what changed.

        • Shawn Lyons

          They have free digital rules for AoS, but have so far been unwilling to update them. Instead they sold a new general’s haandbook with revised point values.

        • zeno666

          GW doesn’t do “free” 😉

    • marxlives

      Amen to that brother. CID literally saved Warmachine, because before CID SKorne had it bad and the themes were so divergent in quality. Now that it has been in full swing for a year the game is exactly where it needs to be in regards to balance but that release year was a nightmare. Taking 40k into account, I think it is cute that they will choose a couple of guys from the tournament scene to be “play-testers” but they should really embrace the crowd-source playtesting model PP used with MKII for WMH and brought back for MKIII.

      • ZeeLobby

        Would have made a lot more sense. And yeah. WMH is reaching a great place now. Of course you have to play in theme and usually spam what’s best in that theme, which I’m not a huge fan of, but factions can at least compete with each other and everyone has answers, where some are better than others.

        • marxlives

          True, playing within theme is not necessary but the range is so big that I feel themes are the future just so that current and new players to navigate force building. I like how with all themes you can tap into a limited amount of mercs to cover weak points within theme but I would be surprised to see that trend turning back. I remember back in the day the forces between your main and mecs/minions and within your force was pretty open. I feel it is the same way but if I had to build a force without a theme, I wouldn’t know where to start.

  • I find the stratagems add another layer of play to the game, as well as flavor to the army. I think a lot share the sentiment, and regard stratagems something that makes 8th great.

    Sure there are some cookie cutter ones, but there’s a limited amount of times you can use them. And many other situational ones that come up once every few games, but it’s fun when they do.

    Im going to make a prediction and say your event that doesn’t have them won’t be too popular either.

    • Pimpcron

      You may be right about the Danger Zone not being popular, but we are doing a play test of it in the next couple months locally, and the excitement is drawing people from several states for our little trial tourney, but then again, we are the most casual convention I’ve ever heard of. Power gamers need not come, and they don’t. We have a great, laid back time at Shorehammer. So

      • LordKrungharr

        I would definitely come to Shorehammer except my wife would divorce me for interstate gaming again. And she has half my models held hostage until I finish remodeling the kitchen, so I’d never get them back then. And I can’t actually make a full army right now without them anyway. Is that a paradox?

        • Pimpcron

          Come anyway, I mean, chances are we will all get divorced at some point anyway. 😛

    • Ryan Gates

      I really don’t think the “flavor” of an army should be from stratagems…..it should be the army you choose from the get go, just saying, 😉

      • Kabal1te

        That’s a game design issue with this edition. Nothing we lowly players can really change about that.

  • Koen Diepen Van

    Stratagems are just a other of those things that is in the game to make a edition seem exiting but really don’t need to be there. They don’t add to the game they scale horribly whit points and make low point games even more of a alpha strike affair. But they are there and useing them really doesn’t have impact on players skill.

    • ZeeLobby

      That’s a good point. When I first saw them my initial thought was “oh, these we’re tacked on to make up for the over-simplification of the game elsewhere”. They give an illusion of depth, but we’re t really implemented in any way that creates actual depth.

    • dave long island

      Exits do make things more exciting.

      • Koen Diepen Van

        Good point . Spelling is hard tough

    • Kabal1te

      I would disagree on that last part. Good players will use them to noteworthy effect. Poor players may not.

  • Simon Chatterley

    The intentions were good I think. Add some flavour and excitement to games.

    Issue as always is there are ways to abuse them. I’m as guilty as any…just ask my 30 cultists who brought down Magnus last week. Without 3 stratagems that wasn’t going to have happened.

    I get that would have looked “Action movie” awesome but was it really? Sure I laughed but I’m not sure my opponent was overly happy at 120 shots from spud guns taking 11 wounds off his super primarch…

    • euansmith

      “… spud guns…” 😀 😀 😀

  • vlad78

    I think stratagems turned 40k from a wargame into a boardgame. and it is the first reason why I hate them with passion.

