Switch Theme:

Super doctrine tweak  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear





I have an idea for a house rule tweak for marines that might make the marine meta more interesting and wanted to hear some feedback.
What if super doctrines were cyclical, so they progress as now but the assault doctrine can now be moved in the devastator doctrine on a subsequent turn.
But now instead of automatically starting in devastator the marine player rolls a d6, with no rerolls allowed, on a 1-2 you start in devastator, 3-4 tactical, 5-6 assault.




 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





kingheff wrote:
I have an idea for a house rule tweak for marines that might make the marine meta more interesting and wanted to hear some feedback.
What if super doctrines were cyclical, so they progress as now but the assault doctrine can now be moved in the devastator doctrine on a subsequent turn.
But now instead of automatically starting in devastator the marine player rolls a d6, with no rerolls allowed, on a 1-2 you start in devastator, 3-4 tactical, 5-6 assault.





well, for a start you're giving Marines a flexability you normally have to pay command points for.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear





Well, my vague theory is that it would be a bit of a balance between the chapters since the devastator doctrine chapters can't just rely on starting and staying in the devastator doctrine the whole game, they'd have a 33% chance instead, the same for all the chapters.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





kingheff wrote:
Well, my vague theory is that it would be a bit of a balance between the chapters since the devastator doctrine chapters can't just rely on starting and staying in the devastator doctrine the whole game, they'd have a 33% chance instead, the same for all the chapters.


Then you're just making it needlessly random and the ones who get lucky will just perform better.

Doctrines should be once per game at a minimum. If you really want to punish it then make it only one doctrine of their choice on a turn of their choice.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Isn't the proper way of dealing with bad rules, is to replace bad rules or add good rules to armies, and not nerf working rules to make everything bad?

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:
Isn't the proper way of dealing with bad rules, is to replace bad rules or add good rules to armies, and not nerf working rules to make everything bad?


No, not always.

People complain about power level, but they're sucking the teat to try and get the same for their armies.

The only reason people should get rules like marines is because they're interesting not because they're powerful. Otherwise you just risk rebalancing the game endlessly.

Marines get brought back down. Everyone else gets more variety.
   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear





 Daedalus81 wrote:
kingheff wrote:
Well, my vague theory is that it would be a bit of a balance between the chapters since the devastator doctrine chapters can't just rely on starting and staying in the devastator doctrine the whole game, they'd have a 33% chance instead, the same for all the chapters.


Then you're just making it needlessly random and the ones who get lucky will just perform better.

Doctrines should be once per game at a minimum. If you really want to punish it then make it only one doctrine of their choice on a turn of their choice.


Making it a d6 roll seems very Warhammer thing to me. But I can see how it might not be popular with everyone.
It just seems to me that the devastator doctrine marines get too much of an advantage compared to the other marines and other armies for that matter. It might make for more variety in army lists, imperial fists might want to take bolt rifles in case they don't start in devastator doctrine, for example.

 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
Isn't the proper way of dealing with bad rules, is to replace bad rules or add good rules to armies, and not nerf working rules to make everything bad?


No, not always.

People complain about power level, but they're sucking the teat to try and get the same for their armies.

The only reason people should get rules like marines is because they're interesting not because they're powerful. Otherwise you just risk rebalancing the game endlessly.

Marines get brought back down. Everyone else gets more variety.


well if your army doesn't get good rules, then some other army will get it in 2-3 months. getting a bland army, where nothing looks strong, is just asking for a really bad time in few months time.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Random is bad, no matter how you look at it.

In general, the only doctrines which are way over the top are those benefiting heavy weapons, so a fix should target those only.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Tribune





Another option is that instead of the standard doctrines in the marine codex you get the suppliment ones instead - e.g. iron hands only gets the reroll ones, & move & fire heavy wepaons but not the additional AP?

Praise the Omnissiah

About 4k of .

Imperial Knights (Valiant, Warden & Armigers)

Some Misc. Imperium units etc. Assassins...

About 2k of  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:


well if your army doesn't get good rules, then some other army will get it in 2-3 months. getting a bland army, where nothing looks strong, is just asking for a really bad time in few months time.



