PDA

View Full Version : Guard Doctrines - Bring them back!



Commissar Davis
27-11-2014, 17:00
With all the supplements being released, I think the one that is missing is Astra Millitarum Doctrines (imperial guard once had them). I think that GW have missed a trick with these as I think it would not only sell well, but any upgrade packs and special characters and units would also sell.

They could also put AM data slates in and add new ones for each Doctrine.

Going by current rules, they could do them easily in a way that was not OP but also used current USRs.

Cadians: Preferred Enemy (shooting only if unit not moved (infantry only)) upgrade units to Kasrykn(sp) which would be just Hot Shots and Carapace for X points (kit bash with MT or upgrade kit). We all know the Special Characters and what they do.

Catachans: Move Through Cover and some special unit including adding back Marbo. Units already avalible.

What is there, 5 or 6 more?

I know that some people will think these options restrictive, but it does not seem to effect SM that way.

Thoughts (agree/disagree)

Vaktathi
27-11-2014, 17:11
If they're gonna do Chapter Tactics for SM's, I don't see why they couldn't do Doctrines again for IG, though I think FW generally handles the super unique traits better.

I think the bigger issue is that they'd need to fix IG infantry to be worthwhile before I think people would really start to care, particularly the platoon support units.

Ironbone
27-11-2014, 17:17
I would like to see bit diffrent system, more based on old 3.5 ed dex. Army (well, detachment according to current wh40k newspeak :p) would have up to 5 doctrine points and slots to spend buying doctrines from the list ( possibly 10 to 15 options long is enough. Definietly not 35 crayzyness of old dex ). Some doctrines could const 0 pts ( but still eat one of yours doctrine allovances ), most 1 pts and some more powerful ones 2, maybe even 3 pts.

Kinda like straggems in planetstrike.

Commissar Davis
27-11-2014, 21:10
I would like to see bit diffrent system, more based on old 3.5 ed dex. Army (well, detachment according to current wh40k newspeak :p) would have up to 5 doctrine points and slots to spend buying doctrines from the list ( possibly 10 to 15 options long is enough. Definietly not 35 crayzyness of old dex ). Some doctrines could const 0 pts ( but still eat one of yours doctrine allovances ), most 1 pts and some more powerful ones 2, maybe even 3 pts.

Kinda like straggems in planetstrike.

If you mean things like grenadiers, veterans seems to do that nicely don't they? I think most of that could be done through the armoury, but did FW bring out rules for siege armies so I guess that could be expanded along with the rest, just like the old codex.


If they're gonna do Chapter Tactics for SM's, I don't see why they couldn't do Doctrines again for IG, though I think FW generally handles the super unique traits better.

I think the bigger issue is that they'd need to fix IG infantry to be worthwhile before I think people would really start to care, particularly the platoon support units.

That's the point of the doctrines is it not, to bring in something or go vanilla? GW used to this type of thing as standard, I don't see any reason they could not handle it, but that's me.

Charistoph
27-11-2014, 21:37
If they're gonna do Chapter Tactics for SM's, I don't see why they couldn't do Doctrines again for IG, though I think FW generally handles the super unique traits better.

My belief as well. It shouldn't stop there, either. There shouldn't be a codex that is bland. Necrons were possible till they got Unique Lords, but not now.



That's the point of the doctrines is it not, to bring in something or go vanilla? GW used to this type of thing as standard, I don't see any reason they could not handle it, but that's me.

I would hardly call 3 codices and four supplements for 2 codices as standard, Index Astartes notwithstanding.

Something happened during 4th Edition to scare them off of it. They have tested the waters with C:SM and Supplements lately, so we'll see.

One Necron salt mine rumor had them getting a Dynasty feature, so we'll see how brave they've gotten.

Scribe of Khorne
27-11-2014, 21:40
Yes, do it via Detachments or something.

Speaking of, I want a Great Book of Detachments, that has everything.

Jind_Singh
27-11-2014, 22:29
I don't know - enough rules out there already, Marines get excuse of genetic implants to get chapter tactics

To start granting units rules from Guard seems overly complicated.

Mind you - Catachans should get SOME benefits from being in forests...

Scribe of Khorne
27-11-2014, 23:03
'Enough rules already' is well in the rear view good sir. ;)

Its RPG splat book style at this point, rules for everyone and everything!