    The CP system was poorly designed. Instead of rewarding spam and FOC complient lists (with lots of cheap troops or units to fill it) CP should have been given for thematic lists or formations. It should have been a choice between playing really efficient units without theme or FOC without CP or play fluffy and thematic lists with CP.

    Up to a point stratagems do replace tactics, this is true. The strategic side is very hollow with lack of rules for cover and so on, they had to artificially replace it.

    The very notion of stratagems is disputable in a wargame. Why shouid a unit be able to do something one moment and won’t 5 mn later? It’s a bit silly. Silly me, this not a wargame anymore. ;p

    I think 6th and 7th editions were so bad GW took the game to the opposite side much too strongly.
    Did i say I hate stratagems?

  • mark hearne

    All the opinion on stratagems red exactly the same as when formations came out. There is a backlash against stratagems only a few months down the road, people will get sick of the same stratagems being used to do the same thing. The game is cyclical and at the moment I’m enjoying them. However I do think they don’t help anyone become a better player and and I will get sick of going through the same motions game after game.

  • Sir Postalot

    Don’t worry I have a stratagem to fix that.

    • euansmith

      It’ll cost too many CP though.

  • fenrisful2

    Stratagems should be restricted to friendly/fluffy/themed games.
    Other things that should be tried are:
    -Monsters/Vehicles that degrade will stay at their second profile all game.
    -No re-rolls, ever, for any reason.

    • Sir Postalot

      why ?

      • Dragon2928

        Because screw Salamanders, apparently… 🙁

        • Spacefrisian

          Rerolls dont scream Salamander to me imo, no penalty thunderhammers and strong with flamers on the other hand.

          And Whitescars and Saimhann making there bikes troops + combat weapon for an extra attack seems more fitting for them lorewise, maybe some hit and run options.

  • euansmith

    I know it is too late for 8th Edition, but, maybe for 9th, GW could come up with an underlying formula for assigning points costs to units and apply it rigidly across all factions.

    I realise that companies are looking to use OP rules to drive sales of minis, but I think that this is a reason why rules written by people who don’t sell minis tend to be better balanced.

    Maybe a set of Rules from Osprey Games and minis from GW is the way to go (or something free from One Page Rules or the like).

    My dream would be GW coming up with a coherent set of rules for designing their units, including a set of USRs that they could apply to any unit they create. Without this, we are left with designers eyeballing unit costs and erring on the side of selling the newest models.

    Really, I think that GW models are cool enough to sell without giving them OP rules. I guess that giving too much attention to the tournament scene makes OP rules look like the way to go.

    • If there’s one thing I learned from writing azyr for AOS before GHB droppeed official points on our face is that players in no way shape or form want a math formula to be followed, or for that level of balance to exist, because it lessens listbuilding’s impact if both lists are close in power no matter what you choose (which is what a math formula grants you)

      • euansmith

        I think that units wouldn’t need to be close in power; they would just need to have accurate-ish points. Each faction could have access to different balances of various types of units; more fast moving, more shooty, more fighty, so they could still have flavour.

        • Thats what I meant. If you have accurate points that means that your 2000 points would be roughly as good as my 2000 points. That lessens list building and makes a lot of people angry.

          • euansmith

            But isn’t that what you want a formula for; so that you know that you aren’t overpaying for your unit of x and your opponent isn’t underpaying for their y spam? Otherwise, list building just becomes an exercises in spamming cheese or finding that sweet, sweet combo and abusing that.

          • That is exactly what they want. If you don’t have Overpriced and Underpriced units, you lessen the impact of list building.

            If I can build a 2000 poiint list that functions as powerful as your 2000 point list, listbuilding is no longer a “thing”.

            I was under the mistaken assumption that was what was desired when I wrote azyr. The #1 complaint about azyr that I received in my email box was that it was too “boring” and that it killed listbuilding.

