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.

Just remove combat doctrines, MIND BLOWN, no point changes etc, just that alone

Combat Doctrines are hardly a problem.

thats kind of like saying getting shot with a 12 gauge shotgun slug center mass without wearing body armor wont hurt much cause youll be dead soon anyways

bat702 wrote:
thats kind of like saying getting shot with a 12 gauge shotgun slug center mass without wearing body armor wont hurt much cause youll be dead soon anyways

Not even close. Forced moving through doctrines, on top of that still only benefitting certain weapons each turn, means there isn't an issue. Now you COULD argue Super Doctrines are a problem because that's even more rules pileup, but the basic Doctrines themselves are not the big offender.

I mean you do have one point, in that removing rules from the game is generally a good thing at this point

bat702 wrote:
I mean you do have one point, in that removing rules from the game is generally a good thing at this point

Notice though that most complaints regarding Doctrines ended once we got that FAQ with forced moving though. That consequently went straight to nerfing the Super Doctrines. So in reality just removing those Super Doctrines, the definition of bloat, fixes a lot of issues to begin with.

bat702 wrote:
Just remove combat doctrines, MIND BLOWN, no point changes etc, just that alone

From the poster who said that 'wraithguard with melta pikes' were 'an army full of anti-tank' I'm not inclined to believe you've even seen a game of 40k actually played much less take your opinions on balance seriously.

EDIT: To stay on topic, this fixes nothing. Doctrines and Super Doctrines are such a small weight on the scales of balance that removing them changes nothing. You can even test this, play GSC versus, say, Death Guard where nether get any army-wide special rules and see if it really changes anything.

While removing doctrines wouldn't suddenly fix the game, I actually wouldn't mind removing them. They were introduced in a time when taking allied detachments ("the loyal 32") for cheap screens and extra CP was kind of a no-brainer. Doctrines were an incentive to play a mono-dex army instead of always bringing allies. But 9th edition gives you extra CP when you don't bring extra detachments of allies. So marines are still getting the incentive (doctrines) despite not needing a reason to pass on allies. Plus, while there's no way to know exactly how they arrive at a given unit's points cost, it kind of seems like marines never really took a points increase to account for doctrines. They went up in points in 9th, but so did everyone (and they went up proportionately a lot less than some armies like drukhari). Then they went up a couple more points in the new 'dex when firstborn got their extra wound, but it seems unlikely that both a wound AND doctrines would be covered by that points increase. So uh. It sort of seems like maybe no one ever bothered to charge marines anything for doctrines even though going mono-dex isn't inherently a drawback any more.

And from a mechanical perspective, the generic doctrines are just a little fiddly and dull. They introduce a tiny bit of bookkeeping (albeit only really on turn 3 when you might be in one of two doctrines). They further increase the lethality of the game (and on an army that arguably no longer needs that extra lethality). They basically boil down to, "shoot more betterer 'cause your training is just so super duper good!"

So for the sake of removing a bit of rules clutter and easing off the lethality peddle just a bit, I think I'm in favor of removing doctrines.

That said, I actually like super doctrines. Some of them (mostly thinking the Raven Guard one) are pretty flavorful. I'd like to see them survive in some form if only as a stratagem. Maybe let the generic doctrines become the Ultramarines doctrine or something.

I'd like to see Doctrines go, but not directly for balance.
I'd also like to see sub-faction bonuses go.

I don't find them particularly fluffy. GW dictating to me how my army should play because I painted them red doesn't necessarily match with how I feel they should play in the lore.
Not to mention, in a game in which the difference between a lasgun and a boltgun is "1 strength" there simply isn't the room to reflect minor differences in preferences between factions.
It does create minor imbalances, my Blood Angels assault marines are objectively better than Imperial Fist assault marines for 0 extra points.
And it's just more bloat.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I'd like to see Doctrines go, but not directly for balance.
I'd also like to see sub-faction bonuses go.

I don't find them particularly fluffy. GW dictating to me how my army should play because I painted them red doesn't necessarily match with how I feel they should play in the lore.
Not to mention, in a game in which the difference between a lasgun and a boltgun is "1 strength" there simply isn't the room to reflect minor differences in preferences between factions.
It does create minor imbalances, my Blood Angels assault marines are objectively better than Imperial Fist assault marines for 0 extra points.
And it's just more bloat.