Ironbone
28-11-2014, 08:58
If you mean things like grenadiers, veterans seems to do that nicely don't they?
Well, there is no point of having doctrines that do nothing, isn't it :p ? Besides, it's totaly unnecesary to translate *all* 3.5 doctrines. Some, possibly quite many, will be pointless in direct, letter-to-letter reintrduction. Some other ( like all "restiricted Troops" section ) are build-in into codex now.

Commissar Davis
28-11-2014, 09:53
Well, there is no point of having doctrines that do nothing, isn't it :p ? Besides, it's totaly unnecesary to translate *all* 3.5 doctrines. Some, possibly quite many, will be pointless in direct, letter-to-letter reintrduction. Some other ( like all "restiricted Troops" section ) are build-in into codex now.

I think that the regimental doctrines could be done, but I also think that some of the other doctrines are covered, such a supplement would be a good place to put all the current formations etc as well.

TheMartyr451
28-11-2014, 23:13
It'd be cool if they had a list of famous Imperial Guard regiments with pre-set configurations (similar to the old 3.5 edition Chaos codex and the legion rules). Then there could be rules for customizing your own like the old traits system. I thought it added more flavor and variety to armies and made the game more fun (though it was open to abuse but that can always be remedied with a revised system).

Mr Zoat
29-11-2014, 14:19
I'd just replace Warlord Traits with stuff like that.

Lord Damocles
29-11-2014, 15:29
Vanilla Marines getting rules for being special flowers shouldn't/needn't mean that Guard should get similar.


The only doctrines which really need representing (and which can't be done already with generic rules) are grenadiers (which would be better purchased for whole platoons) and some sort of light infantry/jungle fighters (something like Scout and +1 cover in woods, but can't take a transport).

Just Tony
29-11-2014, 16:32
No.

No no no.

Baaltor
29-11-2014, 19:13
Edit: forgot to respond to the main post: Yes, traits. It's outrageous that the guard don't have them. I think chaos deserves traits far more than SM, but moreso than any faction the guard need them.

Cadians are not Catachans.


I would like to see bit diffrent system, more based on old 3.5 ed dex. Army (well, detachment according to current wh40k newspeak :p) would have up to 5 doctrine points and slots to spend buying doctrines from the list ( possibly 10 to 15 options long is enough.


Yeah, I was daydreaming a while ago about what I'd do to fix guard, and I thought of something that you reminded me of. If the codex was divided into detachement s in stead of choices, and you had to put them together to get a force, you'd make it fluffier, and the tools are already there for some units.

e.g.: When you make an army you choose a platoon of Guard that are used as the core (or corp lol), like Cadians, or instead Deathworlders, Grenaders, and or Armoured Fists. All of those have the related options specific to the platoon, but normally would be options in elites/FA or whatever. And then some options that can't be an army's troops stay in their slots, like Ogryn, or storm troopers.

Combining Hivers with Jungle fighters could represent two factions that were ground down into nonfunctional armies, and had to unify, or forces put together by the Administratum to take on a complicated world; Hivers and junglers are a force put together to cleanse a breached biodome on a deathworld.

I mean, traits are good and simpler, but I think a system like above would be more effective and fluffy.



I'd just replace Warlord Traits with stuff like that.

Not on topic, but I totally agree. WL traits are just a novelty when they could be flavour blasting the game.

MrKeef
29-11-2014, 20:21
I don't think we'll get anything like the old Doctrine system, but at least something like the Chapter Tactics the marines have.

I'm bored right now so I'm going to make some up. These are all various kinds of powerful, so if you want them you'll have to pay points to get it as an upgrade when you take your mandatory HQ, then they become army wide.

Armageddon Steel Legion: Cheaper chimeras, preferred enemy Orks
Valhallan Ice Warriors: Infantry platoon squad minimum size becomes 1 Platoon command squad, 2-6 Infantry squads or conscript squads
Cadian Shock Troopers: Everyone can give one more order than usual, extra leadership for conscripts
Catachan Jungle Fighters: Stealth if in forest/jungle/wooded terrain, give one infantry squad outflank
Mordian Iron Guard: +1 ballistic skill if in base contact with another friendly model
Vostroyan Firstborn: Lasguns are mastercrafted
Death Korps of Krieg: Templates can be placed even if it would hit a friendly troop
Tallarn Desert Raiders: Slight Leman Russ discount, Leman Russes have preferred enemy: Tanks
Elysian Droop Troops: All infantry can deep strike
Tanith First and Only: All infantry have stealth

Inquisitor Kallus
29-11-2014, 22:00
I don't think we'll get anything like the old Doctrine system, but at least something like the Chapter Tactics the marines have.