Ok, please list the mono codexes that were as strong as marines are now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
kingheff wrote:


Making it a d6 roll seems very Warhammer thing to me. But I can see how it might not be popular with everyone.
It just seems to me that the devastator doctrine marines get too much of an advantage compared to the other marines and other armies for that matter. It might make for more variety in army lists, imperial fists might want to take bolt rifles in case they don't start in devastator doctrine, for example.


I think you can achieve the same result with just one turn under devastator. IF heavy bolters are pulling off that many vehicles turn 1.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/17 15:01:16


 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






People are really over reacting here. I understand why you are but it needs to stop.

First of all - it's okay for marines to win some.
Second of all - marines are the first release of a bunch of releases - other armies are going to get stronger.
Third - at least identify the problem. 2 Superdoctrines are way too good. A few deployment shenanigans are too good. I'd also be in favor of changing dev doctrine to move and shoot with heavies and not being ap -1. Fix those and marines are totally beatable. Just not pushovers like they have been for 2 effing years.

The biggest issue is GW has these staggered rules releases. Rules need to come out all at once. Otherwise it's just power creep.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/17 15:08:24


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Xenomancers wrote:
People are really over reacting here. I understand why you are but it needs to stop.

First of all - it's okay for marines to win some.
Second of all - marines are the first release of a bunch of releases - other armies are going to get stronger.
Third - at least identify the problem. 2 Superdoctrines are way too good. A few deployment shenanigans are too good. I'd also be in favor of changing dev doctrine to move and shoot with heavies and not being ap -1. Fix those and marines are totally beatable. Just not pushovers like they have been for 2 effing years.

The biggest issue is GW has these staggered rules releases. Rules need to come out all at once. Otherwise it's just power creep.


Sorry, I'm not allowed to think about things in depth. Either something is broken OP or trash. There is no in between and no analysis needed.

To suggest otherwise is to risk the high crime of white knighting.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
People are really over reacting here. I understand why you are but it needs to stop.

First of all - it's okay for marines to win some.
Second of all - marines are the first release of a bunch of releases - other armies are going to get stronger.
Third - at least identify the problem. 2 Superdoctrines are way too good. A few deployment shenanigans are too good. I'd also be in favor of changing dev doctrine to move and shoot with heavies and not being ap -1. Fix those and marines are totally beatable. Just not pushovers like they have been for 2 effing years.

The biggest issue is GW has these staggered rules releases. Rules need to come out all at once. Otherwise it's just power creep.


Sorry, I'm not allowed to think about things in depth. Either something is broken OP or trash. There is no in between and no analysis needed.

To suggest otherwise is to risk the high crime of white knighting.

Honestly you white knighted for Warp Talons of all things. Why wouldn't we think otherwise of your posts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
kingheff wrote:
I have an idea for a house rule tweak for marines that might make the marine meta more interesting and wanted to hear some feedback.
What if super doctrines were cyclical, so they progress as now but the assault doctrine can now be moved in the devastator doctrine on a subsequent turn.
But now instead of automatically starting in devastator the marine player rolls a d6, with no rerolls allowed, on a 1-2 you start in devastator, 3-4 tactical, 5-6 assault.




Just what the game needs, even more randumb.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/17 15:42:57


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Honestly you white knighted for Warp Talons of all things. Why wouldn't we think otherwise of your posts?


Sorry, I'm not allowed to think about things in depth. Either something is broken OP or trash. There is no in between and no analysis needed.


To suggest otherwise is to risk the high crime of white knighting.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Honestly you white knighted for Warp Talons of all things. Why wouldn't we think otherwise of your posts?


Sorry, I'm not allowed to think about things in depth. Either something is broken OP or trash. There is no in between and no analysis needed.


To suggest otherwise is to risk the high crime of white knighting.

And the fact you even tried to put Warp Talons in the middling of everything speaks volumes of your consistent need to defend GW on every bad move they do. Warp Talons have been analyzed since they came out and since Raptor Host came out. You haven't discovered something new whatsoever. Ergo you're just white knighting.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Honestly you white knighted for Warp Talons of all things. Why wouldn't we think otherwise of your posts?


Sorry, I'm not allowed to think about things in depth. Either something is broken OP or trash. There is no in between and no analysis needed.


To suggest otherwise is to risk the high crime of white knighting.

