Is enhancing through traits/doctrines optimal?

[Subtleknife]

The more I have been thinking about it the more I think GW went about it the wrong way. At the start of 8th edition, RG was really powerful. What made him powerful I believe is he gave an army wide buff (if you were within the bubble). This would make units that on there own not great suddenly lethal. Similarly, doctrines and chapter traits provide an army wide buff which enhance all units in the Army. This strikes me again as a very ham fisted way of buffing units. I think the better way to approach this would have been supplements alter specific units not the whole army. This way, if a unit is too powerful you can alter its points specifically for that supplement/codex or alter that specific rule for the unit. This could be combined with an increased number of unique stratagems. Right now, let say hypothetically IH "calculated fury" makes leviathans too powerful, you cant simply balance it by a points increase because then you effect leviathans in other supplements which might be perfectly balanced.

 

What do other people think, how would you have made supplements unique whilst making it easier to balance? Or is it fine as it is?

Edited January 27, 2020 by Subtleknife

[War Angel]

Well, the issue is FW is overpowered anyway

[The Unseen]

No. It really isn't, and it would be nice if you would post something actually helpful and on topic.

 

And it's mostly fine.

There are a couple units that a supplement breaks, but you'll notice that it's almost entirely IH causing the problems.

Who would've thought stacking 4 or 5 stellar buffs on an already solid unit would make them too good?

Idk, anyone with half a brain.

 

Since this is definitely about the Levi, since its the only FW marine unit that is worth mentioning competitively.

It isn't the Levi, it's the fact that iron hands can turn a single vehicle into an unkillable brick, and the leviathan just happens to be the biggest shootiest unit they can do it too.

Which led them being reaction-nerfed once already, and if they manage to hold that 60+ percent win rate across the board, it'll probably happen again.

 

The only thing I would change is mitigating IH and IF super docteines from working turn 1, I'd have put them both in tactical doctrine, to showcase how despite supposedly moving to the short range firefights, both of those chapters still rely heavily on heavy weapons.

So they can either have the extra AP on their heavies, or the other buffs, but not both at once.

As is, their absolutely the strongest partially because they never have to wait for their rules to kick in and can go ham turn 1.

[Subtleknife]

But do you not think it us a lazy way of buffing a chapter. The better approach would surely to have amended specific units?

[War Angel]

Yes, it is. Many stores won’t let you use them for that fact. “Turn off these two chapters traits from working turn one to fix my precious dreadnaught”. Isn’t going to help. The best solution would be to have them written in the same codex so it’s being done by the same team.

 

You can’t fix one thing by nerfing the players who don’t use your rules.

[War Angel]

Your joking right? Do you know how much stronger imperial fist would be if they could use their doctrine in the tactical phase? Devistator phase sucks no one needs ap 4 meltas, but ap 1 bolters turn off so many horde armys.

[Hymnblade]

It's always been a bad idea, and is still a bad idea in 8e. Units are designed and priced based on their abilities. There is no possible way to make a unit balanced when it does wildly different things for each chapter, yet costs the same amount.

 

The issue isn't remotely limited to FW units, nor to things that are currently OP. Even your basic LasPlas tactical squad is much better for a Stealthy/Master Artisans chapter than for another chapter.

 

It gets worse when the free bonuses are written after the codex was, and so the units can't even be designed to account for it. White Scars are now notable for their Assault Centurions instead of their bikes, and the Iron Hands who are supposed to be slow and methodical have the best planes and speeders. That's diametrically backwards.

[War Angel]

I don’t think they wrote the supplements after the codex, they just waited on the release. I think they didn’t play test properly and try to break the rules they made. They probably only play tested white scars with bikes and speeders, so they didn’t see the issues with centurions. But I think that issue comes more from the fact that bikes and speeders have yet to be updated.

[Claws and Effect]

Raven Guard get the most out of Assault Centurions at the moment, more even than White Scars. Which is weird for a stealthy Chapter.

 

It wouldn't be fair to nerf a unit that only 2 Chapters really get any mileage out of.