I love sub-faction bonuses, but your criticism is valid. I feel like the general concept would work a lot better if you framed faction traits as general modus operandi rather than tying them to specific factions. So you could have White Scar or Raven Wing style rules available, but you wouldn't slap a chapter name on them. Instead, you'd just have a "mobile cavalry" chapter tactic that favors bikes and helps out armies that include lots of bikes. Now your bike-themed Salamanders army is just as good as my White Scars bike-themed army.

Plus, that might spare us from awkward situations like with eldar and orks where the faction traits don't seem to match the fluff of that faction. (Blood Axe themed orks benefit a lot from Evil Sunz charge roll bonuses. The Iyanden trait encourages you to spam bodies in a craftworld known specifically for not having warm bodies. Ulthwe is known for their seers, but their trait devalues one of the better psychic powers and feels more at home on the wraithguard Iyanden should be known for. Meanwhile, the Biel-Tan trait doesn't help out most aspect warriors, but would be really good for making Ulthwe guardians feel like they're more experienced... etc.)

Wyldhunt wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I'd like to see Doctrines go, but not directly for balance.
I'd also like to see sub-faction bonuses go.

I don't find them particularly fluffy. GW dictating to me how my army should play because I painted them red doesn't necessarily match with how I feel they should play in the lore.
Not to mention, in a game in which the difference between a lasgun and a boltgun is "1 strength" there simply isn't the room to reflect minor differences in preferences between factions.
It does create minor imbalances, my Blood Angels assault marines are objectively better than Imperial Fist assault marines for 0 extra points.
And it's just more bloat.

I love sub-faction bonuses, but your criticism is valid. I feel like the general concept would work a lot better if you framed faction traits as general modus operandi rather than tying them to specific factions. So you could have White Scar or Raven Wing style rules available, but you wouldn't slap a chapter name on them. Instead, you'd just have a "mobile cavalry" chapter tactic that favors bikes and helps out armies that include lots of bikes. Now your bike-themed Salamanders army is just as good as my White Scars bike-themed army.

Plus, that might spare us from awkward situations like with eldar and orks where the faction traits don't seem to match the fluff of that faction. (Blood Axe themed orks benefit a lot from Evil Sunz charge roll bonuses. The Iyanden trait encourages you to spam bodies in a craftworld known specifically for not having warm bodies. Ulthwe is known for their seers, but their trait devalues one of the better psychic powers and feels more at home on the wraithguard Iyanden should be known for. Meanwhile, the Biel-Tan trait doesn't help out most aspect warriors, but would be really good for making Ulthwe guardians feel like they're more experienced... etc.)

Yeah. I'd much rather have more "Build your own" traits, with a note that "Ultramarines generally use these tactics."

Maybe lock unique characters to certain tactics, but even that feels iffy on a lot of models.

Edit: Also, to everyone saying "Doctrines are so minor they don't matter," doesn't that mean it wouldn't matter much if they got removed?

 JNAProductions wrote:
To everyone saying "Doctrines are so minor they don't matter," doesn't that mean it wouldn't matter much if they got removed?

It would be a feels bad change for a lot of players, so yes it would matter if they were removed. The Dakka simplify, condense, consolidate, balance crowd, while very vocal here, isn't even a drop in the bucket for GW so your voices are vanishingly unlikely to be heard.

Doctrines are just +AP essentially. There are a lot more egregious offenders out there.

Super doctrines, yes, maybe. I'd like to see them as chapter specific stratagems instead.

The issue is AP-2, AP-3 basic troops renders armour esentially redundant.

It also has some weird effects when your pointing these thing's at vehicals which as a result of the flat wound chart need the armour to bounce more damage.

Instead we seem to be going +1 Saves and more AP for other factions.
Though that's almost the typical GW answer to a problem of their own making oh these weapons do diddly add AP, oh armour does nothing hear have better armour. Oh these other weapons suck against these improved armour, better add AP.

That would be true but improving AP by 1 only makes it bypass armor better by 16%. That's improvement of mere 0.46% in the overall to hit, to wound, to save calculations.

The problem isn't AP. It's GW's arbitrary Toughness cap.

 skchsan wrote:
That would be true but improving AP by 1 only makes it bypass armor better by 16%. That's improvement of mere 0.46% in the overall to hit, to wound, to save calculations.

The problem isn't AP. It's GW's arbitrary Toughness cap.

AP-1 TO AP-2 is more than a 16% swing its a 20% swing minimum as 1+Sv isn't a thing it's often more like 25% swing but it also takes things like a 5+ save which takes 33% of damage to 0.

Ice_can wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
That would be true but improving AP by 1 only makes it bypass armor better by 16%. That's improvement of mere 0.46% in the overall to hit, to wound, to save calculations.

