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.

As above, so below.

Seems weird to me that you get to alter the game rules for free, doubly so when some doctrines are better choices than others.

Essentially makes them a compulsory choice.

Thoughts?

M.

They should cost points if the case was that only AM had them, like chapter tactics in the past.

But now that everyone has them, is like paying for Warlord Traits. The ideal is that every single one is equally usable in different armies.

No? Every army has traits available to them, if not now then pretty soon. Both players are benefiting.

This sounds more like a case of sour grapes than anything else.

This is like saying "Marines have 3+ armour save on their basic Troops, that's unfair."

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No? Every army has traits available to them, if not now then pretty soon. Both players are benefiting.

This sounds more like a case of sour grapes than anything else.

This is like saying "Marines have 3+ armour save on their basic Troops, that's unfair."

Except it isn't because they pay points for that, so it's not unfair. Another fallacious analogy from the House of BCB.

To the OP, it's a tough one. Not all Traits/Tactics/Doctrines are created equal, so making them all free seems odd. Weird to balance everything else but not for example "-1 to hit on all opponent's shooting" which clearly has a massive effect. I've no idea how they could point it out though with the many, many combos and interactions! I would say playing Index vs Codex army feels sucky just now, so roll on the power creep so it all balances a little. And gets everyone to buy more books!

If AM pays, then everyone pays. Since GW made it free for each codex, it will be no big deal.

To me the traits, are more of a fluff thing for me. Its a good thing,

A better question would be: Should regimental doctrines, hive fleet traits, and similar be restricted to infantry models (and bikers) only?

pismakron wrote:
A better question would be: Should regimental doctrines, hive fleet traits, and similar be restricted to infantry models (and bikers) only?

yes yes they should. with maybe some rare specific units, but it's absolutele BS that chapter tactics apply ONLY to infantry bikes and dreads, but every other army gets it across the boards

Well, here is the general problem: the idea paying points for them will allow traits of varying power to be balanced against one another runs into the problem that GW apparently was looking to create traits (or trait+stratagem+relic combos) that were balanced against one another but failed.

If anything, guard has some of the best internal balance in this regard, generally all of the traits lend themselves to being useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pismakron wrote:
A better question would be: Should regimental doctrines, hive fleet traits, and similar be restricted to infantry models (and bikers) only?

No, because again this isn't a balance issue. It's entirely possible to balance vehicles without traits alongside ones that have them, via price point adjustment. If the unique aspects of the army aren't likely to be represented in their vehicles, they can simply be made slightly cheaper relative to other armies whose vehicle usage may vary more from regiment/hive, etc.

BrianDavion wrote:

pismakron wrote:
A better question would be: Should regimental doctrines, hive fleet traits, and similar be restricted to infantry models (and bikers) only?

yes yes they should. with maybe some rare specific units, but it's absolutele BS that chapter tactics apply ONLY to infantry bikes and dreads, but every other army gets it across the boards

I've explained it before and I'll explain it again.

The Space Marine codex was, intentionally, made sub par and underpowered compared to the rest of the codexes (with the exception maybe of Grey Knights but that can be chalked to incompetent rules writers).

Space Marines outsell all other factions COMBINED, and outsell all of Age of Sigmar. GW can release whatever rules they want and so long as they are not 5th edition Tyranid terrible (Seiously that abortion of a codex was so bad that GW stock crashed by 23%) they will STILL outsell everything.

GW want to sell other factions knowing people will still buy Marines, so they made their codexes and traits better to make them more "powerful" and encourage their purchase.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

pismakron wrote:
A better question would be: Should regimental doctrines, hive fleet traits, and similar be restricted to infantry models (and bikers) only?

yes yes they should. with maybe some rare specific units, but it's absolutele BS that chapter tactics apply ONLY to infantry bikes and dreads, but every other army gets it across the boards

I've explained it before and I'll explain it again.

The Space Marine codex was, intentionally, made sub par and underpowered compared to the rest of the codexes (with the exception maybe of Grey Knights but that can be chalked to incompetent rules writers).

Space Marines outsell all other factions COMBINED, and outsell all of Age of Sigmar. GW can release whatever rules they want and so long as they are not 5th edition Tyranid terrible (Seiously that abortion of a codex was so bad that GW stock crashed by 23%) they will STILL outsell everything.

GW want to sell other factions knowing people will still buy Marines, so they made their codexes and traits better to make them more "powerful" and encourage their purchase.

Oh so you're talking about intent, now? The thing you keep telling people no-one can know? OK.

Derailed before page two, well done boys.

