I'm not sure about anyone else, but to me the BA codex seems to have brought about more feelings of "That's just not right" within the 40k community.

There are lots of things in the Codex, like Dante not scattering, a double hit St6 rending template, fast rhino-based vehicles, and common as muck dreadnoughts that just makes it feel like a Fan-Dex instead of something official
Just because something is pointed up right, doesn't mean that it doesn't break the spirit of the game. I was really looking forward to this codex as I started out playing BA, but the damn thing just makes me feel uncomfortable

1) Theyve had "fast" rhino chassis for a while now - just in the previous book int could go wrong. Now they are more expensive but reliable. And they *pay* for it - Baal preds are very expensive.

2) A special chracter doing something special? OMG!!

And its not even that useful - the one unit he should go with (Vanguards) still dont have a use as they lose their rule if he joins them

3) Again, their dreadnoughts are more common - as they succumb more easily to the thirst entombment is often the only way to go.

If you ignore the really, really out there stuff, it's not a bad codex. Just ignore the loyalist daemon prince (Mephiston), the deep striking dedicated transport Land Raiders, and the Stormraven, and you've got a decent enough codex. I just think of it as Codex: Fast Marines Who Sometimes Get Real Mad Angels.

What's wrong with the Stormraven?

The Codex does seem to contain some... Shall we say 'effective' units and rules.

But then, I haven't read it and I'm guessing that a lot of other complainers haven't read it either - or if they have, they didn't read past 'deep striking Land Radiers'.

Long story short - give it a few months, see how it does in tournaments etc, and wait for people to start hyperventilating about whatever is flavour of the month then.

I don't have a problem with the book being too powerful, Blood Angels wipe the floor with my armies every time anyway.
What really bugs me is the fact that they have stuff which would fit much better into an Ork army. Like a friggin' grappling hook on a Dread.

Played against them last night with my DE. I put a hurting on 'em but did lose out in the end. The only thing that concerns me is being able to re-roll....EVERYTHING! I suppose that's the effect of their blood rage, so ofc they have to succeed on their rolls to get it.

I hate the blood talons on dreads.

I don't think it's over powered, but I don't really 'get' why they did certain things like deep striking Lander Raiders and the Stormraven. It's like they were determined to pack as many subtle variations of deep strike into the Codex as they could.

That said, it's infinitely more preferable to their Dark Angels 'effort', the specialist Space Marines Codex that is more vanilla than Vanilla Marines.

Brother SRM wrote:If you ignore the really, really out there stuff, it's not a bad codex. Just ignore the loyalist daemon prince (Mephiston), the deep striking dedicated transport Land Raiders, and the Stormraven, and you've got a decent enough codex. I just think of it as Codex: Fast Marines Who Sometimes Get Real Mad Angels.

You mean ignore most of the special units

It's not so much that I think it's overpowered, it's just really weird...
Like having Sternguard when the last codex specifically said that the Veteran company doesn't have any tactical squads
And having straight up fast Vindicators is very different to overcharged engines on a Rhino - I know they're more expensive, but when has any fluff ever mentioned anything like this before?

Dante goes better with Sanguinary Guard than Vanguard, especially with lots of Inferno Pistols (which, again, break the spirit of the game as they are meant to be uber rare, not handed out like sweets).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that BA are game breaking, but they are high on the BS meter.

The only thing that REALLY annoys me is their assault squads.

Everyone keeps saying, "they have fast rhinos but they pay for it!"

But, really, they don't pay for it.

Ok, a blood angels assault squad is 18 points per model. A vanilla marine tactical squad is 16 points per model. You take ten of each. The blood angels assault squad comes out 20 points more. Ok, cool. Now, buy your rhinos. The blood angels assault squad gets their rhino at 15 points. The vanilla marine tactical squad gets theirs for 35. Oh, hey, a difference of twenty points! They're the same damn price when both are mounted in a rhino. Granted, the assault squad doesn't get a "free" heavy weapon, but it can pay for an additional assault weapon, which is probably better in most cases.

So, their basic troop is just straight up more efficient than the vanilla basic troop.

Tactical squads are able to get better special weapons to deal with things (gasp) in a tactical manner. Assault marines have pretty much one thing they are good at. Assaulting people. They have to remove their jump packs to get the vehicle eliminating their mobility. Assault Marines without jump packs just sounds like a bad idea to me since rhinos aren't all that durable of a transport. I have played against BA with my Tau and my Orks. They are harder for my orks since they hold up in assault rather well but my Tau still gun them down the same as standard marines. Can't assault me if you can't reach me.

I'll take a tactical squad over that unit. The second special weapon is nice, but not worth the loss of combat tactics and bolters. Plus, you're sticking an assault unit into a vehicle they can't assault from. Rhinos are more conducive to bolter-drive-by's that assaults.

I think assault squads are better used in one of two ways:

1. a large mob with attached character(s), with either jump packs (re-roll, 1D6 scatter), a Land Raider (35 points cheaper), or a Stormraven (very fast, and can carry a furioso with talons or librarian with force weapon+frag cannon for support).

2. Scoring/tank-hunting unit split into combat squads. One squad of 5 marines goes to ground in cover on an objective, the other half takes two meltaguns and maybe an infernus into a razorback (55 points for a fast twin-linked AC or LC) and goes munching vehicles.

Luke_Prowler wrote:I wouldn't go so far as to say that BA are game breaking, but they are high on the BS meter.

Thats my opinion as well. BA can be beat (I tied at 1500 pts last night vs 20+ sanquinary guard). But there is so much in their codex that just should not be. Its total BS. 2+ save things should not be getting FNP. Your 250 pt special character should not cripple my 250 pt character just because they are sitting on the same damn battlefield (Dante).

There are just some things that should not happen that do happen in the BA codex. Powerful, useless, cheap, or otherwise.

rocklord2004 wrote:Tactical squads are able to get better special weapons to deal with things (gasp) in a tactical manner. Assault marines have pretty much one thing they are good at. Assaulting people. They have to remove their jump packs to get the vehicle eliminating their mobility. Assault Marines without jump packs just sounds like a bad idea to me since rhinos aren't all that durable of a transport. I have played against BA with my Tau and my Orks. They are harder for my orks since they hold up in assault rather well but my Tau still gun them down the same as standard marines. Can't assault me if you can't reach me.

Pretty sure they have the same options for assault weapons. The only thing they don't get is the heavy. And, if you're firing a heavy weapon, odds are there's nine space marines you paid for standing around doing nothing. Or you split your tac squad into two five man groups one of which...really isn't that great.

Rhinos are perfectly durable. There are a lot of armies who have trouble popping tanks. Between smoke launchers and only a one in three shot of popping it on a pen, rhinos get you across the board just fine, at fewer casualties than a jump pack.

And not being able to assault from them is no big deal. You move up, you pop smoke. Next turn you get out and charge, having taken no shooting losses, unlike jump packs. And with, say, two flamers and a combi flamer...or two meltas and a combi melta...or, whatever you chose to take, their shooting ain't bad either.

And in place of combat tactics they get a one in six chance of having furious charge. Not the best trade in the world, but a hell of a lot better than stubborn.

So, just to break this down once more. For THE EXACT SAME POINTS you get a squad that swaps its bolters for close combat weapons (which is pretty comparable), can take two assault weapons (which is better), and gets fast transports. They are hands down better than tactical squads.

I still think SW and even C:SM. Plasma and ML take the down just as well.

It seems like a tough Dex. I couldn't ascertain any drawbacks to red thirst, and I supremely dislike the Psyker Dreads. I'm sure it will prove beatable, but for the time being, I don't like it.

Only things I have an issue with in that book are Jump Pack Dreadnoughts and Deep Striking Land Raiders. They're both super-stupid, and should never have made the cut.

And other than the heavy emphasis on Special Characters, which is not a Blood Angel problem, but a Jervis + Rest of the Studio problem, the rest of the book seems fine to me.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Only things I have an issue with in that book are Jump Pack Dreadnoughts and Deep Striking Land Raiders. They're both super-stupid, and should never have made the cut.

They're not 'jump-pack Dreadnoughts', H'. That would be silly.

They're psychic Dreadnoughts with magical wings.

Cheese Elemental wrote:They're psychic Dreadnoughts with magical wings.

Cheese, I think you just made my brain go stupid.

My only beefs with the codex, fast attack Baal Preds, fast vindicators. <-----

Platuan4th wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:They're psychic Dreadnoughts with magical wings.

Cheese, I think you just made my brain go stupid.

Don't blame Cheese, blame Matt Ward.

Partof1 wrote:It seems like a tough Dex. I couldn't ascertain any drawbacks to red thirst, and I supremely dislike the Psyker Dreads. I'm sure it will prove beatable, but for the time being, I don't like it.

Red Thirst is all draw-back.
1. It is not reliable enough to count on for Furious Charge, and you don't even need it since you can get that automatically with Sanguinary Priests.
2. Fearless is in many instances worse than ATSKNF, as it's the difference between escaping that Ork horde to assault them on your turn, and having to make extra saving throws.
3. Losing combat tactics is a hard blow to Angels' tactical and devastator squads. Again, it's the difference between escaping a hopeless combat to bring your weapons to bear, and slowly getting chewed up in close combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whocares wrote:Pretty sure they have the same options for assault weapons. The only thing they don't get is the heavy. And, if you're firing a heavy weapon, odds are there's nine space marines you paid for standing around doing nothing. Or you split your tac squad into two five man groups one of which...really isn't that great.

Rhinos are perfectly durable. There are a lot of armies who have trouble popping tanks. Between smoke launchers and only a one in three shot of popping it on a pen, rhinos get you across the board just fine, at fewer casualties than a jump pack.

And not being able to assault from them is no big deal. You move up, you pop smoke. Next turn you get out and charge, having taken no shooting losses, unlike jump packs. And with, say, two flamers and a combi flamer...or two meltas and a combi melta...or, whatever you chose to take, their shooting ain't bad either.

And in place of combat tactics they get a one in six chance of having furious charge. Not the best trade in the world, but a hell of a lot better than stubborn.

So, just to break this down once more. For THE EXACT SAME POINTS you get a squad that swaps its bolters for close combat weapons (which is pretty comparable), can take two assault weapons (which is better), and gets fast transports. They are hands down better than tactical squads.

To address your points in order:

1. Yes, they get the same options for assault weapons, but they pay full price for them, as opposed to getting them for free or a discount. 5-man tactical teams with missile launchers are great objective holders, or if a multi-melta is taken instead, gives a great anti-tank option or protection against tank shock.
2. "A lot of armies who have trouble popping tanks"? I'm sorry, if there are any armies like that in 5th edition, then they would lose against 99% of tournament armies anyway, so they don't deserve any consideration. But yes, rhinos are certainly a safer way to cross the field than jump packs, I just think they favor tactical squads more. For example, an assault squad in a rhino will have to be smaller than full-sized in order to accommodate characters, which means you give up the second assault weapon.
3. That tactic of popping smoke and charging next turn is genius.... unless you're facing an army also capable in close combat and you just gave them both the charge and wasted your Furious Charge advantage. Rhinos with smoke are resilient, but given the cost of each tooled-up assault squad (300+), they only need to pop one or two to completely blunt your attack.
4. Furious Charge that they could have gotten anyway in exchange for losing ATSKNF, these two cancel each other out. It's easier to say they simply lose combat tactics in exchange for their weapon/vehicle options.
5. A tactical squad with flamer/MM in a rhino costs 10 points less than an assault squad with two flamers in a rhino. More than 10 if we're talking more expensive special weapons.

So you're trading boltguns (which I think are highly underrated) and a heavy weapon for close combat weapons and a second assault weapon, which is a pretty even trade. You are still paying 10-15 extra points for the fast vehicle, and you lose Combat Tactics simply for the benefit of being a Blood Angel, i.e. being able to get buffed by Sanguinary Priests, which are an additional easily-killed 50-point character. Sounds like a pretty fair trade-off, nothing "hands down better" about them.

Terminus wrote:

Partof1 wrote:It seems like a tough Dex. I couldn't ascertain any drawbacks to red thirst, and I supremely dislike the Psyker Dreads. I'm sure it will prove beatable, but for the time being, I don't like it.

Red Thirst is all draw-back.
1. It is not reliable enough to count on for Furious Charge, and you don't even need it since you can get that automatically with Sanguinary Priests.
2. Fearless is in many instances worse than ATSKNF, as it's the difference between escaping that Ork horde to assault them on your turn, and having to make extra saving throws.
3. Losing combat tactics is a hard blow to Angels' tactical and devastator squads. Again, it's the difference between escaping a hopeless combat to bring your weapons to bear, and slowly getting chewed up in close combat.

OK, I don't play Space Marines, but who would take tactical squads when assault marines get all the goodies in this Codex?

No one. Without combat tactics, and with more expensive transports, Blood Angels tactical squads aren't worth the effort. If you tried to play them like regular Space Marines, you'd stink up the place. Of course, a buddy of mine is trying to prove me wrong on that point by using tactical squads supported by honor guard squads in razors (i.e. 4 more meltas/plasmas and a sanguinary priest), but adding up the points per unit leaves me unimpressed.

But BA tactical squads sucking doesn't make vanilla Space Marine tactical squads bad; they are cheaper and more flexible. Really, providing a distinct yet balanced play-style is one of the things this codex does well, in my opinion (it's mostly fluff and sense of decency where it fails ).