 

And I'll be annoyed if my twin grav flux Leviathan gets even more expensive because it's so much better for Iron Hands than for me.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Claws and Effect

[Raktra]

Your joking right? Do you know how much stronger imperial fist would be if they could use their doctrine in the tactical phase? Devistator phase sucks no one needs ap 4 meltas, but ap 1 bolters turn off so many horde armys.

You realise nobody sits in the Dev doctrine to boost already silly high-AP guns, right? Thunderfires, autocannons, stalker boltguns, Predator cannons, assault cannons, onslaught cannons, ironhails, etc etc etc...

[Djangomatic82]

I'm not a fan of Doctrines in general. Its bad design to have blanket buffs that dont have very specific requirment or restrictions.  That every weapon of type X is buffed while in X doctrine is obviously going to create a situation where one or two units or weapon types will be over powered.  Look at the chapters that arent being an issue, like Slaamnders, White Scars and RG. their bonus's have clear and restrictive parameters that benefit only a small subset of their units. Imperial Fists, Ultra Marine and Iron Hands doctrines buff a much larger section of their total units in comparison.

I'de be fine if they dropped doctrines totally and reworked the super doctrines into one use additions to the Chapter Tactics.

Also, it seems like doctrines were their attempt to reward pure lists. If they took that away, i dont know what they could do to accomplish that, hopefully something not tied to direct damage dealing instead.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Djangomatic82

[War Angel]

 

Your joking right? Do you know how much stronger imperial fist would be if they could use their doctrine in the tactical phase? Devistator phase sucks no one needs ap 4 meltas, but ap 1 bolters turn off so many horde armys.

You realise nobody sits in the Dev doctrine to boost already silly high-AP guns, right? Thunderfires, autocannons, stalker boltguns, Predator cannons, assault cannons, onslaught cannons, ironhails, etc etc etc...

 

That’s what I said

[Marshal van Trapp]

I'm not a fan of Doctrines in general. Its bad design to have blanket buffs that dont have very specific requirment or restrictions. That every weapon of type X is buffed while in X doctrine is obviously going to create a situation where one or two units or weapon types will be over powered. Look at the chapters that arent being an issue, like Slaamnders, White Scars and RG. their bonus's have clear and restrictive parameters that benefit only a small subset of their units. Imperial Fists, Ultra Marine and Iron Hands doctrines buff a much larger section of their total units in comparison.

I'de be fine if they dropped doctrines totally and reworked the super doctrines into one use additions to the Chapter Tactics.

Also, it seems like doctrines were their attempt to reward pure lists. If they took that away, i dont know what they could do to accomplish that, hopefully something not tied to direct damage dealing instead.

Same thing goes for Black Templar, thier doctrine buff is so specific its almost impossible to get an entire army to be able to benefit from it, and they have chapter specific units! I've even considered souping some SoB into my templars for extra CP and more Denial and Firepower because their doctrine buff is weak and having an extra -1 ap for doctrines is so weak that I'd rather just have extra CP from soup.

 

In short, traits are ok but they need to all be balanced with one another, doctrine bonuses are the worst offenders and they need some kind of looking at because the power level of them is wildly variable

[Raktra]

 

 

Your joking right? Do you know how much stronger imperial fist would be if they could use their doctrine in the tactical phase? Devistator phase sucks no one needs ap 4 meltas, but ap 1 bolters turn off so many horde armys.

You realise nobody sits in the Dev doctrine to boost already silly high-AP guns, right? Thunderfires, autocannons, stalker boltguns, Predator cannons, assault cannons, onslaught cannons, ironhails, etc etc etc...

 

That’s what I said

Ah yes, “Devastator phase sucks” really said that.

[War Angel]

 

 

 

Your joking right? Do you know how much stronger imperial fist would be if they could use their doctrine in the tactical phase? Devistator phase sucks no one needs ap 4 meltas, but ap 1 bolters turn off so many horde armys.