But really, the idea some codices were made under or overpowered doesn't really mesh with what we've seen. What we have seen consistently is GW overestimating the value of elite infantry and units while undercosting hordes, which has led to the various power armor flavors struggling somewhat and focusing mainly on vehicles and various synergies within that. Oh, and they drastically overestimated how useful melee would be. Again. But that practically feels like a tradition at this point.

pismakron wrote:
A better question would be: Should regimental doctrines, hive fleet traits, and similar be restricted to infantry models (and bikers) only?

No, every army doesn't play the same way, so they shouldn't have the exact same restrictions.

SilverAlien wrote:
Derailed before page two, well done boys.

Yeah, I should have been meticulously specific that we were only talking about AM Doctrines, or rather have thrown a bone to the other Doctrine-like things costing as well.

Oh well!

M.

I'd assumed Doctrine point costs would have been baked into the models - but I was probably thinking of Orders.

They should cost points, but should have already been factored into the models base cost.

BrianDavion wrote:

pismakron wrote:
A better question would be: Should regimental doctrines, hive fleet traits, and similar be restricted to infantry models (and bikers) only?

yes yes they should. with maybe some rare specific units, but it's absolutele BS that chapter tactics apply ONLY to infantry bikes and dreads, but every other army gets it across the boards

I think the greater question is why are Predators, Land Raiders, and Vindicators apparently not part of the Chapter. Leman Russ Tanks definitely should get regimental doctrines, same for carnifexes and hive fleets.

 Infantryman wrote:
As above, so below.

Seems weird to me that you get to alter the game rules for free, doubly so when some doctrines are better choices than others.

Essentially makes them a compulsory choice.

Thoughts?

M.

Should space marines pay for chapter traits?

Well actually yes to both but c'est'la'vie. Ain't happening. GW wants to offer these snowflake rules even when they often ends up in just pigeonholing armies to same shapes like cadians should avoid flamers like hell.

Should guard pay for regiment doctrines? Absolutely not. Other armies don't pay for theirs. End of discussion. Next question.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

pismakron wrote:
A better question would be: Should regimental doctrines, hive fleet traits, and similar be restricted to infantry models (and bikers) only?

yes yes they should. with maybe some rare specific units, but it's absolutele BS that chapter tactics apply ONLY to infantry bikes and dreads, but every other army gets it across the boards

I think the greater question is why are Predators, Land Raiders, and Vindicators apparently not part of the Chapter. Leman Russ Tanks definitely should get regimental doctrines, same for carnifexes and hive fleets.

yeah true a simplier fix would be next years chapter approved simply updating Space Marine and chaos marine chapter tactics.

If everyone pays for their Doctrines, then yes, AM absolutely should. If they're the only ones, then no.

Pretty much everyone has doctrines baked in to their units, and unless they all pay too, no-one should pay.

I do think it's unfair that Marines don't have their Doctrines across the whole list, unlike everyone else with Doctrines though.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If everyone pays for their Doctrines, then yes, AM absolutely should. If they're the only ones, then no.

Pretty much everyone has doctrines baked in to their units, and unless they all pay too, no-one should pay.

I do think it's unfair that Marines don't have their Doctrines across the whole list, unlike everyone else with Doctrines though.

To be fair, that's not completely true. Only Eldar and Mechanicus really have a wide application of traits.
CSM, GK, BA, DG and DA have the same restrictions as standard SM.
Tyranid traits are extremely specific and many apply only to a subset of the model's range.
Guards mostly do, but have internal subfactions (auxilia, tempestus and telepathica) that don't receive traits. Tempestus does if you give them a dedicated detachment.

As you can see it's not a "SM are restricted, the other codices are not". It's a scale of greys, some are more limited, some are less, some are not. It's part of the design of the faction. If you look at the codices released the norm is having such restrictions, not having them is the exception.

Problem is that AM (and a few other armies) doubled down on the free stuff.


Space Marines had Chapter Tactics, AM (previously the Guard) had Orders, Craftworld Eldar had Battle Focus, Nids had Shadow of the Warp.


Now, Space Marines still have Chapter Tactics, but the other armies also get Chapter Tactics AND get to keep their old stuff (though sometimes nerfed to oblivion as with Battle Focus).


That aside, for matched play, if 10 Marines (Guardsman, Firewarriors, Genestealers, whatever) with rule X are better/more versatile than the same index unit without rule X, it should super-strictly-speaking cost more, obviously, but that's not really how GW sells toys. If you wanna be really, really pendantic about balance, Chapter tactics/Doctrines/etc.. should probably also vary in point costs depending on what you take. E.g. something like the BA trait should be pricey on CC but (nearly-)free, if you take a mainly shooty BA army, so CC BAngels aren't more points efficient (and thus not balanced) than shooty BAngels.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Space Marines had Chapter Tactics, AM (previously the Guard) had Orders, Craftworld Eldar had Battle Focus, Nids had Shadow of the Warp.


