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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Pretty sure the super doctrines are only available to the actual first founding chapter.

Nope.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Pretty sure the super doctrines are only available to the actual first founding chapter. There is no advantage to being a second founding.

Incorrect. Successor Chapters get to count <CHAPTER> as <ULTRAMARINES> or <WHITE SCARS> etc., for the purposes of strategems, powers and super doctrines so long as the army is comprised purely that chapter plus or minus the associated first founding chapter. They cant take any named characters, and cannot freely take relics of the founding chapter (but there is a strat to get around the latter restriction).

If successors didn’t get super doctrines at all they would be at a huge disadvantage.

...I guess I can see why they could be allowed anyone’s super doctrines though. Without some sort of flex pick as a successor you’re giving up named chars and the page of chapter specific relics for nothing. That’s pretty dumb for just a painting decision. The flaw is that the tactics and super doctrines are not all equally balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of successor builds, what do you think of doing something like the +3” range, the +1” advance and charge, the UM doctrine, and a bunch of Aggressors? Turn 1 they have a 26”+d6” threat range at -1 while moving up and from turn 2 on they’ll get to shoot twice and decent odds of charging after if desired. No need to get vehicles for movement with that. Flamer Aggressors would be even crazier, but still prob too slow.

bort wrote:
That’s not counting the HKs though.

Does anyone? :-)

bort wrote:
If successors didn’t get super doctrines at all they would be at a huge disadvantage.

...I guess I can see why they could be allowed anyone’s super doctrines though. Without some sort of flex pick as a successor you’re giving up named chars and the page of chapter specific relics for nothing. That’s pretty dumb for just a painting decision. The flaw is that the tactics and super doctrines are not all equally balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of successor builds, what do you think of doing something like the +3” range, the +1” advance and charge, the UM doctrine, and a bunch of Aggressors? Turn 1 they have a 26”+d6” threat range at -1 while moving up and from turn 2 on they’ll get to shoot twice and decent odds of charging after if desired. No need to get vehicles for movement with that. Flamer Aggressors would be even crazier, but still prob too slow.

Heck if I can be an ironhands successor with ultrmarines superdocs we might actually be getting somehere. It's obviously not allowed but whatever.

With the big points drop on Phobos captains I will be taking one in my new list. His bolt gun is actually not too bad and has some other nice tricks that a normal captain doesn't

the first founding traits are avaliable only to the first founding chapters and those whom are sucessor chapters close eneugh to their parent chapter. so yeah no "iron hands with ultramarines special"

BrianDavion wrote:
the first founding traits are avaliable only to the first founding chapters and those whom are sucessor chapters close eneugh to their parent chapter. so yeah no "iron hands with ultramarines special"

Incorrect. There is no such stipulation currently attached to Inheritors of the Primarch

So in regard to Eliminators, it seems like you can pick whichever weapon for the Sergeant. It seems like that might help reduce the cost of the Las Fusil Squads. Take a Bolt Sniper Rifle(3 pts) or Instigator Bolt Carbine (5 pts) to drive the costs down while still maintaining unit effectiveness. It seems like an even better option for the Las Fusils since you can used Guided Aim so those shots hit even better and wound better.

I dunno, one other thing I was thinking is that Guided Aim on a full Bolt Sniper Rifle squad would be pretty decent since that +1 to Wound would make things wound on 4s against T6-T9, which isn't half bad. Those +1 to Wound makes the Mortal Wound Effect go off on 5s too. This, in addition to being the cheapest option helps.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
So in regard to Eliminators, it seems like you can pick whichever weapon for the Sergeant. It seems like that might help reduce the cost of the Las Fusil Squads. Take a Bolt Sniper Rifle(3 pts) or Instigator Bolt Carbine (5 pts) to drive the costs down while still maintaining unit effectiveness. It seems like an even better option for the Las Fusils since you can used Guided Aim so those shots hit even better and wound better.

I dunno, one other thing I was thinking is that Guided Aim on a full Bolt Sniper Rifle squad would be pretty decent since that +1 to Wound would make things wound on 4s against T6-T9, which isn't half bad. Those +1 to Wound makes the Mortal Wound Effect go off on 5s too. This, in addition to being the cheapest option helps.