The problem isn't AP. It's GW's arbitrary Toughness cap.

AP-1 TO AP-2 is more than a 16% swing its a 20% swing minimum as 1+Sv isn't a thing it's often more like 25% swing but it also takes things like a 5+ save which takes 33% of damage to 0.

So... the problem is that combat doctrines make SM too strong against low T, Low Sv models?

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
That would be true but improving AP by 1 only makes it bypass armor better by 16%. That's improvement of mere 0.46% in the overall to hit, to wound, to save calculations.

The problem isn't AP. It's GW's arbitrary Toughness cap.

AP-1 TO AP-2 is more than a 16% swing its a 20% swing minimum as 1+Sv isn't a thing it's often more like 25% swing but it also takes things like a 5+ save which takes 33% of damage to 0.

So... the problem is that combat doctrines make SM too strong against low T, Low Sv models?

It's more effective against models with better saves, actually.

5+ to 6+ save is a 25% increase in damage.
3+ to 4+ save is a 50% increase in damage.
2+ to 3+ save is a 100% increase in damage.

It's also that doctorine AP on old marines who had AP0 almost exclusively was a bit meh because yeah AP0 bolters did suck.

But now primara chads are all AP-1, AP-2 before doctorines and even chainswords are AP-1.
Do they really need even more free AP ontop.

2+ vrs Ap-2 200% increase
3+ vrs Ap-2 100% increase
That's the big problem.

Take the T7 3+Sv vehicals.
AP0 1/3 failed saves and 1/3 to wound for 1 in 9 hits
AP-2 2/3 failed saves and 1/3 to wound for 1 in 4.5 hits

Ice_can wrote:
It's also that doctorine AP on old marines who had AP0 almost exclusively was a bit meh because yeah AP0 bolters did suck.

But now primara chads are all AP-1, AP-2 before doctorines and even chainswords are AP-1.
Do they really need even more free AP ontop.

Checks their rating by sites like Goonhammer as well as Marine win percentages at tournaments... Signs point to yes.

to see marine wins are low is kind of a moot point, because everyone and anyone tailors their list to fight marines

bat702 wrote:
to see marine wins are low is kind of a moot point, because everyone and anyone tailors their list to fight marines

Yes, and they'd do this even if Marines were weak simply due to the sheer volume of marine players out there. So if the 'OP' way 'OTT' Marines define average due to the effects of the meta it's a sign that they probably need to be over-tuned to have a seat at the table.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah. I'd much rather have more "Build your own" traits, with a note that "Ultramarines generally use these tactics."

Maybe lock unique characters to certain tactics, but even that feels iffy on a lot of models.

Agreed.

Edit: Also, to everyone saying "Doctrines are so minor they don't matter," doesn't that mean it wouldn't matter much if they got removed?

Personally, I see doctrines as a slightly "messy" mechanic. You have these gamey modifiers floating around and changing over the course of the game that don't (to me) evoke anything particularly fluffy beyond, "Marine training good." So cleaning it up means there's simply less to keep track of. I'd be against removing doctrines if I felt that losing them would hurt marines' identity as a faction; I just don't think that the mechanic really tells a story or provides an essential boost to offense.

Also, I worry that doctrines might actually be hurting the design of other factions a bit. Thanks to some Christmas gifts, I'm finally getting into Thousand Sons. Looking at their rules for the first time in a long while, I realized that the magical inferno bolts that used to be a big part of the rubric marine's gimmick are now basically just primaris guns with the tactical doctrine turned on. And apparently kabalite warriors are going from a 5+ save to a 4+ save, which makes me wonder if that's a response to doctrines functionally making the kabalites' saves 1 worse than intended. I worry that doctrines might be one of the factors driving power creep, basically. But maybe I'm just just being a curmudgeon.

Ice_can wrote:
The issue is AP-2, AP-3 basic troops renders armour esentially redundant.

It also has some weird effects when your pointing these thing's at vehicals which as a result of the flat wound chart need the armour to bounce more damage.

Instead we seem to be going +1 Saves and more AP for other factions.
Though that's almost the typical GW answer to a problem of their own making oh these weapons do diddly add AP, oh armour does nothing hear have better armour. Oh these other weapons suck against these improved armour, better add AP.

There it is again...

"Basic troops"
Oh these basic troops are 20PPM?

A full 10 man costs more than most battle tanks?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The issue is AP-2, AP-3 basic troops renders armour esentially redundant.