Terminus wrote:

Partof1 wrote:It seems like a tough Dex. I couldn't ascertain any drawbacks to red thirst, and I supremely dislike the Psyker Dreads. I'm sure it will prove beatable, but for the time being, I don't like it.

Red Thirst is all draw-back.
1. It is not reliable enough to count on for Furious Charge, and you don't even need it since you can get that automatically with Sanguinary Priests.
2. Fearless is in many instances worse than ATSKNF, as it's the difference between escaping that Ork horde to assault them on your turn, and having to make extra saving throws.
3. Losing combat tactics is a hard blow to Angels' tactical and devastator squads. Again, it's the difference between escaping a hopeless combat to bring your weapons to bear, and slowly getting chewed up in close combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whocares wrote:Pretty sure they have the same options for assault weapons. The only thing they don't get is the heavy. And, if you're firing a heavy weapon, odds are there's nine space marines you paid for standing around doing nothing. Or you split your tac squad into two five man groups one of which...really isn't that great.

Rhinos are perfectly durable. There are a lot of armies who have trouble popping tanks. Between smoke launchers and only a one in three shot of popping it on a pen, rhinos get you across the board just fine, at fewer casualties than a jump pack.

And not being able to assault from them is no big deal. You move up, you pop smoke. Next turn you get out and charge, having taken no shooting losses, unlike jump packs. And with, say, two flamers and a combi flamer...or two meltas and a combi melta...or, whatever you chose to take, their shooting ain't bad either.

And in place of combat tactics they get a one in six chance of having furious charge. Not the best trade in the world, but a hell of a lot better than stubborn.

So, just to break this down once more. For THE EXACT SAME POINTS you get a squad that swaps its bolters for close combat weapons (which is pretty comparable), can take two assault weapons (which is better), and gets fast transports. They are hands down better than tactical squads.

To address your points in order:

1. Yes, they get the same options for assault weapons, but they pay full price for them, as opposed to getting them for free or a discount. 5-man tactical teams with missile launchers are great objective holders, or if a multi-melta is taken instead, gives a great anti-tank option or protection against tank shock.
2. "A lot of armies who have trouble popping tanks"? I'm sorry, if there are any armies like that in 5th edition, then they would lose against 99% of tournament armies anyway, so they don't deserve any consideration. But yes, rhinos are certainly a safer way to cross the field than jump packs, I just think they favor tactical squads more. For example, an assault squad in a rhino will have to be smaller than full-sized in order to accommodate characters, which means you give up the second assault weapon.
3. That tactic of popping smoke and charging next turn is genius.... unless you're facing an army also capable in close combat and you just gave them both the charge and wasted your Furious Charge advantage. Rhinos with smoke are resilient, but given the cost of each tooled-up assault squad (300+), they only need to pop one or two to completely blunt your attack.
4. Furious Charge that they could have gotten anyway in exchange for losing ATSKNF, these two cancel each other out. It's easier to say they simply lose combat tactics in exchange for their weapon/vehicle options.
5. A tactical squad with flamer/MM in a rhino costs 10 points less than an assault squad with two flamers in a rhino. More than 10 if we're talking more expensive special weapons.

So you're trading boltguns (which I think are highly underrated) and a heavy weapon for close combat weapons and a second assault weapon, which is a pretty even trade. You are still paying 10-15 extra points for the fast vehicle, and you lose Combat Tactics simply for the benefit of being a Blood Angel, i.e. being able to get buffed by Sanguinary Priests, which are an additional easily-killed 50-point character. Sounds like a pretty fair trade-off, nothing "hands down better" about them.

1) This is true. They may be about 10 points more. But a melta gun is just as good defense against tank shock as a multi melta.
2) Yeah, they do. Tanks are a lot harder to pop in fifth than they were in previous editions. Having your troops in transports is fantastic protection. Sure, they just about always blown up eventually, but as long as you get one move in, it doesn't really matter. And a tactical squad in a rhino that wants to include a character has the same problem, so it's even there.
3)How did you give them the charge? ...stay in the rhino. They'll need to blow it up before they get to you. Like I said, you can pen a rhino all you want, but anything but a destroyed result at that point did absolutely nothing, and it gets its save. And if it is an assault oriented army, pretty good odds it blows up vehicles in assault, which means you get the charge. And your squads should be in the mid 200 range.
4) Yeah, the furious charge I didn't even factor in.
5) This is true. But if you just keep the jump packs, they're about the same points. Maybe cheaper, depending on weapons. And ten points for six more inches on your rhino is insane. I think people are really under rating how good this is. Sure, tac squads can sit on objectives, but these squads can go grab them.

I'm not saying blood angels are the end all be all of top tier armies. They're not. I think duel lash/oblit spam will always be up on them. Well tooled guard lists as well. But it speaks poorly for a game's balance when the army which is supposed to be the ultimate mid-tier, balanced army (space marines) has its most core unit one upped in every way by one of its clones.

@OP: Not even *close* to "too far".

Right now, the answer to a chicken little cry is: lern 2 play.

If BA are dominating things 6 months to a year from now, like Daemons in WFB then yeah, I'll change my tune. But until you show us evidence of tournament lists that consistently win against Orks, Guard, *and* CSM, I think it's just newness.

2. A tactical squad doesn't need to include a character. All they need is their guns, and they use them to kill opposing scoring units.

In order to beat other close combat specialists, however, Blood Angels assault squads NEED characters. At the very least, they need that Sanguinary Priest, otherwise their combat abilities are no more impressive than vanilla assault squads.

3. 225 just for the unit with two flamers and a power fist, another 15 for the rhino. And at this point all you've done is trade weapon sets and given up combat tactics for fast, so you're not even that great in combat. If you add a priest, add about another 30 points or so and give up a special weapon. I am not seeing the huge disparity that makes them so much better than vanilla tac squads. Again, they only need to pop one or two rhinos to cancel the Furious Charge and blunt your assault.

5. Ah, but didn't we just decide that rhinos are superior to jump packs? In any case, fast is great, but rhinos benefit the least from it since they basically have no guns. But yes, the option for a 18" scoot is great, and predators/razorbacks/vindicators benefit immensely from this rule.

So I still vehemently disagree that the vanilla tactical squad is "one upped in every way" by Blood Angels assault squads. Their vehicles are flat-out better, and they may underpay for the privilege just a smidge, but from a balance perspective it's hardly game-breaking.

It's more offensive from a fluff perspective. Fiddling with their engines to squeeze out some extra speed at the risk of burning them out was offensive enough to the Machine Spirit. Now it's obvious the Blood Angels have co-opted Xenos technology, a heresy that begets swift retribution. The upcoming GK codex better have an entire short story about them purging the Blood Angels and taking back their stolen Stormravens.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@OP: Not even *close* to "too far".

Right now, the answer to a chicken little cry is: lern 2 play.

If BA are dominating things 6 months to a year from now, like Daemons in WFB then yeah, I'll change my tune. But until you show us evidence of tournament lists that consistently win against Orks, Guard, *and* CSM, I think it's just newness.

Like I said it's not a case of them being overpowered, more a case of BS.
Like a transport that can carry 2 units and isn't Apoc only
Magna Grapples - 2am idea if I've ever heard it: maybe for Orks, but certainly not right for SM of any kind.

Plus, just because you've fitted a larger engine to a tank, doesn't mean it will be more stable and able to fire after moving 12"; the gun will still be waving about all over the place which is one reason why Fast Rhino varients annoys me so much...

I wanted to like this Codex, I really did, but any time I try to read it I come away with a feeling that I'm doing something wrong

Something to add about Blood Angel Assault Squads: They share a problem with their co-religionists the Chaos Space Marine Berzerkers: they can take objectives, but they suck at holding objectives because they lack the integral firepower to reach out while holding position.

Grim.Badger wrote:
Plus, just because you've fitted a larger engine to a tank, doesn't mean it will be more stable and able to fire after moving 12"; the gun will still be waving about all over the place which is one reason why Fast Rhino varients annoys me so much...

Like I said, Xenos technology. Their exterminatus shall be as swift as it is irrevocable.

Nurglitch wrote:Something to add about Blood Angel Assault Squads: They share a problem with their co-religionists the Chaos Space Marine Berzerkers: they can take objectives, but they suck at holding objectives because they lack the integral firepower to reach out while holding position.

The key difference is that AM can take Deep-Striking Land Raiders as Trasnsports. When you're in an AV14/14/14 Tank with a ton of long-ranged guns, you can probably do a decent job of holding an Objective.

Actually, thinking about it, a AM squad could wait in reserve then DS in on the last turn much more accurately with Decent of Angels to steal any unclaimed objectives.

That will be hard when you're re-rolling failed reserve roles. You have a 75% chance to come in on turn 2 and an 89% chance on turn 3.

Anyway, for all the fluff nonsense of the BA codex, I like how IG, SW, Nids and now BA are taking the game back towards more of a zanier 2nd edition feel. I bet the Grey Knights are going to be all kinds of off the hook.

Terminus wrote:2. A tactical squad doesn't need to include a character. All they need is their guns, and they use them to kill opposing scoring units.

In order to beat other close combat specialists, however, Blood Angels assault squads NEED characters. At the very least, they need that Sanguinary Priest, otherwise their combat abilities are no more impressive than vanilla assault squads.

3. 225 just for the unit with two flamers and a power fist, another 15 for the rhino. And at this point all you've done is trade weapon sets and given up combat tactics for fast, so you're not even that great in combat. If you add a priest, add about another 30 points or so and give up a special weapon. I am not seeing the huge disparity that makes them so much better than vanilla tac squads. Again, they only need to pop one or two rhinos to cancel the Furious Charge and blunt your assault.

5. Ah, but didn't we just decide that rhinos are superior to jump packs? In any case, fast is great, but rhinos benefit the least from it since they basically have no guns. But yes, the option for a 18" scoot is great, and predators/razorbacks/vindicators benefit immensely from this rule.

So I still vehemently disagree that the vanilla tactical squad is "one upped in every way" by Blood Angels assault squads. Their vehicles are flat-out better, and they may underpay for the privilege just a smidge, but from a balance perspective it's hardly game-breaking.

It's more offensive from a fluff perspective. Fiddling with their engines to squeeze out some extra speed at the risk of burning them out was offensive enough to the Machine Spirit. Now it's obvious the Blood Angels have co-opted Xenos technology, a heresy that begets swift retribution. The upcoming GK codex better have an entire short story about them purging the Blood Angels and taking back their stolen Stormravens.

2) Why do blood angels need to contend with assault specialists, while vanilla marines do not?

All vanilla tac squads have over blood angel assault squads is bolters versus bolt pistols. All this means is that each marine in the squad that is not specialized in some way gets one more shot. (usually meaning seven more shots). However, blood angels get one more attack in close combat. Now, when those vanilla marines do a bolter drive by, assuming their weapons were in range, on their opponent's turn they'll be in charge range. So, they end up in it with those combat specialists as well. And at ws 4 st 4 whether I have one more close combat attack or one more bolter shot, is about the same to me. Not to mention, you do combat on both turns, so there are good odds you end up getting more attacks out of the close combat weapon than the bolter. So all in all, I'd say the pistol and combat weapon are at least as good as the bolter, if not better.

3) See, that's exactly it. You arm them just like vanilla tac squads. And they more or less are vanilla tac squads with the extra special weapon (which is, in my opinion better than a heavy), close combat weapons (again, in my opinion, better), and a rhino that moves six inches faster. Not to mention, that you can shoot out of when it moves 12". So, yeah, basically just treat it like a tac squad, and it will be a tac squad...but better.

5) Rhinos are better. A russ can wipe out a squad of jump pacs. Only has a 2/9 chance of popping a rhino. (assuming no scatter). But, they have the choice. And having a choice is always better than not having one. See, the predators (really? predators? I wouldn't pay for fast on them), vindicators, etc pay for it. The rhinos...basically don't. And rhinos are full of scoring units.

I agree with this. Let the purging commence!

IMHO, the only things I really dislike about the book are;

A.) Sternguard and Vanguard should have been Vanilla Marine only. They were cool new special units that Vanilla got for not being fancy and specialized, and should have remained so, with BA getting their fancy new Sanguinary Guard. Which brings me to...

B.) Yes, I get it, they're BLOOD Angels. You didn't need to name every frakking piece of wargear they get Blood this, or Sanguinary (latin for blood!) that. Hey, this rule doesn't have word Blood in it's name! Better throw in Angel then to make sure they don't forget what Codex this is!

Aduro wrote:B.) Yes, I get it, they're BLOOD Angels. You didn't need to name every frakking piece of wargear they get Blood this, or Sanguinary (latin for blood!) that. Hey, this rule doesn't have word Blood in it's name! Better throw in Angel then to make sure they don't forget what Codex this is!

Wait for the Dark / Death / Raven / Angel book update....

Where's Kyoto's definition fo the Red Marines when you need it?

Terminus wrote:It's more offensive from a fluff perspective. Fiddling with their engines to squeeze out some extra speed at the risk of burning them out was offensive enough to the Machine Spirit. Now it's obvious the Blood Angels have co-opted Xenos technology, a heresy that begets swift retribution. The upcoming GK codex better have an entire short story about them purging the Blood Angels and taking back their stolen Stormravens.

