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.

The doctrines flow pretty nicely on their own, but there's some good synergies here:

Bank Devestator for when you want your heavy weapons to come in from reserves.

Jump ahead to Assault and save a tactical for cleaning up later.

The main issue is that it doesn't really add power the way the better super doctrines do and its going to be much hard to use effectively going second.

 LunarSol wrote:
The doctrines flow pretty nicely on their own, but there's some good synergies here:

Bank Devestator for when you want your heavy weapons to come in from reserves.

Jump ahead to Assault and save a tactical for cleaning up later.

The main issue is that it doesn't really add power the way the better super doctrines do and its going to be much hard to use effectively going second.

Is this counting as our "super doctrine"? Or is it just a special rule that Deathwatch get for doctrines?

If we get a super doctrine as well, that could change things.

Niiru wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
The doctrines flow pretty nicely on their own, but there's some good synergies here:

Bank Devestator for when you want your heavy weapons to come in from reserves.

Jump ahead to Assault and save a tactical for cleaning up later.

The main issue is that it doesn't really add power the way the better super doctrines do and its going to be much hard to use effectively going second.

Is this counting as our "super doctrine"? Or is it just a special rule that Deathwatch get for doctrines?

If we get a super doctrine as well, that could change things.

No superdoctrine, just your "chapter tactics"

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
The doctrines flow pretty nicely on their own, but there's some good synergies here:

Bank Devestator for when you want your heavy weapons to come in from reserves.

Jump ahead to Assault and save a tactical for cleaning up later.

The main issue is that it doesn't really add power the way the better super doctrines do and its going to be much hard to use effectively going second.

Is this counting as our "super doctrine"? Or is it just a special rule that Deathwatch get for doctrines?

If we get a super doctrine as well, that could change things.

No superdoctrine, just your "chapter tactics"

It counts as the Doctrine bonus. The Chapter Tactics are provided in the latest SM Codex.

As far a power goes, I think it's on the same level as a vast majority of the Doctrine bonuses. Salamanders and White Scars are really strong, but the rest are kind of limited or situational or downright weak.

Treat that as an additional "Chapter Tactics rule" since you're effectively trading a Super Doctrine for it

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Treat that as an additional "Chapter Tactics rule" since you're effectively trading a Super Doctrine for it

I mean, outside of maybe White Scars, Salamanders have the truly only powerful Super Doctrine.

The rest are really limited, or situational, or downright weak. This kind of fits with the majority of Doctrine bonuses as far as power level goes. DW isn't Salamanders, which is actually a good thing. Less meta warping faction bonuses is better for everybody.

IF has one that's really situational and only applies for the first turn, which is really easy to avoid.

IH has one that's really situational and only applies to Infantry moving with heavy weapons on the first turn.

UM only really applies to bolter discipline and Infantry moving with heavy weapons on turns 2 and 3.

BT only really applies on turn 3 and on, and is a very minor bonus all things considered.

RG is super limited on targets as it only applies to Characters, and only during turns 2 and 3.

And now DW get full control over Doctrines allowing them more control over when they apply, which I would say is pretty equivalent to a vast majority of those up there. It isn't a one turn wonder, but it applies to your whole army in ways that the tools above don't always.

Ancible wrote:

As far a power goes, I think it's on the same level as a vast majority of the Doctrine bonuses.

Which is a polite way of saying its hot fething garbage.

Sterling191 wrote:

Ancible wrote:

As far a power goes, I think it's on the same level as a vast majority of the Doctrine bonuses.

Which is a polite way of saying its hot fething garbage.

You can see it that way (it seems from other's comments in this thread you do have a reputation to uphold to be the rain at the parade ), but if what you were expecting was more Salamanders level of meta-skew then I'm glad your expectations were not met, friend.

Ancible wrote:

You can see it that way (it seems from other's comments you do have a reputation to uphold to be the rain at the parade )

I call things as they are, so step off. Had this been a stellar reveal with interesting and functional rules, I would be the first to say so. This does nothing to incentivize taking Deathwatch as a monocodex army. Similarly, a whole article telling us "hey remember that Index that is complete gak? Yeah your entire book is shaping up that way" does not bode well.