I'm bored right now so I'm going to make some up. These are all various kinds of powerful, so if you want them you'll have to pay points to get it as an upgrade when you take your mandatory HQ, then they become army wide.

Armageddon Steel Legion: Cheaper chimeras, preferred enemy Orks
Valhallan Ice Warriors: Infantry platoon squad minimum size becomes 1 Platoon command squad, 2-6 Infantry squads or conscript squads
Cadian Shock Troopers: Everyone can give one more order than usual, extra leadership for conscripts
Catachan Jungle Fighters: Stealth if in forest/jungle/wooded terrain, give one infantry squad outflank
Mordian Iron Guard: +1 ballistic skill if in base contact with another friendly model
Vostroyan Firstborn: Lasguns are mastercrafted
Death Korps of Krieg: Templates can be placed even if it would hit a friendly troop
Tallarn Desert Raiders: Slight Leman Russ discount, Leman Russes have preferred enemy: Tanks
Elysian Droop Troops: All infantry can deep strike
Tanith First and Only: All infantry have stealth

Some good ideas there apart from the cheaper vehicles

MrKeef
29-11-2014, 22:30
Some good ideas there apart from the cheaper vehicles

Yeah, I had no other cooler ideas. How about:

Steel Legion: Chimeras have scout and 12 firing ports.
Desert Raiders: Leman Russes have preferred enemy: tanks and infantry have hit and run.

Anyway, the rules themselves aren't for me to decide. Another advantage for GW is that it gives people a reason to buy some infantry again. Everyone has boxes full of Cadians and veteran players are very unlikely to buy more.

mr. peasant
30-11-2014, 06:02
How about these:

Armageddon Steel Legion: Chimera gains +1 BS when using its Lasgun array, All Troop choices gain +1 to their armour saves when within 6 inches of their dedicated transport.

Tallarn Desert Raiders: 1 infatry unit from each platoon gains Infiltrate. Each platoon may also take 0-3 Rough Rider units.

Ghazbad_Facestompa
30-11-2014, 07:09
Maybe replace the Valhallan one with something like the old "Send in the Next Wave" as an upgrade for conscripts?

Commissar Davis
30-11-2014, 12:53
I don't think we'll get anything like the old Doctrine system, but at least something like the Chapter Tactics the marines have.

I'm bored right now so I'm going to make some up. These are all various kinds of powerful, so if you want them you'll have to pay points to get it as an upgrade when you take your mandatory HQ, then they become army wide.

Armageddon Steel Legion: Cheaper chimeras, preferred enemy Orks
Valhallan Ice Warriors: Infantry platoon squad minimum size becomes 1 Platoon command squad, 2-6 Infantry squads or conscript squads
Cadian Shock Troopers: Everyone can give one more order than usual, extra leadership for conscripts
Catachan Jungle Fighters: Stealth if in forest/jungle/wooded terrain, give one infantry squad outflank
Mordian Iron Guard: +1 ballistic skill if in base contact with another friendly model
Vostroyan Firstborn: Lasguns are mastercrafted
Death Korps of Krieg: Templates can be placed even if it would hit a friendly troop
Tallarn Desert Raiders: Slight Leman Russ discount, Leman Russes have preferred enemy: Tanks
Elysian Droop Troops: All infantry can deep strike
Tanith First and Only: All infantry have stealth

If I may....

Tallarn: Hit and Run with Rough Riders able to become troops.
Valhallen: Stubborn and Send in the Next Wave
Armageddon Steel Legion: Chimera as the 'Assualt Vehicle' rule.

