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.

I can see why GW developed this rule. They're rightly into fun and fluffy thematic rules that help define the character of the armies, but I feel they misstepped here. Rather than representing the SM style of warfare as defined by the Codex Astartes, it's simply being used to add +1AP to whatever unit is judged most advantageous. I think it's nice to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so how could this have been done better?

Doctrines are fine, but you cannot defend Super Doctrines and sound sane.

This is what I'm talking about.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I can see why GW developed this rule. They're rightly into fun and fluffy thematic rules that help define the character of the armies, but I feel they misstepped here. Rather than representing the SM style of warfare as defined by the Codex Astartes, it's simply being used to add +1AP to whatever unit is judged most advantageous. I think it's nice to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so how could this have been done better?

In order to get the ball rolling, I think you need to first define what is the "SM style of warfare as defined by the Codex Astartes". So that people can all start on the same page at least.

This is how it was described on GW"s community site.

Combat Doctrines represent the structured way in which adherents of the Codex Astartes overcome any adversary. First of all, they bombard their enemies from afar with heavy weaponry, then they advance on their positions while delivering punishing volleys of bolter fire, before charging in to crush whatever’s left in brutal melee.

So I see what GW was getting at -- they wanted to encourage a multifaceted approach.

My suggestion is to force people to move doctrines each turn.

Round 1 you get Devastator Doctrine.

Round 2 you get Tactical Doctrine.

Round 3 you get Assault Doctrine.

Round 4+ you get no Doctrine.

Space Marines all do a similar thing turn 1-3 and then if they haven't won by then you might be able to grind them out.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Doctrines are fine, but you cannot defend Super Doctrines and sound sane.

Most of the super doctrines are pretty fluffy, it also gives an incentive to go mono-Chapter instead of mono-SM, we've aready seen that mono-SM is actually about as strong as mono-Chapter despite the lack of Super Doctrines. I feel like the incentive to stay in Devastator Doctrine all game is high, White Scars in permanent Devastator Doctrine would be silly. Maybe IH Super Doctrine is as impactful or more than WS Super Doctrine so maybe we'd still see both IH and WS if it was removed.

I don't like Chapter Tactics or Doctrines in the first place, but I think Combat Doctrines was the issue that caused Super Doctrines to be required and I'd have preferred if things were handled purely by access to Stratagems and CP. Tacking too many free rules on to units was one of the things that ruined 7th. Removal of infinite Daemons and obscenely powerful psychic powers were great things for 8th, as was the removal of rules bloat, it's a shame bloat got re-introduced.

Combat Doctrines could've been the Captain's ability instead of having a re-roll Aura he could have a Combat Doctrine aura ability where you had to use the same Doctrine for all Captains. That would also speed up the game, re-rolls does make SM very reliable which is quite fluffy. Combat Doctrines could also have been 3 separate Stratagems, that would promote diversified list so you can make use of more than one of the Stratagems each turn. You could also make them cheaper or more expensive depending on which of the Stratagems have been used previously. Like make them cheaper the first time they are used or make Tactical Doctrine cheaper if combined with Devastator Doctrine and Assault Doctrine cheaper if used in combination with Tactical Doctrine.

One of the problems is that Devastator Doctrine is really good and there's often no incentive to move out of it. This is exacerbated by some of the best super Doctrines also being tied to Devastator Doctrine. It's not too difficult to build an effective SM army that focusses heavily on Heavy weapons and get a free bonus to your AP for the entire game by never switching from it. Forcing people to move out of Doctrines rather than getting to choose seems like a good idea.

I also like an idea I saw somewhere else on this board that suggested having turn 1 be some sort of Scout/Recon Doctrine with Devastator kicking in from turn 2 onwards. It has the slight issue that it makes Assault worse because it delays it by a turn but it does stop the alpha strike being even more devastating from Space Marines.

<how about we just get rid of all doctrines.
>

Not Online!!! wrote:
<how about we just get rid of all doctrines.
>

How is that working out for Dark Angels?

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
<how about we just get rid of all doctrines.
>

How is that working out for Dark Angels?

Bad, because da have non, ....


Except wait a Minute da also have no csm dex 2.0 buff.....

So moot point.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
<how about we just get rid of all doctrines.
>

How is that working out for Dark Angels?

Bad, because da have non, ....


Except wait a Minute da also have no csm dex 2.0 buff.....

So moot point.

CSM dex 2.0 was not a buff. It was an update with inclusions from Vigilus. SM did need a buff of some kind and more balanced Stratagems would not have done the job.

