Balancing Doctrines

[Aothaine]

So doctrines are pretty damn awesome. I was thinking about this the other night and almost didn't post it today. What if Doctrines were automatically cycled and you could not stay in a specific doctrine? I think that would force more of a mixed army as people would want to build for all phases of the game, at least with space marines. Does anyone think this could help? Maybe have a strat that would allow you to spend CP to stay in the current doctrine? 

 

Example:

 

Turn 1: Always Dev Doctrine

Turn 2: Stay in Dev Doctrine for 2 CP or switch to Tactical Doctrine

Turn 3: Stay in Dev Doctrine for 3 CP or Tactical Doctrine for 2 CP or switch to Assault Doctrine

Turn 4: Stay in Dev Doctrine ...

 

If you switch to a new doctrine or if you are in Assault Doctrine you spend 0 CP. I personally think this could help a lot in forcing a balanced list which I think is super important to keeping the game fun. You have the option to stay in Dev Doctrine but it will cost command points which makes sense to me as your commander is having to re position his army to stay at range. 

 

Anyway, what does everyone think about this?

[Brom MKIV]

I think I am actually in the camp of doctrines being potentially unbalancing, at least for certain chapters/lists. However that said I don't think that this proposal would be a positive change. it seems more targeted at the devastator doctine chapters. This would be disincentive to build to a chapters strengths and chapters such as RG which I play or even WS which isn't active until turn 3 anyway would say why bother. Then theres ultras who are specifically designed to play with the doctrine clock. 

 

If anything maybe the clock could start 1 turn out for each chapter, so for example WS would start in tactical, IH in assault etc.. IF there is found to actually be a need to nerf anything. Which I'm not convinced there is yet.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Brom MKIV

[Aothaine]

I think I am actually in the camp of doctrines being potentially unbalancing, at least for certain chapters/lists. However that said I don't think that this proposal would be a positive change. it seems more targeted at the devastator doctine chapters. This would be disincentive to build to a chapters strengths and chapters such as RG which I play or even WS which isn't active until turn 3 anyway would say why bother. Then theres ultras who are specifically designed to play with the doctrine clock. 

 

If anything maybe the clock could start 1 turn out for each chapter, so for example WS would start in tactical, IH in assault etc.. IF there is found to actually be a need to nerf anything. Which I'm not convinced there is yet.

 

Ahhh good point. I suppose it would take away freedom to play the game how you enjoy playing it. Maybe just make the doctrines available to every army? I suppose we'll see how GW plans on working around this doctrine system in the coming months. It is indeed powerful. But if every army gets something similar it could really spice things up.

[Brom MKIV]

Super doctrines probably shouldn't be available to anyone from turn 1. Otoh turn 3 is too late.

Either way doctrines won't be that easy to balance but I hope power creep is not what they try to accomplish balance.

[Lord_Caerolion]

I don't think there's anything inherently unbalancing about Doctrines, the Marines did need something after their unique gimmick was taken and used for every army. Can't really comment on how overpowered they are, not really being too much of an actual gamer myself at the moment.

[Dracos]

They need to introduce a (Primaris :)) unit that is strong enough in assault that it becomes difficult to choose to stay in an earlier doctrine or have a strategic plan for using that unit come T3.  

 

I think it was suppose to make Terminators, Vanguard Vets, etc more deadly but it seems the meta hasnt meet expectations

[Volt]

My problem with doctrines is that they way they progress is completely useless for some armies. If you have an assault heavy army like Black Templars, you are probably looking to get stuck in turn 1 or turn 2, not turn 3 when your assault troops have been shot to pieces. It's just not useful and would be more functional if  you could choose the progression of doctrines. It makes me wonder how GW even thinks marines play competitively or even casually as I don't know that many people who don't just spam dreadnoughts that like to loiter around in devastator/tactical phases.

[Brom MKIV]

The pivotal turn should be turn 2. Building around first turn is too easy/reliable and 3rd turn too unreliable possibly near worthless.

As another poster said elsewhere allow the army to choose which doctrine to start in- starting from turn 2 on.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I have had games with my Smurfs I stayed in the heavy doctrine all game. It really depends on the army build and mission parameters. We can’t assume for example that Iron Hands will be all heavy weapons.

[Pandaemonium]

I'm by no means a competitive player, but the ability to easily camp a doctrine seems like too much of an advantage and other chapters are punished by having a favored doctrine they can't access until turn 3. Forced progression through the doctrines would alleviate this, but I'd also like to see a once per game stratagem added which allows the player to either:

1. Retain your doctrine from the previous battle round, i.e. if you were in tactical doctrine on turn 2, you could keep tactical doctrine active instead of assault on turn 3. The doctrine cycle continues as normal with assault doctrine being active on turn 4.
2. Skip the doctrine you are supposed to automatically rotate into, i.e. turn 2 tactical doctrine is skipped over for a turn 2 assault doctrine. The doctrine cycle then continues as normal with devastator doctrine being active on turn 3. You could also skip turn 1 devastator doctrine to start with tactical, but still get to assault doctrine on turn 2.