Ancible wrote:

but if what you were expecting was more Salamanders level of meta-skew then I'm glad your expectations were not met, friend.

What I was expecting was something that made the choice of whether to run Deathwatch as a pure army an actual decision with benefits and drawbacks. This doesnt even come close.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SatanEatSeitan wrote:
Yes, the preview is meh (as they always are).

The relic is not bad. FNP 4+ is potent.

But the overall impression is that the index is not something different and "in between" but rather a preview of certain parts of the actual codex.

I hope to be wrong, especially when it comes to SIA. EDIT: apparently I am wrong, pic attached from WH40k Fb page I guess

The FNP is purely against mortal wounds, and I'm not about to take the community team commenting in the wilds of facebook as a source on rules, without a corresponding image of said rules, when they're wrong all the goddamn time.

I meant no offense. But if we're calling things as they are, I'd like to warn you that I won't stand for your bullying. There's a whole thread here showing two things - your passion for the faction and and how you approach discussion, and it's unnecessary to get so abrasive and insulting - we're all fans here looking for a good time. You don't get to speak for me just because you're upset.

Sterling191 wrote:
This does nothing to incentivize taking Deathwatch as a monocodex army.

That is a good thing. Does every marine force need an incentive to be monocodex? I don't think the answer to this has to be yes for every Chapter. In fact, I think it is better that it isn't.

Sterling191 wrote:

Ancible wrote:

As far a power goes, I think it's on the same level as a vast majority of the Doctrine bonuses.

Which is a polite way of saying its hot fething garbage.

I mean this is a very marine-centric viewpoint. Saying that superdoctrines are 'hot garbage', when other armies don't get superdoctrines AT ALL, and nobody other than necrons even gets a normal doctrine equivalent (and necron doctrines are mostly worse than marine doctrines)... I mean sure, marine doctrines aren't all overpowered instant-win buttons, but they are free buffs to an army which is already the most powerful in the game.


On deathwatch topic, the ability to choose which doctrine is in effect I think is actually not too bad. It means instead of having to plan your attack around the order of the doctrines (or just ignoring them and not getting the buffs), you will always have the doctrine that you want up when you need it. Would have been nice if this ability was on-top of a superdoctrine, but then that would likely have been a little too much.

Especially if SIA -does- get brought back in line with more units. IF (and it's a big if, see it's in capitals and everything) primaris and other units regain their SIA, then SIA plus this doctrine control become much better than just having a normal average superdoctrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ancible wrote:
I meant no offense. But if we're calling things as they are, I'd like to warn you that I won't stand for your bullying. There's a whole thread here showing two things - your passion for the faction and and how you approach discussion, and it's unnecessary to get so abrasive and insulting - we're all fans here looking for a good time. You don't get to speak for me just because you're upset.

Sterling191 wrote:
This does nothing to incentivize taking Deathwatch as a monocodex army.

That is a good thing. Does every marine force need an incentive to be monocodex? I don't think the answer to this has to be yes for every Chapter. In fact, I think it is better that it isn't.

I also agree with this. Now that mono-codex has actually become much more the norm, after the previous multiple editions all heavily favouring soups, it could be interesting (and much more fluffy) for Deathwatch to be the chapter where souping actually has less downside. Would be nice if a deathwatch inquisitor could also take the new psychic powers, but that's unlikely.

Ancible wrote:
I meant no offense. But if we're calling things as they are, I'd like to warn you that I won't stand for your bullying. There's a whole thread here showing two things - your passion for the faction and and how you approach discussion, and it's unnecessary to get so abrasive and insulting - we're all fans here looking for a good time. You don't get to speak for me just because you're upset.

I don't speak for anyone other than myself, and have never claimed to. Do not put words in my mouth.

Ancible wrote:

That is a good thing. Does every marine force need an incentive to be monocodex?

