FAQ Doctrine Change (Feb 2020)

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I'm preemptively creating a thread top discuss the effects on list building and playstyle due to the Combat Doctrine change in the Feb 2020 Errata.

 

Feel free to express your reaction to this change, but let's keep the salt to a minimum please.

 

Link to FAQ: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/02/27/space-marines-rules-update-february-2020/

 

Summary of change:

 

Begin in Dev Doctrine.

Turn 2 must change to Tac Doctrine.

Turn 3 choose Tac or Assault Doctrine.

Turn 4+ must be in Assault Doctrine.

 

Adaptive Strategy stratagem deleted.

 

Duty Eternal changed to reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1, does not stack with Ironstone.

 

Cogitated Martyrdom can only be used to protect non-VEHICLES.

 

Discuss.

 

 

Edit: forget the CM change.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Iron Father Ferrum

[TrawlingCleaner]

I'm glad that they made these changes IMO, they were all needed as were the changes to Cogitated Martydom (https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/22137816.pdf).

 

All of this was unhealthy for the meta and hopefully now IH players can look at other options other than filling the list with heavy weapons (I'm totally guilty of this and never changing out of the Dev doctrine and this was one of the reasons why I put my IH army to the side for a while)

[Ahzek451]

I suppose there is a reason to take aggressors now? A chief apothecary with ferros nearby.

 

It was a needed change for sure, but I feel it's slightly, ever so slightly a bit much in the sense that we only get 1 turn of our doctrine and a savvy opponent with some good LOS blocking terrain will simply just avoid our firepower first turn. Unless you spam flyers and thunderfire cannons.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Ahzek451

[TrawlingCleaner]

It was a needed change for sure, but I feel it's slightly, ever so slightly a bit much in the sense that we only get 1 turn of our doctrine and a savvy opponent with some good LOS blocking terrain will simply just avoid our firepower first turn. Unless you spam flyers and thunderfire cannons.

Not really IMO, it just means there's actual counter play other than "oh well the opponent has a super buff all game so I may as well suitup and move at them". The opponent now has options like riding out the first turn and coming in against slightly less AP and accuracy.

 

IMO, the options for the opponent has opened up and the options for us list building wise has opened up too. There's more reason to build more flexible and variations in our lists now

[Ahzek451]

My point is, now compared to other chapters, the hammer has swung slightly the other way as there is a halfway decent chance to dodge our chapter traits, while it is a lot less likely to next to impossible to dodge the tactical and assault turns. Mind you, I never played the "cheese lists" and only ever played 100% primaris army with no complaints and without tablestomping my opponent in a semi competative environment, so I acknowledge my view is different.

 

IMO, the options for the opponent has opened up and the options for us list building wise has opened up too. There's more reason to build more flexible and variations in our lists now

That's why I brought up aggressors :p. Edited February 27, 2020 by Iron Father Ferrum

[9x19 Parabellum]

I agree with Ahzek and I'm ok with all the changes except the doctrinal ones (which is probably the biggest one).

 

They made it just a bit too straight-jackety.  I think wording it something like "your force can spend a maximum of 2 rounds in a given doctrine and then must progress to the next level."

 

Then I would have made a universal stratagem to stay in a doctrine for a cumulative 1 CP (each time you use it, it costs 1 CP more than the last time).

Edited February 27, 2020 by 9x19 Parabellum

[Ahzek451]

I agree with Ahzek and I'm ok with all the changes except the doctrinal ones (which is probably the biggest one).

 

They made it just a bit too straight-jackety. I think wording it something like "your force can spend a maximum of 2 rounds in a given doctrine and then must progress to the next level."

 

Then I would have made a universal stratagem to stay in a doctrine for a cumulative 1 CP (each time you use it, it costs 1 CP more than the last time).

You beat me to it. I dont think it would have been unreasonable to say "turn 2 can either be devastator or tactical" or spend some more cp to extent it. But, as far as my lists go, not much will change. I may include some aggressors, and try and decide if I want to swap out an intercessor squad with stalkers with another weapon option or one of the other phobos troop squads.

[Dumah]

Seems like a fair change to me - helps narrow the power gap a little between supplements. And, don't forget you have Methodical Firepower to activate Dev Doctrine for a unit every turn after you lose it; Fists don't have that option so I'd say the Iron Tenth is less affected by the change than the Boys in Yellow.

[TrawlingCleaner]

My point is, now compared to other chapters, the hammer has swung slightly the other way as there is a halfway decent chance to dodge our chapter traits, while it is a lot less likely to next to impossible to dodge the tactical and assault turns. Mind you, I never played the "cheese lists" and only ever played 100% primaris army with no complaints and without tablestomping my opponent in a semi competative environment, so I acknowledge my view is different.