I ran the math, and +1 to-Hit/+1 to-Wound is virtually ALWAYS better than getting the full shots, with the snipers, at least.

Sterling191 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
the first founding traits are avaliable only to the first founding chapters and those whom are sucessor chapters close eneugh to their parent chapter. so yeah no "iron hands with ultramarines special"

Incorrect. There is no such stipulation currently attached to Inheritors of the Primarch

I garentee you're not able to select iron hands and then benifit from the rules for being an ultramarines sucessor.

So the triple predator / triple vindicator strats are gone from the new codex (awww, but I get it) but vindicators got a boost up to d6 shots always now. Thats 125 pts still for d6 str 10 ap-3 d6 dmg attacks, i think i am ok with this change. Anyone else think vindicators could have a home in their lists with this change?

I belive they're cheap eneugh to def be worth considering. they're not gonna be perfect but definatly something not worth ignoring

The change in their shots definitely helps single or double Vindicators while also not making triples necessary to get anything done.

Also, now, if I shoot a squad of six or more things, my Vindicator will hit on 2s due to Crimson Fists. A decent way to vaporize a group of dudes. I am interested to see how the Imperial Fists(or if they have one, Crimson Fists) Combat Doctrine works. Vindicators are a core unit for IF, so maybe they will get a boost. Honestly, I would love to see something affecting shot numbers or damage numbers.

I'd guess the IF doctrine will apply while the devestator doctrine is up. if they really wanted to make IF disgusting it'd be "all heavy weapons while in devestator doctrine deal +1 DMG"

BrianDavion wrote:
I'd guess the IF doctrine will apply while the devestator doctrine is up. if they really wanted to make IF disgusting it'd be "all heavy weapons while in devestator doctrine deal +1 DMG"

That would be nuts combined with things like Heavy Bolters, Grab Cannons, and whatnot. Even things like Lascannons and Missile Launchers would become more reliable. And Eliminators would be NUTS, especially when combined with Guided Aim.

Maybe 6s to Hit with bolt weapons while Devastator Doctrine is up deal an additional mortal wound for IFs?

I'd like to think the Devastator Doctrine ones will be a little more tame than Tactical or Assault ones, to be honest.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Maybe 6s to Hit with bolt weapons while Devastator Doctrine is up deal an additional mortal wound for IFs?

I'd like to think the Devastator Doctrine ones will be a little more tame than Tactical or Assault ones, to be honest.

Considering that the Assault Doctrine for White Scars is not remotely as good as the Tactical Doctrine for Ultramarines, I say GW probably hasn't factored in the sequencing for the Doctrines whatsoever.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Maybe 6s to Hit with bolt weapons while Devastator Doctrine is up deal an additional mortal wound for IFs?

I'd like to think the Devastator Doctrine ones will be a little more tame than Tactical or Assault ones, to be honest.

Considering that the Assault Doctrine for White Scars is not remotely as good as the Tactical Doctrine for Ultramarines, I say GW probably hasn't factored in the sequencing for the Doctrines whatsoever.

I think white scars is envisioned as a hit and run melee chapter, and the various WS rules factor into that nicely. I think white scars will be extremely powerful if used right.

There's no way in heck they'd give all heavies +1dmg. Everyone would call that one OP with good reason.

I assume someone will get the ability to move their heavies without -1 to hit, though that doesn't seem like one for IF.

Wound on a 6 granting a mortal maybe? Though even that seems pretty good. Hard to know when the UM one seems awesome and an extra wound on a 6 seems in line and then compare to the White Scars and then I feel like I need to guess weaker.

BrianDavion wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Maybe 6s to Hit with bolt weapons while Devastator Doctrine is up deal an additional mortal wound for IFs?

I'd like to think the Devastator Doctrine ones will be a little more tame than Tactical or Assault ones, to be honest.

Considering that the Assault Doctrine for White Scars is not remotely as good as the Tactical Doctrine for Ultramarines, I say GW probably hasn't factored in the sequencing for the Doctrines whatsoever.

I think white scars is envisioned as a hit and run melee chapter, and the various WS rules factor into that nicely. I think white scars will be extremely powerful if used right.

Considering it can't trigger until Turn 3 at the absolute earliest, it is trash compared to the Ultramarine one, which boosts any weapon or unit that gets a bonus or penalty based on movement.