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
<how about we just get rid of all doctrines.
>

How is that working out for Dark Angels?

Bad, because da have non, ....


Except wait a Minute da also have no csm dex 2.0 buff.....

So moot point.

CSM dex 2.0 was not a buff. It was an update with inclusions from Vigilus. SM did need a buff of some kind and more balanced Stratagems would not have done the job.

C:SM, sorry, autocorrect Strikes again

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
<how about we just get rid of all doctrines.
>

How is that working out for Dark Angels?

Bad, because da have non, ....


Except wait a Minute da also have no csm dex 2.0 buff.....

So moot point.

CSM dex 2.0 was not a buff. It was an update with inclusions from Vigilus. SM did need a buff of some kind and more balanced Stratagems would not have done the job.

C:SM, sorry, autocorrect Strikes again

My point was that DA need Combat Doctrines to compete with competitive armies.

 vict0988 wrote:
My point was that DA need Combat Doctrines to compete with competitive armies.

The idea in this thread is not to accept Combat Doctrines as written and then ask for the same rules or an equivalent, it's to think about how they could be changed to be less one-dimensional and prone to exploitation.

Slipspace wrote:
One of the problems is that Devastator Doctrine is really good and there's often no incentive to move out of it. This is exacerbated by some of the best super Doctrines also being tied to Devastator Doctrine. It's not too difficult to build an effective SM army that focuses heavily on Heavy weapons and get a free bonus to your AP for the entire game by never switching from it.

Good summary of the problem and that's exactly the issue I see with them.

 vict0988 wrote:
Combat Doctrines could've been the Captain's ability instead of having a re-roll Aura...

That's also a bright idea way to set some limits on the ability.

Really, i think the best solution is making the doctrines a stratagem that is usable once per battle, and last for one turn. Maybe Guilliman lets you use them one additional time.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
My point was that DA need Combat Doctrines to compete with competitive armies.

The idea in this thread is not to accept Combat Doctrines as written and then ask for the same rules or an equivalent, it's to think about how they could be changed to be less one-dimensional and prone to exploitation.

I'm aware that's the point of the thread as a whole, I was pointing out that simply removing everything Combat Doctrine probably isn't fair given how poorly DA are doing. SM did need a buff, they just got a buff that was too large. DA are pretty much where non-Guilliman non-BA Marines were 6 months ago, that's not a good place to be relative to any faction.

Sure, but DA should probably have rules related more toward Deathwing or Ravenwing. That's more their style of doing things.

Do people see Canticles as balanced? Maybe not the actual Canticles themselves, as they're generally regarded as quite poor with the exception of Shroudpsalm, but maybe how you'd be able to pick each doctrine once and then use stratagems to use them a 2nd time?

Guys...lets not forget how bad marines were and lets not also forget guilliman was also nerfed (for literally no reason they released even more powerful rules that cost 0 points that you can't possibly combine with gman anyways).

Marines needed doctrines. ESP the infantry with bolters and stuff.

Dev doctrine is really the problem. Just stacking -1 ap on weapons that already have good AP becomes silly. Ap-4 lascannons are devastating. AP-2 Onslaught cannons and punnisher sicarian cannons get just silly damage boosts from dev doctrine. AP-3 stalker bolt guns? LOL Serious?

I would change dev doctrine and modifiy some super doctrines and not allow for ninja centurians.

Dev Doctrine becomes Ignore move penalties for heavy weapons.
Rest of doctrines stay the same.

Imperial fists Super doctrine only applies to str 7+ weapons.
Ravenguard superdoctrine does not apply to vehicles.
Salamnders super doctrine (flames bonus counts vs infantry / melta bonus against vehicles)

Centurions specifically excluded from deep strike and scout move stratagems. (they aren't stealthy dude...GTFO).

The reason doctrines are stupid right now is there is no incentive to leave dev doctrine. Even as a chapter that specializes in another doctrine - -1 AP on heavies is almost always going to do more damage than -1 AP on bolters.

Thats a pretty good diagnosis and list of changes Xeno.

I do like the idea of a T1 “Recon and Intel” doctrine to slow the game down and put more of a focus on the Tactical Objectives and winning through some decisions other than targeting priority. Maybe you could still get -1AP on your big guns but only on targets that were defined by Recon and Intel units.

I also like the idea of splitting up the bonuses among the officers. Maybe you need 1x HQ dedicated to each Doctrine on the playing field to be able to claim the bonus.