You realise nobody sits in the Dev doctrine to boost already silly high-AP guns, right? Thunderfires, autocannons, stalker boltguns, Predator cannons, assault cannons, onslaught cannons, ironhails, etc etc etc...

 

That’s what I said

Ah yes, “Devastator phase sucks” really said that.

Imperial fist bonus in the dev doctrine gives them a bonus against vehicles and buildings. Low strength weapons like the ones you listed are just fishing for wounds against high toughness vehicles. It would be even better if imperial fist could do bonus damage to vehicles while in the tactical doctrine.

[Hymnblade]

War Angel, it is not true that those weapons are poor against vehicles, even with just S4-5. When you have sixty D3 stalker rifles with Tank Hunters, and D2 HB Centurions with Seismic Devastation, you basically don't need any dedicated anti-tank guns. The Intercessors alone will put down a Land Raider without even counting rerolls or stratagems, and on t7 vehicles they're even more dangerous. That's the beauty of IF: spamming bolters works for everything.

 

If IF heavy weapons did bonus damage in the tactical doctrine, you'd have to choose between high-AP heavy bolters and high-damage heavy bolters, and either way you'd deal less damage turn 1. It's hard to see how this would be a net buff.

[The Unseen]

That's great hymblade, until you run against the many factions that don't have anything with the VEHICLE keyword, and you have a bunch of bolters trying to kill riptides. IF can get by with LESS dedicated anti-tank, but they have to bring some stuff that can actually damage stuff like Wave Serpents, Hive Tyrants, Riptides, etc. So anyone running IF with just spammed bolter weapons is playing a spoiler list. Its a strong spoiler list, because it can kill hordes AND vehicles, but it can't deal with stuff like chaos soup or tau at all. Though thinking about it probably would be a buff for IF, because then they get -1 ap on all their bolters. But that's a less substantial concern than IH, because IF aren't sitting at a 60+% win rate across the board.

 

And yeah, the idea was that if IH had to choose between harder hitting heavy weapons, and mobile accurate heavy weapons, you perhaps wouldn't see them hang out in Dev doctrine all game, while heavily reducing their turn 1 ability to just move anywhere they want. still get rerolls and shoot without penalty, and murder you.

it should've been less powerful and/or niche like the IF one, or not be active turn 1. They have the most mechanically powerful offensive super doctrine, and it also is always on.

 

And no, I don't think it was lazy at all Subtleknife, the whole point of the doctrines is that when well written, like most of them are, they buff units that feel right for the chapter. There are exceptions of course, like Raven Guard and assault centurions, but that's actually a strat, not a super doctrine that really makes them good, and if drop pods could hold assault cents and weren't ridiculously overpriced I'm sure other people would be using them too.

But, continuing the example, snipers and assassin style melee units are super scary for Ravenguard, which fits them to a t. Imperial Fists get to make a wall of bolter fire that can kill almost anything, which is again, pretty damn fluffy for the sons of Dorn. Ultras get a medium power buff that applies to literally almost every unit in the codex but doesn't buff any one unit a whole lot, which fits perfectly for a chapter thats supposedly all about being adaptable. Scars and Templars super doctrines are decent and fluffy, except they don't kick in till turn 3, so in a lot of games they're basically non-factors, and only one of them got powerful strats to make up for that shortcoming, and the other didn't.

 

If you think it was so lazy, feel free to imagine how much WORK would have to go into rebalancing every single space marine units points for every supplement, and then realize the amount of hate you would get for people not being able to remember how much this unit costs for each chapter. No thanks. Doctrines could use some improvements and tweaks, but the core idea is solid.

Edit: Realized I had totally forgotten the Sallies super doctrine, and then went and read it and realized why I had forgotten. What a complete let-down that is. If flamers and to a lesser extent melta wasn't awful in 8th, that might have been a solid buff. Pretty bad when one of the most powerful buffs in the game still isn't enough to make bad guns worth bringing. So there's your dud, but I don't feel like the rule itself is the problem. If flamers had a 12" range and did 2 or 3 d3 hits instead of flat d6, they might be worth bringing in some situations, and Sallies would make them really scary. So rule is fine in a vacuum, but in context it doesn't do enough.