Chem-Dog
30-11-2014, 21:59
I'd love to see Doctrines return in some form or other. in all honesty I would prefer an integral system within the Codec that is attached to your Warlord, a number of costed advantages/disadvantages that you buy when building your army.
Buying the advantage for your Warlord would then entitle you to buy the same/corresponding advantage for eligible units (indicated in the options for each unit and/or the description for the Doctrine itself).
Example, buying "Recon" for your Warlord might entitle the infantry units in the force to take Camo Cloaks.

I'm wary of "Detatchments" as I think they'll likely be too constrictive to allow for the kind of theming I'm interested in (or so open ended so as to make them game breaking) but I do recognise the potential of the system to deliver what we're looking for, if handled carefully rather than as a purchase incentive.

Baaltor
01-12-2014, 02:10
I'm wary of "Detatchments" as I think they'll likely be too constrictive to allow for the kind of theming I'm interested in...

If the problem with detachments is the size, I think it's kind of different for guard than it is for other armies. I mean, infantry platoon's are essentially micro detachments, and because of the low cost of guard, fitting in a 'detachement' like that isn't too hard. I mean, even storm troopers are available in platoons.

MajorWesJanson
01-12-2014, 02:30
Guard could easily capitalize on the detachment system- the platoon is already basically a detachment, so just make it into one, and add more variety. You could have a base platoon detachment as a troop choice, then detachment upgrades- say a Light infantry platoon that cannot take vehicles, but gains move through cover and access to camo cloaks for all units in it. a Mech infantry platoon where all have to take a transport but get scout. Airborne infantry where all have access to a valkyrie, and the command squad can take a vendetta. Veteran platoon, where the cost is more, but all units are BS and LD+1. A Stormtrooper platoon that would basically replace the Militarum Tempestus book.

OuroborosTriumphant
01-12-2014, 08:52
Vostroyan Firstborn: Lasguns are mastercrafted

It's fluffy, but it would be such a massive pain in the ass to resolve at rapid-fire range; each lasgun can have one reroll, so you'd need to track the shots of each lasgun separately. Nobody has time for that.

Commissar Davis
01-12-2014, 10:54
I'd love to see Doctrines return in some form or other. in all honesty I would prefer an integral system within the Codec that is attached to your Warlord, a number of costed advantages/disadvantages that you buy when building your army.
Buying the advantage for your Warlord would then entitle you to buy the same/corresponding advantage for eligible units (indicated in the options for each unit and/or the description for the Doctrine itself).
Example, buying "Recon" for your Warlord might entitle the infantry units in the force to take Camo Cloaks.

I'm wary of "Detatchments" as I think they'll likely be too constrictive to allow for the kind of theming I'm interested in (or so open ended so as to make them game breaking) but I do recognise the potential of the system to deliver what we're looking for, if handled carefully rather than as a purchase incentive.

The way I see it, have set one for Regiments of Renown and have some as purchasable.

Example:

Chem Dog inhalers give ATKNF and have rules for suicide units (frag, krak, melta, demolition charge vests) Some rule for Commissars to detonate vests.

Normal rules for chem inhalers stubborn and fearless. Vests can be purchased for penal units and Commissars can purchase vest device.

Different enough to keep the regiments different and yet similar enough to make worthwhile doing your own thing.

Baneboss
01-12-2014, 11:39
I would make different doctrines based on homeworlds of origin, not famous regiments as it is done in Only War RPG. For example you have Deathworlds, Fortress worlds, Civilized worlds, etc. Regiments in Only War can be made even further unique by making your regiment for example mechanised. I think GW could learn from FFG a lot here.

MrKeef
01-12-2014, 14:11
It's fluffy, but it would be such a massive pain in the ass to resolve at rapid-fire range; each lasgun can have one reroll, so you'd need to track the shots of each lasgun separately. Nobody has time for that.

Oh yeah, lol I never thought of that. Reroll all 1s to hit with lasguns then to make things faster.

@Baneboss Yeah that's a much better idea actually. As it stands most of the world archetypes are covered by a famous regiment, but this would let people pick their own, like successor chapters and chapter tactics.

Fortress = Cadian
Death world = Catachan
Forrest world = Tanith
Factory World = Vistroyan
Ect.

Ironbone
01-12-2014, 14:57
As it stands most of the world archetypes are covered by a famous regiment, but this would let people pick their own, like successor chapters and chapter tactics.