However, I'm sure there are many consequences I haven't thought out and I'm only a non-competitive player who recently returned to the hobby.

[Lord_Caerolion]

The only issue with forced progression that is it means the Devastator/Tactical Doctrine Chapters are somewhat penalized, getting the benefit for a single turn each before they progress beyond it, or they're forced to spend numerous Command Points in an infamously CP-hungry faction. I like the idea of no Doctrine in Turn 1, but being able to select the starting Doctrine in Turn 2. Maybe remove the chain of Devastator-Tactical-Assault as well, if this is done?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’d prefer not to see any changes. I play smurfs so it’s not a big deal for me but I think it would be unfair for factions such as Imperial Fists and Iron Hands even if a player always wants to remain in the heavy doctrine.

[chapter master 454]

I do think there needs to be some help for those that use assault doctrine because...well if you build around it then very often assault doctrine arrives and is late to the party. However every assault doctrine army having "skip doctrine" as a stratagem would be a bit odd and by all accounts the only faction with doctrine manipulation is the only one that really doesn't care about it (Ultramarines due to getting theirs turn 2 where really it lands at the right time).

 

The issue is that anything that is assault based will never really be what the doctrines boost which is hard hitting units by often those sort of units have gone in, done their thing or been wiped out by 2-3 turns of shooting. Really, assault doctrine is only good when you have done everything else you can and fights are now getting scrappy (and even then it depends on what is happening).

 

To be honest, I think adding a "skip" mechanic for doctrines would likely help even if for 2CP. White Scars want their charge to hit from the get go, not the turn after it actually mattered.

 

It really is quite polarising. Because the flip side is the turn 1 benefits are so strong to build around because you can get them from the get go for your alpha strike they feel really good...it really is a puzzle.

[Sloeberjong]

Why not do it kinda like Deathwatch? You pick a doctrine at start and it'll stay that way unless you spend CP to change it. It could've been a pretty good WT to be able to change it every turn.

[Guest MistaGav]

What about if you can pick which doctrine you start with at the beginning of the game but then each turn you have to roll a D6 to see if you have to switch. That D6 roll goes up each turn so 4+, 5+ 6+ etc.

[TrawlingCleaner]

The only other faction that has somethign similar to Doctrines (that I can think of)are the Dark Eldar, each turn their table increases with small buffs that slowly snowball to make the whole army very good. Doctrines are different as they provide great army wide buffs straight off the bat which by themselves are not an issue, really in the grand scheme of things the doctrines are passable often making little to no difference. The problem comes in with the super doctrines and the imbalance of everyone not strating in their super doctrine. IF and IH are the best examples of this because they start in their super doctrine and have incredible alpha strike because of it. I think doctrines should be chosen, i.e I want to start in Assault etc,  this evens the board for everyone at this point. I think what could also be interesting is if you had to choose which doctrine you wanted to use each turn BEFORE the game starts. I.E.: I want to have Heavy for Turn 1 and 2, Tactical for Turn 3 and Assault for the rest. It's a gambit that if you don't pull off can ruin your plans but adds an element of tactics to it rather than picking and choosing when to progress as things happen

 

Core faction rules should not rely on luck IMO.

[Slasher956]

Another way of doing it is to have a number of doctrine cards (default 2 of each) in a deck.  Then at the start of the battle round you play a doctrine card which is in effect for that battle round only.  Once a card has been played you cant replay that card.  You can at the start of the game, before battle round 1 play a  once only strategem* to change one of the doctrine cards out for another doctrine so you could have 3 of Tactical and 1 assault.

 

You can then have either pick the card you want to play or shuffel the deck and draw at random

 

In games that are random turn length if you run out of doctrine cards you stay in the last doctrine played.

 

*or you could have increasing CP costs for every time you use it... so 2 CP if you use it once then 3 CP to use it a 2nd time (so 5 in total)

Edited November 8, 2019 by Slasher956

[Ishagu]

Doctrines are rules just like any other; some are too powerful, others are fine. There should be no blanket nerf to them, or rule change that affects them all.

Each should be considered on a case by case basis.

 

In fact I am now of the opinion that no further rule changes should take place beyond a few individual modifications here and there.

 

All of this might be irrelevant in 6-8 months time anyways.

[emperorpants]

The doctrines are fine for the most part.  The only one that is somewhat unbalanced is IH's, but with the other nerfs to IH I think it balances out somewhat, so it doesn't really need a change IMO.  As far as the others:

 

- The Ultramarines doctrine is powerful...but doesn't activate until turn 2 and is balanced by lackluster Ultra specific strats.

- The white scars doctrine is powerful...but isn't active until turn 3.  White scars have great strats to balance this.

- The Raven guard doctrine is situational and isn't active until turn 2...but they have great strats and abilities to balance this as well.

- The Salamanders doctrine is situational and not as useful...but is balanced by great strats and abilities as well.

- The IF doctrine is powerful and active turn 1...but is useless against several armies.