Fluff wise the Ad mech should have sent a small detachment of Titans to them when they withheld the STC for the Baal Pred. Now they're just pushing their luck and plot armour as mariens. It would be the Xeno Hunters, not GK (but maybe the engines are influenced by daemons, with all the blood rage I suspect them to be under the influence of Khorne ).

whocares wrote:2) Why do blood angels need to contend with assault specialists, while vanilla marines do not?

Because tactical marines don't try to duke it out in melee with these specialists, but rather just shoot them in the face. Or if engaged, they use combat tactics to escape combat, and THEN shoot them in the face. And "assault specialists" can mean anything from large boyz squads to Grey Hunters with a totem and mark. Without at the very least a Sanguinary Priest, the BA assault marines will get owned by such units.

Assault Marines really need to be charging with a Sanguinary Priest in order to be exceptional in any way. If not charging, they are pretty mediocre in close combat, mainly relying on their resilience due to FNP to eek out a 1- or 2-margin combat resolution to win assaults. Looking at other MEQ units, without the priest's buffs the blood angels are worse in close combat than Grey Hunters, CSM and Berserkers, and are worse in a tactical role than Tactical Marines, Grey Hunters, CSM and Plague Marines.

3) See, that's exactly it. You arm them just like vanilla tac squads. And they more or less are vanilla tac squads with the extra special weapon (which is, in my opinion better than a heavy), close combat weapons (again, in my opinion, better), and a rhino that moves six inches faster. Not to mention, that you can shoot out of when it moves 12". So, yeah, basically just treat it like a tac squad, and it will be a tac squad...but better.

We've gone over this before, you're paying anywhere between 10 and 15 points more, and are losing combat tactics for the privilege of that fast vehicle and second weapon. Pretty fair trade, especially considering the assault squad also needs a nearby Sanguinary Priest to be remarkable.

Also, no you CANNOT shoot out of it when it moves 12". The rulebook is VERY CLEAR about this, units may not shoot out of vehicles that move at cruising speed, regardless of how uber its engines are.

Aduro wrote:
A.) Sternguard and Vanguard should have been Vanilla Marine only. They were cool new special units that Vanilla got for not being fancy and specialized, and should have remained so, with BA getting their fancy new Sanguinary Guard. Which brings me to...

Vanguard were derived from the elite Veteran Assault Marines in the old pdf BA Codex. I think it was right for them to remain. I agree that sternguard should have been left out.

B.) Yes, I get it, they're BLOOD Angels. You didn't need to name every frakking piece of wargear they get Blood this, or Sanguinary (latin for blood!) that. Hey, this rule doesn't have word Blood in it's name! Better throw in Angel then to make sure they don't forget what Codex this is!

yeah, all the blood stuff does sound worse than all the wolf stuff in the wolf book, but I don't know why. It just does.

Terminus wrote:

whocares wrote:2) Why do blood angels need to contend with assault specialists, while vanilla marines do not?

Because tactical marines don't try to duke it out in melee with these specialists, but rather just shoot them in the face. Or if engaged, they use combat tactics to escape combat, and THEN shoot them in the face. And "assault specialists" can mean anything from large boyz squads to Grey Hunters with a totem and mark. Without at the very least a Sanguinary Priest, the BA assault marines will get owned by such units.

Assault Marines really need to be charging with a Sanguinary Priest in order to be exceptional in any way. If not charging, they are pretty mediocre in close combat, mainly relying on their resilience due to FNP to eek out a 1- or 2-margin combat resolution to win assaults. Looking at other MEQ units, without the priest's buffs the blood angels are worse in close combat than Grey Hunters, CSM and Berserkers, and are worse in a tactical role than Tactical Marines, Grey Hunters, CSM and Plague Marines.

3) See, that's exactly it. You arm them just like vanilla tac squads. And they more or less are vanilla tac squads with the extra special weapon (which is, in my opinion better than a heavy), close combat weapons (again, in my opinion, better), and a rhino that moves six inches faster. Not to mention, that you can shoot out of when it moves 12". So, yeah, basically just treat it like a tac squad, and it will be a tac squad...but better.

We've gone over this before, you're paying anywhere between 10 and 15 points more, and are losing combat tactics for the privilege of that fast vehicle and second weapon. Pretty fair trade, especially considering the assault squad also needs a nearby Sanguinary Priest to be remarkable.

Also, no you CANNOT shoot out of it when it moves 12". The rulebook is VERY CLEAR about this, units may not shoot out of vehicles that move at cruising speed, regardless of how uber its engines are.

It's not about being remarkable. How often is a tactical squad remarkable? I suppose the answer to that question would depend on how you define the word, but you get my point.

So, 10-15 points for six more inches of movement, an extra assault weapon, and close combat weapons? Yeah, I'll make that trade any day of the week. As already stated, tactical marines only get seven more bolter shots than the assault squad, and the assault squad gets seven more close combat attacks, which it makes twice per turn once in combat. And combat tactics is really nice, but also really situational. I love when my opponents opt to run, roll too low, and I end up following them off the board with a spare attack bike or empty rhino.

And all the units you listed (with the exception of CSM) are way more expensive than a BA assault squad. And they would wipe out a tac squad just as easily, so it's a moot point. And I'm not really seeing how a generic CSM squad is inherently better than a BA assault squad, unless it has been upgraded sufficiently that it is also far more expensive. And again, then it would kill a tac squad just as well.

Good point about the rhinos. I always forget that damn rule. One of those things like trying to shoot a template weapon out of a fire point.

Anyway, we're obviously going in circles. Been nice talking to you.

Meh having skipped reading this thread I think its a nice codex I really saw nothing too overwhelming in it the Fast vehicals were expected. Besides the Storm Raven nothing in there too bad. And even that's only armour 12.

BA has better scoring units than marines.

You don't take 10 man BA assault squads, you take 5 man, sell the jump packs and buy your razorback on the cheap.

A 5 man BA assault squad w/flamer in a las/plas razorback is 160pts. And it's fast. Marines cannot get a unit like this at all and to just get one close costs 165.

It's a very effective unit. A couple of these, a fun bus (DC + LRC) along with some support in the form of baal preds, vindi's and a dread or two makes a nice 2k list.

Not to much cheddar in that one either.

Goodness gracious. The new codex certainly seems like everything in it is broken and unfluffy!

Once again, the Codex is good. Someday soon the post-update BA will become part of the "new normal" and it will be time to rant about... what... the Necrons?

Terminus wrote:
Also, no you CANNOT shoot out of it when it moves 12". The rulebook is VERY CLEAR about this, units may not shoot out of vehicles that move at cruising speed, regardless of how uber its engines are.

I thought it was flat out vehicle that the embarked unit couldn't shoot from with weapons.

Fast vindicators nothing special, you can only fire ordanace moving at combat speed. If you plan to move it flat out towards the enemy and not shoot you will only be moving to closer to its death.

If it is fast vehicles we are talking about how about combat speed on any of the preditor varieties (including baal). That is what freaks me about the dex. They can keep deep striking land raider, it will take one bad mishap and the tactic will be abandoned in competitive play if not already.

Stormraven on the other hand thats got something for definite aswell (shudders).

I also see tactical in rhinos as a potential option aswell as assault squads with JP. Assault squads without jump packs in Rhinos erm .... so so.

ceorron:

Could you cite a passage in the rulebook preventing a Fast vehicle from firing an Ordnance Weapon when moving at Cruising Speed?

I can't wait for the next Tau codex so that I may smugly defend the non-pwnage of my army.

No, heck, you are right. Yep you can fire ordance weapons from fast vehicles when moving at cruise speed. It only includes the exception for ordance barrage which it allows for fast vehicles at combat speed.

Does this make the BA vindicator the only fast vehicle to mount an ordnance weapon? I'm still prefering predators more as a fast vehicle but yes they are better than I was thinking.

It appears i'm also wrong about the fast vehicles allowing embarked troops to fire even at cruise speed, doesn't give the exception.

whocares wrote:It's not about being remarkable. How often is a tactical squad remarkable? I suppose the answer to that question would depend on how you define the word, but you get my point.

Oh, it's not? And here I thought that one SM basic troop unit being "hands down better in every way" than another similarly-pointed SM basic troop unit was pretty damn remarkable.

So, 10-15 points for six more inches of movement, an extra assault weapon, and close combat weapons? Yeah, I'll make that trade any day of the week. As already stated, tactical marines only get seven more bolter shots than the assault squad, and the assault squad gets seven more close combat attacks, which it makes twice per turn once in combat. And combat tactics is really nice, but also really situational. I love when my opponents opt to run, roll too low, and I end up following them off the board with a spare attack bike or empty rhino.

And all the units you listed (with the exception of CSM) are way more expensive than a BA assault squad. And they would wipe out a tac squad just as easily, so it's a moot point. And I'm not really seeing how a generic CSM squad is inherently better than a BA assault squad, unless it has been upgraded sufficiently that it is also far more expensive. And again, then it would kill a tac squad just as well.

Good point about the rhinos. I always forget that damn rule. One of those things like trying to shoot a template weapon out of a fire point.

Yes, combat tactics is situational and can backfire. So is the extra movement of the rhino, as you can't do a drive-by if you're moving flat out, and often moving that far ahead can leave you exposed to enemy attacks unless you're planning just soaking hits for a turn and counter-attacking on yours. So again, the point is moot. You pay 10-15 extra points for an extra assault weapon vs. a heavy, trade combat tactics for fast on the rhino, and trade boltguns for a close combat weapon. I think we can agree that both units are viable in their own way, with neither outcassing the other.

As for all the units I listed, only the cult troops are more expensive (but they are also significantly better, so once you add a Sanguinary Priest to the assault squad, the points even out here too). For GH and CSM, compare them to the assault squad with 2 meltas, power fist, and rhino (i.e. 250 points).

10 Grey Hunters - 2 meltas, power fist, rhino, mark of the wulfen, wolf standard = 240 points. I actually don't bother with the power fist, and give them two plasma guns, which makes them an amazing tactical unit for only 220 points.
10 Chaos Marines - 2 meltas, power fist, rhino = 245 points. Without a Sanguinary Priest, the CSM squad is "inherently better" because it has BOTH boltguns AND close combat weapons. It's a small distinction, but it does make them better at holding objectives. If you add the Mark of Khorne, they also become significantly better in close combat while only being 25 points more than the assault squad.

imweasel wrote:BA has better scoring units than marines.

You don't take 10 man BA assault squads, you take 5 man, sell the jump packs and buy your razorback on the cheap.

A 5 man BA assault squad w/flamer in a las/plas razorback is 160pts. And it's fast. Marines cannot get a unit like this at all and to just get one close costs 165.

It's a very effective unit. A couple of these, a fun bus (DC + LRC) along with some support in the form of baal preds, vindi's and a dread or two makes a nice 2k list.

Not to much cheddar in that one either.

A couple of these units are great for adding some cheap scoring units for your home objective and some long-range AT fire. However, the problem with these 5-man squads is that they are very poor at taking objectives (5 marines are VERY easy to kill once they stick their head out of their vehicle, cover save or not). I've faced the razorback spam with 5-man scoring squads before (backed up with 3 baals and 3 vindicators) several times, and this type of list just doesn't stand up to anything with good long-range AT. My IG lists have all the transports in smoking ruins no later than turn 3, and those 5-man squads have no chance of surviving demo charges, or volleys from executioners or manticores. Hell, I've even killed a couple of these units just rapid-firing with guardsmen lasguns. Inflicting 15 (if AP4+) wounds against a T4 unit is not difficult.

ceorron wrote:

Terminus wrote:
Also, no you CANNOT shoot out of it when it moves 12". The rulebook is VERY CLEAR about this, units may not shoot out of vehicles that move at cruising speed, regardless of how uber its engines are.

I thought it was flat out vehicle that the embarked unit couldn't shoot from with weapons.

Fast vindicators nothing special, you can only fire ordanace moving at combat speed. If you plan to move it flat out towards the enemy and not shoot you will only be moving to closer to its death.

If it is fast vehicles we are talking about how about combat speed on any of the preditor varieties (including baal). That is what freaks me about the dex.

Stormraven on the other hand thats got something for definite aswell (shudders).

At cruising speed you cannot shoot. At flat out speed you can't shoot, embark or disembark.

Can you cite a page number or PDF for the rule on ordnance weapons? Because if so, that completely wrecks the Blood Angels vindicator. If it can't fire after moving 12", then fast is pretty useless for it, especially at a 30-point premium.

The predators are indeed the gems of the book. 135 points for a mobile autocannon and two lascannons with FAV13 is a great deal (I laugh at the folks that field annihilators). The 145-point dakka-Baal doesn't worry me so much when deployed in a defensive position. S5/6 shots from the front (even rending ones) don't pose a huge threat to scaled chimeras or merged infantry squads, but they do worry rhino-based strategies. The bare-bones outflanking Baal is scary as hell. That flamestorm cannon makes a mess of absolutely everything I field, be it GK, Sororitas, guard squads in cover, or support tanks (yesterday I lost a hydra squadron to one flamestorm shot). It does expose its sides more often, but melee isn't much of a threat at cruising speed.

When will BA ever take fearless wounds from an ork boyz squad?

When the Blood Angels lose a combat and get caught, or lose a combat while the Red Thirst is in action and automatically cause No Retreat.

Nurglitch wrote:When the Blood Angels lose a combat and get caught, or lose a combat while the Red Thirst is in action and automatically cause No Retreat.

Or if they loose combat, fail LD check, and loose the sweeping advance. Then ATSKNF kicks in and they take wounds as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Terminus wrote:
At cruising speed you cannot shoot. At flat out speed you can't shoot, embark or disembark.