            I even had a guy in a facebook group wish cancer on me because the GT he was going to was using Azyr and I killed listbuilding which is what he enjoyed.

          • euansmith

            Dear me. So people prefer to limit their choice of units in order to facilitate some idea of “clever” list building?

            “Give me three Auto Include Units that are under-priced or I’ll be upset.”

            That is sad. It isn’t like there are hundreds of options to allow players to come up with some insanely clever combo that no one else will have hit upon. I guess pretty much anyone who approaches a codex from a Power Gaming point of view will quickly identify the most effective, under-priced unit and then spam that.

            You have my commiserations for running in to such a daft block to fun game design, and you have my wishes for your continued good health.

          • Now you know why my mindset is the way it is on listbuilding and deckbuilding lol.

          • euansmith

            So this is why we can’t have nice things?

          • This is why the game is what it is. I thnk GW designs like this on purpose because this iis what the customer-base wants.

          • euansmith

            Certainly some of the more voluble ones by the sounds of it. 😉

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean to be fair, a lot of their customer base has cycled out. And fresh customers bought in. With GW it’s always been the case of “we do this because it sells and it’s what we think is right. You can leave if you want, we’ll find someone else”. I mean a major driver if 8th propaganda was tournaments and balance. The problem is they have had no skill at delivering those things for a decade.

          • And then they bring in young guys with no real experience developing rules often as well. The GW dev team other than Phil Kelly and a couple other “older” guys are real young and fairly green from what I have seen on social media.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean they definitely are. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that during Kirby I’m not even sure they had a team dedicated to development.

          • I see the young guy phenomenon in my primary industry (software development). They come off the bus fresh from university and are ready to be systems architects in their minds.

            The problem with no seasoned developers there taking the reigns is that you are going to have a dart board of a product in terms of quality.

            I have heard the counter argument over again that AOS has blown up in the UK and of course 40k is 40k so that means that these young guys are obviously doing something right.

            The other shoe on the foot is that so many have disdain for those rules as well.

            If we’re going with monetary profit though I suppose the bad rules are in fact ok.

          • zeno666

            These are the truest words spoken 🙂

          • euansmith

            Ugh! I just had a flashback to 7th with that Space Marines Free Transport Formation! What an abomination.

      • ZeeLobby

        I dunno about that. Seems like a stretch. You create diversity in factions by what you skills you make available, not by how imbalanced things are internally/externally. There are plenty of other systems which clearly follow some kind of formula with small point shifts here and there, while some factions have more units with X then Y. GW just does massive point shifts cause good only knows why…

        There’s always this fear that balance = chess. Or that people want perfect balance. When neither of these are true. Closer balance would make 40K a much better game though, rather than the current state of definitely haves and we ain’t got shlts.

        • I have an email box with a couple hundred versions of “too much balance is bad, you killed listbuilding I hate you”.

          • ZeeLobby

            Which is just insane, I have never seen a community like yours. Our local store with hits 100+ gamers have mostly switched to other more balanced games. Maybe it’s time to move, I can feel your hair going grey through the internet. Lol

          • When I say email box full its not from my community. Azyr was used in several GTs from Italy to Australia to a few in the US. Our playtesting group was 185 guys from all over the globe.

  • David

    Getting rid of strategems changes what a good list looks like it doesn’t stop lists being unbalanced.

  • OctopusVolcano

    I mean I agree, but you take my Admech codex strategms away and we barely have an army to fall back on.

    Without the codex strategms we have no way of getting the modicum of melee units we have up the board.

    Our one exceptional melee unit is only exceptional because it hits on 1+ and explodes on 4+ because of a strategm, without it it’s just decent.

    Our best means of offense is cheesy and i hate it, but without a strategm it doesnt even exist.

    Without a codex strategm, we have zero psychic defense. None.

    So there are plenty of armies more balanced without the strategms, but there will also be several that are absolutely crippled without them.

