SM doctrines in 9th

[Angelus Nex]

So, with all the new rules tidbits dripping in, I am slowly getting the feeling the update of earlier this year might be going away. The mandatory doctrine flow seems somewhat unnecessary in 9th, as all non infantry units now get to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. So iron hands get less of a "buff" from their super doctrine. Also, with overwatch being toned down a bit, iron hands seem again being to ed down a little.

The whole edition is seemingly trying to to e down gunline armies, so IF arty parks might also be less good at playing the new missions. And GW now seemingly going for a more CQC kind of edition, all marine chapters might want to go to the assault doctrine anyhow.

I know this is all speculative, but I am just hoping marines get their true tactical flexibility back. And I am curious about the thoughts why I could be totally wrong or if there are more circumstantial tidbits that might point toward my speculations?

 

Thanks in advance!

[Dumah]

Speculation is a dangerous game. I wouldn't deign to predict what GW might do as their track record is rather varied. I say, continue on with what we have and adapt if and when that changes.

[Captain Idaho]

I believe the limitation on Doctrines (i.e. going through each mandatory) combined with a game where objectives and victory points to be accrued about the table obscured by terrain, will result in naturally more flexible armies for many.

 

We don't fully know the whole story of course, but everything I've seen pointed to the above.

 

There could be some changes to Chapter Tactics going forward of course but right now we're doing okay.

[War Angel]

Worse case scenario we go from the top of the food chain to having games that are enjoyable for both sides.

[Hymnblade]

I really doubt it. The Doctrine change wasn't *just* intended to nerf Iron Hands, it was intended to address the fact that "take an army with nothing but heavy weapons, get bonus AP on everything forever" was not how Doctrines were supposed to work. And in any case, GW rarely revisits past decisions like this.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Hymnblade

[tychobi]

Its fluffy and good for the game. I would be shocked to see a less rigid doctrine system than we have now.

[Dracos]

I've has similar thoughts about this and the Rule of Three both. There seem to be many "fixes" that came about during 8e, that were the result of lack of forethought. I'm curious if they will step back and try again with these rules or stay hands off not wanting to get burned again.

 

From a Business Perspective, it would seem they would want to fins a way to balance the game but encourage people to buy as many toys as they can possibly field in any combination. Paying CP for Detachments instead of earning CP for Detachments seems a possible way to have opened these doors. 

 

The "Narrative" is whatever they want it to be. In the end anything that helps sells models is whats best for the investor. It has always been highly detailed but designed to be as non-specific as possible. That way we always have a story in out head why my Blue models are fighting your Blue models. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’d bet dollars to donuts GeeDub doesn’t go back on doctrines. They are systematically eliminating all the gamey elements of this edition.

[War Angel]

I’d bet dollars to donuts GeeDub doesn’t go back on doctrines. They are systematically eliminating all the gamey elements of this edition.

Go back on which part? The fact that they cycle automatically. I’ll agree with that.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I think it will remain the way it is now... you can’t decide when to switch doctrines.