Can you cite a page number or PDF for the rule on ordnance weapons? Because if so, that completely wrecks the Blood Angels vindicator. If it can't fire after moving 12", then fast is pretty useless for it, especially at a 30-point premium.

The predators are indeed the gems of the book. 135 points for a mobile autocannon and two lascannons with FAV13 is a great deal (I laugh at the folks that field annihilators). The 145-point dakka-Baal doesn't worry me so much when deployed in a defensive position. S5/6 shots from the front (even rending ones) don't pose a huge threat to scaled chimeras or merged infantry squads, but they do worry rhino-based strategies. The bare-bones outflanking Baal is scary as hell. That flamestorm cannon makes a mess of absolutely everything I field, be it GK, Sororitas, guard squads in cover, or support tanks (yesterday I lost a hydra squadron to one flamestorm shot). It does expose its sides more often, but melee isn't much of a threat at cruising speed.

Fast vehicles shoot as if they were moving one speed lower than they are. Combat = Stationary, Crusing = Combat speed, etc. Since a vindicator is not an Ordnance Barrage they can shoot while moving at Combat Speed, and since the BA Vindicator is fast, it can fire at cruising speed because it treats firing speed as one step lower, in this case it would be combat speed.

Actually, a fast vehicle can even fire an ordnance barrage weapon while moving at combat speed, as the fast vehicle rules specifically mention this perk.

Terminus wrote:

whocares wrote:It's not about being remarkable. How often is a tactical squad remarkable? I suppose the answer to that question would depend on how you define the word, but you get my point.

Oh, it's not? And here I thought that one SM basic troop unit being "hands down better in every way" than another similarly-pointed SM basic troop unit was pretty damn remarkable.

Not really.

Nine oblits with duel lash is remarkable.

Vendetta spam is remarkable.

Tactical squads being replaced is annoying, and typical GW.

Terminus wrote:10 Grey Hunters - 2 meltas, power fist, rhino, mark of the wulfen, wolf standard = 240 points. I actually don't bother with the power fist, and give them two plasma guns, which makes them an amazing tactical unit for only 220 points.
10 Chaos Marines - 2 meltas, power fist, rhino = 245 points. Without a Sanguinary Priest, the CSM squad is "inherently better" because it has BOTH boltguns AND close combat weapons. It's a small distinction, but it does make them better at holding objectives. If you add the Mark of Khorne, they also become significantly better in close combat while only being 25 points more than the assault squad.

So for the same points I can either have bolters or fast rhinos? Yeah, I'll take the rhinos.

And for some reason I was reading GH as GK, so I thought you were talking about grey knights...which would be significantly more expensive.

And grey hunters are pretty good as well. Another reason the tactical squad is going the way of the dinosaur.

Time to whip out the all bike army, or ditch vanilla marines.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 10:29:02

Post by: sebster

Terminus wrote:But BA tactical squads sucking doesn't make vanilla Space Marine tactical squads bad; they are cheaper and more flexible. Really, providing a distinct yet balanced play-style is one of the things this codex does well, in my opinion (it's mostly fluff and sense of decency where it fails ).

Yeah, very much that. There's not much wrong with the codex in terms of power, it's just that a range of options strike me as pretty silly.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@OP: Not even *close* to "too far".

Right now, the answer to a chicken little cry is: lern 2 play.

It's more like
Thread: lern to read.

The power balance and imbalance of the BA codex has been done to death, so why have people have come into a thread to have that argument all over again, when the OP was specifically talking about the codex in terms of silliness?

Because looking at the last couple of codices there seems to be a move back to second ed style craziness, even more so given the greater range of models out now (2nd ed got crazy but no-one ever rode a wolf into battle). I really like the SM, IG and Orks codices, and think that's just about where things should settle. The Tyranid codex wandered a little the wrong way, but really the SW and BA codices are pushing the point where I could look at an opposing army and tell a guy 'no, I'm sorry, that's just too silly and won't be any fun to play against.'

It's not there yet, but if current trends continue it will get there shortly.

Reply by: Baxx - click to view full reply 

5209

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 11:38:02

Post by: Baxx

So now that the new codex is good, I can win some games. 3rd edition codex was fair, the 4th/5th edition pdf codex was terrible. Having played with over prized units for many years, I think most BA players deserve a treat.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 12:01:06

Post by: Monster Rain

sebster wrote:The Tyranid codex wandered a little the wrong way, but really the SW and BA codices are pushing the point where I could look at an opposing army and tell a guy 'no, I'm sorry, that's just too silly and won't be any fun to play against.'

It's not there yet, but if current trends continue it will get there shortly.

Wow.

"I can deal with giant bugs and violent fungus fighting colorfully armored, genetically engineered warrior monks in SPEHSS! But riding wolves? This is officially beyond the scope of my suspension of disbelief."

Reply by: Grim.Badger - click to view full reply 

17260

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 17:31:27

Post by: Grim.Badger

Monster Rain wrote:Wow.

"I can deal with giant bugs and violent fungus fighting colorfully armored, genetically engineered warrior monks in SPEHSS! But riding wolves? This is officially beyond the scope of my suspension of disbelief."

I don't think it's helped by people mounting Marines on Wargs - it's hard to take a player seriously when their Space Marines look like they've had an accident with a ferret

Reply by: Just Dave - click to view full reply 

20867

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 20:00:47

Post by: Just Dave

Baxx wrote:So now that the new codex is good, I can win some games. 3rd edition codex was fair, the 4th/5th edition pdf codex was terrible. Having played with over prized units for many years, I think most BA players deserve a treat.

Oh, this could be good for the Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Inquisition, Tau and Necron codices...


Even so, on topic, I thoroughly agree that A HELLUVA LOT of stuff in the Blood Angels codex is just plain silly. eg:
- Blood this, blood that, angel this, angel that etc. (this has been mentioned)
- DS Land Raiders - A, WHY?! B, Why can't other armies do this? C, Why don't they get an opportunity to shoot down the Thunderhawk?
- IC's being unable to join squads - why not? they're a HQ choice...
- Too many aura's available such as FNP and Furious Charge
- Why do they use Storm Ravens but nobody else does?
- Why do they use Librarian Dreadnoughts but nobody else does?
- Why do they use wrist-mounted boltguns but nobody else does?
- Why haven't they been purged yet or even shared SOME of their goodies?
- The Sanguinor's fluff.

The list goes on, I'm not saying all this is overpowered, I think it's stupid and unreasonable.

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 21:12:03

Post by: Terminus

The Storm Ravens and Librarian Dreadnoughts don't bother me that much. Initially, only Black Templar had the Crusader, the Dark Angels had the Typhoon, and Blood Angels always have had furiosos and baal predators.

Now everyone has Crusaders and Typhoons, and regular marines have gotten a Furioso-esque dreadnought with the Ironclad. The Grey Knights will undoubtedly get Storm Ravens and Librarian dreads, and I expect all the toys to be rolled into the next SM revision.

Reply by: Slackermagee - click to view full reply 

11973

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 21:19:28

Post by: Slackermagee

Most of this is silly stuff, an attempt to give the game more of an 'OMG look at that' factor. Kind of like Magic.

The bubbles of FNP are obnoxious and not many people (outside of IG) can handle more than ten models with FNP. Sure, you can kill them with plasma but how many plasma weapons can tau fit into an army and still feel... well, feel like we're not custom-tooling to beat one army? Seriously, take a tau army versus this FNP horde. It doesn't end well.

Long story short: universal special rules should not be flung onto groups of units willy nilly for peanuts in points costs. This was something the DoC players in fantasy took crap for and I'm sure the BA players will take crap for it soon enough too.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 22:00:39

Post by: nosferatu1001

There are Tau armies around *without* plasma? really?

When GW pull out a carbon copy codex people complain. When they do something different people complain.

What ICs cant join units? The issue is the HQs that cant join units as they arent ICs....and that makes sense given who they are.

Reply by: agnosto - click to view full reply 

21196

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 22:03:05

Post by: agnosto

fireknifes are standard fare in my army lists. When most people play MEQs, a Tau player would be stupid to not have plasma rifle bearing suits.

Reply by: Kid_Kyoto - click to view full reply 

518

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 22:04:43

Post by: Kid_Kyoto

Brother SRM wrote:If you ignore the really, really out there stuff, it's not a bad codex. Just ignore the loyalist daemon prince (Mephiston), the deep striking dedicated transport Land Raiders, and the Stormraven, and you've got a decent enough codex. I just think of it as Codex: Fast Marines Who Sometimes Get Real Mad Angels.

So you're saying if we ignore the broken stuff it's not that broken?

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 22:09:07

Post by: Terminus

But those things are only broken in the minds of idiots, so I don't see your point. ???

Reply by: Kid_Kyoto - click to view full reply 

518

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 23:01:34

Post by: Kid_Kyoto

Anung Un Rama wrote:Where's Kyoto's definition fo the Red Marines when you need it?

Probably needs updating now.

Reply by: kaptaink - click to view full reply 

23325

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 23:37:52

Post by: kaptaink

Regardless of how you feel about this book, it's been written, produced, shipped, and people are playing it. I'll also say I am not complaining, just commenting. Either way it doesn't really effect me too much as the army I play shouldn't be too damaged by them, and happily no one plays them in my area.

The problem is, as I've said and so have many others there are just so many benefits for nothing. People can sit around and justify it with point costs and they can justify it with 'well you do this I'll do that.' As Slackermagee said, what are certain armies going to do versus three squads of 10 marines with FNP running at them in fast Rhinos?

What about three FAV13 Dreads flying around with Blood Talons? Mephiston is a joke too. "But he isn't an IC." people all say, does that really matter when he has 24" charge range and is small enough to get a 4+ cover from a bush?

I don't think that they are greatly changing the game, influencing the game in the same degree that DoC apparently did to Fantasy. My issue is that with all these new books pushing the power curve so far, it makes older armies struggle even harder than they were before. Then, people playing the older, more characterful armies get put into a horrible position, keep playing their armies and lose because they chose the wrong army? Or go pick up a new army, or the most drastic of all the options; quiting the game entirely. I know people that have quit the game because the only army they like is a terrible choice.

So, have they gone too far? Fluffwise I don't know because I haven't read the book. List wise, yes. They handed out way too much and broke a lot of what were 40k standards. Assault 2 templates? MC stats on a human sized model?

At the end of the day, have fun with the game.

Reply by: Slackermagee - click to view full reply 

11973

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 23:45:32

Post by: Slackermagee

Here, here! Back to the old standards, the status quo, the un-spoken rules of codex writing!

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 23:50:13

Post by: JohnHwangDD

kaptaink wrote: My issue is that with all these new books pushing the power curve so far, it makes older armies struggle even harder than they were before. Then, people playing the older, more characterful armies get put into a horrible position, keep playing their armies and lose because they chose the wrong army?

Which "older armies" are you talking about?

My Eldar has played as Ranger Disruption, Wraithlord Assault, and Aspect Strike. My Guard has played as Drop Specials and Armored Pie. My Marines played as Death Company Generator along with Stand and Deliver. Very "characterful", also brutally effective rules exploitation armies.

The newer Codices are doing a better job at revalidating many older armies that have fallen by the wayside, although there are a number of (admittedly broken) things which aren't really possible anymore.

Fundamentally, GW's interest is to keep people buying some new stuff, and it's hard to begrudge them that.

Reply by: Slackermagee - click to view full reply 

11973

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/27 23:59:39

Post by: Slackermagee

JohnHwangDD wrote:

kaptaink wrote: My issue is that with all these new books pushing the power curve so far, it makes older armies struggle even harder than they were before. Then, people playing the older, more characterful armies get put into a horrible position, keep playing their armies and lose because they chose the wrong army?

Which "older armies" are you talking about?

My Eldar has played as Ranger Disruption, Wraithlord Assault, and Aspect Strike. My Guard has played as Drop Specials and Armored Pie. My Marines played as Death Company Generator along with Stand and Deliver. Very "characterful", also brutally effective rules exploitation armies.

The newer Codices are doing a better job at revalidating many older armies that have fallen by the wayside, although there are a number of (admittedly broken) things which aren't really possible anymore.

Fundamentally, GW's interest is to keep people buying some new stuff, and it's hard to begrudge them that.

To be frank, they could go about getting people to buy more of their own army without trying to, not so, subtly shift people into a new army. What would be wrong with small pdf updates on a regular basis for all armies? You could even make it market based: tau stealthsuits not moving enough units (or moving at ALL)? Give 'em a quick tune up to make them competitive for that elites slot again. Wraithguard got you down? Aside from making a plastic kit, perhaps making them playable first would be a good plan.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 00:30:02

Post by: Monster Rain

How is points cost not an acceptable way of balancing unit power?

Seriously, it's a basic pillar of the game's mechanics. If this is such an issue, you may be playing the wrong game.

Reply by: Slackermagee - click to view full reply 

11973

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 00:34:11

Post by: Slackermagee

Monster Rain wrote:How is points cost not an acceptable way of balancing unit power?

Seriously, it's a basic pillar of the game's mechanics. If this is such an issue, you may be playing the wrong game.

