PDA

View Full Version : Strategy Ratings



UltimateNagash
18-12-2006, 18:57
Does anybody else think they're messed up?
Why do the Imperium get a 3, while the Dark Eldar, who use Webways get a 2, and Nids, who contact each other Psychicly get a 1? And aren't Orks some of the greatest innovators (in their own sense) - they'll attack without thinking, so why would they care about how many enemies there are or something?
Who else thinks the same way, and who's going to defend GW?

Quin 242
18-12-2006, 19:33
Strategy ratings are based on the amount of battle savvy the army has. The eldar could re-write Sun Tzu's books only edited for content while the orks, and nids are all about lets go crump em.

It reflects the thought put into the battle plan ahead of time.

Sarge
18-12-2006, 21:00
Than how the hell do you explain the 1 for Tau? They plan out entire campaigns before they enact them, with hundreds of fall back plans to boot.

Getz
18-12-2006, 21:10
Than how the hell do you explain the 1 for Tau? They plan out entire campaigns before they enact them, with hundreds of fall back plans to boot.

And are fully air-mobile so that they can dictate the terms of the battle...

Tau having a strategy rating of 1 is criminal. It should be 2...

UltimateNagash
18-12-2006, 21:14
This is what I meant - they don't corraspond to the background of the armies: how do Space Marines have a better chance of choosing where to go than a race of Psychic bug things that are an utter swarm.
The idea of Strategy Ratings was good, but guess what - it was poorly executed.

ObiWayneKenobi
18-12-2006, 21:29
Its just another gimme to Marine armies while screwing everyone else.. there's no reason that a highly advanced, militaristic army like the Tau should have a 1 strategy rating (isn't that the same as Tyranids, a race with essentially animal intelligence??)

Quin 242
18-12-2006, 21:30
Will any rule ever make everyone happy?

UltimateNagash
18-12-2006, 21:59
Yes, the one that banned Space Marines :D But not there Chaos bretherin - they're allright chaps really, just had a bit too much to drink before hand :D
Seriously though, it does seem like a marketing gimick for more Space Mairnes, ROXORNESSSSS!!!!! (Or as I like to call it, Roxas-ness)

Getz
18-12-2006, 22:01
Actually, I don't really have a problem with any of the Strategy Ratings except the Tau's

Brother Othorio
18-12-2006, 22:02
it sticks in my mind that the designers did state somewhere that Tau got a crappy Strategy rating due to the fact that they have such slow starships rather than because of their grasp of strategy (welcome to 40k folks..)

UltimateNagash
18-12-2006, 22:03
I see Orks being really quick to respond as such - "look, dere's a umie. CHARGE!!!!", while 'Nids would just be this really quick alien predator - why are they a 1?
And Tau - How does that work?

Getz
18-12-2006, 22:04
it sticks in my mind that the designers did state somewhere that Tau got a crappy Strategy rating due to the fact that they have such slow starships rather than because of their grasp of strategy (welcome to 40k folks..)

I fail to see what that has to do with anything portrayed in a squad level wargame...

Angelus Mortis
18-12-2006, 22:11
Than how the hell do you explain the 1 for Tau? They plan out entire campaigns before they enact them, with hundreds of fall back plans to boot.Uhhh...because it also ecompases logisitics. Lets see, the Tau have a dozen, maybe two dozen worlds, right? The Imperium has how many untold thousands? I think you should justify the Tau even being a playable race before you criticize the strategy ratings.

The strategy ratings logistics worked in means a lot about not just choosing where to go, but being able to. The Tyranids dont choose where to go, they go where the food is, and blindly I might add. The Tau while they have advanced technology, they dont have the logistical or naval support to expand as they would like. The Orks are, well, Orks. Nuff said. Chaos again is limited by their start points, ie Eye of Terror, warp storms, etc. They are limited in what they can reach and can be somewhat predictable. The Eldar while they have a tremendous advantage with the webway, they also cant reproduce for crap. Therefore, for them to move on to a battle, it has to be damn well worth it. This limits them and makes them somewhat predictable. The Imperium, in their vastness, covering most of the know universe, can get 1000 IG regiments and several SM Chapters just about anywhere. They also have a vast intelligence network because of the sheer volume of area they cover. They are also well versed in combat, have the largest navy, and largest, already well established logistics system. Not to mention that they can toss IG regiments at the enemy until they are blue in the face. This all leaves them with pretty much the ability to go anywhere, anytime on a whim. So, no, I don't agree with your conclusion that its not well thought out. On the contrary, I think its very well thought out.

Lord_Robot
18-12-2006, 22:12
Oh my god are you really serious Nagash?
The REASON that Orks and Tyranids have a 1 is because they are quick to respond. They don't think over an attack, analyze the terrain for possible ambushes, plan fallback routes, or anything. They just charge.