    And annoyingly we wouldn’t be crippled if half the good rules we had in 7th weren’t taken away and, guess what, made into strategms. Thats half the problem imo, good rules were lifted from armies and moved into strategms,

    • Ryan Gates

      That’s why the codex should have been written better in the first place, 🙂

      • OctopusVolcano

        You’ll find no argument from me there, but it is what it is : reliant on strategms and soup :/

  • Sir Postalot

    On a more serious note, stratagems are great. I love them being able to nudge the odds a bit on the important moments. Losing the game due to failing that last important 2+ save, or that 1 on the dmg roll is now more of a choice than bad luck.

    • Solvagon

      And also a matter of managing ressources correctly. Having a ressource in the game that you have total control over adds a nice element to a game that lacks that.

  • orionburn III

    Stratagem arguments are essentially the same ones we were having about formations in 7th. “No, my stratagems are fine. It’s YOURS that are broken.” Then you have those that hate them all and want them gone from the game. Just like formations drove sales for models now it’s stratagems doing it. Which is fine…I get it as a company. It makes sense.

    Like 7th I had no problem with formations. There was some serious imbalance, but I liked the different options it created. Especially as a Dark Angels player having formations that favored Deathwing, Ravenwing, and Greenwing. Stratagems allow for some of the same feel but doesn’t lock you in as much with list building and provides more options. I only real gripe with the system are the rules allowing CPs to not be spent or gain them back.

    I’d rather see rerolls take a massive hit more than anything else.

    • ZeeLobby

      Agreed. Rerolls and those that can get them reliable just overpower so much else (not to mention slow down the game).

  • Davis Centis

    I really like Stratagems in the game right now. They let you do some cool, fluffy things, but you are actually limited to how much of it you can do. As such, I find lists that are using lots of Stratagems more diverse, and also more vulnerable to certain counter-players. For example, the Callidus Assassin. Just had a tourney and my buddy brought one, and having half of your opponent’s stratagems on Turn 1 cost 1 more was a big wake up call to those opponents! Another thing is for my Alpha Legion Berzerkers, I take a max squad of 20. Max squads! In 40k!!! That’s unheard of before now, but I take that max squad so I get max use out of their infiltration stratagem cost, even though it means if my opponent can kill a bunch of them in one turn they’ll almost certain die and run away.

    So, yes, there are some problems in the top end of things, as there always are, but for your average game I find Stratagems are really cool and great to have in the game.

  • CKyle80

    Stratagems are fun and add an extra layer of resource management to the game. The problem is that some armies with cheap units can load up on them and easily have 10 to 12 or more in a match while others struggle to get to 6. Our gaming group basically implemented a system where everyone just gets 6 regardless of your army composition (not that I expect tournaments to pick that up, but it works for us). Makes it that you really have to manage them and can end up punishing yourself later in the game if you’re not careful.

  • I haven’t played that many games of 8th edition so I haven’t seen auto include units / stratagems like the obliterators / cultists. But if that is an issue then can’t GW just increase the points on obliterators or cultists?

    I suppose it would be better to increase the cost of the stratagem but those are already printed. It’s not as clean to update the costs of the unit but it should prevent that sort of spam no?

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    I feel like the idea behind stratagems was good but GW really dropped the ball.

  • GrimBarker

    ** This is directed at the posts below, not the article ** The following rants are getting old: “Maybe in 9th…” We get it, your opinion is that everything GW does sucks, has always sucked, and will always suck. Your statement is nonsensical because when 9th drops, you’ll be whining about 9th, and comparing it to the nostalgia of 8th. “OP/sales” in the same sentence…just stop. If GW was developing OP rules to drive up sales, they wouldn’t nerf OP units within a couple of weeks. Allowing Morty to deepstrike would have been a huge boost in Morty sales. They chose NOT TO let Morty deepstrike, which is an odd choice if they only care about sell, sell, selling. “I don’t play 8th, but…” Dude, just go do something else. If you don’t even play the game you are voicing an opinion on, you are a troll. Also, just using two letters beside eachother (like OP) does not automatically make your point correct. It also seems like the comments sway between “This unit is not good enough” and “This unit is too good” making me wonder if Goldilocks has taken up 40k as a hobby. I haven’t had enough coffee. Cut it out, or at least come up with some new material. Thank you in advance. 🙂

    • Fenix Dargon


    • Pimpcron

      Take your reasonable argument and get off my lawn!