I agree with you, it is a very basic pillar of the game. Half the cost of a Captain is not enough to balance out 10, 20, 30 or more space marines getting FNP, unless you think that it does. Armies with plasma weapons get two-ish turns of long range fire and one turn of close in fire before the assault begins. Given that no more than two guys are usually firing plasma guns that's something like 5-8 casualties to one squad. Now there's two more bearing down on you. In the assault phase, eldar and other Space Marines ought to be fine (along with, perhaps, a small horde of genestealers) but most everything else gets toasted. IG can bring down S8 AP3 large blasts and smoke them out, but I don't think anyone else has access to that kind of Space Marine Horde killing power.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 00:47:00

Post by: JohnHwangDD

CSM players don't like it when their Icon bearer dies, either...

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 01:01:29

Post by: Terminus

Eldar have mind war, Space Marines have Tellion and vindicators, and almost everyone can field a bunch of power weapons.

Reply by: Arschbombe - click to view full reply 

11856

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 01:24:09

Post by: Arschbombe

30 assault marines depending on one 50 point 1-wound model for FNP doesn't strike me as a very sound tactic.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 01:24:57

Post by: Monster Rain

Terminus wrote:Eldar have mind war, Space Marines have Tellion and vindicators, and almost everyone can field a bunch of power weapons.

Just to tag that...

Eldar have Banshees and Doom, and that would put a hurting on many a unit in the BA Codex. Pretty much all of them, really, other than TH/SS Terminators which cost more than they do for Vanilla Marines.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 01:30:14

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Arschbombe wrote:30 assault marines depending on one 50 point 1-wound model for FNP doesn't strike me as a very sound tactic.

Nobody sayd Blud Anglez were the brightest folks...

Reply by: kaptaink - click to view full reply 

23325

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 02:13:31

Post by: kaptaink

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:30 assault marines depending on one 50 point 1-wound model for FNP doesn't strike me as a very sound tactic.

Nobody sayd Blud Anglez were the brightest folks...

Blood blood blood, nipples nipples nipples.


I've been curious, what is everyone's win/loss record against the new codex? has it blown you away or just underwhelmed you?

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 02:36:38

Post by: Terminus

The closest I've come to losing to the Blood Angels so far was on a table where the terrain pretty much blocked all LOS to the other side of the table, so I only got one half-assed shooting phase before he was engaging the outskirts of my lines. We both held one objective at the end, so the game ended with a tie. He had 9 KPs to my 8.

But keep in mind that their main gimmicks that I've seen so far (those being the FNP marine swarm, and the razorback/predator swarm), are largely meaningless to the IG. We don't care how good you are in melee, since we'd be losing anyway, so any points you put in special combat weapons are mostly a waste. Marine tanks are total autocannon/lascannon bait, and IG has plenty of both. FNP is worthless when you have S8+ and/or AP1-2 ordnance and guns coming out of your ears.

Reply by: kaptaink - click to view full reply 

23325

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 02:47:07

Post by: kaptaink

Terminus wrote:The closest I've come to losing to the Blood Angels so far was on a table where the terrain pretty much blocked all LOS to the other side of the table, so I only got one half-assed shooting phase before he was engaging the outskirts of my lines. We both held one objective at the end, so the game ended with a tie. He had 9 KPs to my 8.

But keep in mind that their main gimmicks that I've seen so far (those being the FNP marine swarm, and the razorback/predator swarm), are largely meaningless to the IG. We don't care how good you are in melee, since we'd be losing anyway, so any points you put in special combat weapons are mostly a waste. Marine tanks are total autocannon/lascannon bait, and IG has plenty of both. FNP is worthless when you have S8+ and/or AP1-2 ordnance and guns coming out of your ears.

So, hypothetically you're not playing as IG. Would your views on the whole FNP bubbles or fast Rhino chassis, or Dreadnought spam be the same?

I play Salamanders with Vulkan, how do you think they would fair against them? Again, I've never played against the new BA.

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 03:19:33

Post by: Terminus

Well, my Chaosy Space Wolves wouldn't be concerned. The 2000 point list shoots 14 missiles and two lascannons a turn at long range, and there are plenty of meltas/powerfists/S10 thunderhammers among the rest of the list, so I'm not very concerned about the armor spam (except for the outflanking Baal with flamestorm... that thing is SCARY good for 115 points). Melee-wise, Space Wolves and Angels match up pretty well, especially if you can deny the charge (and piling in also forces him to expose the Sanguinary Priest).

With a Vulkan list, you have the tools to deal with vehicles, and your Vulkan + Assault Terminator combat block is a match for anything they can throw at you. Watch out for those fast vindicators, though! The lack of good long-range AT of the typical Vulkan list is definitely a weakness, but podding a dreadnought can definitely cause some problems for his predators.

Don't get me wrong, Blood Angels are not a push-over for any of these armies, but neither are they overwhelming. They are a solid challenge, and although so far my IG and "Wolves" have had the advantage, Blood Angels tactics are yet to fully mature. They are definitely a contender, especially in larger games where they can stretch their wings a bit.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 07:24:20

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Terminus wrote:FNP is worthless when you have S8+ and/or AP1-2 ordnance and guns coming out of your ears.

And that is why my Guard army starts with 3 Demolishers. I've yet to encounter any tactical problem that 3 S10 AP2 pie plates can't do a fair job of solving...

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 07:41:56

Post by: Terminus

My preference is Executioner with plasma sponsons and two Manticores. 3-6 S10 ordnance templates and 5 plasma cannon blasts, oh yeah.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 09:07:50

Post by: sebster

Monster Rain wrote:Wow.

"I can deal with giant bugs and violent fungus fighting colorfully armored, genetically engineered warrior monks in SPEHSS! But riding wolves? This is officially beyond the scope of my suspension of disbelief."

Yes. A genetically engineered man in brightly coloured powered armour is fantastical, but quite cool. A man in power armour riding a wolf into battle is stupid.

It's just my opinion, of course, there's no objective measure for when cool becomes stupid, but everyone has a point and there's been a lot of comments about how things have gone too far towards being stupid in the last few codices.

Are you arguing that there's no point where people can say 'that's just too stupid', or are you saying that no-one can consider a man on powered armour riding a wolf anywhere near that position?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:When GW pull out a carbon copy codex people complain. When they do something different people complain.

Yes, people will always complain. But that doesn't mean every complaint is illegitimate.

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 09:12:49

Post by: Terminus

Riding wolves is beyond the scope of my suspension of disbelief because unless this wolf is about 5x larger than the Space Marine, its spine would collapse when it tried to run (considering in power armor a Marine probably weighs a good half a ton). Canines and horses are very different animals.

Reply by: Anung Un Rama - click to view full reply 

2050

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 10:51:57

Post by: Anung Un Rama

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:Where's Kyoto's definition fo the Red Marines when you need it?

Probably needs updating now.

Thanks. Is there already a thread where you posted them all?

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 10:52:38

Post by: nosferatu1001

Lupines you mean.

And there ARE NO wolves on Fenris.

I laugh at people calling Mephiston "broken" - erm, no, dies to decent shooting like any other lone creature. Any psychic defence and you have a 50% chance of cripppling that "24"" charge range (how? he's not fleet, so 18" with Wings, or if you put JUST HIM in a vehicle you get to add 3" to that)

Stormraven "broken"? How? It's an AV12 skimmer - shoot it with S6+ weapons and it will die, and it isnt getting cover saves unless it goes flat out.

Flamestorm Baals are nasty, especially on the outflank, but everything else is just slightly too expensive to be broken. Meaning it isnt broken.....

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 11:04:59

Post by: Terminus

He IS fleet.

Given that Space Wolves ride on giant wolf-looking creatures called "thunderwolves", are frequently followed around by smaller (but also wolf-looking) creatures called "Fenrisian wolves", bedeck themselves with animal trinkets like "wolf tail talismans" and "wolftooth necklaces", and about 90% of the Chapter's nomenclature involves the word "wolf" in some way, I'm pretty damn sure there are some friggin' wolves on Fenris.

Reply by: egor71 - click to view full reply 

27496

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 11:50:26

Post by: egor71

The ba dex is what it is because of ted williams (head of design studio) and a long time ba player.
Gordon davidson did the same on the old mini dex when he was head of the design studios.

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 12:03:09

Post by: Terminus

I thought it had more to do with Matt Ward being the author. The fluff certainly has his, erm... "unique touch" let's say.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 12:43:18

Post by: Monster Rain

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Wow.

"I can deal with giant bugs and violent fungus fighting colorfully armored, genetically engineered warrior monks in SPEHSS! But riding wolves? This is officially beyond the scope of my suspension of disbelief."

Yes. A genetically engineered man in brightly coloured powered armour is fantastical, but quite cool. A man in power armour riding a wolf into battle is stupid.

It's just my opinion, of course, there's no objective measure for when cool becomes stupid, but everyone has a point and there's been a lot of comments about how things have gone too far towards being stupid in the last few codices.

Are you arguing that there's no point where people can say 'that's just too stupid', or are you saying that no-one can consider a man on powered armour riding a wolf anywhere near that position?

I'm really not arguing either, since it's entirely subjective. I was just pointing out that there are plenty of wacky things in 40k already, and I don't see how adding a few more Space Fantasy elements is going to put it over the top.

Someone at GW has a Princess Mononoke fetish, apparently.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 12:45:21

Post by: nosferatu1001

Terminus wrote:He IS fleet.

Still, any psychic defence and he's only got an avg15.5" threat range

Terminus wrote:Given that Space Wolves ride on giant wolf-looking creatures called "thunderwolves", are frequently followed around by smaller (but also wolf-looking) creatures called "Fenrisian wolves", bedeck themselves with animal trinkets like "wolf tail talismans" and "wolftooth necklaces", and about 90% of the Chapter's nomenclature involves the word "wolf" in some way, I'm pretty damn sure there are some friggin' wolves on Fenris.

Read some more literature first before responding. There are NO wolves on Fenris. They are *not* wolves - just because they are called that does not make them *actually* wolves.

Read the 1k sons novel sometimes, its a good read.

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 12:57:20

Post by: Terminus

"Literature"? I don't think anything has ever come out of the Black Library that I would call literature. All too often, they are just officially sanctioned fanfics.

So okay, are they just extra shaggy horses that only happen to very closely resemble wolves, hunt in packs, and howl at the moon a lot? They sure look like wolves to me. Mutated/alien wolves from space? Sure, but still wolves.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 14:10:02

Post by: Monster Rain

Oh, okay. If they're actually mutant wolf horses I'm fine with it.

Reply by: Baxx - click to view full reply 

5209

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 14:47:07

Post by: Baxx

Just Dave wrote:

Baxx wrote:So now that the new codex is good, I can win some games. 3rd edition codex was fair, the 4th/5th edition pdf codex was terrible. Having played with over prized units for many years, I think most BA players deserve a treat.

Oh, this could be good for the Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Inquisition, Tau and Necron codices...

My Blood Angels from the previous codex had very little success against Necrons. I have lost many a time against both Dark Angels (Deathwing), never won against Tau, but haven't had much experience against Dark Eldar. Ok so I might have played bad, but I can't see why those armies should be any worse. And they at least had real codexes, not a pile of printed A4 papers which I had to carry with me each time, for many years.

Just Dave wrote:
- IC's being unable to join squads - why not? they're a HQ choice...

All Blood Angels Independent Characters can join squads. Not all HQ choices are Independent Characters, like Honour Guards, Death Company Tycho, The Sanguinor and Mephiston. The reason why some of these HQ choices aren't Independent Characters is because they are so awesome and powerfull, the enemy must be able to target them alone, because they are too strong otherwise. This goes for many über characters in other codexes as well.

Just Dave wrote:
- Why do they use Librarian Dreadnoughts but nobody else does?

They have since 3rd edition had more dreadnoughts than any other armies, why shouldn't they now? I fielded a 6 dreadnought army back then, in a 1500pts list.

Reply by: Arschbombe - click to view full reply 

11856

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 16:04:09

Post by: Arschbombe

Baxx wrote:And they at least had real codexes, not a pile of printed A4 papers which I had to carry with me each time, for many years.

I must be the only guy who actually liked that it was a downloadable pdf. I printed it out and put it in a binder and sheet protectors. It was much easier to use during a game since it could actually lay flat while open for reference. I liked that so much that I took the new codex to a print shop and had the binding sliced off so I could put the new one in a binder too.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 16:29:17

Post by: sebster

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lupines you mean.

And there ARE NO wolves on Fenris.

Of course not. There are creatures that look exactly like wolves, that are named after the latin word for wolf, that are closely associated with the space marine chapter the Space Wolves. But there's no wolves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm really not arguing either, since it's entirely subjective. I was just pointing out that there are plenty of wacky things in 40k already, and I don't see how adding a few more Space Fantasy elements is going to put it over the top.

And all I'm saying is that the last few codices put it pretty close to that point for me, and I've heard plenty of people say similar things.

Someone at GW has a Princess Mononoke fetish, apparently.

You know what'd make Princess Monoke cooler? If instead of a princess it was this awesome space viking that was nine foot tall and covered in metal armour who was awesome, and instead of a wolf it was this thing called a lupine that was like a wolf.

Reply by: Necroman - click to view full reply 

28235

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 16:35:17

Post by: Necroman

sebster wrote:Of course not. There are creatures that look exactly like wolves, that are named after the latin word for wolf, that are closely associated with the space marine chapter the Space Wolves. But there's no wolves.

Mind if I sig this?

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 16:57:42

Post by: nosferatu1001

Theyre genetically engineered animals, but NOT wolves as we would know them.