And the fact you even tried to put Warp Talons in the middling of everything speaks volumes of your consistent need to defend GW on every bad move they do. Warp Talons have been analyzed since they came out and since Raptor Host came out. You haven't discovered something new whatsoever. Ergo you're just white knighting.


I'm sorry, did you forget that I called for a boycott on GSC?

But I'll fix the comment.

Sorry, I'm not allowed to think about things in depth for the following reasons :

1) Either something is broken OP or trash.
2) There is no in between and no analysis needed.

3) Everyone else has thought about everything and there is no need to discuss options. If you are curious please reference point #1 even if impending new army tools and point drops are possible.

To suggest otherwise is to risk the high crime of white knighting.
   
Made in de
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Bamberg / Erlangen

I'm against the proposed d6 solution to determine in which doctrine Space Marine armies start in.

I hate every randomise mechanic that takes agency away from how I want to build my army. Didn't like it with warlord traits back then and would not appreciate something like this now.

Apart from that, it really would not help, as the problematic doctrine would still be in effect 1/3 of the time. Which doctrine that is depends on the chapter in question.

Super doctrines could go away completely without anything to make up for it, in my opinion. Space Marine armies have enough tools and incentive to play differently from each other based on warlord traits, stratagems and psychic discipline / litanies.

Only thing I would like to change (as it seems like a big oversight for internal balance) is that Marine players can actually pick in which doctrine they want to start in. Or no doctrine on turn 1 and then pick any on turn 2.

Custom40k Homebrew - Alternate activation, huge customisation, support for all models from 3rd to 10th edition

Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition) 
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




a_typical_hero wrote:
Only thing I would like to change (as it seems like a big oversight for internal balance) is that Marine players can actually pick in which doctrine they want to start in. Or no doctrine on turn 1 and then pick any on turn 2.
It's missing the fluff intent of the rule. It's supposed to reflect the codified nature of SM warfare (bombardment, advance, close assault).
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yoyoyo wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
Only thing I would like to change (as it seems like a big oversight for internal balance) is that Marine players can actually pick in which doctrine they want to start in. Or no doctrine on turn 1 and then pick any on turn 2.
It's missing the fluff intent of the rule. It's supposed to reflect the codified nature of SM warfare (bombardment, advance, close assault).

Ergo still encouraging gunline instead of rewarding melee centric Marines.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




Exactly.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Honestly you white knighted for Warp Talons of all things. Why wouldn't we think otherwise of your posts?


Sorry, I'm not allowed to think about things in depth. Either something is broken OP or trash. There is no in between and no analysis needed.


To suggest otherwise is to risk the high crime of white knighting.

And the fact you even tried to put Warp Talons in the middling of everything speaks volumes of your consistent need to defend GW on every bad move they do. Warp Talons have been analyzed since they came out and since Raptor Host came out. You haven't discovered something new whatsoever. Ergo you're just white knighting.


I'm sorry, did you forget that I called for a boycott on GSC?

But I'll fix the comment.

Sorry, I'm not allowed to think about things in depth for the following reasons :

1) Either something is broken OP or trash.
2) There is no in between and no analysis needed.

3) Everyone else has thought about everything and there is no need to discuss options. If you are curious please reference point #1 even if impending new army tools and point drops are possible.

To suggest otherwise is to risk the high crime of white knighting.

Oh course, you didn't support them a handful of times. Clearly not a white knight.

No I call BS on that statement. You've been defending some terrible rules and decisions for no good reason.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp





You've got to learn to stop taking the bait man. You aren't white knighting and even then, it's not a crime to have a different opinion in a recreational wargame.

Just don't respond when a post isn't worth responding too. Otherwise you're just going to get sucked into pointless arguments with toxic people.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ok, please list the mono codexes that were as strong as marines are now.
.


eldar, at least from what was told to me, always had a good armies and a good codex.

Also from stories being told, chaos and GK were so good that they get punished for it till this day.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Oh course, you didn't support them a handful of times. Clearly not a white knight.

No I call BS on that statement. You've been defending some terrible rules and decisions for no good reason.


Ah, ok. Let me fix it. Dont worry, buddy, we'll get there!

Sorry, I'm not allowed to think about things in depth for the following reasons :

1) All units are either a) broken OP or b) trash.

2) There is no in between and no analysis needed.

3) Everyone else has thought about everything and there is no need to discuss options. If you are curious please reference point #1 even if impending new army tools and point drops are possible.

