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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because you're taking a scalpel to what isn't the issue in the first place. Super Doctrines are a broken concept period. Hell, Iron Hands not getting a benefit on their fliers just relegated them back to the Executioner and Asscans.

You don't fix gangrene and necrosis of the foot by just antibiotics and hope for the best. You need proper wound care, sometimes wound vacs, and honestly as someone in healthcare I can tell you that the best solution is to usually just amputate.

We need to amputate Super Doctrines instead of pretending they're fine by not letting certain units benefit.

Let me be clear here: I am not saying nerf Iron Hand fliers or make any of the changes I have listed as examples. I am saying that this concept of selectively nerfing specific combos (if done right) is the best overall resolution to the super doctrine and supplement issues. Super doctrines are a cool idea that could use work shopping a touch. And to respond to your medical example sure an easy solution can be to amputate, but that's treated as a last resort if the other options are not possible for this reason or that. We should be looking to modify the good idea of the super doctrines rather than axe them all together. Finally the Raven Guard centurion thing isn't even about super doctrines.

What is the downside of what I propose? What is wrong with selectively balancing broken combos and if something is wrong with taht why is the best alternative to completely get rid of super doctrines which won't even effect the overall supplement issues?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

We need to amputate Super Doctrines instead of pretending they're fine by not letting certain units benefit.

They needed to super-buff Marines so people would start buying and playing them again. Now look, they're everywhere!

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because you're taking a scalpel to what isn't the issue in the first place. Super Doctrines are a broken concept period. Hell, Iron Hands not getting a benefit on their fliers just relegated them back to the Executioner and Asscans.

You don't fix gangrene and necrosis of the foot by just antibiotics and hope for the best. You need proper wound care, sometimes wound vacs, and honestly as someone in healthcare I can tell you that the best solution is to usually just amputate.

We need to amputate Super Doctrines instead of pretending they're fine by not letting certain units benefit.

Let me be clear here: I am not saying nerf Iron Hand fliers or make any of the changes I have listed as examples. I am saying that this concept of selectively nerfing specific combos (if done right) is the best overall resolution to the super doctrine and supplement issues. Super doctrines are a cool idea that could use work shopping a touch. And to respond to your medical example sure an easy solution can be to amputate, but that's treated as a last resort if the other options are not possible for this reason or that. We should be looking to modify the good idea of the super doctrines rather than axe them all together. Finally the Raven Guard centurion thing isn't even about super doctrines.

What is the downside of what I propose? What is wrong with selectively balancing broken combos and if something is wrong with taht why is the best alternative to completely get rid of super doctrines which won't even effect the overall supplement issues?

Just because something is a "cool idea" doesn't mean it should happen. Formations were a "cool idea", and should never have happened. Wraithguard having SD weapons were a "cool idea" that should never have happened.

They're not a good idea, period.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We need to amputate Super Doctrines instead of pretending they're fine by not letting certain units benefit.

All of the doctrines need to go. Or at least the bonus AP on them needs to go, it is so wildly out of balance with the rest of the game, it's absurd.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They're not a good idea, period.

Well that's, like, your opinion man

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We need to amputate Super Doctrines instead of pretending they're fine by not letting certain units benefit.

All of the doctrines need to go. Or at least the bonus AP on them needs to go, it is so wildly out of balance with the rest of the game, it's absurd.

The doctrines themselves are fine, if you get the ability to start in the one you want so that you can choose based on your army like White Scars and Black Templars. Otherwise all it did was encourage gunline. Again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Boogles wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They're not a good idea, period.

Well that's, like, your opinion man

Then by all means explain why they're a good idea.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The doctrines themselves are fine, if you get the ability to start in the one you want so that you can choose based on your army like White Scars and Black Templars. Otherwise all it did was encourage gunline. Again.

Philosophically as a bonus to stay single Codex I think they were a good idea.

AP is specifically one of the variables in the game that is extremely powerful, only slightly behind bonuses to wound.

At the most basic level it's created such a wild difference between SM and CSM bolters that it's almost difficult to measure the scope of its impact. The basic measurement is that SM utterly smoke CSM, they shouldn't even be on the same table, ever.

I think people are focusing on the fact that marines have toys that no one else has (yet, hopefully). The encouragement to go mono army is a really good idea and further bonuses like the super doctrines are not inherently bad either. They provide more options and tools to play with which is a good thing. The problem lies in the balancing which I have already addressed my thoughts on how to approach that.

Space marines have a doctrine system that currently no one has an equivalent of. I think we should expand doctrines to other factions in some way and spread the love instead of getting rid of the concept.

I am however not married to the idea that they must stay the same. If everyone get's exact doctrines then jeez the game is gonna be gunline tilted and really punish assault which I don't want. Perhaps a change of what the doctrines does is a good idea and furthermore they should be different for different factions instead of copy and pasting. I'm all for changing current doctrines to provide different bonuses, but the concept of rewarding mono armies as opposed to soup armies is a good one and I really like it.

Also @ Slayer yes you are 100% right cool =/= balanced. I will not disagree with you at all on that. Balance has to come first IMO and I'm willing to bet we both agree on that. What I am saying is that you can have cool and balanced together and that's what I want to see come from GW as opposed to just getting rid of the concept of doctrines entirely.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We need to amputate Super Doctrines instead of pretending they're fine by not letting certain units benefit.

All of the doctrines need to go. Or at least the bonus AP on them needs to go, it is so wildly out of balance with the rest of the game, it's absurd.