Just because you call something a mouse doesnt actualy make it a mouse.

Reply by: agnosto - click to view full reply 

21196

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 17:01:05

Post by: agnosto

nosferatu1001 wrote:Theyre genetically engineered animals, but NOT wolves as we would know them.

Just because you call something a mouse doesnt actualy make it a mouse.

Yeah but if it looks like a mouse and we call it a mouse, heck it might just be a mouse.

Reply by: Just Dave - click to view full reply 

20867

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 17:05:41

Post by: Just Dave

Ummm guys, we seem to have shifted off topic and are now talking about how realistic an enormously strong wolf could be in a make-believe universe in which Derek Akorah is god and people fight aliens with swords...

Reply by: agnosto - click to view full reply 

21196

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 17:06:38

Post by: agnosto

Too right.

Back on topic then. Yes, I believe that GW has jumped the shark and will continue to do so until people stop buying their little army men.

Reply by: Kurgash - click to view full reply 

22761

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 17:07:37

Post by: Kurgash

It's not that bad if you run into the 'friendly gamer' but the WAAC guys...god damn those are some fething nasty lists.

Reply by: agnosto - click to view full reply 

21196

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 17:13:03

Post by: agnosto

Gave me some hope when I saw a Tau list depants a BA army in two turns. He had Mephiston and a small unit of death company left and a WTF look on his face.

Lots of dreads + railguns = not happy BA player.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 17:16:31

Post by: nosferatu1001

agnosto wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Theyre genetically engineered animals, but NOT wolves as we would know them.

Just because you call something a mouse doesnt actualy make it a mouse.

Yeah but if it looks like a mouse and we call it a mouse, heck it might just be a mouse.

except the fluff has stated htey are not a mouse...err, wolf.

It does it repeatedly.

Reply by: agnosto - click to view full reply 

21196

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 17:37:38

Post by: agnosto

nosferatu1001 wrote:

agnosto wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Theyre genetically engineered animals, but NOT wolves as we would know them.

Just because you call something a mouse doesnt actualy make it a mouse.

Yeah but if it looks like a mouse and we call it a mouse, heck it might just be a mouse.

except the fluff has stated htey are not a mouse...err, wolf.

It does it repeatedly.

So I should just disregard pages 30 and 34 of the recent codex that repeatedly calls them "wolves" and doesn't mention anything about them being genetically engineered. It does mention that space wolves hunt and capture them and that they form a bond with them and that iron priests may augment them with bionics.....oddly, nothing about them being the result of genetic engineering.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 18:14:21

Post by: nosferatu1001

What part of *calling* something a wolf doesnt actually *make* it a wolf went past you?

There. Are. No. Wolves. On. Fenris.

Reply by: solkan - click to view full reply 

6846

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 18:34:37

Post by: solkan

nosferatu1001, the book calls them wolves so they're wolves. It's 40K, biological taxonomy and categorization died with the advent of warp travel.

Now, if you want to continue, perhaps you'd like to change to something like "Just because they're wolves, doesn't mean they're the same as Terran wolves!" Or maybe you'd like to start complaining that the Space Marines aren't actually marines because they don't train to serve at sea?

Reply by: agnosto - click to view full reply 

21196

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 18:41:30

Post by: agnosto

nosferatu1001 wrote:What part of *calling* something a wolf doesnt actually *make* it a wolf went past you?

There. Are. No. Wolves. On. Fenris.

You can't tell that by reading the codex. It never mentions them as anything other than wolves. I don't really care; to me, it's like calling a panini a sandwich....two pieces of bread with meat and cheese between....it looks like a sandwich, it tastes like a sandwich, it must be a sandwich.

Life's much easier if you don't get worked up over things that don't matter.

Reply by: CatPeeler - click to view full reply 

11667

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 19:01:14

Post by: CatPeeler

kaptaink wrote:Blood blood blood, nipples nipples nipples.

Thanks a lot, donkey-cave--now I have to buy a new keyboard.

Reply by: Arschbombe - click to view full reply 

11856

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 19:26:23

Post by: Arschbombe

agnosto wrote:Gave me some hope when I saw a Tau list depants a BA army in two turns. He had Mephiston and a small unit of death company left and a WTF look on his face.

Lots of dreads + railguns = not happy BA player.

So far the bat reps I'm seeing have the BA losing. It might be that the theoretical power levels are not working out in practice. It also might be the the BA players don't know how to use the list well yet. On a related note I have seen some blog and forum posts about the lists popping up around the web being too much like the old lists instead of adapting to the new goodies.

I know in my own case I've fielded a list very close to my old pdf codex lists using an assault squad, reclusisarch and priest to create an erstaz death company as the hammer unit.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 19:36:09

Post by: nosferatu1001

solkan wrote:nosferatu1001, the book calls them wolves so they're wolves. It's 40K, biological taxonomy and categorization died with the advent of warp travel.

Now, if you want to continue, perhaps you'd like to change to something like "Just because they're wolves, doesn't mean they're the same as Terran wolves!" Or maybe you'd like to start complaining that the Space Marines aren't actually marines because they don't train to serve at sea?

Because the 1k sons book states they arent wolves. repeatedly.

c alling something a wolf doesnt make it one - and the "wolves" on fenris are NOT wolves. What they are (or highly suggested they are!) is very creepy, but explains why no other SM chapter uses "animals" in the same way as SW do.

Reply by: agnosto - click to view full reply 

21196

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 20:51:37

Post by: agnosto

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because the 1k sons book states they arent wolves. repeatedly.

c alling something a wolf doesnt make it one - and the "wolves" on fenris are NOT wolves. What they are (or highly suggested they are!) is very creepy, but explains why no other SM chapter uses "animals" in the same way as SW do.

Sorry but Black Library books are not fluff, nor are they canon. Meh, it's a pointless debate anyway; believe what you want to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arschbombe wrote:

So far the bat reps I'm seeing have the BA losing. It might be that the theoretical power levels are not working out in practice. It also might be the the BA players don't know how to use the list well yet. On a related note I have seen some blog and forum posts about the lists popping up around the web being too much like the old lists instead of adapting to the new goodies.

I know in my own case I've fielded a list very close to my old pdf codex lists using an assault squad, reclusisarch and priest to create an erstaz death company as the hammer unit.

I think they'll come into their own once people stop trying to do dread spam because it's an option. A balanced BA list should be just as, or more so, dangerous as any other assaulty army.

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 21:21:16

Post by: Terminus

agnosto wrote:
Life's much easier if you don't get worked up over things that don't matter.

Yeah, but then 90% of the internet wouldn't exist.

Reply by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable - click to view full reply 

8800

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 21:25:14

Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable

As the Chaos players sit back and laugh bitterly seeing that they too know how it feels. Clearly Tzeentch has succeeded in his plan.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 21:54:46

Post by: Nurglitch

Yes, why would anyone on a Warhammer 40k web forum actually care about the background, or the game for that matter?

People who care are so lame anyways, amirite?

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 22:02:29

Post by: Monster Rain

There's a fine line between caring and getting so worked up that things get ugly.

I think the more salient point is that the Taxonomy of Fenrisian Alien WolfMoose is nothing to get one's panties in a twist over.

Reply by: agnosto - click to view full reply 

21196

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 22:13:09

Post by: agnosto

WolfMoose?

@ Nurglitch,
It's a game. If you want a story, read a book; if you want a game, play it. If it meant anything, the company that makes it would actually hold to a storyline; instead they change fluff whenever the whim strikes them and the people the black library books are often worse than fan-fiction.

Reply by: Slackermagee - click to view full reply 

11973

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 23:15:25

Post by: Slackermagee

agnosto wrote:WolfMoose?

@ Nurglitch,
It's a game. If you want a story, read a book; if you want a game, play it. If it meant anything, the company that makes it would actually hold to a storyline; instead they change fluff whenever the whim strikes them and the people the black library books are often worse than fan-fiction.

While it is a shame that the current attitude of GW is to promote the power of armies over their place in the 40k universe (a mistake other games *cough* magic *cough* have made), the current fan base for the game would probably be playing other things were it not for the awesome fluff that exists in general. Imagine, if you will, people slogging through the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions without the imagination sparking potential of the semi-fleshed out 40k universe behind them.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 23:25:44

Post by: Monster Rain

I don't see how these new Codices change the imagination sparking ability of the game.

Wouldn't adding quirks and new ideas make a universe more fleshed out?

Reply by: Necroman - click to view full reply 

28235

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/28 23:32:24

Post by: Necroman

Slackermagee wrote:While it is a shame that the current attitude of GW is to promote the power of armies over their place in the 40k universe (a mistake other games *cough* magic *cough* have made), the current fan base for the game would probably be playing other things were it not for the awesome fluff that exists in general. Imagine, if you will, people slogging through the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions without the imagination sparking potential of the semi-fleshed out 40k universe behind them.

I don't see how Magic the Gathering does that.

All the colors are supposed to be balanced in-universe, and Wizards tries to balance them for the tabletop too. Sure, there's cases of ridiculous fluff power/game power contrasts (4 Grizzly Bears>Lord of the Pit), but that's been around since the game's creation.

Reply by: BrotherAtrox - click to view full reply 

9968

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 01:06:47

Post by: BrotherAtrox

Monster Rain wrote:I think the more salient point is that the Taxonomy of Fenrisian Alien WolfMoose is nothing to get one's panties in a twist over.

Fantastico.

Reply by: WarWizard91 - click to view full reply 

25648

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 07:27:37

Post by: WarWizard91

If we are going by the book fluff where are my marine's multi-lasers?
Mass dreadnoughts kind of destroy the game for me, sure they have to table but it's not even close to an enjoyable game.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 08:22:36

Post by: sebster

Necroman wrote:

sebster wrote:Of course not. There are creatures that look exactly like wolves, that are named after the latin word for wolf, that are closely associated with the space marine chapter the Space Wolves. But there's no wolves.

Mind if I sig this?

All yours mate

solkan wrote:Or maybe you'd like to start complaining that the Space Marines aren't actually marines because they don't train to serve at sea?

That'd be a scary practice. If they fell off the side they'd sink right to the bottom.

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, why would anyone on a Warhammer 40k web forum actually care about the background, or the game for that matter?

You don't see a difference between caring about the background, and arguing over whether a creature is a wolf, or something else that merely looks like a wolf and is frequently called a wolf.

Because it's not actually an argument over the background, its an argument over pedantics.

Reply by: Baxx - click to view full reply 

5209

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 09:10:51

Post by: Baxx

WarWizard91 wrote:If we are going by the book fluff where are my marine's multi-lasers?
Mass dreadnoughts kind of destroy the game for me, sure they have to table but it's not even close to an enjoyable game.

I want to try and play a Dreadnought army again. How does that destroy the game? I imagine a 6+ Dreadnought army in 1500-2000 pts game would suck. Blood Talons? Every time I have played with one or two dreads, I always suffer a weapon destroyed, and then the whole magic is destroyed. A Furioso/Death Company dreadnought is pretty much useless if you get 3+ on a pen roll, or 5+ on a glance.

About the ridiculous wolf/not wolf issue:
The army is called Space WOLVES, they are inspired about vikings and wolves. Their planet is named after the Norse mythological wolf Fenris, and they ride on creatures that are more similar to wolves than anything else. Are they wolves? Of course! Are we talking earth-wolves? Of course not, then they'd be useless. Space Marines aren't earth humans, even Guardsmen are hardly earth men. So what the fekk is the problem? Is the biggest mistake to call them wolves? When everything about Space Wolves including their name and home planet are inspired by wolf?

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 09:28:59

Post by: H.B.M.C.

solkan wrote:Or maybe you'd like to start complaining that the Space Marines aren't actually marines because they don't train to serve at sea?

That doesn't work because:

1. They serve in space, and they're Space Marines.
2. Marines do more than just serve on ships these days.

Reply by: Brother Ramses - click to view full reply 

14701

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 09:49:38

Post by: Brother Ramses

The army is fine, just tighten up your own tactics.

What kills me with thousands of red hot needles covered in hot sauce into my eyeballs is the horrible fluff. Man oh geesh it sucks!!

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 09:56:52

Post by: nosferatu1001

Baxx / Sebb - the point started because someone thought it was rediculous that a Wolf (that would be lupine, not canine, their error) could carry a SM, as their spine would collapse. I then pointed out that there are no wolves on Fenris - they are actually gengineered from "something else", as backed up by BL book on the Horus heresy. And it is semantics, to be pedantic.

Calling the official books telling the consistent story of the Horus Heresy not "canon" is, frankly, laughable. They're *way* more consistent than the constant revision of codexes, and published by the same company (company ownership) as produce the game. Argument from a position of ignorance is never good.

The BA codex does NEW things, so it isnt just another boring SM variant colour scheme army. Whats the result? People whine and complain.

They are not over powered.

They are not undercosted.

They are not game breaking, just slight changing. IN a good way. Everyones reaction to 5th was proliferation of "low qualtiy" fire - cover saves meant that breaking armour was less of a concern. Now with 3+ FNP marines around you need quality again.

Shocking, its almost like theyre trying to balance things across a wide selection of armies, such that there is no one magic "winner takes all" army archetype! We cant have that!

Reply by: Brother Ramses - click to view full reply 

14701

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 10:09:26

Post by: Brother Ramses

nosferatu1001 wrote:Baxx / Sebb - the point started because someone thought it was rediculous that a Wolf (that would be lupine, not canine, their error) could carry a SM, as their spine would collapse. I then pointed out that there are no wolves on Fenris - they are actually gengineered from "something else", as backed up by BL book on the Horus heresy. And it is semantics, to be pedantic.