When the abundantly clear design intent of a force is to heavily incentivize monocodex play, to the point of locking out the strongest abilities behind said monocodex status, turning around and screwing over another subfaction from the same army by not giving them an equivalent ability is unequivocally a bad thing.

It's the exact same reason that you wont see Imperial Fists at anything beyond the casual level. They're playing at a substantial handicap compared to other Marine armies precisely because their capstone feature is objectively worthless.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

I mean this is a very marine-centric viewpoint. Saying that superdoctrines are 'hot garbage', when other armies don't get superdoctrines AT ALL, and nobody other than necrons even gets a normal doctrine equivalent (and necron doctrines are mostly worse than marine doctrines)... I mean sure, marine doctrines aren't all overpowered instant-win buttons, but they are free buffs to an army which is already the most powerful in the game.

Both Sisters and Necrons would like to have words with you. Both codices were written in a post Marine 2.0 environment, and mechanically incentivize non-mixed armies.

Niiru wrote:

I also agree with this. Now that mono-codex has actually become much more the norm, after the previous multiple editions all heavily favouring soups, it could be interesting (and much more fluffy) for Deathwatch to be the chapter where souping actually has less downside. Would be nice if a deathwatch inquisitor could also take the new psychic powers, but that's unlikely.

Except this isnt what they did. You still lose basic doctrines if you dont run pure Astartes. The difference is that there's no incentive to actually stay pure Deathwatch. It's the worst of both worlds.

I am SUPER happy with our doctrine. It is good, but not broken like White Scars or Salamanders. I would rather have us be powerful without being meta warping. Much better for having fun games instead of no-brainer games that make you a worse player.

It requires a bit of thinking about what to use when. and is 100% useful while not opening up army building options.

Heavy weapons were really limited by only getting the bonus on the first turn. Might be interesting to see how this changes things up.

@ancible I have found that ignoring a few specific users has made my enjoyment of this website a LOT higher. Also shortens threads by 3-4 pages or more sometimes!

Sterling191 wrote:

Ancible wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

I mean this is a very marine-centric viewpoint. Saying that superdoctrines are 'hot garbage', when other armies don't get superdoctrines AT ALL, and nobody other than necrons even gets a normal doctrine equivalent (and necron doctrines are mostly worse than marine doctrines)... I mean sure, marine doctrines aren't all overpowered instant-win buttons, but they are free buffs to an army which is already the most powerful in the game.

Both Sisters and Necrons would like to have words with you. Both codices were written in a post Marine 2.0 environment, and mechanically incentivize non-mixed armies.

The Necron buffs, at least so far, are not enough to actually close the gap. Though this is without long-term meta data so it's prone to change.

Sisters are in much the same situation, but with long term info already known.

Niiru wrote:

I also agree with this. Now that mono-codex has actually become much more the norm, after the previous multiple editions all heavily favouring soups, it could be interesting (and much more fluffy) for Deathwatch to be the chapter where souping actually has less downside. Would be nice if a deathwatch inquisitor could also take the new psychic powers, but that's unlikely.

Except this isnt what they did. You still lose basic doctrines if you dont rune pure Astartes. The difference is that there's no incentive to actually stay pure Deathwatch. It's the worst of both worlds.

I mean you said doctrines are garbage, so losing them shouldn't be a big deal. If they are a big deal, then the ability to control which doctrine is active on which round is a decent controlling factor. You can't say doctrines are garbage, but losing them is some huge handicap.

Choosing doctrine order is super beneficial, its crazy to think otherwise. I am really looking forward to seeing how this codex works out.
What people also need to realize is that its still marines at the end of the day, and we're sitting in a really good spot.

Niiru wrote:

The Necron buffs, at least so far, are not enough to actually close the gap. Though this is without long-term meta data so it's prone to change.

Sisters are in much the same situation, but with long term info already known.

The efficacy of said abilities are irrelevant to the fact that the clear design intent is to incentivize non-mixed formations. The fact that they're not good is an indictment of the implementation of said design.

Niiru wrote:

I mean you said doctrines are garbage, so losing them shouldn't be a big deal. If they are a big deal, then the ability to control which doctrine is active on which round is a decent controlling factor. You can't say doctrines are garbage, but losing them is some huge handicap.