 

The Hammer has swung back the other way but we still have an incredible Supplement, Doctrines and Strategems and access to the Faith and Fury upgrades. Iron Hands will still be top dog, we still have a big advantage turn 1 that advantage lessens over time vs Raven Guard and Ultras but this isn't a problem at all if the list is built with that in mind. The hammer needed to swing at IH the hardest to even the playing field.

 

Competitive enviroments are very different to firendly games and even semi-competitive, but your opinion on the nerfs and the changes are still 100% valid

 

I agree with Ahzek and I'm ok with all the changes except the doctrinal ones (which is probably the biggest one).

 

They made it just a bit too straight-jackety.  I think wording it something like "your force can spend a maximum of 2 rounds in a given doctrine and then must progress to the next level."

 

Then I would have made a universal stratagem to stay in a doctrine for a cumulative 1 CP (each time you use it, it costs 1 CP more than the last time).

The doctrine benefits are the straight jackety bit IMO and by far the most broken thing in the supplements. Layering rules on top of rules that had no counter is not good for the game. There's no character to snipe, there's no waiting it out like Kauyon, it's on 100% of the time and it's free. Having Re-roll 1s, ignore the heavy penalty and extra AP on top of the unit's base rules (even before taking into account CM re-rolls) with the right unit composition was downright broken.

 

As they explain in the Developer log, it's conter-intuitive to have unlimited access to a strat that moves you back to the doctrine you're best in when they want to move away from that and IMO they're totally correct

[Iron Father Ferrum]

So let's see. Methods to mitigate the loss of Calculated Fury:

 

Target Protocols WLT (one unit rerolls hits, wounds, and damage)

 

Captains/Chapter Master (aura rerolls 1s/hits) + Land Raider Excelsior

 

 

Methodical Firepower stratagem (one unit counts on Dev Doc)

 

Wrathful Machine Spirit stratagem (one vehicle rerolls hits)

 

Blessing of the Machine God psychic power (one vehicle gains +1 to hit)

 

Big Guns Never Tire stratagem (one vehicle ignores move-and-shoot penalty on Heavy weapons)

 

Storm of Fire WLT (aura provides -1 AP on hit roll of 6)

 

Target Priority WLT (one Phobos unit gains +1 to hit)

 

Wisdom of the Ancients stratagem (Dreadnoughts gain Captain reroll aura)

 

Steady Advance stratagem (infantry count as stationary)

 

Soul Sight psychic power (one Phobos unit rerolls hits)

 

Recitation of Focus litany (one unit gains +1 to hit)

 

Master of the Forfe stratagem (Techmarine gains +1 to hit aura for vehicles)

 

Land Raiders, Repulsors, and Stormravens ignore the move-and-shoot penalty for Heavy weapons already.

 

Stormhawks and Stormtalons gain +1 (potentially +2) to hit against certain enemies already.

 

So yeah. We took hits for sure, but as you can see, we have plenty of ways of mitigating the damage that was done by this errata.

[9x19 Parabellum]

 

The doctrine benefits are the straight jackety bit IMO and by far the most broken thing in the supplements. Layering rules on top of rules that had no counter is not good for the game. There's no character to snipe, there's no waiting it out like Kauyon, it's on 100% of the time and it's free. Having Re-roll 1s, ignore the heavy penalty and extra AP on top of the unit's base rules (even before taking into account CM re-rolls) with the right unit composition was downright broken.

 

As they explain in the Developer log, it's conter-intuitive to have unlimited access to a strat that moves you back to the doctrine you're best in when they want to move away from that and IMO they're totally correct

 

 

The larger point is that "spending multiple turns in a given doctrine" was NOT the problem.  The problem was, as you put it, the Devastator super-doctrine for Iron Hands was TOO good, and that dis-incentivized any reason to ever leave it.  These two things are not the same.

 

Thus, the *fix* should have been to the Iron Hands super-doctrine ability specifically. Personally I would have made it one or the other: If you move, you ignore to-hit penalty.  If you stay put, you reroll 1's.  But not both.

 

If, in addition to that, you (as the game developers) saw an aesthetic problem to never leaving a doctrine, it would have left you more design room rather than the straight-jacket approach they gave us. 

Edited February 27, 2020 by 9x19 Parabellum

[Ahzek451]

Well then that's just it isnt it? It would have made a lot more sense to spread out the "balance" instead of lumping it all in one turn. Now, instead of going the extra mile to spread out the giant lump, we still have the same stacked "broken" goodness of all these bonuses, but now in one turn. Which makes it a very akward and clumsy mechanic. But it is what it is. We are more like the: watch-out-for-that-first-turn marine army.

