Topic: Who's gone vanilla? (Playing without doctrines)

[*Nosferatu*]

-This is said from a tactical view point with NO fluff taken into account-

I've heard great things about the doctrine system. I've heard that you'll absolutely need things like COD and ID. But for some odd reason, the more and more I play, the more I feel they become overrated. And when you look at it, the only ones you "Need" are probably COD and ID, maybe Veterans if you like them.

But I've cut my Veterans down to one squad, and this allowed to me to play them smarter (Now that I only have one squad to do, I've converted them more uniquely, and feel that they're more special then when I had two squads of them.

And COD is something I've grown to stop caring about. I still do my charges of the death, and that COD would come in handy, and it's great for it's free cost. But I don't think losing all your restricted troops is worth it.

ID seems to be only thing I worry about not having, it's cheap, and it prevents my guys form running. But I hardly fail leadership, even with the -1 waiver, and if I lose a unit under half strength, it can still be useful, but I feel that it doesn't really matter.

So, I'm thinking of just dropping doctrines all together, I use to have all 5 doctrines, and then I've just cut them down one by one as I find them less and less useful. So, to rephrase the question of the Original Post, who here has decided to play Vanilla Guard, and tell me how it's been, do I really need all this crap?

 

[Razyus]

Personally, I'm building a Mechanised army so there in lies a problem. I know Pax has stopped in anticipation.

Razyus

[Skankin_Catachan]

im a huge supporter of doctrine based armies. I feel that vanilla lists are bland since they are geared mostly towards shooting. without doctrines, you lack your counterattack/assault units, as well as the bonuses that make your force unique.


every time i play vanilla guard, it's just loaded to the teeth with heavy weapons,which is extremely boring to play against, yet hilarious if a few units hit their line and stemrolls through them.

[*Nosferatu*]

every time i play vanilla guard, it's just loaded to the teeth with heavy weapons,which is extremely boring to play against, yet hilarious if a few units hit their line and stemrolls through them.

Bit of a rash generalization don't you think?

The doctrines designed for CC are:

Harden Fighters
Close order drill
die hard
warrior weapons.
Xeno-Fighters

The only one that has any real benefit , yet doesn't end up costing more points then it's worth is COD. Die hards is not really all that good (Being surrounded = boned regardless) and xeno fighters is moot considering that 90% of all armies are Smurfs.

Either way, they end up dead meat because none of these doctrines make Guardsmen kill more marines in CC.

Just my opinion.

[Fugitive]

If you want more than four restricted troops then go vannilla, if not I cant se any reason for not taking COD. Im planing to use cod, id, conscripts and stormtrooper squads. That leavs me one docrtin, probably rough riders or ratlings. I think basing your entire strategy around doctrines would be bad though, unless your going for either droptroops, mechanised or light infantry. But I agree that other then the alternate regemental organisation doctrins, cod and id are the only ones worth their points. Maby sharpshooters for your heavy weapon squads.

[Parak]

I play both with and withdoctrines. Sometimes I find them fun and quirky and ideal for when you wanna surprise your enemy and go mechanised. But most of the time I find them a little too restrictive in buy backs. I like to field a wide variety of units and by the time Ive paid for restricted troops, I have no room for interesting doctrines.

I like COD and I even dabble in sharpshooters and prefered enemy the odd time, but my favourites are the regimental organisation ones.

The main advantage I find with doctines is it allows you to come up with quirky lists for individual games or campaigns (Black hawk down style, mechanised grenadiers anyone?!?)

[Ailaros]

It's too bad that Grimm Stalker isn't around: the true champion of not using doctrines.

If you want to know how doctrineless armies look, you can take mine as an example. I haven't used a doctrine yet, and I don't know if I ever will.

I was told early on in my guard career, far before I had started actually playing that it was best to start a guard army without doctrines. The idea is that it is important to gain experience with what a guard army is supposed to do, rather than what you think it's supposed to do. Then, afterwards, so the rationale went, if you want to then change the way that your army fights (now that you've already understood what it's strengths, weaknesses, and play style are), you can then add doctrines to tweak it in interesting ways. Otherwise, it was said, you would lose a lot of games by throwing around a lot of points on doctrines, and trying to play a guard army in ways that is simply was never meant to be played.

Anyways, I took that advice to heart, and when I started playing, I started without doctrines. Personally, I think it was a good idea. I didn't get stuck with the impression that guard are supposed to be static which comes from doctrines like cameloline, and I didn't get stuck with the impression that guardsmen were better than they were supposed to be with doctrines like carapace or sharpshooters. Most importantly, I didn't start the bad habit of paying too much for guardsmen, freeing up the points for my one true love: firepower.

While you do technically get to use all restricted troops, and thus doctrineless systems are more flexible, I've found that I haven't taken enough restricted troops to justify it to the average doctrine loving guardsmen. I do feel like I can experiment a lot more, personally, as I don't have to constantly rework my fluff of the entire Foleran Army every time I want to try out a new unit.