Except of course that's not what I said. I said that getting to select which turns a portion of your army gets an AP bonus is not sufficiently powerful enough to incentivize remaining a pure Deathwatch army, which then forces players, especially those on the more competitive edge of the spectrum, to look at at non-Deathwatch supplementary forces to fill the efficacy gap. Had GW wanted to create a system that incentivized taking Deathwatch as an allied force, they could have very easily created rules to support that. They did not.

The end result is either forgoing options that can actually help your army, or persist with a superdoctrine that does effectively nothing outside of niche gotcha plays. It is a distinct handicap when compared to other forces drawn from the same base Codex.

Sterling191 wrote:
...or persist with a superdoctrine that does effectively nothing outside of niche gotcha plays. It is a distinct handicap when compared to other forces drawn from the same base Codex.

I mean... all other superdoctrines last for one or two rounds, and by your own admission almost all of them are pretty weak even for those one or two rounds.

The deathwatch one effectively runs for the entire game, allowing you to have the buff up when you need it, so that it's much less likely to be wasted (unlike for other marine armies, where devastator in particular can be mostly avoided). You also pick the order at the start of each battle round I believe, which is better than most alternatives where the order has to be chosen at the start of the game (necrons), which means you have no tactical flexibility.

The superdoctrine isn't game breaking, but it's not a handicap and it's better than most. If you think it makes deathwatch unplayable as mono-codex because it's not good enough, then I assume you think the same thing about every other marine army except for salamanders.

I mean, having the choice opens up a lot of options for how you build your army. A lot of heavy weapons are now in consideration as well considering that we can better optimize when it applies. I can see heavy infernus or frag cannons having a place if they apply first or second turn.

 Leth wrote:
I mean, having the choice opens up a lot of options for how you build your army. A lot of heavy weapons are now in consideration as well considering that we can better optimize when it applies. I can see heavy infernus or frag cannons having a place if they apply first or second turn.

Frags are assault I think.

Infernus is heavy though.

Niiru wrote:

I mean... all other superdoctrines last for one or two rounds, and by your own admission almost all of them are pretty weak even for those one or two rounds.

Once again, not what I said. Assault doctrine based superdoctrines are goddamn gold right now. Tactical based ones are sitting pretty well (yes, that includes the Raven Guard who live or die by their strats and tactical shenanigans). It's largely the Devastator based ones that are subpar right now (IFs are not even worth bringing to the table, while IHs and DAs generally are willing to eat the gak superdoctrine because of their other baked in special rules).

What I said was that the bad ones are really bad, and this particular superdoctrine is comparably abyssmal.

Niiru wrote:

The deathwatch one effectively runs for the entire game, allowing you to have the buff up when you need it

A buff you already got, and can already plan for. You're acting like Doctrines are somehow new for us.

Niiru wrote:

The superdoctrine isn't game breaking, but it's not a handicap and it's better than most. If you think it makes deathwatch unplayable as mono-codex because it's not good enough, then I assume you think the same thing about every other marine army except for salamanders.

You really cant stop yourself from putting words in my mouth can you? What I said is that it's not even close to being enough incentive to promote a monocodex army as opposed to bringing in other marine forces to supplement our weak areas (primarily mobility and early pressure). Nowhere have I ever said that Deathwatch are unplayable.

 Leth wrote:
I mean, having the choice opens up a lot of options for how you build your army. A lot of heavy weapons are now in consideration as well considering that we can better optimize when it applies. I can see heavy infernus or frag cannons having a place if they apply first or second turn.

What heavy weapons are you taking now that you werent taking before?

Sure, but we can put ourselves in tactical first turn. 7 -3 2 at range 24 is reasonable for 10 points IMO. Especially if we keep our +1 to wound strategem

It's super easy to hide from hvy weapons Turn 1, therefore having the ability to turn that on a later turn is an absolute benefit over regular doctrine order

Did I notice that there is no “Minimum 1 attack” on that power?