 

Honestly, I think things are fine as is.  If people are worried about balance, I'd think looking at the strats would be the place to look, as they can allow for much more powerful tricks than the doctrines for the most part.  However, other than perhaps changing the Salamanders strat for hiding everyone behind a troop choice and maybe giving ultra's one more at least decent strat, I think that the strats are fine as well.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Smurfs have some great strats don’t really know what yer talking bout.

[emperorpants]

Smurfs have some great strats don’t really know what yer talking bout.

They have some decent situational strats.  In comparison to the other supplements they are pretty lackluster.  Most of the strats are fairly reactive.  Are they bad?  Well, some of them, but obviously not all.  Plus 1 leadership springs to mind.  The ones that are decent to good are the Tau overwatch, the re deploy, and the fall back, shoot, and still charge one.  Also the picking a doctrine for an infantry or biker unit is decent.  I'd hesitate to call any of them great.  They have uses, but honestly, I find the strats in the core book to be much more useful in general.

[Brom MKIV]

Don't forget squad doctines. That thing is a hidden gem. 

[emperorpants]

Don't forget squad doctines. That thing is a hidden gem. 

Yup, I mentioned that one as decent, just couldn't remember the name of it off hand and was too lazy to look it up.  lol.  I can see a case for it being bumped up to good instead of decent.  It can have an impact.

[Aothaine]

Want to thank everyone for keeping it civil in here. :D 

 

I was really curious about what others might think about doctrines and I don't want them nerfed. 

 

Again, thank you everyone for the ideas! :D I imagine we'll see a update that gives a universal stratagem people to jump to a doctrine they want for a unit in the future. 

[Schlitzaf]

I think we have two conflicting issues;

1) Assault Doctrine comes too late

2) Devi Doctrine is too “early”

 

The basic fix to the latter is forcing rotation. But doesn’t fix the former, but fixing the former (by skipping tactical) is almost a contradiction of trying to fix the second issue. Which I think is as an issue brings us to the matter at hand.

 

Doctrines help Gunline marines (Devi) either by removing line out of gunline (notably Iron Hand but also Ultra (Tactical)) or increasing Alpha (Imperial Fist). They help “Firefighting” Marines by enabling gunlining (move and shooting; Salamanders and Ultramarines) either by increasing your raw output (+1 to wound) of close range weapons of highly relevant types the turn you want too (turn 2 close range weapons like Flamers and Melta will get in range) or by removing disincentive of role confusion (Tacticals w/HvyWeapon and BoltRifle Intercesor) both want to get in close to make full utilization of their statlines, but the former would suffer -1 to hit the and latter would lose Bolter Discpiline.

 

IF whose rules moslty favor tactical (Bolt Weapons by and large Rapid or Assault) can crack open Transports t1 to get to juicy contents t2. And having multidamage aids with that, Espacially sense “no cover” makes prepared positions :( espacially when the latter makes many 6+ on tanks to 5+. A preemptive negation of 2CP.

 

But Assault Doctrine/Melee Fun Doctrines? So first well you got to get to turn 3 with viable melee in case of Scars and Templars (if Templar’s doctrine is true). While for Ravengaurd you have to use Snipers or remove the chaff around the character to shoot. The first tend to be heavy so :( synergy with Tactical, the second is difficult to say the least and by that point you could just kill character w/o fun rules. While you do get the t2 benefit for your guys in melee, but unless you are melee’ing a knight +1 hit/wound is overkill for most infantry level characters.

 

And for Monster/Knight level threats, it does help considerably but given those threats are due to how marine book work best met with captains in melee (Hammer, Teeth or Burning Blade), two of the three options already hit on 2’s and only benefit from half relavent options. The first goes back to 2’s and wounds now on 3’s, with the other wounding on’s 4’s or 3’s.

 

And your not actually using the tactical part of the doctrine you just need to be in that part. That is my 2 cents. Basically doctrines help the Shooty marines shoot, but for marines who want to be up close, the benefits are just not there.

 

White Scars multidamage helps vs monsters and vehicles, multiwound infantry, but really only for units using Chainsword/Fist Punch. Because for sake of example if something 2 damage base, vs 7-8 wounds is 4 wounds vs 3 wounds. 9 wounds the difference is most in favor with 5 vs 3. But then at 10 is 5 v 4. With highly numbers 14-21 being 7-11 vs 5-7. Only really at 20+ does the extra damage really shine.

 

3 damage vs 4, is similar issue basically functionally reducing wounds needed by 1. If it was active earlier you could save points by reducing points spent on multidamage required weaponry on characters. The largest issue however is that your regular infantry unless you have your dudebros charging tanks or monster want to kill it (but something espacially the former you generally really want to do earlier) or something like possessed/Wulfen/Sang/etc. The extra damage is essentially pointless it’s nice but doesn’t do anything.

 

Templar’s rumored assault doctrine is something that is nice and relavent for a large variety of units given auto wounding hits is something lowly Initaites to characters all want. But it comes late. And likely most of your units are :(. But of the three “melee” doctrines, Scars and Templars espacially over Raven, it is only one of the 3 which is relevant for the weapons you want to use in said doctrine (Melee), and is one relavent for every unjt.