Chaos Doctrines: what would you like to see?

[Iron Father Ferrum]

So with Loyalists getting these new Combat Doctrines, there's rampant speculation that similar abilities will percolate throughout the rest of the armies as codices are revisited. And thus my question: how would you like to see this sort of universal bonus system implemented with Chaos Marines?

 

Personally, I want something linked to the different Marks. I was thinking along these lines:

 

"The Winds of Chaos"

At the start of the game, make note of the number of units with each Mark of Chaos to include units with no Mark. Whichever Mark of Chaos has the highest number of Marked units deployed at the beginning of the game dictates which Wind of Chaos is active at the start of the game. At the start of each battle round after the first you can choose which Wind of Chaos is active.

 

The Wind of Strength

- All units are immune to morale. Unmarked units gain the benefit of cover even if they are not in terrain.

 

The Wind of Change

- All psykers add +1 to the casting and deny rolls. Units with the Mark of Tzeentch gain an Invulnerable save of 5+ or +1 to an existing Invulnerable save (to a max of 3+).

 

The Wind of Passion

- All units get an extra point of AP on all their weapons. Units with the Mark of Slaanesh double their Movement stat.

 

The Wind of Rage

- All units receive +1 to Advance and Charge rolls. Units with the Mark of Khorne receive +1 to hit in close combat.

 

The Wind of Plagues

- All units can move and fire Heavy weapons without penalty. Units with the Mark of Nurgle can ignore wounds suffered on a roll of a 6.

 

I've tried to make these varied and flavorful without being ridiculous. What are your thoughts?

[Daemon Prince Marbas]

I like them.

[Prot]

It's a neat idea. 

 

I think since loyalists are using an old Doctrine system, I'd rather see a system Chaos also used to have which would be Mark related. (IE: MoN= +1T)

 

Your system is fun and as you say not too over the top.

 

If it were me, I would reverse the utility of the abilities compared to Loyalists. (which is kind of a thing GW seems to like to do). So loyalists in T1 start with the Dev Doctrine. So in turn 1 I'd like to see the +1" assault power. Although the idea of starting with moral immunity isn't terrible, it would be nice to see something with offensive potency since it's always Chaos' way. 

[Custodian Athiair]

Doubling moving stat is a bit much don't think you think?

GW has been trying to take away much of the alpha strike concept, but if you have Slaanesh wind able to double move stat. You're going to have Raptor Slaanesh armies everywhere.

Turn on 24" move + 7" charge. That's 31" movement, nigh on certain first turn charge.

 

Not to mention bikers, winged DP's, Heldrakes, even Rhino's moving 20" to unload a unit of plasma Chosen in rapid fire range.

Think that is a bit excessive.

 

 

That being said, I like the concept, Marks at the moment don't seem to do much, as a premise (got to pay points for Icons, and strategem use is basically only used by Endless Cacophany) 

[Marshal Loss]

I'd make an effort to avoid redundancy as much as possible (e.g. Havocs get nothing from Wind of Plagues), because the Loyalist ones are good on pretty much everything. I really love your idea to make them god-themed though with a link to the marks - it would be nice to have marks actually mean something again beyond being a keyword. I'll mull it over and see if I can come up with anything.

[Sonoftherubric21]

It's a neat idea. 

 

I think since loyalists are using an old Doctrine system, I'd rather see a system Chaos also used to have which would be Mark related. (IE: MoN= +1T)

 

Your system is fun and as you say not too over the top.

 

If it were me, I would reverse the utility of the abilities compared to Loyalists. (which is kind of a thing GW seems to like to do). So loyalists in T1 start with the Dev Doctrine. So in turn 1 I'd like to see the +1" assault power. Although the idea of starting with moral immunity isn't terrible, it would be nice to see something with offensive potency since it's always Chaos' way. 

 

You read my mind. Instead of "Doctrines" we get "Marks" that *actually matter* beyond stratagems and spell target for keywords. 

 

That is the obvious choice design wise, as they want to differentiate Chaos Marines from the Loyalist variety. 

[Iron_Within]

So while I've vehemently (angrily, bitterly, table-flippingly) for parity between CSM and SM rules to ensure appropriate grudge matches. I actually would not want CSM to have "Doctrines" like those of the Loyalist Space Marines.