As well, by now it's sort of a matter of principle. If I can be successful without doctrines, I have more credibility if I tell people not to take them. Given that I still think it's better for guard commanders to start without them, and to keep on not using them until they really get at least a basic feel for what different units can do in what combinations, this will probably keep me with a vanilla army for awhile.

That being said...

The main advantage I find with doctines is it allows you to come up with quirky lists

This is what I think that doctrines are good for. Once you've become a guard master, I think it's neat that you can then screw around and try some really weird stuff with a reasonable chance of success. As I already said, for new people, I think it just screws them up, and causes them to lose more than they should.

Anyways, that's just what I think. If you want to play a vanilla list, know that you absolutely can do it, but if not, that's okay too.

[Talon Undecided]

Sometimes the only doctrines that I use are CoD and ID. I find that the rest don't really appeal to me. However, I find that doctrines can really create a characterful army, where different regiments have different fighting styles and characteristics.

E.g. The Avian Regiments have several renowned Regiments, namely the Stealthers, Elites and the Thunderers. These are represented by the following doctrines

Elites - Veterans, Carapace Armour, Iron Discipline, Grenadiers, Sharpshooters
Stealthers - Iron Discipline. Cameoline, Light Infantry, Close Order Drill, Sharpshooters
Thunderers - Mechanized, Veterans, Grenadiers, two others

So yeah, fluff, and sometimes they can turn out to pretty effective, on paper.

[*Nosferatu*]

I'm going to have to agree with you (Ailaros) on that. I've seen a lot of new Guard players (Myself included) see the Guardmen's stat line, and go, "Well, I can fix it."

Taken from a tactical point of view (You can take carapace for vostroyans + other fluff stuff) it really ends up being a waste of points. I remember taking 200+ points in doctrine upgrades because I thought it would make Guardsmen better. I realized (Not soon enough) that it's not about making Guardsmen better, it's USING guardsmen better.

To know when to sit and shoot, and when to counter attack, not gearing for one or the other only. I think not using doctrines seems (to me) to put a bit more restraint in the commander, so they don't go gung-ho on things that they think may win them games by "fixing" weaknesses instead of using the advantages

[PaxImperator]

Personally, I'm building a Mechanised army so there in lies a problem. I know Pax has stopped in anticipation.

Quite so. In my estimation the correct selection of Doctrines is decidedly better than "plain" Guard. Case in point being my current 1K infantry company which uses no Doctrines. For the price of 10 points and 3 Doctrine slots all or most of my 46 infantrymen could benefit from the Deep Strike universal special rule, ignore negative Ld modifiers for being under half strength, regroup even when under half strength and gain I and Ld bonuses when deployed in a certain fashion. All for the measly sum of 10 points and 3 out of my 5 Doctrine slots.

Tactically speaking I'd be mad to pass that up. And, tactically, I suppose I am. I do have my reasons however:

- In my view the Doctrine system was ultimately intended to turn a unique player-invented regiment into a tabletop reality. The imbalances in the Doctrine system did have the handy perk of letting the more competitively minded go wild, but that's by the bye. While I recognize the tactical good sense of picking Doctrines, then writing the background to accommodate them (if at all), it's just not for me. My Doctrine selections invariably featured Iron Discipline (effective) and Die-Hards (waste of points if ever there was one, but fit my background so made me feel less guilty about ID). Never used Drop Troops or Close Order Drill or some of the other good ones because they didn't fit the background. Then I figured that since I wasn't tactically making the most of Doctrines anyway while still managing not to adhere to my own regiment's background, I might as well go plain vanilla and save myself the headache.

- Added to that is the fact that, with the way current codices are looking, a Doctrine system in the next Guard 'dex is not damn likely. I might as well get used to the relative lack of customisation one or two (or three..) years in advance. When the new codex does come out I'll already be acclimatised to it, unlike many.

[*Striker*]

Personally I find doctrines allow you to *bend* guard into a playstyle you like more.  For example, I personally love Light infantry, not because I like a light infantry theme, but because i like to be able to tactically deploy my stuff with ease.  It makes my guardsmen more expensive without a stat increase, but it allows me to use them better by putting them in all the right places to counter the enemy.  This is how I want to play guard.  A statistically weaker race but with good tactics to counter the enemy.  (Think of Empire in Fantasy with it's detatchment rules.)  I think Light infantry is a good and innocent example of a doctrine since you pay a fair amount of points for giving a personal edge to your army.

Then you have "no brainer" doctrines you take if you have any left over.  Iron discipline is a mixed bag,  I like taking it because I want braver troops, but I can also see how people take it purely for the competitive edge.  Same with COD, as it is a freebie, why not take it? Drop troops is another example of a freebie doctrine.  When guard gets their next dex, if we keep doctrines, there will probably be balancing out of the abused ones along with unused ones getting better.