      • Spacefrisian

        Darn kids

      • Matthew Pomeroy

        more of a rant than an argument really.

  • SiberianVI

    Lion ‘El Johnson was here, spent 1 cmd point to punch a space wolf and ran off.

  • Jared Jeanquart

    What if players had a limited “hand” of stratagems? What if, aside from the core 3, you could only pick 4 to use in a given game?

  • stinkoman

    lets use CP as a way to bring the troop back into importance. 1 CP for every 100pts of troops you bring. or maybe make some of the iconic troops worth it. SMs/CSMs (and xenos equivalent) give an additional CP per full unit. this would make more thematic armies and limit CP (unless you did something like take all troops – which i wouldn’t mind). you could still play the way you want with min troops, but you suffer on the stratagem end. price to pay for bringing all the elite stuff to battle which shouldn’t need stratagems.

    or make the stratagems more troop focused.

  • Ronin

    I think stratagems were a fantastic addition to 40k and added a bit more tactics to the game and “You fell for my trap card” moments than just having two armies go at each other in a predictable meat grinder. However, I think the cp’s should be limited somehow like someone suggested they should be a flat 6 for all armies regardless of what detachment you take or bring the brigade down to +6 or less.

  • Solvagon

    Stratagems turned 40k from an excuse to paint little plastic soldiers into a genually enjoyable and skill-testing game. More possibilities and more ressources almost always make a game much more interesting and exciting.

    That is also why the stupid gain CP back abilities need to get axed imho (or be brought in line with DGs Tallyman).

  • Viper666.Qc

    In friendly games, we houserule CP this way to prevent abuse:

    When a single detachment is maxed out in every Battlefield role (apart from the Dedicated Transport role), double its Command Benefits (excluding the Auxiliary Support Detachment). A maxed Out Patrol Detachment is worth 3 Command Points instead.

    If a battle-forged army contains more than 1 Detachment, each non-maxed out detachment receives half their Command Benefits, rounded down (don’t count “Auxiliary” Detachments & Fortification Network Detachments).

  • ellobouk

    Honestly, I don’t think stratagems are a problem, I think detachments and CP are the problem.

    If you have easy access to a brigade *coughAM/imperialsoup&chaossoupcough* you immediately start the game with a huge tactical advantage with that monstrous CP boost, bringing 12+CP to the table, and if you’re running AM you can couple that to a brutal CP regen engine

    On the flip side, if I bring, for example, a pure custodes force, the maximum CP I can start the game with is realistically 6… meaning while I’m behind on units and model numbers, my smaller force also has reduced strategem applications on top of reduced tabletop presence. all in exchange for a +1 on the roll to go first.

    Instead, imagine a world where the game started at 12 CP, and you lost the CP cost of your detachments. That would mean bringing a more focused force would leave you more tactical options, rather than a huge sprawling army getting all the benefits. No longer would you see spammed barebones detachments, because it would be a hindrance, and if you were desperate to unlock certain codex specific strats, it would come at a cost, not a pure benefit.

    • Pimpcron

      Pretty neat idea.

      • ellobouk

        Thanks, it just bugged me that for some reason the bigger forces were the ones with the tactical and strategic options. as well as the obvious advantages that having more bodies (that 8th already pushes). A larger army is by nature harder to maneuver and more unwieldy to command, so why do they get all the CP?

  • Matthew Pomeroy

    I dont know if they make players stronger or not, but I do know that I dont like them, detachments or CP at all as a part of the game.