 

The reason why, if I think doctrines thematically point towards the unity, hynoconditioning (*cough* Brainwashing *cough*) and trust between SM. CSM have none of that.

 

CSM sacrifice that unity for personal power, for selfish reasons ultimately. They don't trust each other and fight other CSM arguably more than loyalist SM. 

So, for that reason, I'd want CSM to have something different to represent their fractiousness and personal power. The imagery I have in my head is that if SM are broken up by CSM so they have to rely on individual strength, they're doomed, if SM manage to get their overlapping support structures in place, the CSM are doomed. That's a reductive statement for sure, be it gives you a vague idea on the angle that would be the case.

 

So to that end. I'd want to see something more fractious, personally powerful, but limited. Marks would be good, but for pities sake include Undivided again, or introduce it as named something else.

 

I'd call it "Strength of the Damned" and I'd further elaborate on it in Codex supplements, mainly because each Legion/warband is more or less organised than the other, and that should show in supplement buffs. If I put in order how organised each Legion are, I'd go with this order (Bear in mind this is how organised a warband would be, not how united that faction is, though I'd guess that would play a part):

1. Word Bearers
2. Iron Warriors
3. Black Legion
4. Death Guard
5. Night Lords
6. Red Corsairs
7. Thousand Sons
8. Alpha Legion*
9. Renegades**
10. Emperors Children
11. World Eaters

*Alpha Legion are a bit all over the place due to their nature.

**Renegades could be highly organised, being a former chapter, or be a hodge podge of rabble. 

 

Depending on how organised a faction is, would depend on the "Doctrine buffs" they get. Word Bearers would very much focus on combined arms.

 

So yeah, I don't want Doctrines, I want something more representative. 

[Custodian Athiair]

Here's another idea, riffing off of Iron_Within above.

 

I'd like to see the Chaos Boon table not use up Command Points!

That random roll, on the odd occassion you managed to get a character-on-character/monster kill, is one of the most cool and central things about Chaos. The fact we have to use CP to get it now is ridiculous.

 

Maybe our Doctrine could depend on something to do with "glory moments" in games? 

Think the Blood points that Khorne armies get in AoS. Where if you kill an enemy unit you get points to use up for summoning deamons

[BlueBiscuit Raider]

Personally for chaos "doctrines" I'd prefer something taking a page out of 30k and call it the Legion Rite of War, with each Traitor Legion having a different one, and renegades picking from a list similar to the one for loyalist successors.

 

The difference from the doctrines would be that instead of changing across battlerounds you'd pick one (out of 2 maybe) and keep it for the whole game, as legion aren't as tactically flexible as pure codex chapters often are.

[Void Knight]

Possible rule: Slaughter the Weak

 

If a CSM unit charges a unit with a leadership value less than 7, that CSM unit gains +1 attack in that fight phase.

 

CSM would have to have a lot more abilities that debuff Ld, but I could see this making sense in the narrative, with the terrifying appearance of Chaos.

[Custodian Athiair]

Personally for chaos "doctrines" I'd prefer something taking a page out of 30k and call it the Legion Rite of War, with each Traitor Legion having a different one, and renegades picking from a list similar to the one for loyalist successors.

 

The difference from the doctrines would be that instead of changing across battlerounds you'd pick one (out of 2 maybe) and keep it for the whole game, as legion aren't as tactically flexible as pure codex chapters often are.

 

Aren't you just describing Legion traits?

[RapatoR]

While I think that the marks should have more relevancy, I don't think, the staple rule of CSM should be based on them. I mean, the marks are unique, but are far from being the exemplár of fighting style of CSM.

 

Right now, there is multitude of issues tied to the marks. For example:

 

1. There might be individuals in the same squad corrupted by different gods and this is difficult to translate to tabletop.

 

2. Usually, only one mark is viable for particular unit. (Right now it is Khorne for choppy units, Slaanesh for shooty ones and Nurgle and Tzeentch are very situational.)

 

3. The marks tend to incentivize "monogod" armies. (For example, a Tzeentch-marked unit needs marked sorcerer to buff them. But what if one of them is killed? So you take more Tzeentch units/sorcerers, beacause you don't want useless unit running around, or you drop both of them, because you are not going to risk sinking points into this one-trick pony). And while "monogod" warbands exist, the codex shows the "polygod" armies vastly outnumber them.