It also has some weird effects when your pointing these thing's at vehicals which as a result of the flat wound chart need the armour to bounce more damage.

Instead we seem to be going +1 Saves and more AP for other factions.
Though that's almost the typical GW answer to a problem of their own making oh these weapons do diddly add AP, oh armour does nothing hear have better armour. Oh these other weapons suck against these improved armour, better add AP.

There it is again...

"Basic troops"
Oh these basic troops are 20PPM?

A full 10 man costs more than most battle tanks?

Yes. Immortals are 17 PPM-that's only 15% less.
Harlequins can go up to 25 PPM on their troops.

In the fluff, Marines might be rare, super elite troops.
In the game, meanwhile, they're really the baseline. Which is not to say everything else should be better than them-but they're what gets measured against.

Personally...I think entire armies where every unit has an invune save is much more a problem than some intermittent AP tossed around on specific turns.

I would actually be okay with marines losing the +1 attack on the first round as that is kinda...free. Yet we have harliquens running around ignoring most stats in the game and hitting with like 4-5 attacks each for the price of a primaris marine...

 JNAProductions wrote:
In the fluff, Marines might be rare, super elite troops.
In the game, meanwhile, they're really the baseline. Which is not to say everything else should be better than them-but they're what gets measured against.

Why should we have their stats match their popularity rather than the fluff that makes them popular in the first place? Just because xenos players might whine about it? Pah, the market share of every xenos player combined is likely less than just Space Marines let alone the whole range and their supplement chapters.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The issue is AP-2, AP-3 basic troops renders armour esentially redundant.

It also has some weird effects when your pointing these thing's at vehicals which as a result of the flat wound chart need the armour to bounce more damage.

Instead we seem to be going +1 Saves and more AP for other factions.
Though that's almost the typical GW answer to a problem of their own making oh these weapons do diddly add AP, oh armour does nothing hear have better armour. Oh these other weapons suck against these improved armour, better add AP.

There it is again...

"Basic troops"
Oh these basic troops are 20PPM?

A full 10 man costs more than most battle tanks?

Yes. Immortals are 17 PPM-that's only 15% less.
Harlequins can go up to 25 PPM on their troops.

In the fluff, Marines might be rare, super elite troops.
In the game, meanwhile, they're really the baseline. Which is not to say everything else should be better than them-but they're what gets measured against.

Immortals base weapon is str 5 ap-2 compared to a bolt rifle at str 4 ap-1 even with conditional doctrines it is still a weaker weapon and the unit costs more. +1 T vs +1 wound is pretty much advantage t5 at this point with all the multi damage in the game. Not to mention...reanimation protocols which is basically a 5+ FNP for infantry. Marines are so not a problem right now. Not in the least. Play some games - I can't believe people are still crying about doctrines. LOL. Heck - even Crons have more control of their command protcols than marines do...Szarekhan has complete control of them with 2 turns of whatever protocol they want and can change to another at the start of any turn. Check out those protcols...many of them are +1 ap - there is also ignore cover not to mention fall back and shoot and +1 str. A skilled player will get more out of CP than doctrines.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally...I think entire armies where every unit has an invune save is much more a problem than some intermittent AP tossed around on specific turns.

I would actually be okay with marines losing the +1 attack on the first round as that is kinda...free. Yet we have harliquens running around ignoring most stats in the game and hitting with like 4-5 attacks each for the price of a primaris marine...

For 20 Points, you get 4 attacks at S5 AP-2 D1 on a T3 W1 4++ body. And a single Shuriken Pistol shot.

For 19 Points, you get 4 attacks at S4 AP-1 D1 on a T4 W2 3+ body. And a single better Bolt Pistol shot.

If the Harlequins get the charge (likely, but not guaranteed) they put out 40 attacks, 80/3 hits, 160/9 wounds, and 320/27 failed saves. That's six dead, sometimes only five.
If the Marines get the charge, they put out 41 attacks, 82/3 hits, 164/9 wounds, and 82/9 failed saves. That's nine dead, occasionally the whole squad.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

bat702 wrote:
to see marine wins are low is kind of a moot point, because everyone and anyone tailors their list to fight marines

Yes, and they'd do this even if Marines were weak simply due to the sheer volume of marine players out there. So if the 'OP' way 'OTT' Marines define average due to the effects of the meta it's a sign that they probably need to be over-tuned to have a seat at the table.

You do have a point and I knew you had a point before you typed it.. the problem I see is people out there kind of get tired of only seeing a marine player at the other end of the table