They have a 1 because they cannot anticipate what the enemy will do, and it is hard for the "attack everything" strategy to surgically strike weak points in the enemy line or vital areas.

The 1 represents their style of fighting, a kill everything style, that has no thought whatsoever put into it.

bnf
18-12-2006, 22:14
I see Orks being really quick to respond as such - "look, dere's a umie. CHARGE!!!!", while 'Nids would just be this really quick alien predator - why are they a 1?

What does being quick and rushing towards the enemy have to do with strategy?

A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, as differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand.

I'm sure you can appreciate how that puts Tyranids and Orks on the low end of a strategy scale.

Kahadras
18-12-2006, 22:50
Maybe stratergy ratings also take savvy into account. Eldar and Space Marnies probably have a lot more battlefield experience than Tau. The Ork and the Tyranids stratergy rating just represents the fact that they don't think much and just get in there and kill stuff.

Kahadras

Aundae
18-12-2006, 23:18
I agree 100% with what Angelus Mortis said. I won't quote it, just look up 4 posts.

The Emperor
18-12-2006, 23:18
Maybe stratergy ratings also take savvy into account. Eldar and Space Marnies probably have a lot more battlefield experience than Tau. The Ork and the Tyranids stratergy rating just represents the fact that they don't think much and just get in there and kill stuff.

Kahadras

Yeah, not to mention that a Space Marine Captain or Eldar Autarch likely has centuries of experience under their belt, whereas Tau have comparitively short lifespans, and thus accumulate less experience.

wingedserpant
18-12-2006, 23:29
Strategy ratings are a bit weird. They should be more reflective of what YOU'VE got in your army eg the more HQ choices and core you have the higher rating.

Ithuriel
18-12-2006, 23:32
Tau have a 1 strategy rating because they are predictable. They follow a very systematic (albeit effective) set of strategies. There aren't really many surprises. Maybe in the next version we'll see the pathfinders add a strategy rating, but for now, that is the way it is.

Same goes with Orks and Tyranids - you know what is going to happen, you just hope to limit the damage as much as possible.

Eldar are so seemingly capricious that you don't know what or even when to expect them with them how they travel through the webway.

Space Marine are so high because they are usually only deployed for specific missions with clear objectives - protracted combat is not their forte - that is the Guard with their much lower Strategy rating.

Pavulon
18-12-2006, 23:32
My thouhts on strategy ratings:

I will wonder about them when they matter, because right now, they have almost no impact on the game.

Quin 242
19-12-2006, 00:37
How about.. Strategy ratings are used for determining which table edge, also which player has to place a unit on the table first AND who gets to go first?

Seems sort of important to me.

Hmm... seems that that might be a local convention tho.. just re-read the RAW and does not use that.

Well, glad that we play it that way here.

Master Jeridian
19-12-2006, 00:47
The only problem with using Strategy Ratings for all those things is that armies like SM's (and I do own them) get a powerful 3 whilst armies like IG (and I do own them) get a measly 1....with no extra cost whatsoever to the SM army, in-game.

It would be yet another 'bonus' for already 'popular' armies.

As it stands, it could be used if you roll a 6 for mission selection. And could be used in a Campaign to determine Attacker/Defender, etc.

MarksmanCypher
19-12-2006, 01:09
Strategy ratings are a bit weird. They should be more reflective of what YOU'VE got in your army eg the more HQ choices and core you have the higher rating.

This works for the Eldar - if they have an Autarch, their dtrategy rating goes up to 4.

I, too, think the Tau are slightly messed up with a SR of 1. It should be at least 2 - but I can see why they would have it as it is - the Tau, although they plan things out, don't have the military savvy that Space Marines and Eldar have, meaning that though they might understand how to fight a war, and after a while be able to think of a course of action that would be favourable, an Eldar Autarch or a Space Marine Master might have already planned what to do and begun its execution.

Chaos having a SR of 2 is similar to this and to the Ork/Tyranid mentality, too, IMO - Chaos have been around for thousands of years and as a result are extremely well versed in combat, but their instinctive Chaos drive of "Kill! KILL!" means that they sometimes just go berserk and kill things (thus the Tzeentchian power Weaver of Fates giving him SR3).

idinos
19-12-2006, 01:17
People use strategy ratings? We just roll a dice and then roll again if it's a 6.

Lord Humongous
19-12-2006, 01:44
Besides actual tactics, strategy ratings also reflect the support infrastructure an army can call on for transport and re-supply, as the battle you are fighting is likely part of an ongoing campaign. The Imperial Navy is damn good at bringing in re-enforcements. Eldar may not even HAVE re-enforcments, and tyranid ships (iirc) travel at sub-light speeds (or at least much slower than other warp travel) so they have to make do with whatever arrives in-system.

Brother Othorio
19-12-2006, 02:04
I fail to see what that has to do with anything portrayed in a squad level wargame...