Fortress = Cadian
Death world = Catachan
Forrest world = Tanith
Factory World = Vistroyan

I must say, that's a interesting aproach. It allows to play themes of particular type of planet without forced way of "Play regiment X". Benefits won't be any enormous, byt doctrines should be taken for flavour not for power.

Charistoph
01-12-2014, 15:19
I must say, that's a interesting aproach. It allows to play themes of particular type of planet without forced way of "Play regiment X". Benefits won't be any enormous, byt doctrines should be taken for flavour not for power.

Just like Chapter Tactics, right?

Baneboss
02-12-2014, 11:30
There will always be players that will choose doctrines based on how good they are. Hell, perhaps even me. But there are still a reasonable amount of players that will choose them for their flavour. 4th edition IG codex had lots of very fun doctrines even though they didnt see much use - chem inhalers, warrior weapons (those were totally overpriced). The ability to customise was the factor here.

Commissar Merces
02-12-2014, 11:59
These should absolutely be brought back. I used to run all carapace IG. Was it the most competitive? Hell no. Was it the fluff I chose for my 14th Makian heavy infantry regiment? Yes!

I think we will see Guard doctrines in the form of data slates with a few additional units, a new warlord table and new relics.

Ironbone
02-12-2014, 14:16
4th edition IG codex had lots of very fun doctrines even though they didnt see much use - chem inhalers, warrior weapons (those were totally overpriced).
Well, i know there was at lest one guy who build his IG tactic around chem inchalers (and loophole that everyone could take it :p). Warrior weapons - yeah, CC guard is one of the most insane army builds possible, but hey, who disallows trying ;) ?

Baaltor
02-12-2014, 18:00
Man, I'm so dissapoint in GW. They're introduced so many things in the past couple years that have enormous potential, but they've tapped into only like 20% of what detachments, WL traits, and udder things too.

corps
02-12-2014, 18:04
I m very nostalgic about them. I love them more than the orders. It gave me the feelings of having a unique flavour. I wonder if doctrines and order could be used together or it would be too powerful.

Vipoid
02-12-2014, 18:18
Man, I'm so dissapoint in GW. They're introduced so many things in the past couple years that have enormous potential, but they've tapped into only like 20% of what detachments, WL traits, and udder things too.

Out of interest, what would you like to see Warlord Traits and Detachments do?

What do you consider their full potential?

Chem-Dog
02-12-2014, 23:37
If the problem with detachments is the size

It's not an issue of Detatchment size, it's more to do with the often quite constrictive unit choice a Detatchment binds you to. I want a rules set that allows me to reflect a regiment's character, history and the way it fights none of which is particularly helped by a bolt-on advantage earned by having ≥ 3 unit X's in a force, not if it precludes unit W from the advantage by omission from the det, because my army might just be all about unit W's.



Guard could easily capitalize on the detachment system- the platoon is already basically a detachment, so just make it into one, and add more variety. You could have a base platoon detachment as a troop choice, then detachment upgrades-

Nice (makes me feel a little better about Det's) but still painting in pretty broad strokes. I'd want equipment and/or doctrine to be flexible so I can hammer out my own build, not simply fill a shopping list.


I would make different doctrines based on homeworlds of origin, not famous regiments as it is done in Only War RPG. For example you have Deathworlds, Fortress worlds, Civilized worlds, etc. Regiments in Only War can be made even further unique by making your regiment for example mechanised. I think GW could learn from FFG a lot here.

This, I like, something that vaguely touches on what Doctrines used to be but actually improves upon it. Could even go as far as to have different criteria and limit what options are available from each.

Firaxin
03-12-2014, 03:38
there are still a reasonable amount of players that will choose them for their flavour. 4th edition IG codex had lots of very fun doctrines even though they didnt see much use - chem inhalers, warrior weapons

I had a full warrior weapons regiment back in the day. All those conversions... :cries:

Baneboss
03-12-2014, 07:26
I had a full warrior weapons regiment back in the day. All those conversions... :cries:

Respect man :)

In case of Doctrines (or chapter tactics or whatever) if FW can do it so can GW. New Renegades and Heretics have different 'doctrines' that your Warlord can take. While not all of them are good and the list could have better internal balance it is still a nice touch. You can have renegade heretek, dangerous witch, mutant overlord, crazy zealot, ruler of the mob or a disgraced imperial commander.