 

So I would prefer if marks wouldn't play a role in the staple rule of CSM. They should become a unique to characters. After all, the gods wouldn't just mark your average Joe the Pilager or Timothy the Tank. If we really wanted to keep mark-equivalent for units I would choose something less restrictive (and potentially interchangable during the game).

 

One think I want to point put is that the SM codex is not the only book where to search for "trademark" rules. Gemestealer cults have pretty cool trademark rule too. I also remember Robbin Cruddace mentioned Dark Eldar as an example of army with staple rule during the podcast. Also I am pretty sure staple rules were a thing in AoS before 40k (my knowledge in this field is limited, but I know Idoneth Deepkin have such rule).

 

So if we would use these armies as frame of reference we can guess that the staple rule:

 

1. Will/can change as the game progresses or somehow changes the deployment of an army.

2. One of more stratagems will be interacting with it.

3. Should be useful no matter the type of unit you are using.

4. Should exemplify fighting style of the faction (very difficult to represent on tabletop for CSM), yet be useful for a variety of playstyles, from long-range to close combat-oriented.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Does my suggestion not meet every point you made? It can change as needed each turn. There's a current strat that allows you to Mark an unmarked unit. Each "Wind" has a universal effect *and* an additional effect for appropriately Marked units. It supports a variety of fighting styles with benefits to shooting units and choppy units.

[RapatoR]

Does my suggestion not meet every point you made? It can change as needed each turn. There's a current strat that allows you to Mark an unmarked unit. Each "Wind" has a universal effect *and* an additional effect for appropriately Marked units. It supports a variety of fighting styles with benefits to shooting units and choppy units.

Yes it definetly does, however it is based on marks, and the marks as they are have a lot of problems, which I outlined in the post. Also, in my opinion it crunchwise feels as something more suitabke for Chaos Daemons, than CSM.

 

I was further thinking about universals of fighting as CSM and figured two things. The are good at running away and backstabbing each other. However I cannot figure out a rule which would exemplify those traits while giving positive benefits. Perhaps something that would show they have to improvise a lot (sa they frequently operate in hostila territory) would be more suitable? Or something to show fractious nature of their warbands? Maybe something akin to Chaos Knights, where you get rules depending on which type of traitor you choose.

 

Either way, I would prefer something that would have much higher risk/reward ratio (but not in the way the old Daemon Weapon or Chaos Boon rules were). If you are familiar with the card game Hearthstone, the Warlock class would be good example.

[Midnight Brotherhood]

I don't think we'll see doctrines as such as others have mentioned before as they are routed in following the codex astartes. I do think GW will head in the direction of all of our power coming from a mix of legion tactics and powers from the Dark gods as we're starting to see more of now (sorry you hardcore purists).

 

I'd like to see a resource system similar to the depravity point system hedonites of slaanesh have in age of sigmar. A way to accrue 'Dark Glory' points or some such by actions we do on the table (e.g make a successful charge, destroy an enemy units, cause an enemy to fail a morale check etc) and then we can spend those dark glory points on immediate in game buffs, blessings from the Dark god/your chosen God.

[Lucerne]

I don't think we'll see doctrines as such as others have mentioned before as they are routed in following the codex astartes. I do think GW will head in the direction of all of our power coming from a mix of legion tactics and powers from the Dark gods as we're starting to see more of now (sorry you hardcore purists).

 

I'd like to see a resource system similar to the depravity point system hedonites of slaanesh have in age of sigmar. A way to accrue 'Dark Glory' points or some such by actions we do on the table (e.g make a successful charge, destroy an enemy units, cause an enemy to fail a morale check etc) and then we can spend those dark glory points on immediate in game buffs, blessings from the Dark god/your chosen God.

At this point, it rather does look like the Night Lord purists and Alpha Legion may well want to think about defecting back to the loyalist...rulesets. God-whispering is all very well and good for the Word Bearers and Black Legion and assorted rabble, but it just doesn't mesh too well with the less pious and (in the case of the 20th) infamously disciplined Legions.

[Excessus]

IF (unlikely, but still) we get doctrines of some sort, I doubt they'd be in the same "style" as the loyalist ones.

They fight more regimented than us and it fits their style.