A bonus to damage for a specific weapon type would be on par with the UM Doctrine, if a little tamer. I don't think people factor in just how much versatility the UM doctrine provides.

bort wrote:
If successors didn’t get super doctrines at all they would be at a huge disadvantage.

...I guess I can see why they could be allowed anyone’s super doctrines though. Without some sort of flex pick as a successor you’re giving up named chars and the page of chapter specific relics for nothing. That’s pretty dumb for just a painting decision. The flaw is that the tactics and super doctrines are not all equally balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of successor builds, what do you think of doing something like the +3” range, the +1” advance and charge, the UM doctrine, and a bunch of Aggressors? Turn 1 they have a 26”+d6” threat range at -1 while moving up and from turn 2 on they’ll get to shoot twice and decent odds of charging after if desired. No need to get vehicles for movement with that. Flamer Aggressors would be even crazier, but still prob too slow.

By Ultramarine doctrine you mean Scions? Doesn't work - can't advance and benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
the first founding traits are avaliable only to the first founding chapters and those whom are sucessor chapters close eneugh to their parent chapter. so yeah no "iron hands with ultramarines special"

Incorrect. There is no such stipulation currently attached to Inheritors of the Primarch

However, the supplements do state that if you use Inheritors of the Primarch on your successor, you're automatically considered a successor of that Parent chapter.

So sure, you can be an "Ultramarine" Iron Hands chapter, but for rules purposes that's really only head cannon.

Sorry, I don't recall the names. If you meant the count as standing still yes, I was thinking advance turn 1, you're still in Dev Doctrine anyways, then turn 2 onwards move and not advance.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Maybe 6s to Hit with bolt weapons while Devastator Doctrine is up deal an additional mortal wound for IFs?

I'd like to think the Devastator Doctrine ones will be a little more tame than Tactical or Assault ones, to be honest.

Considering that the Assault Doctrine for White Scars is not remotely as good as the Tactical Doctrine for Ultramarines, I say GW probably hasn't factored in the sequencing for the Doctrines whatsoever.

I think white scars is envisioned as a hit and run melee chapter, and the various WS rules factor into that nicely. I think white scars will be extremely powerful if used right.

Considering it can't trigger until Turn 3 at the absolute earliest, it is trash compared to the Ultramarine one, which boosts any weapon or unit that gets a bonus or penalty based on movement.

A bonus to damage for a specific weapon type would be on par with the UM Doctrine, if a little tamer. I don't think people factor in just how much versatility the UM doctrine provides.

I'm pretty down on a lot of changes but this one is actually encouraging for ultramarines. Heavies get bonus all game (ether AP or move pentalities) and rapid fire and assault get bonus after turn 2. It will certainly be more fun to be able to move with units without sacrificing firepower.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
...... and BA don't even get all the goodies.

Yet. But rest assured they certainly will eventually.
In fact, having a more standardized set of unit datasheet/profile for all Marines and then having unique Chapter Tactics/Strats/Relic/etc is the right way to move forward IMO. Let BA/DA/SW keep most (or all) of their unique units, but for everything shared, keep it in the make Marine Codex.

-

We already know units ba get. That plus new angels of death. Doctrine thing is what they don'' get at least for now

You really think BA are gonna give up guard battalions to get some ap on their shooting attacks? Nope.

So anyone liking suppressors now? Points drop means a basic squad is only 84 points. Devastator doctrine means a decent fire support unit T1.

Rogerio134134 wrote:
With the big points drop on Phobos captains I will be taking one in my new list. His bolt gun is actually not too bad and has some other nice tricks that a normal captain doesn't

He is totally garbage actually. A captain with 0 melee ability and 1 shot? I use him as counts as telion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 buddha wrote:
So anyone liking suppressors now? Points drop means a basic squad is only 84 points. Devastator doctrine means a decent fire support unit T1.

That is a big points drop - are you certain?

Think I did the math wrong as I forgot the mandatory grav chutes. Still comes to 90pts though and the question stands.

 buddha wrote:
Think I did the math wrong as I forgot the mandatory grav chutes. Still comes to 90pts though and the question stands.

That is still about a 20 point drop per unit. Yeah - that will make them a lot more popular. They were already really good. For ultramarines they are a must include IMO.