[TrawlingCleaner]

 

 

The doctrine benefits are the straight jackety bit IMO and by far the most broken thing in the supplements. Layering rules on top of rules that had no counter is not good for the game. There's no character to snipe, there's no waiting it out like Kauyon, it's on 100% of the time and it's free. Having Re-roll 1s, ignore the heavy penalty and extra AP on top of the unit's base rules (even before taking into account CM re-rolls) with the right unit composition was downright broken.

 

As they explain in the Developer log, it's conter-intuitive to have unlimited access to a strat that moves you back to the doctrine you're best in when they want to move away from that and IMO they're totally correct

 

 

The larger point is not that "spending multiple turns in a given doctrine" was the problem.  The problem was, as you put it, the Devastator super-doctrine for Iron Hands was TOO good, and that dis-incentivized any reason to ever leave it.

 

Thus, the *fix* should have been to the Iron Hands super-doctrine ability specifically. Personally I would have made it one or the other: If you move, you ignore to-hit penalty.  If you stay put, you reroll 1's.  But not both.

 

If, in addition to that, you (as the game developers) saw an aesthetic problem to never leaving a doctrine, it would have left you more design room rather than the straight-jacket approach they gave us. 

 

I can definitely see your point there, making the change you suggested would mean that IH would lose some of their manuverability and the flexibility we would still have access to Chapter master rerolls and a good few other buffs that give +1 BS, in the end making that change pretty much moot as you would still be a mobile castle centring around characters instead of being able to be mobile.

 

The doctrine bonuses were not just a benefit to IH either they were a huge buff to Imperial fists, especially their HB Cents which are (IMO) boderline as good as some IH lists. As well as Raven Guard who only wanted to be in Tactical Doctrine. As I said, we're incredibly alpha-strike and we take the hit after the first turn but if built into we can mitigate a lot of the downside, likely still remaining top-dog

[9x19 Parabellum]

Well then that's just it isnt it? It would have made a lot more sense to spread out the "balance" instead of lumping it all in one turn. Now, instead of going the extra mile to spread out the giant lump, we still have the same stacked "broken" goodness of all these bonuses, but now in one turn. Which makes it a very akward and clumsy mechanic. But it is what it is. We are more like the: watch-out-for-that-first-turn marine army.

 

And this also has another problem; null deployment against Iron Hands, because once you get past the 1st turn, they are no better than (and in fact, worse than) any other space marine army.  So deploy out of LoS, or deep-strikes or some combination, and then you're all set.

 

@IronFatherFerrum, not saying those things aren't good, but they are almost all stratagems, which requires a precious resource.  It's not even close to being the same thing (which, I hasten to add, I'm not suggesting you were saying that).

 

So many people acting like IH was the only broken thing in 40k.  It surprises me how quickly they managed to fix this, but there is still a ton of other things out there needing to get fixed.

[Dumah]

At least they are trying to make fixes. It's the right direction, if not the right method. I think these changes will be good for the Space Marine community as a whole, as it encourages more adaptive thinking and flexibility in play-styles and list building. Point and click style lists and tactics are both uninteresting and frustrating, depending on which side of the table you're on.

 

Having to think and adapt can be fun.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

But if you read the Developer's Commentary, they said the Doctrines were never intended to be static. We the players have been doing it wrong. So correcting Calculated Fury makes sense to you, but the writers wanted to force *everyone* to progress through the Doctrines.

[9x19 Parabellum]

But if you read the Developer's Commentary, they said the Doctrines were never intended to be static. We the players have been doing it wrong. So correcting Calculated Fury makes sense to you, but the writers wanted to force *everyone* to progress through the Doctrines.

 

I find that to be incredibly disingenuous. (I don't mean you summarizing the designer's commentary.  I mean i find the designer's commentary itself to be disingenuous.)

 

If they wanted Space Marine armies to move through the doctrines like that, they would have just baked that into the rules of the new Astartes Codex when it was released last summer.  No...they consciously intended for there to be at least SOME flexibility in when and how various chapters moved through the doctrines (including devastator). I accept that they (GW) might have actually believed no one would hang out in devastator doctrine for a full game (it strains credibility, but I'll accept it for the sake of charity) but there's no way I can possibly be convinced that they (GW) believed everyone would stay in devastator doctrine for 1 and only 1 round of the game.  That's just ridiculous.  In order for me to believe that I would have to be shown proof that everyone working at GW was functionally retarded.

 

EDIT: Again, IFF, I'm not bristling at you ("Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger!"). I'm bristling at what I think is an incredulous and insincere explanation on their part.

Edited February 27, 2020 by 9x19 Parabellum

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I don't know if you played in 4th Edition, but here's some old timey trivia.

 

In 3rd, Daemon Princes in the Chaos Marine codex had a hard 0-1 limit. You could take one...but never more than one.

 

In the 4th Edition Chaos Marine codex, that restriction was not put in place. Since DPs were better than Lords, hands down, no one took Lords but spammed Princes. When people complained, Gav Thorpe- who wrote the codex - responded with "we never thought people would take more than one Prince."