Ack, Pax ninja'd me and basically paraphrased my second paragraph.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

From day one, a large-ish (40 man) unit of conscripts have been central to my IG list.  Indeed, it was the image of fielding 233 men in 1700 points that first got me into guard.  I know conscripts aren't always the most effective, but I love them as they feel my need to sacrifice my men without having my whole army fall appart.  Plus, they give me some much needed mobility.

So, from even before day 1, I realised that I needed something to keep them around.  I had a few choices - Gaunt, independent commissars an allied inquisitor and keeping a command squad close.  Only ICs give me the satisfaction of shooting my own men (and I do find it very satisfying, and kind of addictive ), so ICs it was - which meant I needed doctrines.

Other than ICs, ALL my doctrines are buy backs.  Currently I buy back conscripts (obviously), storm troopers & psychers, and once I get my roughriders done, I'll buy them back too.

I've deliberately stayed away from such things as COD and (especially) ID, as both of them make my guard too "elite".  My guard aren't elite - they are the salt and scum of the earth, and I love them.  That said, I did waiver and take COD in my last battle, to try it out.

So, I guess I'm one of those who chose my fluff first, my doctrines second, and pretty much have never varied from the ones I have chosen.  Indeed, when I started out I used only 2 doctrines (IC and conscripts), which I kind of liked - the very lack of the full number of doctrines helped me feel their un-eliteness.

Inquisitor Psychologis Ruminahui

[legionnaire]

sigh i tend to enjoy the idea of sitting back and letting the enemy come to me. But then i start thinking man wouldn't be sweet to have some rough riders to stop those nasty assult units that my guardsman wet themselves.

So yeah doctrines have there uses mainly to make your army yours other then like the guys next since yo look left and right to see how many people care useing the same models as you.

But hey who I'm I  to say what you should do.

For I see the docs as a way to make your army yours.

[Firenze]

i HATE playin vanilla. it just isnt right for me. Ilike to take the fight to the enemy and trap him. so i took Hardened Fighter incase of assualt, Light Infantry, Storm troopers, techpriests cos they from a forge world (may change to camoline), and something you chose.

[Ailaros]

To know when to sit and shoot, and when to counter attack, not gearing for one or the other only. I think not using doctrines seems (to me) to put a bit more restraint in the commander, so they don't go gung-ho on things that they think may win them games by "fixing" weaknesses instead of using the advantages

Exactly.

Ilike to take the fight to the enemy and trap him. so i took Hardened Fighter incase of assualt, Light Infantry, Storm troopers, techpriests cos they from a forge world (may change to camoline), and something you chose.

Firstly, you can take the fight to the enemy without doctrines. One of the things that bugs me a touch is when people thing that you NEED doctrines to be ABLE to play anything other than SAFH. That simply isn't true.

- Added to that is the fact that, with the way current codices are looking, a Doctrine system in the next Guard 'dex is not damn likely.

I'd bet that they put something like space marine traits into the next guard codex. Basically the same as doctrines, but simpler, more streamlined, and without quite as many options.

[legionnaire]

Sigh i am going to miss the option to make my guys drop troops. 

Anyway thats my idea for the moment.

[Onanon]

I play vanilla Guard, but only use Doctrines if I'm taking 3 vet squads or Indi Commissars (with the 40 Conscripts, natch).

I find the Doctrines are great from a fluff-writing point of view. They are a framework you can build a fictional army around, and still reduce to 5 bullet points on a page.

[Skankin_Catachan]

Nosferatu-  Until I see a non stand and shoot vanilla list, I'm sticking to my opinion on that subject


I would love to play against a vanilla guard army that isn't a collection of vox networks, heavy weapon squads, and heavy weapons in every platoon. Not to mention the russ/bassie factor.

How many vanilla guard players here play an aggressive army?
If so, do have you posted your list in the past?

I can't say my armies leave home without hardened fighter and light infantry. i can't think of the amount of times those upgrades won me games (i kid you not).
                       

[*Nosferatu*]

Nosferatu-  Until I see a non stand and shoot vanilla list, I'm sticking to my opinion on that subject

Fair enough, it's you opinion, as wrong as it may be. j/k.


Though you find that non doctrine Guard units seem to be sit and shoot, that's not really the problem of the army lists, but more on the players, and I tend to play Guard aggressively, and I've "seen" Ailaros can get aggressive on occasion. But I guess I must concede a point, though that does not mean that vanilla Guard cannot be used in HTH against non Tau units.

I'll run my army into the ground even if I have to prove it! 

[Ailaros]

hey, skankin. I suggest you check out these (specifically the first 10 or so):

http://www.wizardhat.com/dove/folera/bat-reps.html

I've never used a vox net, and I've played very aggressively with a vanilla list, I mean, look at this one, or this one, for example.

doctrineless does not equal stand and shoot. If you don't believe me, then go without doctrines for awhile and use a similar play style.