Discussion on the new C:SM & Possible BT supplement

[Sete]

I think that we will need to play as a combined arms detachment, and less choppy.

Obviously I only play casual, not tourney, but we will need to make full use of shooty units and dev and tac doctrine to trim down numbers before going in melee.

 

Do the new chapters have any tricks to manipulate doctrines?

We also could have some good CC strats, we could have a new IC that gives super buffs.

Its a bit early to be saying we are weak without the full picture.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Sete

[Smirnov]

Do the new chapters have any tricks to manipulate doctrines?

 

So far only Ultramarines, if I'm not mistaken, as it seems that CP generation and codex stuff is their 'thing'.

That's what Worries me about assault doctines - White Scars have a problem that they can start doing their stuff at turn 3 earliest. Meanwhile Iron Hands start in DEvastator and RAven Guard can use a round of heavy shooting before going into tactcal doctrine.

 

On the other hand, why are we so sure special doctrine would be our thing? So far each chapter companion has one, but if we get our own book, it won't be a part of that line, it would be it's own thing. I know that we are rumored to have autodamage 6's but it's still a rumor and subject to change.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Smirnov

[Sete]

Well yeah we are working with  rumours and assumptions.

Maybe we can get some stuff to manipulate doctrines, since historically our chapter never followed the codex per se.

[kombatwombat]

Thinking about it, it could be cool to force us to start the game in Tactical rather than Devastator doctrine.

 

It reflects our fluff of preferring to advance over holding position, it gets us to Assault Doctrine by T2, and it encourages our aggressive playstyle without outright forcing you not to use a static playstyle. If you want to use Devastator Doctrine, there’s always the Stratagem to go backwards.

 

Could be a really cool way of making us different.

 

 

 

 

...watch them give it to Blood Angels instead :P

[Sete]

From what I have seen , I trust GW will make us justice rule wise, I just hope they do the same Model wise, gots to get new toys ;)

But yeah starting on tac, deepstriking,shhot the filth and then go assault, would be fluffy, but might be a bit too powerful. 

[Smirnov]

Well yeah we are working with  rumours and assumptions.

Maybe we can get some stuff to manipulate doctrines, since historically our chapter never followed the codex per se.

I don't see doctrine manipulation stratagems happening - it just goes against all GW been doing with chapter suppliments (that this manipulation is Big U-only), we could get some general rules that lock us in or whatevr, but so far none of the first founding chapter got this, so I'm skeptical.

 

Realistically if we get special doctrine, it would be assault and plain 'wait turn 3 for it'.Which is sad because the doctrine has to be really good to counterweight that we have to wait half of the game for it to kick in.

 

So I'm really hoping that we get something another altogether (that will work with allied Sisters for example)

[Spinsanity]

If the BT doctrine gets to trigger only on T3+ once the assault Doctrine is active, I think it actually opens up the chapter to soup... Wouldn’t adding some allies possibly outweigh the benefits of going mono-chapter if it can actually give us an edge straight on T1?

[Medjugorje]

Thats the main problem. We need something that gives us 

 

A) extra punch with latnies or good stratagems

extra ways to being tougher in close combat.

 

 

hmm... never thought about a game mechanic like the sisters have. Would be awesome. But honestly i think it will be not as good as the first founding chapters... not the value of all kind of stuff... I think we dont get as much stratagems, Relics like the others. And I think we dont get any new models or even an upgrade kit. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Medjugorje

[Smirnov]

If the BT doctrine gets to trigger only on T3+ once the assault Doctrine is active, I think it actually opens up the chapter to soup... Wouldn’t adding some allies possibly outweigh the benefits of going mono-chapter if it can actually give us an edge straight on T1?

To be honest, so far I'm not sold on Doctrines at all. I've been waiting for IF/BT suppliment to start testing, but it seems that barring some major doctine (like maaaybe IH and UM), whether going mono SM way is better than going soup is still up to debate. Mono SM got better overal with doctrines, but it doesn't mean they are better than soup

[Marshal Arthur]

I like the idea of starting in tactical doctrine. It reflects our penchant for an aggressive advance and makes sense lore wise. As for the discussion on doctrines and soup it really depends on your army structure and who you usually fight. I find the additional AP rarely matters on high AP weapons but if you use a lot of low AP weapons it's a helpful boost. Of course if your main opponents use invuln saves regularly it probably doesn't matter at all. If we can start tactical doctrine, get the 6's auto wound ability as rumored, and crusader squads drop in price as expected then I could see the AP boost being very useful for a black tide list full of chainswords.