The doctrines themselves are fine, if you get the ability to start in the one you want so that you can choose based on your army like White Scars and Black Templars. Otherwise all it did was encourage gunline. Again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Boogles wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They're not a good idea, period.

Well that's, like, your opinion man

Then by all means explain why they're a good idea.

I think the super doctrines should reward you for focusing on some niche thing. Raven guard, and to an extent salamanders and white scars are examples of this. Character assassination isn't going to matter most of the time, but when it kicks in, it feels great. I was playing a game where my opponent left their thunderfire cannon open, so deep struck a squad of intercessors with strike from the shadows and assassinated the gunner. It felt very raven guard-y.

Do most of them need to be nerfed? Yes, most definitely. They should be a neat bonus in 1 very specific situation that plays to the fluff of the army, like raven guard's bonus vs characters.

Also master of ambush was a mistake and shouldn't have been made.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The doctrines themselves are fine, if you get the ability to start in the one you want so that you can choose based on your army like White Scars and Black Templars. Otherwise all it did was encourage gunline. Again.

Philosophically as a bonus to stay single Codex I think they were a good idea.

AP is specifically one of the variables in the game that is extremely powerful, only slightly behind bonuses to wound.

At the most basic level it's created such a wild difference between SM and CSM bolters that it's almost difficult to measure the scope of its impact. The basic measurement is that SM utterly smoke CSM, they shouldn't even be on the same table, ever.

Incentive to stay to a single codex already kinda happened with the improved Chapter Tactics (which, outside Salamanders and Crimson Fists, are pretty balanced next to each other, though the +1LD Ultramarines get is lame) and rebalanced units (though there's still duds of course, but at least you're not punished if you want to run Manlet Marines in the form of Stern/Vanguard and Scouts and stuff) and then the base Doctrines to begin with, which only go away with allies outside Marines. Not like you're going to take anything much from the Angels, Wolves, Watch, and Knights that you can't really get yourself.

Posterchild syndrome is strong with this recent marine release.

Everybody is denied T1 deepstrikes *gives it back to SM, only its not a deepstrike so you cant use strats to shoot at them*
Everybody is having issues with flamers being 8" *gives 11-12" flamers to SM*
Bolters suck *gives entire SM army bonus AP/Damage depending on doctrine being used*
Drops in points at the same time.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Posterchild syndrome is strong with this recent marine release.

Everybody is denied T1 deepstrikes *gives it back to SM, only its not a deepstrike so you cant use strats to shoot at them*
Everybody is having issues with flamers being 8" *gives 11-12" flamers to SM*
Bolters suck *gives entire SM army bonus AP/Damage depending on doctrine being used*
Drops in points at the same time.

And look what happened? People started buying marines again. Before these releases, you didn't see many marines (that I can recall) placing in top spots on any leaderboards. They are the posterchild for 40k and yet, they weren't a strong force in the meta. Now, they're everywhere and they have multiple builds that can destroy you. GW put them back on their pedestal.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Incentive to stay to a single codex already kinda happened with the improved Chapter Tactics (which, outside Salamanders and Crimson Fists, are pretty balanced next to each other, though the +1LD Ultramarines get is lame) and rebalanced units (though there's still duds of course, but at least you're not punished if you want to run Manlet Marines in the form of Stern/Vanguard and Scouts and stuff) and then the base Doctrines to begin with, which only go away with allies outside Marines. Not like you're going to take anything much from the Angels, Wolves, Watch, and Knights that you can't really get yourself.

That's the thing though, I'm not sure I want it for the game, I currently only want it in response to what it means to the meta for my own army.

Yes, this punched up SM lethality to a ridiculous level. My concern is that when you punch up everyone to that level of lethality it exposes other weak points in what is already an admittedly limited game system.

Increasing levels of lethality puts an increasing level of importance on going first in a lot of ways. This is something that honestly, GW had been diligently working to mitigate over the course of 8th, and prior to the SM releases had done a pretty good job with it.

Now we're in this cycle of arms escalation that threatens to toss that progress into the trash can.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Incentive to stay to a single codex already kinda happened with the improved Chapter Tactics (which, outside Salamanders and Crimson Fists, are pretty balanced next to each other, though the +1LD Ultramarines get is lame) and rebalanced units (though there's still duds of course, but at least you're not punished if you want to run Manlet Marines in the form of Stern/Vanguard and Scouts and stuff) and then the base Doctrines to begin with, which only go away with allies outside Marines. Not like you're going to take anything much from the Angels, Wolves, Watch, and Knights that you can't really get yourself.

That's the thing though, I'm not sure I want it for the game, I currently only want it in response to what it means to the meta for my own army.

Yes, this punched up SM lethality to a ridiculous level. My concern is that when you punch up everyone to that level of lethality it exposes other weak points in what is already an admittedly limited game system.

Increasing levels of lethality puts an increasing level of importance on going first in a lot of ways. This is something that honestly, GW had been diligently working to mitigate over the course of 8th, and prior to the SM releases had done a pretty good job with it.

Now we're in this cycle of arms escalation that threatens to toss that progress into the trash can.

I originally wanted to created a Proc rule for Marine Bolt weapons to help promote synergy with the Lt. along with a point cut on the Tactical (along with redoing how they take weapons).

Now that cat is out of the bag and I simply want Super Doctrines gone in exchange for being able to start in the one I choose. Am I playing a cover camping coward army like Imperial Fists? You betcha I'll just start in Dev. If I want to use my White Scars rules and the goal is to get into melee T1? You betcha I'll just start with Assault.