..a squad level wargame written by people who think that the best way to implement Purity Seals (an award bestowed upon members of the Astartes who have proven themselves to be resistant to daemonic taint) on the tabletop is for them to allow the bearer to be faster at running away from orks..

ReclecteR
19-12-2006, 02:41
Yeah, I mostly agree on the strategu ratings for the armies, but I have *never* used them. Are you meant to?
I dont even know what they do. Can someone please explain?

Lord Malek The Red Knight
19-12-2006, 02:57
Yeah, I mostly agree on the strategu ratings for the armies, but I have *never* used them. Are you meant to?
I dont even know what they do. Can someone please explain?
rulebook, p80, D6 = 6. take a look. :)

~ Tim

Hellebore
19-12-2006, 03:36
The rulebook tells you what strategy means:



Elaborate command and control systems that allow them to react quickly to changing battlefield conditions. Others rely on applying pressure everywhere at once and lack the means to set the agenda on a given part of the battlefield.


Strategy covers ALL aspects of a race's warmachine, everything mentioned previously ALL acumulates to give a strategy rating.


I wouldn't mind the tau getting 2, but only because there are only 2 armies with said SR. More variety FTW.

Although, I'd prefer it if SRs had a greater effect on the table, rather than a 1 in 6 chance of doing something.

Hellebore

SwordJon
19-12-2006, 04:02
The way I see it, is strategy rating to deal with an armies ability to reconnoiter, organize, and respond to a threat in an appropriate matter. Considering the vast majority is space in the galaxy is Imperial held, that would be one of the reasons why Space Marines, who excel at every theater of war and are generally fighting in territory that the Imperium has information on, have a strategy rating of 3. For instance: Dark Eldar, I would say, have a rating of 2 because of their limited striking ability. Yes, they're fast, but their armies are limited in the ways that they can operate because of their situation in the webway.

Tyranids have a 1 because their solar-system wide strategies are pretty much limited to: overwhelm one planet at a time. Imperial Guard have a lowly rating because it takes forever to ship-out and organize such a tremendously large fighting force. Strategy rating could also be affected by an armies need for logistics, and how those logistics are able to be achieved.

Why are Eldar good? Access to the webway, as well as a level of solar-system-wide and planet-wide maneuverability that enemies like the Imperial Guard or Orks cannot hope to approach. Strategy rating seems to have a lot to do with logistics, to me.

I believe Tau's SR to be low is a good example of this. We all know Tau are intelligent, adaptable, and etc. However, their planet-to-planet reaction speed and information gathering processes are no-where near the level of Marines or Eldar simply because their system-to-system, ie warp, capabilities are extremely slow in comparison to most other races.

Mr Zephy
19-12-2006, 10:56
But why should that affect if a Tau armoured collumn is going to strike a bunker (take and hold) or just pierce the IG lines (meatgrinder)?

Lord Humongous
19-12-2006, 11:47
It doesn't affect those things at all; once the mission is decided, stategy rating has no impact. However, strategy rating DOES influence what missions get played, and the Tau (given a low rating) might never know where to strike, or muster the forces needed to do it, resulting in a different mission being played.

fracas
19-12-2006, 12:13
Tau should go to 2

Getz
19-12-2006, 14:16
It doesn't affect those things at all; once the mission is decided, stategy rating has no impact. However, strategy rating DOES influence what missions get played, and the Tau (given a low rating) might never know where to strike, or muster the forces needed to do it, resulting in a different mission being played.

Which is completely contrary to the fluff behind Hunter Cadres... Being air mobile (in Manta Missile Destroyers) task forces - rather in the manner of modern military task forces being deployed rapidly by air and sea.

stonefox
19-12-2006, 15:39
People like to assume that SRs include fleet-based logistics - lol. I didn't know BFG was supposed to play a role in 40k that way. It's all just another way to give space marines a boost. Ignoring any space-related logistics and strategy, once space marines are on the ground they are rather slow. Eldar, DE, and Tau should have the highest SRs with their skimmers while I would imagine SMs get 2 due to their lumbering rhinos. IG gets a 1 because of plain bureaucracy. :) Even including air support, Tau/Eldar have magnificent jets while Marines have laughable Valkyries. But hey, Marines are the goldenboys.

Master Jeridian
19-12-2006, 15:53
The Tau are experts at a 'tactical' level- their Hunter Cadres (the size of 2000- 4000pts or so games), train and practice a mission to timed precision before enacting it.

Yet, this is not Strategic- the Tau fighting force has always been numerically small and 'elite', hence the need to hire/recruit mercenaries and militia to bulk the numbers.

As such, the Tau are often on the defensive. They can't afford to pool their forces for one big attack- because the enemy (Imperium/ Orks/ Nids usually) will have the numbers to launch a major attack elsewhere.