However, I like the idea of the "rites of war", with the possibility of making close combat IW, long range NL and such...

[MegaVolt87]

I would just have a wind for each god, would cut that wind of strength. Loyalists have three docrrines, five is too many four would be better for us.

[Iron_Within]

I think one of the things folks are missing about Doctrines is that while powerful, they are actually highly restrictive in how they are used; which I think is fantastic as it organically emphasises that rigid organisational doctrines of the Loyalist lapdogs of a corpse on a chair *ahem* I mean "Space Marines".

 

Chaos Space Marines are more.... well, chaotic. Thematically, they could be a ragtag bunch of raiders, a phallanx choir shouting prayers to the dark gods in unison, an infiltration cell, a band close to a Grand Battalion of old or a new warband of reborn sons that took the black. 

 

On unifying element though through all the incarnations of the forces of CSM is that they are defined by their leader. Iron Warriors under the "Warsmith" in the book Storm of Iron, were very much still a Legion Grand Company of old, with major corrupting elements. That same force under Honsou changed dramatically, becoming a horde of mutants, monsters and daemons with a core of Iron Warriors increasingly bitter that their way of war was pushed out. The thing is though, both were Iron Warriors, both on the table top would use Legion traits but they would function differently. The same is true of the Night Lords of ADB books, how to behaved changed as their leader changed. 

 

Now one could argue that could be represented solely on the tabletop by your Warlord, however I think it goes deeper than that. CSM warbands are very much cults of personality of one form or another.

 

So with that in mind. I would say that instead of Doctrines, you have a set of idiosyncrasies of each band to choose from, that are available to all legions/factions. These would be broad strokes, so for example "Cult", "True Believers', "Reavers", "Echoes of Old"; each of these would apply to the army and would lead to certain advantages and perhaps restrictions/disadvantages. In essence I'd view them more akin to the Chaos Knights table, but you'd choose from sets. This way you can represent on the table top an Emperors Children warband that refuses to let go of the past and tries to ape the Legion it was (save with Noise Marines etc.) along with a pure cult of hedonistic madmen and then a religious church to Slaanesh, each would have its own advantages.

In addition to that, each faction would have further idiosyncrasies where they favour one element over another e.g. Word Bearers would favour "True Believers". There would be clear overlap betwen options so other options are not losing out.

[techsoldaten]

I don't think CSMs will ever get doctrines. Would be happy to be wrong on this one.

 

Benefits from Marks of Chaos or army-wide Legion Traits would be more likely.

[Aothaine]

I don't want doctrines. I want blessings of the gods that take effect when you do something in the game.

 

Say your sorcerer manifests a power. He can take any of the points away from the total that he wants but the roll still need to be a minimum to pass and hold those in reserve. They have to be used on the next power he manifests. 

 

Masters of the Winds of Change: Ex. You roll a 5 and a 4 totalling 9. You only need a 5 for the power. You can take 4 of those points and hold them in reserve for the next power.

 

Carnage Incarnate: For every enemy model slain by your chosen character model roll a dice. Gain a boon of chaos for each roll of 6 or a curse for every 1 rolled. The curses would be boons with a penalty but the boons would be just beneficial. 

 

Ex. Curse: Berserker's Rage: Gain +3 Atks and -1 WS to a minimum of WS 2

Ex. Boon: Blessed by Nurgle: Gain +1T and 5+ FNP

[Hathor42]

Look to the fabled 3.5 codex! But back then you had to pay for all your upgrades but could mix and match them between units. 

[Wolf Lord Loki]

I think an Undivided mark would be useful for those squads you want with mixed or less dedicated worship of a particular god

 

What if you had God Marks trigger an effect in similarly Marked units and Undivided units could benefit if they are within 6" of a unit with 10wounds or more or 3"if its less?

 

That would make an Undivided unit worth taking as you can 'share' traits but only if you take enough to trigger it

[Kain Mor]

I wouldn’t mind some love for the less fanatic legions as well, like Night Lords and Alpha Legion

[Aothaine]

I wouldn’t mind some love for the less fanatic legions as well, like Night Lords and Alpha Legion

 

With how GW is handling all of the loyalist chapters I would be really surprised if Chaos Space Marines did not get the same treatment. I mean hell... White Scars got their own supplement.