Now, Space Marines still have Chapter Tactics, but the other armies also get Chapter Tactics AND get to keep their old stuff (though sometimes nerfed to oblivion as with Battle Focus).

Let me fix that for you.


Space Marines had ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics, AM (previously the Guard) had Orders, Craftworld Eldar had Battle Focus, Nids had Shadow of the Warp.


Now, Space Marines still have ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics, but the other armies also get Chapter Tactics AND get to keep their old stuff (though sometimes nerfed to oblivion as with Battle Focus).


Sooooo unfair amirite?

Spoletta wrote:CSM, GK, BA, DG and DA have the same restrictions as standard SM.

Um, all of these are Marines? Hence my point? It's why I didn't say Codex: Space Marines.

Tyranid traits are extremely specific and many apply only to a subset of the model's range.

But it still applies to every model. Regardless what it affects, it's still there.

Guards mostly do, but have internal subfactions (auxilia, tempestus and telepathica) that don't receive traits.

But those subsections (Auxilia and Telepathica)are given a lore reason as to why they're not given the same rules - because they're not actually PART of the main regiment. Same as Tempestus. In the case of them, it's a design choice to show their auxiliary nature - and even the Tempestus have their own set of traits if not taken in an auxiliary capacity.

Tempestus does if you give them a dedicated detachment.

And if you take Space Marines in an AM detachment, they also lose their Doctrines. What's the difference? Realistically, as far as allies go, Scions should be treated as a separate force to the main AM, like how Space Marines are to AM, but with the added bonus that they don't stop the AM from using their own traits.

In that respect, they're incredibly good, not bad.

As you can see it's not a "SM are restricted, the other codices are not". It's a scale of greys, some are more limited, some are less, some are not. It's part of the design of the faction. If you look at the codices released the norm is having such restrictions, not having them is the exception.

You say it's part of the design of the faction - why? Everyone else has it across the board (effective or not, it's still there) EXCEPT Marines. Why not? What about Astartes vehicles makes them not part of the Chapter? As I'm seeing all Astartes codexes as one (because they're all Astartes), they're the clear minority when it comes to this. Why?

You haven't understood my point.
Out of 10 codices released, only 2 of them have true unrestricted access to traits.
2 other have almost complete access (AM and Nids).
GK and DG have few restrictions and the other 4 have more significant restrictions.

This means that saying "Everyone gets full access to traits, except marines" is incorrect. Now, we can argue if it is balanced or not, but it is definitely not GW hating on a single faction.

Why should they cost points? Most of them are not that great anyway and the other armies also don't have to pay for it. AM already was nerfed quite hard. The codex is fine now.

Scallywag wrote:
Why should they cost points? Most of them are not that great anyway and the other armies also don't have to pay for it. AM already was nerfed quite hard. The codex is fine now.

Haha wait until Martel catches you saying that. Apparently our Manticores need to be 175-200 points to be "priced fairly". I feel that we've been given the short end of the stick (basically taudar) even though plasma scions are now balanced and conscripts are exterminatused.

 Naix wrote:

Scallywag wrote:
Why should they cost points? Most of them are not that great anyway and the other armies also don't have to pay for it. AM already was nerfed quite hard. The codex is fine now.

Haha wait until Martel catches you saying that. Apparently our Manticores need to be 175-200 points to be "priced fairly". I feel that we've been given the short end of the stick (basically taudar) even though plasma scions are now balanced and conscripts are exterminatused.

Have to agree with this. The AM still has some models that are near the top of the power curve, but nothing over it anymore.

AM infantry are the best troop in the game...hands down.
Manticores are incredibly powerful
Command Russ are incredibly powerful
Mortars are stupidly undercosted
Drop Scions are still busted as fck too.

If you are still spamming these units - you are still top tier.

Eldar and Nids are just there with you now - you still have the edge on them too.

 Xenomancers wrote:
AM infantry are the best troop in the game...hands down.
Manticores are incredibly powerful
Command Russ are incredibly powerful
Mortars are stupidly undercosted
Drop Scions are still busted as fck too.

If you are still spamming these units - you are still top tier.

Eldar and Nids are just there with you now - you still have the edge on them too.

Sorry but nids troops are superior to am troops. Nids troops are the bread and butter of the faction, they win games.

SYKOJAK wrote:
If AM pays, then everyone pays. Since GW made it free for each codex, it will be no big deal.

To me the traits, are more of a fluff thing for me. Its a good thing,

Yeah wouldn't mind if everyone had to pay for things like traits and doctrines. or otherwise had to be extremely restricted by ether additional points or very specific builds.