Calling the official books telling the consistent story of the Horus Heresy not "canon" is, frankly, laughable. They're *way* more consistent than the constant revision of codexes, and published by the same company (company ownership) as produce the game. Argument from a position of ignorance is never good.

The BA codex does NEW things, so it isnt just another boring SM variant colour scheme army. Whats the result? People whine and complain.

They are not over powered.

They are not undercosted.

They are not game breaking, just slight changing. IN a good way. Everyones reaction to 5th was proliferation of "low qualtiy" fire - cover saves meant that breaking armour was less of a concern. Now with 3+ FNP marines around you need quality again.

Shocking, its almost like theyre trying to balance things across a wide selection of armies, such that there is no one magic "winner takes all" army archetype! We cant have that!

I would take the Thousand Sons proclamation of "There are no wolves on Fenris." with a huge grain of salt. The book was written specifically from the perspective of the Thousand Sons. Of course there is some canon in the book that is within the 40k historical timeline, but the book is quite full of Thousand Son propaganda to tell how their home planet was destroyed, from their point of view.

Expect to see the "other" side of the story when Prospero Burns is released. Even as a SW player, I know that it will be a propaganda piece for the Space Wolves and will read it accordingly.

As for the statement that a wolves spine would collaspe, hey are compared to be of the build of a "Terran rhinoceroid" and are as tall as a Space Marine. They hunt Fenrisian mastadons. They may look wolf-like but are not wolves per se and are fully capable of carrying an 800lb Space Marine.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 11:40:34

Post by: nosferatu1001

Which was my point - comparing them to an Earth wolf and saying they would not be able to cope was a poor argument.

Also it isnt propaganda at that point - where they delve into the wolves DNA they themselves were shocked at what they found there. Again, not saying theyre earth wolves, but it suggests their heightened intelligence compared to a "normal" animal is actually because they are dumb versions of an intelligent creature - man.

Reply by: CatPeeler - click to view full reply 

11667

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 17:56:01

Post by: CatPeeler

agnosto wrote: If it meant anything, the company that makes it would actually hold to a storyline; instead they change fluff whenever the whim strikes them and the people the black library books are often worse than fan-fiction.

Ah, I remember when a carnifex was a pistol sized tool with a spring-loaded spike... that the apothecaries used for mercy killing fallen brother marines....

Reply by: Baxx - click to view full reply 

5209

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 18:32:22

Post by: Baxx

Of course the über wolves won't have any problems carry a space wolves marine on it's back. How could that possibly be a problem? It's stronger than a horse ffs.

Anyway, the new codex is delicious and I'm having problems waiting until next time I can play, trying different armies each time.

Reply by: themocaw - click to view full reply 

27970

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 20:00:23

Post by: themocaw

Necroman wrote:
All the colors are supposed to be balanced in-universe, and Wizards tries to balance them for the tabletop too. Sure, there's cases of ridiculous fluff power/game power contrasts (4 Grizzly Bears>Lord of the Pit), but that's been around since the game's creation.

Old joke: How many mosquitos does it take to kill a bear?

If you're playing Magic, the answer is, "2".

Anyway, i'm just annoyed with Sanguinor the Sanguine Lord and Heir to Sanguinius Sanguinely Sanguinizing the Sanguine Foes at the head of his Sanguinary Guard.

Reply by: Distortionist - click to view full reply 

25522

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/29 21:42:05

Post by: Distortionist

I kind of like the Sanguinor, however, I believe some of the stories about the sanguinor are over-the-top. But mind you this is based off second hand knowledge. Along with the whole 'avenging angel' thing going on, which makes him seem like a good warp creature or some sort.

Reply by: candy.man - click to view full reply 

26204

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/30 01:33:50

Post by: candy.man

The sanguinor is an alright model but the fluff is a bunch of Matt Ward hooey as far as fluff is considered. I mean seriously a magic angel marine appearing out of no where and saving the day. Whenever the Sanguinor is mentioned, I think of this.

StarHunter25 wrote:I was reading through all the various campaigns talked about in the BE codex, and how the Sanguinator was in a lot of them. Every time, he shows up at the exact right moment, in the exact right place, with his sword going into the exact right guy. Then it hit me, that he must be a tactical genius or something...

Reply by: Necroman - click to view full reply 

28235

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/30 02:05:07

Post by: Necroman

themocaw wrote:

Necroman wrote:
All the colors are supposed to be balanced in-universe, and Wizards tries to balance them for the tabletop too. Sure, there's cases of ridiculous fluff power/game power contrasts (4 Grizzly Bears>Lord of the Pit), but that's been around since the game's creation.

Old joke: How many mosquitos does it take to kill a bear?

If you're playing Magic, the answer is, "2".

One Bear Cub=One Grizzly Bear.

Reply by: wuestenfux - click to view full reply 

4139

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/30 10:20:06

Post by: wuestenfux

I never liked the BA fluff. Red thirst, come on.

All those fast vehicles are a bit silly when you compare with vehicles of other Chapters.

Vanilla Space Marines have no overpowered HQ's in cc, BA has. So what?
The game emphasizes moving and shooting, not so much cc.

Reply by: Terminus - click to view full reply 

8052

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/30 15:49:14

Post by: Terminus

Lysander would own most of the fancy-schmancy BA characters, or at the very least put up a damn good fight.

Reply by: agnosto - click to view full reply 

21196

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/30 16:10:32

Post by: agnosto

candy.man wrote:The sanguinor is an alright model but the fluff is a bunch of Matt Ward hooey as far as fluff is considered. I mean seriously a magic angel marine appearing out of no where and saving the day. Whenever the Sanguinor is mentioned, I think of this.

StarHunter25 wrote:I was reading through all the various campaigns talked about in the BE codex, and how the Sanguinator was in a lot of them. Every time, he shows up at the exact right moment, in the exact right place, with his sword going into the exact right guy. Then it hit me, that he must be a tactical genius or something...

He's a tactical genius....that can only mean that he's actually CREED in disguise. Man, that cat gets around.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/30 17:23:17

Post by: JohnHwangDD

wuestenfux wrote:I never liked the BA fluff. Red thirst, come on.

Yeah, it should be "Blood Thirst" to match the other "Blood" nomenclature in the Codex..

Reply by: CT GAMER - click to view full reply 

14152

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/30 17:30:36

Post by: CT GAMER

Grim.Badger wrote:I'm not sure about anyone else, but to me the BA codex seems to have brought about more feelings of "That's just not right" within the 40k community(

just wait until next year when they move to capitalize on their new demographic set the "Marines riding giant wolves and flying land Raiders ZOMG111" crowd with a combined BA/SW codex featuring a new unit of super bad-ass wolfman assault marines:


Th kiddos are gonna love it...

Reply by: Demogerg - click to view full reply 

12030

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/30 18:01:27

Post by: Demogerg

Blood angels (IMO) were supposed to allude to being sparkly vampires, while still remaining mostly Space Marines. Now they are sparkly vampires who just use the gear of space marines while they fly around with magical psychic dreadnoughts, with meltapistols on every sergent, flying land raiders, nipple-armor, sanguinary sanguine priests who inspire the sanguine guard to fight sanguinarily for the sanguintastic primarch sanguinious, who oddly enough, forces his champions to wear nipple armor while trying to drink the blood of their foes. Oh, and the one sparkly vampire who decided to NOT drink blood somehow becomes a super-saiyen who refuses to play nicely with others.

a similarly sarcastic arguement can be made for Space Wolves, with their Wolf riding Wolf champions who wear wolf pelts while howling like wolves for their wolf lord who tells them to fight like wolves into combat vs some sparkly vampires who want to drink their blood.

TLDR: Blood angel codex fluff is terribad, its like they took the worst part of the Space Wolf codex (thunderwolves) and morphed it to fit Blood Angels, then wrote the whole codex about it.

Reply by: candy.man - click to view full reply 

26204

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/30 18:04:10

Post by: candy.man

@Demogerg

LMAO. +1 to you.

Reply by: agnosto - click to view full reply 

21196

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/04/30 18:19:35

Post by: agnosto

Demogerg wrote:a similarly sarcastic arguement can be made for Space Wolves, with their Wolf riding Wolf champions who wear wolf pelts while howling like wolves for their wolf lord who tells them to fight like wolves into combat vs some sparkly vampires who want to drink their blood.

TLDR: Blood angel codex fluff is terribad, its like they took the worst part of the Space Wolf codex (thunderwolves) and morphed it to fit Blood Angels, then wrote the whole codex about it.

Shhh, now you're going to make someone come in here and tell us that they're not wolves.

Reply by: wuestenfux - click to view full reply 

4139

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/01 07:42:25

Post by: wuestenfux

By the way, I liked the fluff of the 13th Company lost in the warp.
They played differently when compared with the normal SW codex.
But GW decided to drop them.
Bad decision.

Reply by: cosmic pixie - click to view full reply 

23389

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/01 17:22:16

Post by: cosmic pixie

The fluff is terrible, the army is not.

The games I have played with (and against) the new codex have either gone the way of the dice or have otherwise been quite close.

But after having lost 4/5 Land Raiders to the Deepstrike mishaps, I have chosen to write off that rule.

Reply by: kaptaink - click to view full reply 

23325

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/01 21:58:16

Post by: kaptaink

cosmic pixie wrote:The fluff is terrible, the army is not.

The games I have played with (and against) the new codex have either gone the way of the dice or have otherwise been quite close.

But after having lost 4/5 Land Raiders to the Deepstrike mishaps, I have chosen to write off that rule.

At what point did deep striking a small shoe box seem like a good idea?

Reply by: Just Dave - click to view full reply 

20867

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/01 22:00:46

Post by: Just Dave

kaptaink wrote:

cosmic pixie wrote:The fluff is terrible, the army is not.

The games I have played with (and against) the new codex have either gone the way of the dice or have otherwise been quite close.

But after having lost 4/5 Land Raiders to the Deepstrike mishaps, I have chosen to write off that rule.

At what point did deep striking a small shoe box seem like a good idea?

The same time that flying dreadnoughts did?

Reply by: kaptaink - click to view full reply 

23325

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/01 22:04:48

Post by: kaptaink

I see what you did :\

Reply by: cosmic pixie - click to view full reply 

23389

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/01 22:06:19

Post by: cosmic pixie

Yeah, I figured I had to try deepstriking the big rectangley thing if I was to participate in one of these threads.

Reply by: Baxx - click to view full reply 

5209

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 01:51:30

Post by: Baxx

A Land Raider filled with... let's say some expensive veterans and a special characters... 600-700 points easily! It could all be lost if you land on a grot. Never deep strike!

Reply by: kaptaink - click to view full reply 

23325

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 02:13:28

Post by: kaptaink

Baxx wrote:A Land Raider filled with... let's say some expensive veterans and a special characters... 600-700 points easily! It could all be lost if you land on a grot. Never deep strike!

I don't know about you but I am going to try and convince everyone to DS their LRs against me. It will be SOOOO effective VS. Vulkan Marines

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 02:15:39

Post by: Nurglitch

Or use a Locator Beacon to prevent a Deep Strike mishap.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 03:01:46

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Nurglitch wrote:Or use a Locator Beacon to prevent a Deep Strike mishap.

Hush, you...

Reply by: Quientin - click to view full reply 

26973

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 03:35:40

Post by: Quientin

Maybe everyone stuck with an old codex feels pissed on. but at the same time we are afraid of the golden shower of Tzeentch. BA finally out cheesed the wolves. One will always be the favorite child. Todays BA is tomorrows Necron. Pray to papa Nurgle that you are not tomorrows Squat or cultist. DE DA Necrons CSM, Daemons and their hunters... blah blah blah. The only people who have a legitimate gripe coming are those with 5th ed codex. IG have orders, Wolves have Termie and character spam, Vulkan has melta/flamer spam... on and on

LESSON: Do not be upset about what you DONT have. BE excited about what youre gonna get when your codex hits 5th ed.

now... yes its BS. Krak is not just a grenade type at GW

Reply by: wuestenfux - click to view full reply 

4139

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 07:41:51

Post by: wuestenfux

No no.
As an axiom, GW never goes too far.

Reply by: Honersstodnt - click to view full reply 

28350

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 07:55:52

Post by: Honersstodnt

playing against blood angels with my biker marine army... a squad of biker marines takes 4 wounds from a flamestorm redeemer cannon. He's within 6" of my command squad's apothecary. My opponent looks at me, and says, with his best trollface on, "you should take your FNP roll on those marines, your within 6" of your apothecary... oh wait! your playing codex marines"

I'm now in prison, awaiting trial for murder. I'm going to plead guilty, and hope the jury understands. I'm sure most of them would have done the same.

Reply by: Challenger - click to view full reply 

28711

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 13:36:31

Post by: Challenger

I must admit the whole feel no pain thing has got a tad out of hand (and I'm a blood angel player)

The moment I realised you could field an 11 strong unit of terminators with SS with a 2+, 3++ and FNP I knew someone hadn't thought it through properly.

Challenger

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 14:51:41

Post by: Monster Rain

Challenger wrote:I must admit the whole feel no pain thing has got a tad out of hand (and I'm a blood angel player)

The moment I realised you could field an 11 strong unit of terminators with SS with a 2+, 3++ and FNP I knew someone hadn't thought it through properly.