So they must be content to wait for the enemy to launch an attack on the militia- then to send a Hunter Cadre to counter-attack.

So Strategically they are 1.

They also believe destroying the enemy force is more important than gaining territory- so again, in campaigns where SR could be used to determine who is attacking and defending territory. The Tau merely wish to draw the enemy into a fight on prepared ground, so their opponent often moves into the territory.

UltimateNagash
19-12-2006, 15:56
I always thought they wanted to intergrate others into them, probably forcefully. And of course they want terratory - why do you think they did the 3rd Sphere Expansion.

Getz
19-12-2006, 16:18
Even including air support, Tau/Eldar have magnificent jets while Marines have laughable Valkyries. But hey, Marines are the goldenboys.

Marines don't get Valkyries, that's IG equipment - and thrust me, they ain't laughable...


The Tau are experts at a 'tactical' level- their Hunter Cadres (the size of 2000- 4000pts or so games), train and practice a mission to timed precision before enacting it.

Yet, this is not Strategic- the Tau fighting force has always been numerically small and 'elite', hence the need to hire/recruit mercenaries and militia to bulk the numbers.

As such, the Tau are often on the defensive. They can't afford to pool their forces for one big attack- because the enemy (Imperium/ Orks/ Nids usually) will have the numbers to launch a major attack elsewhere.

So they must be content to wait for the enemy to launch an attack on the militia- then to send a Hunter Cadre to counter-attack.

So Strategically they are 1.

They also believe destroying the enemy force is more important than gaining territory- so again, in campaigns where SR could be used to determine who is attacking and defending territory. The Tau merely wish to draw the enemy into a fight on prepared ground, so their opponent often moves into the territory.

But the only real purpose to strategy ratings is to determine the nature of mission being played... The Tau methodolgy you described is one where they impose the nature of battle upon the enemy (counter attacking is still attacking) so why only SR 1?

Master Jeridian
20-12-2006, 02:14
I always thought they wanted to intergrate others into them, probably forcefully. And of course they want terratory - why do you think they did the 3rd Sphere Expansion.

Please read the Tau Way of War.

By territory I mean ground on a contested world. The Tau don't measure victory in terms of ground their troops advanced or retreated across. Their primary aim is to attack and destroy the enemies means of fighting- if they have territory- they will use this to draw the enemy into a trap. If the enemy doesn't advance into it, they'll launch raids and attacks designed to cripple the enemy in their own territory...before withdrawing if resistance remains high.

So in terms of using the Strategy Rating to determine who moves markers in a map-based campaign- the Tau are a reactionary 1.


But the only real purpose to strategy ratings is to determine the nature of mission being played... The Tau methodolgy you described is one where they impose the nature of battle upon the enemy (counter attacking is still attacking) so why only SR 1?

I'm not saying it's perfect, Strategy Rating is attempting to squeeze in all the military planning, logistics, experience, etc of an army into a few dice rolls. It's like determining a game of 40k by rolling off for it (or 5th Ed as I like to call it).

In this situation- where on a 6 to roll mission the players roll SR to determine mission. I think it's ill-used. All can try to do is give justifications for it- but I still think SR 1 is right for Tau for the above reason:

More often than not a higher SR enemy is undertaking orders like take that hill (Hold at all Costs), occupy that land (Cleanse), etc- all territorial actions (the strategic aim of many armies). The Tau will take the oppurtunity to counter-attack and destroy the enemy (their strategic aim), whilst preventing them achieving their actions.

Lancaster
20-12-2006, 03:33
I think Mortis Nailed it, and I think the problem is that people aren't making the discernation between strategy and tactics

Strategy = resource managment, gearing the nation for war, politics, etc
Tactics = troop management, combat, supply lines, etc

A strategy rating has little causal link to the intelligence of a species, merely the resources they have in hand

Sarge
20-12-2006, 03:36
ACTUALLY, Supply falls under strategy as well. Tactics is more or less for the battle feild, everything else falls under strategy.

But I doubt you can disagree that there are some serious "flops" with the system.

Lancaster
20-12-2006, 03:53
ACTUALLY, Supply falls under strategy as well. Tactics is more or less for the battle feild, everything else falls under strategy.

But I doubt you can disagree that there are some serious "flops" with the system.

Oh definately, I mean normally they count for nothing, but when they do count for something, it is very one sided...

That's the problem when you use a number to simulate leadups to great games... if this were more like the Total War franchise for choosing scenarios (ie: I am attacking your planet with 9000 points, you are defending your planet with 7000 points, I am the attacker, you are the defender, the planet is a heavily wooded planet so we choose wooded scenario 3b...) then it would make a lot more accurate, HOWEVER, much longer, much mor involved, and less fun...

I say the strategy ratings are fairly good at what they do, but still relatively ineffective