Baaltor
04-12-2014, 19:44
I had a full warrior weapons regiment back in the day. All those conversions... :cries:

That's cool. I wish we could exalt posts here!


It's not an issue of Detatchment size, it's more to do with the often quite constrictive unit choice a Detatchment binds you to. I want a rules set that allows me to reflect a regiment's character, history and the way it fights none of which is particularly helped by a bolt-on advantage earned by having ≥ 3 unit X's in a force, not if it precludes unit W from the advantage by omission from the det, because my army might just be all about unit W's

This, I like, something that vaguely touches on what Doctrines used to be but actually improves upon it. Could even go as far as to have different criteria and limit what options are available from each.

I'm not talking about a little icing on cake benefit, I think it's quite possible to entirely reconstitute the codex from the ground up to incorporate regiment rules to the varying degrees needed. For example: I think that a 'detachment' catachans could rather easily include the entire contents and flexibility of their old book. I'm pretty sure it's possible to write a guard book that contains army lists for all the important regiments.

After looking through the current Astra militarum book again, I'm even more sure of this.


Out of interest, what would you like to see Warlord Traits and Detachments do?

What do you consider their full potential?

Well, I don't want to redail the thread, but briefly:

Warlord traits: I originally thought this was going to be a way to flesh out what your commander does for the army. For most of the editions of 40k commanders have been nothing but meatblocks, and indirectly this has tried to be addressed by making them... meatier... which has not only devalued them as commanders, but devalued the use of a 'champion' unit, since they're essentially the same. I was hoping that when GW introduced warlord traits SM Captains, Chaos Lords, et al would be using these to differentiate themselves from psykers, preists and champions. If you wanted access to psychic powers, take a psycher, if you want zealots, take a chaplain, if you want infiltrators, to steal the first turn more easily, or to unlock something as troops, you take a captain.

If you gave commander units a Command (Cmd.) stat, and let them choose Cmd. "traits", that would validate the captain as a unit again, and also validate champions. An SM captain might be 'Cmd.: 2', and upgradable to 3 or 4, and a guard Colonel, or whatever their captain's called might be 'Cmd. 1', and upgradable however far. I'm not sure how the numbers would scale up though. The traits could be spent on warlord traits similar to the ones now, but be more representative of the armies tactics in general. I've though about folding back some traits from armies into the trait system, and just saying they have it by default; like all autarchs have access to the 'path of command' thingy, but it'd be called something else. Maybe the same thing with the 'WAAAGH!!!' ability.

It's been hypothesised, and maybe officially stated by GW (this was a long time ago now...) that the removal of multiple levels for Librarians & their like was to reduce their usability, so that captains would look more appealing by comparison. I'm pretty sure that many people would agree that this is a very 'GW' thing to do. Point being: if Cmd traits were a thing, it might return the viability of character levels too.

I've been thinking about this idea forever, but every time I start writing a system, I'm thoroughly dissatisfied with my foundations, and give up.


Detachments: I just think these are super not fleshed out. I was hoping for something more like the formations rule, and for an entire section in each racial book to be dedicated to them, as well as a supplement release all about detachements, and using them in pick up games, as well as campaign play. There's so much that could be done with this as a way to enhance army lists that were bound by the FOC, like Tyranids & Orks.

But I do have to acknowledge that GW took a huge step forwards with the 7th edition rules allowing as many detachments as you choose. Even better: almost uniquely GW didn't write a pamplet of rules about how multiple detachments are supposed to work, and cripple/distort them subsequently. Despite this, the rules from what I have seem have worked very organically. There isn't much abuse, and the cost of creating another detachement is severly limiting just on the basis of its size, and the limits it applies to some benefits.

Great Scott, that wasn't very brief at all....

Vipoid
04-12-2014, 20:09
Great Scott, that wasn't very brief at all....

Good read though. :)

I really like your idea about non-psyker HQs getting a command trait, which they can use to buy various warlord traits (or something similar).

MrKeef
04-12-2014, 23:45
@Baaltor

I like the sound of that. Maybe something similar to the old Cities of Death rules where you got special points to get stratagems?