Edited January 29, 2020 by The Unseen

[Closet Skeleton]

Look at the chapters that arent being an issue, like Slaamnders, White Scars and RG. their bonus's have clear and restrictive parameters that benefit only a small subset of their units. Imperial Fists, Ultra Marine and Iron Hands doctrines buff a much larger section of their total units in comparison.

 

RG is the second most powerful supplement after Iron Hands because of their infiltration stratagems. Ultra Marines have the best doctrine for applicability and aren't considered a great supplement.

 

My IF successors are Primaris and infantry based and the IF doctrine is very hard to actually make use of for me. Iron Hands have to really tweak their lists to make the most use of their doctrine (hence the flyer spam).

[Ishagu]

Forgeworld is not a problem.

 

We need to stop making blanket statements like this as they don't help to fix issues. There was a time when the Castellan, a plastic GW kit, was the biggest bane to the balance of the game.

There are individual units and rules that may need some form of adjustments.

[Morticon]

No. It really isn't, and it would be nice if you would post something actually helpful and on topic.

 

 

Comments like this are not necessary, nor do they contribute to a positive board environment or show an engagement in good faith. 

 

Try shape it up, mate - irrespective of your disagreement. 

[Dracos]

Warlords have Traits , Chapters have Doctrines and Stratagems. I think some of the language is getting accidentally twisted around and we are slightly off topic in some cases .... that is unless we are opening the discussion to all of those aspects .... in which case I also suggest including Special characters to the analysis. Some are better than others. Even at LVO it was a Forge World character that made it to the Top Table and not the Founding Chapters Chapter Master.

 

I also feel I might be better to speak in more specific detail. If we are to help each other maybe looking to suggest to others what units are particularly effective (some might say too effective) with a particular Chapter.

 

For example:

- Raven Guatd and Eliminators

- Iron Hands and Leviathans

- White Scars and Centurions

 

Etc.

[Djangomatic82]

Warlords have Traits , Chapters have Doctrines and Stratagems. I think some of the language is getting accidentally twisted around and we are slightly off topic in some cases .... that is unless we are opening the discussion to all of those aspects .... in which case I also suggest including Special characters to the analysis. Some are better than others. Even at LVO it was a Forge World character that made it to the Top Table and not the Founding Chapters Chapter Master.

 

I also feel I might be better to speak in more specific detail. If we are to help each other maybe looking to suggest to others what units are particularly effective (some might say too effective) with a particular Chapter.

 

For example:

- Raven Guatd and Eliminators

- Iron Hands and Leviathans

- White Scars and Centurions

 

Etc.

This is probably the best way to go about it, be specific as possible.

One question i have though is, if we removed the Ap benefit granted for each respective Doctrine, how many of those units listed and the ones you dont, IE: Thunderfire Cannons, Relic Whirlwind Scorpius's and Rapier Carrier's with Quad Mortars, etc....would continue to be an issue?

EDIT: you might want to add Imperial Fist devastator centurians with hurricane bolters and heavy bolters and Intercessor Stalker Bolt Rifles to your list as well. D2 bolters are a little too good and should prob only be on natural wound rolls of 6 instead of restrictionless.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Djangomatic82

[War Angel]

Imperial fist is already situational enough as it is. You want it to only work a 6th if the time too?

[Djangomatic82]

Imperial fist is already situational enough as it is. You want it to only work a 6th if the time too?

considering their over representation , yeah, their super doctrine needs to be looked at.  If Iron hands suddenly were no longer an issue, I'm sure IF would simply slot into their position, not to mention the chilling affect they have on vehicle adoption. Just because IF are not as overpowered against infantry, doesn't mean their over performance against vehicles is not an issue.

[Dracos]

A good list is easily much larger. Mine are just most obvious currently :)

 

There is a whole science to game design that most of us only know tangentially. It’s fun to discuss and help educate each other but anything less productive or friendly is silly bickering over toys. :)

 

Expensive toys but still ;)