So you can completely shut down some Units.

And with creative movement you can control who they are able to charge. Just measure their movement and you can make it so there are only 1-2 choices they have,

Do I think it is crazy powerful? Nope, but I can think of quite a few situations or builds where I would bring it in.

Really it depends on the rest of the tree to determine if it is worth taking over the default marine one.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Did I notice that there is no “Minimum 1 attack” on that power?

So you can completely shut down some Units.

I just replied to someone on the reddit thread regarding that same thing lol.

I'd expect a day-1 faq on it, but otherwise it does make the power a little more interesting. Most marines now have loads of attacks, but there's a bunch of xenos that only have 1 attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:
And with creative movement you can control who they are able to charge. Just measure their movement and you can make it so there are only 1-2 choices they have,

Do I think it is crazy powerful? Nope, but I can think of quite a few situations or builds where I would bring it in.

Really it depends on the rest of the tree to determine if it is worth taking over the default marine one.

something else I noticed - it also prevents multi-charging completely, I believe.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Did I notice that there is no “Minimum 1 attack” on that power?

So you can completely shut down some Units.

It's a nice bonus, but honestly the big draw is the ability to force charges to go a particular way. Very niche, very dangerous, and extremely tricky to pull off (you're 100% going to be in deny range if the enemy has any psychic ability, plus you're exposing a not cheap caster), but it's a decent trick to have against a few matchups I can think of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

something else I noticed - it also prevents multi-charging completely, I believe.

It does. Doesnt stop pile in or consolidate shenanigans though, but definitely can do some work on big blocks of things like Sanguinary Guard or Genestealers.

Mission tactics is looking really interesting - it's probably just that it's a community article and is missing half the rules content but it seems to be explicitly different in set up to the other super doctrines seen so far; no mention (yet) of single army requirement, it's a passive ability/always on - not just in your founding chapter's preferred doctrine etc. Very interested in seeing the full rule, as it currently seems open to the possibility of not being mono-faction locked. This would open up the question of whether a DW army with allied codex marines would have 2 doctrines in play at a time. Personally I think this would be a smart move by GW to make DW more popular, as for chapters with a less than stellar super doctrine you probably gain more with an allied DW patrol.

The rest of the community preview new stuff seems fine. New relic is neat, but can't think of a character who's going to be front and centre to benefit from it. New psy power seems like a fun way to try and funnel a unit into some good overwatch - but any real melee threat like genestealers are fast enough to only really be denied a multi charge.

As far as the Relic goes, I'm liking the idea of a T5 Watchmaster.

Insularum wrote:
Mission tactics is looking really interesting - it's probably just that it's a community article and is missing half the rules content but it seems to be explicitly different in set up to the other super doctrines seen so far; no mention (yet) of single army requirement, it's a passive ability/always on - not just in your founding chapter's preferred doctrine etc. Very interested in seeing the full rule, as it currently seems open to the possibility of not being mono-faction locked. This would open up the question of whether a DW army with allied codex marines would have 2 doctrines in play at a time. Personally I think this would be a smart move by GW to make DW more popular, as for chapters with a less than stellar super doctrine you probably gain more with an allied DW patrol.

The rest of the community preview new stuff seems fine. New relic is neat, but can't think of a character who's going to be front and centre to benefit from it. New psy power seems like a fun way to try and funnel a unit into some good overwatch - but any real melee threat like genestealers are fast enough to only really be denied a multi charge.

My first thought on this was, not that you'd have 2 doctrines active at the same time, but it could still be potentially busted.

For example, DW force alongside some RG or WS, then having a good chunk of obsec units charging into your opponents deployment zone on turn 1, with the Assault doctrine.

Love the preview. Anti xenos rules are great and fluffy and I love them.

However. A fair few xenos players have already hinted, more than hinted, they are not interested in playing against deathwatch. The thought is that they struggle enough against normal marines, let alone xenos killing specialists.

Is it possible that deathwatch will be too good at killing xenos that pick up games may be rarer. Will it be fun for xenos armies to play against.