[Medjugorje]

I like the idea of starting in tactical doctrine. It reflects our penchant for an aggressive advance and makes sense lore wise. As for the discussion on doctrines and soup it really depends on your army structure and who you usually fight. I find the additional AP rarely matters on high AP weapons but if you use a lot of low AP weapons it's a helpful boost. Of course if your main opponents use invuln saves regularly it probably doesn't matter at all. If we can start tactical doctrine, get the 6's auto wound ability as rumored, and crusader squads drop in price as expected then I could see the AP boost being very useful for a black tide list full of chainswords.

If there would be a bonus in the tactical docrine for vehicles it could be. Devastor doctrine is skipped and we start with the tactical and get a bonus for our vehicles (because we dont use as much devastors like other chapters do).

[Sword Brother Adelard]

 

 

I like the idea of starting in tactical doctrine. It reflects our penchant for an aggressive advance and makes sense lore wise. As for the discussion on doctrines and soup it really depends on your army structure and who you usually fight. I find the additional AP rarely matters on high AP weapons but if you use a lot of low AP weapons it's a helpful boost. Of course if your main opponents use invuln saves regularly it probably doesn't matter at all. If we can start tactical doctrine, get the 6's auto wound ability as rumored, and crusader squads drop in price as expected then I could see the AP boost being very useful for a black tide list full of chainswords.

If there would be a bonus in the tactical docrine for vehicles it could be. Devastor doctrine is skipped and we start with the tactical and get a bonus for our vehicles (because we dont use as much devastors like other chapters do).

Although we do like tanks. Everyone forgets that we are just as much a mechanised army as a foot slogging or deep striking one.

[Link2edition]

 

Although we do like tanks. Everyone forgets that we are just as much a mechanised army as a foot slogging or deep striking one.

 

4th Ed codex said we tended to do a drop pod assault to secure the LZ then land heavy armor for a spearhead. You are absolutely right.

 

It also says most Initiates choose to use the holy bolter, something people also forget. We aren't a melee army, we are a shooting army that is fond of melee.

[balordazul]

I always felt like we had a hatred issue with the "Kill Them All" rule.  It would be cool to see that rule name used again even if it has a different rule.

[Sete]

 

 

 

Although we do like tanks. Everyone forgets that we are just as much a mechanised army as a foot slogging or deep striking one.

 

4th Ed codex said we tended to do a drop pod assault to secure the LZ then land heavy armor for a spearhead. You are absolutely right.

 

It also says most Initiates choose to use the holy bolter, something people also forget. We aren't a melee army, we are a shooting army that is fond of melee.

It is how i play still.

Still waiting for those Primaris Drop pods. ;)

[Medjugorje]

I always felt like we had a hatred issue with the "Kill Them All" rule.  It would be cool to see that rule name used again even if it has a different rule.

there are litnies who would represent that very well.

 

Look into the whole 6 of them. All of them could be taken as a rule from 4th edition codex rule.

 

-Lithany of Faith and our (codex 1.0 deny the witch") Stratagem is like the old vow (dont know the english name - just have a german codex in my hand - so it was the 3rd in page 25)

 

-Catechism of Fire could be the old "kill them All" rule

 

-Canticle of hate could be "righteous zeal" vow

 

-in Vigilus we already get "...the unclean" - it was a vow to this time.

 

- my favourite vow always used to be "accept any challenge, no matter the odds" - The crimson fists already get this rule - but maybe there is a stratagem like +1 to hit and to attack - but I dont know how this could be

Edited September 17, 2019 by Medjugorje

[Closet Skeleton]

 

If the BT doctrine gets to trigger only on T3+ once the assault Doctrine is active, I think it actually opens up the chapter to soup... Wouldn’t adding some allies possibly outweigh the benefits of going mono-chapter if it can actually give us an edge straight on T1?

To be honest, so far I'm not sold on Doctrines at all. I've been waiting for IF/BT suppliment to start testing, but it seems that barring some major doctine (like maaaybe IH and UM), whether going mono SM way is better than going soup is still up to debate. Mono SM got better overal with doctrines, but it doesn't mean they are better than soup

 

 

An extra -1 AP is amazing on Imperial Fists, if my Invaders get a devastator doctrine super bonus I'm probably still swapping to tactical on turn 2.