Challenger

Vindicator + Null Zone= What Terminators?

Reply by: Baxx - click to view full reply 

5209

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 16:10:25

Post by: Baxx

Challenger wrote:I must admit the whole feel no pain thing has got a tad out of hand (and I'm a blood angel player)

The moment I realised you could field an 11 strong unit of terminators with SS with a 2+, 3++ and FNP I knew someone hadn't thought it through properly.

Challenger

How can such a unit of 535 points manage to make themselves worth it?

Monster Rain wrote:
Vindicator + Null Zone= What Terminators?

You need to get a good hit, then wound on 2+, then the Terminators get a 3+ inv save. Not my definion of effective.

Reply by: OverwatchCNC - click to view full reply 

28365

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 16:57:19

Post by: OverwatchCNC

Check out this article written by Disdainful for Capture and Control. Capture and Control: The Blood Angels Project He does a good job of breaking down why Blood Angels don't suck and why they aren't broken.

Reply by: Black Blow Fly - click to view full reply 

5369

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 18:25:12

Post by: Black Blow Fly

As a long time BA player I am tickled pink with the new codex. We had to suffer through the PDF years and as such I think we deserved something nice. I don't have any problems with the new fluff either.

G

Reply by: Just Dave - click to view full reply 

20867

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 18:51:48

Post by: Just Dave

No offence but 'we deserve it' is a poor argument with possible Necron, Dark Eldar, Inquisition, Black Templar and Dark Angels codices. Having a hard time is no excuse to give everyone else one...

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 18:56:53

Post by: Monster Rain

Baxx wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
Vindicator + Null Zone= What Terminators?

You need to get a good hit, then wound on 2+, then the Terminators get a 3+ inv save. Not my definion of effective.

You're missing a fundamental point in your analysis.

Also, I'm aware that the game involves dice.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 20:26:44

Post by: nosferatu1001

Somebody missed what "Null zone" does, didnt they

Reply by: cRaZy_MaChEtE_mAn - click to view full reply 

17222

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/02 20:28:26

Post by: cRaZy_MaChEtE_mAn

My opinion of this dex and 3 of my friends who don't go to this wonderful place.

Fan
boy
fap
dex

We have a little story but it might get me banned for telling it

Reply by: Black Blow Fly - click to view full reply 

5369

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 01:00:29

Post by: Black Blow Fly

Just Dave wrote:No offence but 'we deserve it' is a poor argument with possible Necron, Dark Eldar, Inquisition, Black Templar and Dark Angels codices. Having a hard time is no excuse to give everyone else one...

well I hope Necrons, Tau, Templars and other older codices also get good new ones as well. It gets boring when there are only two to three really strong armies.

G

Reply by: kaptaink - click to view full reply 

23325

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 01:46:49

Post by: kaptaink

Black Blow Fly wrote:As a long time BA player I am tickled pink with the new codex. We had to suffer through the PDF years and as such I think we deserved something nice. I don't have any problems with the new fluff either.

G

Holy crap man, with your thinking I can't wait to see the DA codex. 2+ invulnerable saves and AP1 Bolters better be coming. I'll go out and say minus respective wings the DA book was far worse than the your PDF codex you claim to have suffered through.

Also, claiming some of the obviously terribly thought out ideas are 'justified' because you had a PDF 'dex is a little silly. I bet your thoughts would also be completely different if this happened with an army you don't play.

I also have a feeling books like this might come out a couple more times at most, then there is going to be an attempt to 'level' the playing field, much like what was done with the DA book and someone will get an incredibly bad book.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 03:46:24

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Challenger wrote:The moment I realised you could field an 11 strong unit of terminators with SS with a 2+, 3++ and FNP I knew someone hadn't thought it through properly.

Go for it.

For fewer points, I can field a full squadron of 3 Demolishers, and drop 3 S10 AP2 pie plates on their heads.

Who wins?

Reply by: Jayden63 - click to view full reply 

102

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 05:54:51

Post by: Jayden63

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Challenger wrote:The moment I realised you could field an 11 strong unit of terminators with SS with a 2+, 3++ and FNP I knew someone hadn't thought it through properly.

Go for it.

For fewer points, I can field a full squadron of 3 Demolishers, and drop 3 S10 AP2 pie plates on their heads.

Who wins?

Actually the terminators probably do. Due to spacing, scatter, rolling 1s to wound, and 3+ inv save, your entire volley might just kill 2. Too bad you didn't shoot at Sanquinary guard or assault marines or death company. You know, stuff that doesn't have an inv save. Thus letting them move just that much faster to get into HTH where you can't shoot at them.

All the terminators can do is walk then run, since there isn't a single non-apoc vehicle that can hold 10 terminators and the priest.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 11:57:03

Post by: Monster Rain

Jayden63 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Challenger wrote:The moment I realised you could field an 11 strong unit of terminators with SS with a 2+, 3++ and FNP I knew someone hadn't thought it through properly.

Go for it.

For fewer points, I can field a full squadron of 3 Demolishers, and drop 3 S10 AP2 pie plates on their heads.

Who wins?

Actually the terminators probably do. Due to spacing, scatter, rolling 1s to wound, and 3+ inv save, your entire volley might just kill 2. Too bad you didn't shoot at Sanquinary guard or assault marines or death company. You know, stuff that doesn't have an inv save. Thus letting them move just that much faster to get into HTH where you can't shoot at them.

All the terminators can do is walk then run, since there isn't a single non-apoc vehicle that can hold 10 terminators and the priest.

Not to sound like a broken record here...

Null Zone.

Reply by: Black Blow Fly - click to view full reply 

5369

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 12:48:44

Post by: Black Blow Fly

Well I happen to play Dark Angels as well so I am glad that one of armies finally got a decent book. The PDF was okay but nothing really special, plus we BA players wanted a real codex and some new sprues. Like I said I'm really happy with the codex & can't complain. I hope all the other armies still waiting to be updated get something really nice as well. : )

G

Reply by: Demogerg - click to view full reply 

12030

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 13:33:29

Post by: Demogerg

By the way, I liked the fluff of the 13th Company lost in the warp.
They played differently when compared with the normal SW codex.
But GW decided to drop them.
Bad decision.

Agreed.

Thats why my "thunderwolves" are (WIP) truescale 13th company wulfen conversions on dreadnought bases, 2 per base, with heresy era jump packs.
Chapterhouse heresy heads- Check
Chapterhouse heresy jump packs- Check
Chapterhouse heresy shoulderpads- Check
Space Wolves power armor kit- Check
Assault Marine kit- Check
Chaos Berzerker kit- Check
Beatmen Gor and Ungor bits- Check
Intricate scenic bases- Check
Lots of Greenstuff- Check
Magnets- Check
Win?- Check.

Reply by: wuestenfux - click to view full reply 

4139

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 14:28:38

Post by: wuestenfux

Thats why my "thunderwolves" are (WIP) truescale 13th company wulfen conversions on dreadnought bases, 2 per base, with heresy era jump packs.
Chapterhouse heresy heads- Check
Chapterhouse heresy jump packs- Check
Chapterhouse heresy shoulderpads- Check
Space Wolves power armor kit- Check
Assault Marine kit- Check
Chaos Berzerker kit- Check
Beatmen Gor and Ungor bits- Check
Intricate scenic bases- Check
Lots of Greenstuff- Check
Magnets- Check
Win?- Check.

Awesome plan.
Any pics?

Reply by: CT GAMER - click to view full reply 

14152

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 17:39:28

Post by: CT GAMER

Black Blow Fly wrote:As a long time BA player I am tickled pink with the new codex. We had to suffer through the PDF years and as such I think we deserved something nice. I don't have any problems with the new fluff either.

G

i think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit...

Reply by: Arschbombe - click to view full reply 

11856

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 19:17:03

Post by: Arschbombe

CT GAMER wrote:i think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit...

That tends to happen when you get yourself worked up about a new codex.

Reply by: CatPeeler - click to view full reply 

11667

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 19:48:43

Post by: CatPeeler

Demogerg wrote:Blood angels (IMO) were supposed to allude to being sparkly vampires, while still remaining mostly Space Marines. Now they are sparkly vampires who just use the gear of space marines while they fly around with magical psychic dreadnoughts, with meltapistols on every sergent, flying land raiders, nipple-armor, sanguinary sanguine priests who inspire the sanguine guard to fight sanguinarily for the sanguintastic primarch sanguinious, who oddly enough, forces his champions to wear nipple armor while trying to drink the blood of their foes. Oh, and the one sparkly vampire who decided to NOT drink blood somehow becomes a super-saiyen who refuses to play nicely with others.

a similarly sarcastic arguement can be made for Space Wolves, with their Wolf riding Wolf champions who wear wolf pelts while howling like wolves for their wolf lord who tells them to fight like wolves into combat vs some sparkly vampires who want to drink their blood.

TLDR: Blood angel codex fluff is terribad, its like they took the worst part of the Space Wolf codex (thunderwolves) and morphed it to fit Blood Angels, then wrote the whole codex about it.

I like the cut of this man's gibberish.

What you say is very interesting, and, yes--I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 19:51:08

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Jayden63 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Challenger wrote:The moment I realised you could field an 11 strong unit of terminators with SS with a 2+, 3++ and FNP I knew someone hadn't thought it through properly.

Go for it.

For fewer points, I can field a full squadron of 3 Demolishers, and drop 3 S10 AP2 pie plates on their heads.

Actually the terminators probably do. Due to spacing, scatter, rolling 1s to wound, and 3+ inv save, your entire volley might just kill 2. Too bad you didn't shoot at Sanquinary guard or assault marines or death company. You know, stuff that doesn't have an inv save. Thus letting them move just that much faster to get into HTH where you can't shoot at them.

All the terminators can do is walk then run, since there isn't a single non-apoc vehicle that can hold 10 terminators and the priest.

You're *WALKING* them from your board edge? Really?

Auto-win for the Demolishers! Good Job!

I figured you were a least DSing them so they'd be closer to the action and only risk the one round of shooting before they get stuck in. 3 Plates = 1 HIT on all 12, 2 scatters (1 long, 1 short).

Regardless of whether you walk or DS, I get a least 2 turns of lobbing S10 AP2 shots at other stuff before I have to even think about dealing with those Termies.

Reply by: Dedrith - click to view full reply 

19154

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 21:07:55

Post by: Dedrith

I would say so, there are plenty of things in the Blood Angels Codex that simply make my skin crawl.

Reply by: Black Blow Fly - click to view full reply 

5369

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 22:20:57

Post by: Black Blow Fly

It's a wet dream codex finally come true. I really like all hte attention to detail.

G

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 22:24:21

Post by: Nurglitch

Speaking of, how does one paint sparkles?

Reply by: Black Blow Fly - click to view full reply 

5369

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 22:51:11

Post by: Black Blow Fly

CHEck hte P&M forum.

G

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 23:19:51

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Nurglitch wrote:Speaking of, how does one paint sparkles?

The way some posters are going on how OP BA are, you'd think their opponents were using spooge after a hearty reading of a wet dream wankdex...

Reply by: Baxx - click to view full reply 

5209

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/03 23:40:59

Post by: Baxx

JohnHwangDD wrote:
You're *WALKING* them from your board edge? Really?

Auto-win for the Demolishers! Good Job!

I figured you were a least DSing them so they'd be closer to the action and only risk the one round of shooting before they get stuck in. 3 Plates = 1 HIT on all 12, 2 scatters (1 long, 1 short).

Regardless of whether you walk or DS, I get a least 2 turns of lobbing S10 AP2 shots at other stuff before I have to even think about dealing with those Termies.

Where did he said the Termies walked from the board edge?
How do you get 12 hits with one blast when there's only 11 models in the unit? (10 Terminators + 1 Sanguinary Priest)?
Why wouldn't the unit run and scatter before you shoot at it (they have no shooting weapons anyway)?

I think those vindies would do little damage to the termies. If you actually managed to kill some, they would do alot more dagame against something else.

Reply by: Quientin - click to view full reply 

26973

Has BA Codex Gone Too far? @ 2010/05/04 06:36:21

Post by: Quientin

CatPeeler wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Blood angels (IMO) were supposed to allude to being sparkly vampires, while still remaining mostly Space Marines. Now they are sparkly vampires who just use the gear of space marines while they fly around with magical psychic dreadnoughts, with meltapistols on every sergent, flying land raiders, nipple-armor, sanguinary sanguine priests who inspire the sanguine guard to fight sanguinarily for the sanguintastic primarch sanguinious, who oddly enough, forces his champions to wear nipple armor while trying to drink the blood of their foes. Oh, and the one sparkly vampire who decided to NOT drink blood somehow becomes a super-saiyen who refuses to play nicely with others.

a similarly sarcastic arguement can be made for Space Wolves, with their Wolf riding Wolf champions who wear wolf pelts while howling like wolves for their wolf lord who tells them to fight like wolves into combat vs some sparkly vampires who want to drink their blood.

TLDR: Blood angel codex fluff is terribad, its like they took the worst part of the Space Wolf codex (thunderwolves) and morphed it to fit Blood Angels, then wrote the whole codex about it.

I like the cut of this man's gibberish.

What you say is very interesting, and, yes--I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

... GW has gone 13 year old girl on us..... In the grim darkness of the far future there is only the twilight saga?

Im putting my marines on e-bay now... thank you for blowing my mind