 

My point is that GW's rules writers have never been full aligned with the playerbase, particularly Americans who are more cut throat than the gentlemanly European player, in terms of how their game is played. So while you might find the Commentary disingenuous, I find it completely in keeping with the half-step-behind behavior the company has been known for for decades.

[9x19 Parabellum]

I don't know if you played in 4th Edition, but here's some old timey trivia.

 

In 3rd, Daemon Princes in the Chaos Marine codex had a hard 0-1 limit. You could take one...but never more than one.

 

In the 4th Edition Chaos Marine codex, that restriction was not put in place. Since DPs were better than Lords, hands down, no one took Lords but spammed Princes. When people complained, Gav Thorpe- who wrote the codex - responded with "we never thought people would take more than one Prince."

 

My point is that GW's rules writers have never been full aligned with the playerbase, particularly Americans who are more cut throat than the gentlemanly European player, in terms of how their game is played. So while you might find the Commentary disingenuous, I find it completely in keeping with the half-step-behind behavior the company has been known for for decades.

 

I did not play in 3rd or 4th edition 40k, but i did play 5th edition fantasy (and I think some of the later additions) which had various 0-1 choices.  Funny, I always thought those were a good thing, both for narrative and possibly balancing reasons.

 

I suppose I could have accepted that reason/excuse 20 years ago, but it's tougher to swallow with so many years of experience behind us and a flourishing internet which makes monitoring trends much more easy to collate for data.

[WarriorFish]

I see a lot of changes made to things I never did, so I'm mostly shrugging really While I almost always stepped through the doctrines (chief culprit for when not was forgetting, even...) it doesn't sit quite right that you're forced to move through them it feels a bit of a clunky solution?

 

Combat armies would like a way to not be stuck waiting for Turn 3 too, a fair portion of the game is over by then after all. Perhaps there can be a smoother solution for all later, for now it's not a big deal.

[tychobi]

I like it! So much sense! I really like the fluff of rigid astartes way of war as religion and these rules effortlessly support that idea while also leveling the marine meta a bit and expanding quality choice pool for most lists. Elegant is a word I have NEVER associated with GW rules but this update comes close. Great job.

[faithonwings]

Got a question. The duty eternal strat now says damage reduction can't stack. So no more ironstone and strat combo. Got that part.

 

But does a 6+ ignore damage count as damage reduction? Can you still rol for that after reducing damage?

[9x19 Parabellum]

Got a question. The duty eternal strat now says damage reduction can't stack. So no more ironstone and strat combo. Got that part.

 

But does a 6+ ignore damage count as damage reduction? Can you still rol for that after reducing damage?

 

Yes.  Reducing damage and saving against damage are not the same thing.

[Majkhel]

 

If they wanted Space Marine armies to move through the doctrines like that, they would have just baked that into the rules of the new Astartes Codex when it was released last summer.  No...they consciously intended for there to be at least SOME flexibility in when and how various chapters moved through the doctrines (including devastator). 

Sorry, but I cannot agree with that - just read the preamble to the Doctrines as written in the Codex: Space Marines:

"When Adeptus Astartes fight according to the tenets of the Codex Astartes they employ a strict set of combat doctrines to eliminate the enemy. After pounding the foe with heavy weapons, warriors advance to lay down a hail of bolter fire before charging forth with chainswords roaring to finish the foe." 

 

This is from before the current errata. Note the word: "strict" here as well as clear description of what happens after what. This design is also visible in various traits, abilities and strats for many chapters, that allow for activation of a certain doctrine for specific units. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree that changes in the doctrines are good and needed as they were simply abusive before for no cost whatsoever. As previously stated, this will also help with building more interesting armies and will help the game overall.

[9x19 Parabellum]

 

Sorry, but I cannot agree with that - just read the preamble to the Doctrines as written in the Codex: Space Marines:

"When Adeptus Astartes fight according to the tenets of the Codex Astartes they employ a strict set of combat doctrines to eliminate the enemy. After pounding the foe with heavy weapons, warriors advance to lay down a hail of bolter fire before charging forth with chainswords roaring to finish the foe." 

 

This is from before the current errata. Note the word: "strict" here as well as clear description of what happens after what. This design is also visible in various traits, abilities and strats for many chapters, that allow for activation of a certain doctrine for specific units. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree that changes in the doctrines are good and needed as they were simply abusive before for no cost whatsoever. As previously stated, this will also help with building more interesting armies and will help the game overall.

 

Then how else do you explain that GW, who knows that their game unfolds according over a procession of 5-7 rounds, failed to build this very simple constraint into the original codex doctrine rules?

Fluff means nothing.  In the fluff, every unit in every codex is the absolute best-awesomest-goat at what they do, and we clearly know that's not the case.