Maybe if it was a system kind of how psychic powers worked in 6th, with master levels and disciplines, with each discipline having various "powers". My space marine Captain has a command mastery level of 2, and so he can roll two command powers from the Tactics and Combat disciplines for example. chapter masters would have 3, etc.

In fact you could probably cover all the armies with just a few disciplines types just like psychic powers. Tactics, Morale, Combat, Relentless, Stealth and Caution for example.

Baaltor
06-12-2014, 22:48
Maybe something similar to the old Cities of Death rules where you got special points to get stratagems?

Maybe if it was a system kind of how psychic powers worked in 6th, with master levels and disciplines, with each discipline having various "powers". My space marine Captain has a command mastery level of 2, and so he can roll two command powers from the Tactics and Combat disciplines for example. chapter masters would have 3, etc.

In fact you could probably cover all the armies with just a few disciplines types just like psychic powers. Tactics, Morale, Combat, Relentless, Stealth and Caution for example.

Emphasis my own

Yeah, that's exactly it. In responce to the bolded area. Although I'm not a big fan of randomness, so I never really wanted to include that.

Actually you got pretty much as far as I did when trying to put it together. The schools I chose were usually something like:
Orders (Like Guard)
Personal (Stuff like progidy, or whatever)
Inspiration (affect more peoples)
Strategy

Those kinda break down, and I don't like where it's going. When I try to lay out the traits in a system based on that it sucks, and additionally an 'order' based commander suddenly is ordering a thousand things, regardless of whether they make sense, and an inspiration based commander has like five auras. Basically I find my idea there lacks depth.

So I tried this:
Wrath (Combat)
Tenacity (durability)
Cunning (Tricks)
Fury (Manoeuver)

Still don't like it, and it feels really shoehorned. There's a lot of problems with what I've tried, and I'm sure I could figure out something, but I actually donb't know that much about military strategy, or warfare, so I keep tripping over conventions that I know nothing about.

Rildar
08-12-2014, 02:13
With all the supplements being released, I think the one that is missing is Astra Millitarum Doctrines (imperial guard once had them). I think that GW have missed a trick with these as I think it would not only sell well, but any upgrade packs and special characters and units would also sell.

They could also put AM data slates in and add new ones for each Doctrine.

Going by current rules, they could do them easily in a way that was not OP but also used current USRs.

Cadians: Preferred Enemy (shooting only if unit not moved (infantry only)) upgrade units to Kasrykn(sp) which would be just Hot Shots and Carapace for X points (kit bash with MT or upgrade kit). We all know the Special Characters and what they do.

Catachans: Move Through Cover and some special unit including adding back Marbo. Units already avalible.

What is there, 5 or 6 more?

I know that some people will think these options restrictive, but it does not seem to effect SM that way.

Thoughts (agree/disagree)

I have an idea for Mordians.

Mordians are known for heir rows and rows of firing lines, yes? What if, normally, all infantry squads shoot as if they are under the effects of 'First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire!', and then if they get the effects of that order, that gets stacked on top of it.

MrKeef
08-12-2014, 02:40
I have an idea for Mordians.

Mordians are known for heir rows and rows of firing lines, yes? What if, normally, all infantry squads shoot as if they are under the effects of 'First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire!', and then if they get the effects of that order, that gets stacked on top of it.

That's 60 lasguns shots from a 10 man squad, 300 from a max sized blob squad. Doesn't sound like much, but it takes 36 shots on average to kill a terminator. Or do you mean they get 3-4 shots each depending on rapid fire range?

Maybe just all Mordians have FRFSRF if they pass a leadership test, no need to be ordered? Or +1 BS if in base contact with another Mordian.

Rildar
08-12-2014, 12:48
That's 60 lasguns shots from a 10 man squad, 300 from a max sized blob squad. Doesn't sound like much, but it takes 36 shots on average to kill a terminator. Or do you mean they get 3-4 shots each depending on rapid fire range?

Maybe just all Mordians have FRFSRF if they pass a leadership test, no need to be ordered? Or +1 BS if in base contact with another Mordian.

3-4 shots each depending on rapid fire range.

Your idea is good, all infantry squds (not in vehicles) take a leadership test at the start of the shooting phase. they pass, they have FRFSRF. ad if they ARE in base contact with each other, then they get +1 BS