 

[Smirnov]

 

 

If the BT doctrine gets to trigger only on T3+ once the assault Doctrine is active, I think it actually opens up the chapter to soup... Wouldn’t adding some allies possibly outweigh the benefits of going mono-chapter if it can actually give us an edge straight on T1?

To be honest, so far I'm not sold on Doctrines at all. I've been waiting for IF/BT suppliment to start testing, but it seems that barring some major doctine (like maaaybe IH and UM), whether going mono SM way is better than going soup is still up to debate. Mono SM got better overal with doctrines, but it doesn't mean they are better than soup

 

 

An extra -1 AP is amazing on Imperial Fists, if my Invaders get a devastator doctrine super bonus I'm probably still swapping to tactical on turn 2.

Is -1 AP worth, say, 5 extra CP? That's the tradeoff here

I'm waiting to see IF supplement to decide, because if GW sticks with this 'building meaningfully exist' idea, IF tactic has a risk to be meh. But for a time I was contemplating a mixed BT and IF army with boys in yellow sporting agressors and stuff while boys in black doing oldschool swordmurdering. Probably won't happen if BT have their own book though

Edited September 18, 2019 by Smirnov

[Agamemnon_Ilias]

 

 

I like the idea of starting in tactical doctrine. It reflects our penchant for an aggressive advance and makes sense lore wise. As for the discussion on doctrines and soup it really depends on your army structure and who you usually fight. I find the additional AP rarely matters on high AP weapons but if you use a lot of low AP weapons it's a helpful boost. Of course if your main opponents use invuln saves regularly it probably doesn't matter at all. If we can start tactical doctrine, get the 6's auto wound ability as rumored, and crusader squads drop in price as expected then I could see the AP boost being very useful for a black tide list full of chainswords.

If there would be a bonus in the tactical docrine for vehicles it could be. Devastor doctrine is skipped and we start with the tactical and get a bonus for our vehicles (because we dont use as much devastors like other chapters do).

Although we do like tanks. Everyone forgets that we are just as much a mechanised army as a foot slogging or deep striking one.

 

 

Well, there are usually also some people, who tends to see us as drooling 'praise be"-chaniting berserks, who wage war without any second thoughts, despite the fact the 4. edition codex clearly stated that despite our unique way of deployment and hot-headness, we are far from being mindless.

That the Black Templars fighting doctrine is clearly more varied, with a focus on personal combat is mentioned in many publications, like the Badab War.

 

 

The account recorded by the Fire Angels Captain, Tarnus Vale, who fought alongside their forces, however, offers the supposition the Carcharaodons actually follow a very disciplined pattern of order, despite their seeming barbarism, but this was a thing all but impenetrable to outsiders. This distance was only wordened by the taciturn and withrdrawn nature of the Chapter's warriors. Tanus Vale also went on to describe their tactical deployments and use of shock assault as highly reminiscent of those typical of the Black Tempalrs, alongside which Vale had fought earlier in his career. Although the character of the two chapters were as far apart as light and dark, he saw their overriding and implaceable desire to close with the enemy and shatter their foes in bloody personal combat as the same.

(p.117 Imperial Armour, Volume Ten, Badab War - Part Two)

[Lippy]

Photos leaked showing Crimson Fists and Imperial Fist characters in the same supplement, but no templars!

 

Tor Garadon - Primaris Captain - Imperial Fists

Captain Lysander;

Pedro Kantor.

 

Thats all i can see. Am I allowed to show photos here? I doubt it

Edited September 18, 2019 by Lippy

[Acebaur]

Photos leaked showing Crimson Fists and Imperial Fist characters in the same supplement, but no templars!

 

Tor Garadon - Primaris Captain - Imperial Fists

Captain Lysander;

Pedro Kantor.

 

Thats all i can see. Am I allowed to show photos here? I doubt it

 

Yes you are allowed to post photos of leaked content up until the actual book is released. 

[Crimson cowboy]

Valrak about creaming himself over that x3 strength fist lol Edited September 18, 2019 by Crimson cowboy

[Sete]

So the rumour was right.

Since the same source said no Primaris Grim and Hel, we should manage our expectations accordingly.

While this does not confirm that we are in a psychic awakening book, nonetheless it is a strong indication that the rumour might be right.

[Smirnov]

Here's Tor Garadon:

[Marshal Reinhard]

Hmm Interesting powerfist, 3x str and straight up 3 damage. Also first Primaris model armed with a grav weapon, and he's in Gravis at that