4) Any claim that a unit has niche uses is not allowed unless it falls under section 1a.

To suggest otherwise is to risk the high crime of white knighting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote:

You've got to learn to stop taking the bait man. You aren't white knighting and even then, it's not a crime to have a different opinion in a recreational wargame.

Just don't respond when a post isn't worth responding too. Otherwise you're just going to get sucked into pointless arguments with toxic people.


No worries. I'm just trying to determine the rules in which we're allowed to post.

I dont want to offend anyone by saying something positive.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/17 19:36:33


 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:


well if your army doesn't get good rules, then some other army will get it in 2-3 months. getting a bland army, where nothing looks strong, is just asking for a really bad time in few months time.



Ok, please list the mono codexes that were as strong as marines are now.


given one of the long term criticisms of 8th edition was to have a strong army capable of holding it's own you almost needed to soup, it's pretty clear to me that the Space Marine Codex is GW's attempt to address those concerns. So yes mono Marines is proably super duper strong and it's clear to me thats the intent. not saying this is a good thing but at least the design philophesy is clear here

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 Jidmah wrote:
Random is bad, no matter how you look at it.


A real ork player would never voice such a thought.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





BrianDavion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:


well if your army doesn't get good rules, then some other army will get it in 2-3 months. getting a bland army, where nothing looks strong, is just asking for a really bad time in few months time.



Ok, please list the mono codexes that were as strong as marines are now.


given one of the long term criticisms of 8th edition was to have a strong army capable of holding it's own you almost needed to soup, it's pretty clear to me that the Space Marine Codex is GW's attempt to address those concerns. So yes mono Marines is proably super duper strong and it's clear to me thats the intent. not saying this is a good thing but at least the design philophesy is clear here


Yeah. I like the idea of mono-codex armies gaining access to some sort of unique benefits as a trade-off for not souping. So doctrines are fine in theory. "Super doctrines" (rewards for playing a single chapter-level faction) aren't inherently bad, but a couple of them are probably just a bit too good as they stand.

Personally, I'd like "super" doctrines to be an alternative to regular doctrines. So your choices are...
A.) Take soup and gain chapter tactics per now.
B.) Take a mono codex, but potentially take multiple chapter-level subfactions. This unlocks normal doctrines per now.
C.) Take a mono codex mono subfaction (playing all Iron Hands for instance). This unlocks normal doctrines, and you have the option to swap out your normal doctrines army-wide for your subfaction's special doctrines.

That way, you're not throwing bonus on top of bonus on top of bonus. Instead, you're unlocking a unique set of potential bonuses that players can choose from to suit their play style. So Imperial Fists can be better at hurting vehicles with heavy weapons than non-imperial fists, but they'll have to give up the standard -1 AP on heavies/grenades to get it. If they're facing an enemy with lots of hordes, they might prefer the normal devastator doctrine. Similarly, Raven Guard can look across the table and opt to be really good at sniping characters in a matchup where that's beneficial, but they can also choose to just have better bolters while in tactical doctrine instead.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 The Forgemaster wrote:
Another option is that instead of the standard doctrines in the marine codex you get the suppliment ones instead - e.g. iron hands only gets the reroll ones, & move & fire heavy wepaons but not the additional AP?
I agree with this. You should either get the generic doctrine or the supplement doctrine, not both.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





BrianDavion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:


well if your army doesn't get good rules, then some other army will get it in 2-3 months. getting a bland army, where nothing looks strong, is just asking for a really bad time in few months time.



Ok, please list the mono codexes that were as strong as marines are now.


given one of the long term criticisms of 8th edition was to have a strong army capable of holding it's own you almost needed to soup, it's pretty clear to me that the Space Marine Codex is GW's attempt to address those concerns. So yes mono Marines is proably super duper strong and it's clear to me thats the intent. not saying this is a good thing but at least the design philophesy is clear here


Yeah, except why not do it also for the other 2.0 dex that came slightly earlier?

Or infact why not even updating armies that really needed an update instead, you know, FW indexes, GK,Inquisition (instead of a WD dex).
AND THEN start deintencivicing Soup? Considering that there also is a special detachment, how about ruling one book and auxilia only.
But that would cut into their bottomline due to less Knight kits sold.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: