Should Marines Lose Doctrines?

[Lemondish]

2 hours ago, Subtleknife said:

why can't my super dooper soldiers go back into the devastator phase?

It's a rules abstraction representing how they fight - pummel the target with heavy firepower, advance behind a hail of bolters, and top off the final stage of this shock and awe campaign with chainswords. Effective, structured, deadly. Everything we expect from a 40k Space Marine.

Removing the idea entirely takes away a lot of that narrative representation and I fear the faction would be worse off thematically for it. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

@Subtleknife

So what do you propose then ?

Edited July 28, 2022 by Black Blow Fly

[Stealth_Hobo]

11 hours ago, Lemondish said:

It's a rules abstraction representing how they fight - pummel the target with heavy firepower, advance behind a hail of bolters, and top off the final stage of this shock and awe campaign with chainswords. Effective, structured, deadly. Everything we expect from a 40k Space Marine.

Removing the idea entirely takes away a lot of that narrative representation and I fear the faction would be worse off thematically for it. 

That's the flavor of the rule, but to me during the game, the rule makes space marines look rigid and tactically inflexible. Aren't space marines supposed to be tactically versatile? That's how they have been marketed typically.  I have this image in my head where the enemy advances space marine force faster than assumed and the space marine sergeant bellows orders: "Hold off your chainswords, brothers! It's not the time yet! Let them taste the wrath of our boltguns!" *smacks a hormagaunt with a bolter*

Another thing with doctrines is that they try to sort of describe how a typical game of 40k is supposed to go. Nowadays I get to play only small scale games with smaller table sizes and in those game that "script" looks a bit different. To me combat doctrines are just bad design even if they are flavorful.

[Karhedron]

The problem with making Doctrines too flexible is that some armies can abuse it. Look at the Iron Hands lists in the 8.5E Codex that never left the Devastator Doctrine and gained crazy bonuses as a result. Maybe this highlights to OP's original point about the problem of link Super-Doctrine bonuses to a specific Doctrine. It is harder to balance a Super-Doctrine bonus if you don't know how long you will be in the specified Doctrine for,

Maybe Super-Doctrines should be pure mono-faction bonuses that are always active regardless of turn number. At least if they are "always on", it makes them easier to compare and balance against each other. Wolves and Blood Angels are still more likely to get use out of their Super-Doctrines later in the game but they don't fail to work if a smart player pulls off an early charge. Similarly, Iron Hands don't become worse at firing their heavy weapons after the initial salvo. This would probably require some Super-Doctrines to be reworked as IHs are very strong if they get their existing super-doctrine for the entire game.

There seems to be a distinct gap in power between those factions that retain abilities throughout the game and those that can lose them as the game progresses. Marines, Orks and Necrons all seem to be a bit behind the power curv. I wonder how much of this is that they can actually lose abilities as a game progresses. Other factions either keep a static abilty throughout the game (e.g. Strands of Fate) or gain abiltiies that accumulate as the game progresses (e.g. Power from Pain).

[Brother Casman]

I had a vague idea about keeping the Doctrines system with some tweaks. The player can pick which doctrine they start in, but every turn you go to the next one automatically. Devastator -> Tactical -> Assault -> Devastator (etc). The various super-doctrines would get reworked somehow, too. Sort of focusing on a series of rapid assaults.

But, I haven't really given it much thought beyond that.

[Lemondish]

6 hours ago, Stealth_Hobo said:

That's the flavor of the rule, but to me during the game, the rule makes space marines look rigid and tactically inflexible. Aren't space marines supposed to be tactically versatile? That's how they have been marketed typically. 

No, not really the way you think. The whole faction follows a 'war for idiots' book to the letter, and has always been marketed as that. It's why we call them Codexes in the first place! Rigid adherence to a single source of tactical truth - that is what (most) Marines are. The structure and fighting style of Marines was never codified in rules quite this way before though and without that rigidity you can't actually experience tactical flexibility anyway. It isn't carte blanche to do whatever you want whenever, because then why not just bake that bonus in all the time?

If you really stop to think about it, what has 'tactical flexibility' even meant in the past? Wargear selection? Being good in all phases? Well with Guilliman's return and a corresponding shift back to Legion structures of generalist fighters in specialist units, that can't really be it. Marines today have rules outlining a gameplan that represents how they go to war, and these rules are impacted in equal measure by being both a force of generalists and a myriad of still other rules that let you modify that gameplan in specific ways, often at the unit level - i.e. the tactical, not strategic level. Modification of a plan on a unit by unit basis is how you get tactical flexibility, and I argue, how you get an army that is tactically flexible while not being devoid of player agency in achieving it. 

7 hours ago, Stealth_Hobo said:

Another thing with doctrines is that they try to sort of describe how a typical game of 40k is supposed to go. Nowadays I get to play only small scale games with smaller table sizes and in those game that "script" looks a bit different.

This is valid feedback, but largely suggests to me that maybe the Marines of today, and how they play, aren't really held back by Doctrines nearly as much as you say. If you can flip the script, is it really as tactically inflexible as you're making it out to be?

Though I think it's worth keeping in mind that super-Doctrines skew this tremendously. A bonus like an extra AP point is pretty minor, and in an age of AoC isn't all that noticeable anyway. Keying off some abilities that work within a particular Doctrine are neat, but not everybody gains equal value from those.  When you tie a secondary bonus that holds a large portion of your army's expected power, like for Imperial Fists or Iron Hands, you're less capable outside it and thus your army loses a lot of power when forced to change. We saw the impact that staying in your preferred Doctrine all game had with Iron Hands immediate dominance in the competitive meta, and forcing the progression of Doctrines there was necessary to rein in that powerful army, but we also saw how it killed armies like Imperial Fists who have so little power in their baseline rules that one very limited turn of that bonus is not enough to compete. 

In the future, I expect Doctrines to remain, but take a backseat to a variety of other bonuses, abilities, and mechanics - exactly like the Wanton Slaughter system does for the Heretics now. 

[Karhedron]

Given that Chaos Marines have just got their Doctrine-equiv system and that their super-doctrines in activate in the correct "Wanton XXX" turns, I think a wholesale reworking of Doctrines is probably unlikely for 10th edition.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

With all the issues Marines currently have I think we can put our collective energy to better use on what they need to be competitive again.

[Stealth_Hobo]

46 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

No, not really the way you think. The whole faction follows a 'war for idiots' book to the letter, and has always been marketed as that. It's why we call them Codexes in the first place! Rigid adherence to a single source of tactical truth - that is what (most) Marines are. The structure and fighting style of Marines was never codified in rules quite this way before though and without that rigidity you can't actually experience tactical flexibility anyway. It isn't carte blanche to do whatever you want whenever, because then why not just bake that bonus in all the time?

If you really stop to think about it, what has 'tactical flexibility' even meant in the past? Wargear selection? Being good in all phases? Well with Guilliman's return and a corresponding shift back to Legion structures of generalist fighters in specialist units, that can't really be it. Marines today have rules outlining a gameplan that represents how they go to war, and these rules are impacted in equal measure by being both a force of generalists and a myriad of still other rules that let you modify that gameplan in specific ways, often at the unit level - i.e. the tactical, not strategic level. Modification of a plan on a unit by unit basis is how you get tactical flexibility, and I argue, how you get an army that is tactically flexible while not being devoid of player agency in achieving it. 

This is valid feedback, but largely suggests to me that maybe the Marines of today, and how they play, aren't really held back by Doctrines nearly as much as you say. If you can flip the script, is it really as tactically inflexible as you're making it out to be?

Though I think it's worth keeping in mind that super-Doctrines skew this tremendously. A bonus like an extra AP point is pretty minor, and in an age of AoC isn't all that noticeable anyway. Keying off some abilities that work within a particular Doctrine are neat, but not everybody gains equal value from those.  When you tie a secondary bonus that holds a large portion of your army's expected power, like for Imperial Fists or Iron Hands, you're less capable outside it and thus your army loses a lot of power when forced to change. We saw the impact that staying in your preferred Doctrine all game had with Iron Hands immediate dominance in the competitive meta, and forcing the progression of Doctrines there was necessary to rein in that powerful army, but we also saw how it killed armies like Imperial Fists who have so little power in their baseline rules that one very limited turn of that bonus is not enough to compete. 

In the future, I expect Doctrines to remain, but take a backseat to a variety of other bonuses, abilities, and mechanics - exactly like the Wanton Slaughter system does for the Heretics now. 

Sure. Marines follow a book to the letter, I get that. I just don't like how it is implemented as a game rule. I'm just not a fan of these rules that are tied to turn progression. Yes, I would like a baked-in bonus, thank you very much. :D That would not get in the way of gameplay and would feel much more fluid. 

Not following the "script" means missing out on those doctrine bonuses. I agree with you, those bonuses are pretty minor, that's why it's not really a big deal if I forget them during a game. But that makes me question the purpose of the rule. Does it even need to exist if it's just some minor thing (and a pretty complex rule)? And I'm not talking about super doctrines here. I know how much they can have impact on chapters, I play Imperial Fists, after all.

It looks like doctrines are here to stay, at least for an edition, because CSM have them. Hopefully they'll be less of a hassle to play with and chapters are not so starkly divided between winners and losers when it comes to super doctrines.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Most chapters have a means to manipulate the active doctrine so imo it’s not really a big deal at all.

[Subtleknife]

@Lemondish I get it is a rules abstraction. My point/opinion is that it is a bad abstraction and I would like GW to come up with something more thematic.

 

Also re your "War for idiots book" comment. In any modern military you will have pages and pages of doctrines. They will set out how to approach nearly every situation. I always imagined that the Codex Astartes is similar. Whilst marines follow the codex to varying levels of strictness I don't think it would make them into "always start in devastator, then go to tactical". If it is anything like modern military doctrine it will be situational ie in the event of an ambush you do x or when conducting an ambush you need a support element, assault element and x many teams to pull flank/rear security etc. I don't think the abstraction that doctrines try to create is a good one and feel there must be a better way to do this.

@Black Blow Fly I am not saying I can come up with anything better. I am sure there are people who are more creative than me on here who can do just that. What I am saying is the current iteration for me personally doesn't feel thematic to me and I want it changed.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Well excuse me for liking the doctrines and hoping they can make them more spicy.

[UnkyHamHam]

Would be cool if you could purchase an upgrade for a Captain (if he's your warlord) to make them either a Battle Company Captain, Reserve Company Captain, 1st Cap, or Scout Cap. Points or Cp, not sure which. 

Maybe it looks like this:

1.  1st Cap/Chapter Master WL - pick what doctrine you want to be in each command phase. 

2.  Battle Company Caps 2nd-5th - follow doctrines as they exist now. 

3.  Tac Reserve Cap 6th/7th - Army is always in Tac Doctrine. 

4.  8th Cap - Army always in Assault doctrine. 

5.  9th Cap - Army always in Dev doctrine. 

6.  10th cap - something unique for scouts and phobos. I don't have anything at the moment. 

Obviously, you choose this in army building, so no mid game bookkeeping. You even have the choice to choose one active doc and call it good. 

 

Edit:  maybe Scout Cap just sacrifices doctrines for the Vanguard army of renown rules. But with added functionality for Scouts, Scout Bikes, and LS Storms. 

Also, before someone brings up that not all these choices are equal, I feel you'd balance them with increase cost. With maybe Battle Company Caps being "free" and 1st company caps being the most expensive. Still don't know if points or CP is the right resource tho. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by UnkyHamHam

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Dark Angels have something similar - I like it. /thumbsup

[Subtleknife]

9 hours ago, Black Blow Fly said:

Well excuse me for liking the doctrines and hoping they can make them more spicy.

You are excused

 

But seriously, it is just my opinion. They arent thematic for me. Others might and do have different opinions on them. I don't think any opinion has more weight than another on this topic. It's just comes down to personal preference.