Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

i recently did a 3.5k battle against about 1.7k BA and 1.8k imperial fists. The BA did alright, but even with all their special stuff, a sufficent amount of plague marines can take them down. Their new unit Blood Angels Sanguinary Guard was only difficult because of their power weps. the guy i played didnt have any of the shiney deep striking tanks, but he did have a good deal of jump infantry. I won in a prety even match. I honestly think the only thing broken ive seen in the codex is the furioso dreadnot and its abilty to have blood talons. I have been told that they are like lightning claws that get more attacks if you fail armor saves, so unless ur enemy has an invonerable save the deadnot could possibly have unlimited attacks. But that could have been a friend misunderstanding the rule. I would personaly make a house rule against that because its OP for a 125 pt model, unlimited attacks for anything is down right dumb. A simple fix. Sadly the two people i play mostly are making blood angles armies, so little variety to play.

The Furioso with Blood Talons is indeed absolutely sick for only 125 points. It does indeed grant extra attacks for every successful wound, but you have to remember that it still needs to hit with those attacks (granted on a 3+, but still). The average result of a charge against infantry is ~6 dead guys (whether they are Grots or Sanguinary Guard).

And it still has to get there.

And it only has S6, S7 on the charge. An Ironclad, Soulgrinder, or even another Furioso will be immune to it. Meaning...

Furioso Catfight!

Honestly, that bit with the blood talons is bugging me. I can't think of any other "roll more dice"-type ability in 40K that allows you to roll extra dice on top of those ones you get the first time. I don't think it's OP; I think it's a bizarre idea that the writers shouldn't have put in. I'm familiar with the general mechanic - it exists in, for instance, almost any game made by White Wolf. In those, it's always a 1/10 chance of an extra die, and it still tends to cause bizarre rolls of 10 successes on 5 dice.
(Technically speaking, what it does is dramatically extend the high-successes end of the possibility spectrum without doing much to the low end.) Against standard infantry without invulnerable saves, the blood talon's chance of wounding and an extra die is 16/27, which means for the most part that they're either whiffing or killing a lot of guys - there's not much middle ground. In all honesty, though, I see this as being BAD for the BA, not good; you have even less of an idea whether your dread is going to take out the squad he's attacking too early, leaving him open to his opponent's shooting phase.

DaveL wrote: In all honesty, though, I see this as being BAD for the BA, not good; you have even less of an idea whether your dread is going to take out the squad he's attacking too early, leaving him open to his opponent's shooting phase.

Id trade a 125 point dread for a 200+ point squad of marines anyday, especially considering you still have to crack Av13.

DaveL wrote:Honestly, that bit with the blood talons is bugging me. I can't think of any other "roll more dice"-type ability in 40K that allows you to roll extra dice on top of those ones you get the first time. I don't think it's OP; I think it's a bizarre idea that the writers shouldn't have put in. I'm familiar with the general mechanic - it exists in, for instance, almost any game made by White Wolf. In those, it's always a 1/10 chance of an extra die, and it still tends to cause bizarre rolls of 10 successes on 5 dice.
(Technically speaking, what it does is dramatically extend the high-successes end of the possibility spectrum without doing much to the low end.) Against standard infantry without invulnerable saves, the blood talon's chance of wounding and an extra die is 16/27, which means for the most part that they're either whiffing or killing a lot of guys - there's not much middle ground. In all honesty, though, I see this as being BAD for the BA, not good; you have even less of an idea whether your dread is going to take out the squad he's attacking too early, leaving him open to his opponent's shooting phase.

It's actually a blast from the past! It's nothing more than Lighting Claws with RT-era Following-Fire rules!

Valete,

JohnS

Night Lords wrote:

DaveL wrote: In all honesty, though, I see this as being BAD for the BA, not good; you have even less of an idea whether your dread is going to take out the squad he's attacking too early, leaving him open to his opponent's shooting phase.

Id trade a 125 point dread for a 200+ point squad of marines anyday, especially considering you still have to crack Av13.

If you charge an AV13 dread into a squad of marines, whether you're trading the dread for the marines probably doesn't depend on what the dread is equipped with. It depends on what the marines are equipped with. The only question, if the squad doesn't have a PF sarge, is when the squad will die. (If it does have a PF sarge, I suppose it might make some difference if the dread has blood talons - but not an enormous amount, I think, and definitely not reliably so.)

DaveL wrote:Honestly, that bit with the blood talons is bugging me. I can't think of any other "roll more dice"-type ability in 40K that allows you to roll extra dice on top of those ones you get the first time. I don't think it's OP; I think it's a bizarre idea that the writers shouldn't have put in. I'm familiar with the general mechanic - it exists in, for instance, almost any game made by White Wolf. In those, it's always a 1/10 chance of an extra die, and it still tends to cause bizarre rolls of 10 successes on 5 dice.
(Technically speaking, what it does is dramatically extend the high-successes end of the possibility spectrum without doing much to the low end.) Against standard infantry without invulnerable saves, the blood talon's chance of wounding and an extra die is 16/27, which means for the most part that they're either whiffing or killing a lot of guys - there's not much middle ground. In all honesty, though, I see this as being BAD for the BA, not good; you have even less of an idea whether your dread is going to take out the squad he's attacking too early, leaving him open to his opponent's shooting phase.

I don't know, I think the idea of a unique unit with it's own that produce a particular in-game feel (either a load of kills or very few) is a good thing. But then I'm all for having more unique, interesting units in the game.

I haven't played against the furioso yet, but I'm finding it hard to see how a dreadnaught that's only effective in melee against infantry is going to be a game breaker.

DaveL wrote:Honestly, that bit with the blood talons is bugging me. I can't think of any other "roll more dice"-type ability in 40K that allows you to roll extra dice on top of those ones you get the first time. I don't think it's OP; I think it's a bizarre idea that the writers shouldn't have put in. I'm familiar with the general mechanic - it exists in, for instance, almost any game made by White Wolf. In those, it's always a 1/10 chance of an extra die, and it still tends to cause bizarre rolls of 10 successes on 5 dice.
(Technically speaking, what it does is dramatically extend the high-successes end of the possibility spectrum without doing much to the low end.) Against standard infantry without invulnerable saves, the blood talon's chance of wounding and an extra die is 16/27, which means for the most part that they're either whiffing or killing a lot of guys - there's not much middle ground. In all honesty, though, I see this as being BAD for the BA, not good; you have even less of an idea whether your dread is going to take out the squad he's attacking too early, leaving him open to his opponent's shooting phase.

Tyranid OOE.

Can have up to 8 attacks on the charge and for everyone that hits (granted 4+ against MEQ) you get that many more attacks. They don't result in anymore but it's fun on occasion to get 10+ attacks with a S10 MC against a dreadnaught.

DaveL wrote:it's a bizarre idea that the writers shouldn't have put in.

Of course it's bizarre, just like all the non-IC characters with baffling statlines and deep-striking raiders, it was written by Matt Ward.

Against standard infantry without invulnerable saves, the blood talon's chance of wounding and an extra die is 16/27, which means for the most part that they're either whiffing or killing a lot of guys - there's not much middle ground. In all honesty, though, I see this as being BAD for the BA, not good; you have even less of an idea whether your dread is going to take out the squad he's attacking too early, leaving him open to his opponent's shooting phase.

The Furioso is dirt cheap. If he takes out a single guard squad and their chimera, he has paid for himself. Against MEQs, if you get good initial rolls (or even just average), you will destroy most of the enemy unit on your turn and finish them off during theirs. If you get crap rolls, you're still tying up a much more expensive unit and could very well annihilate them next turn.

AV13 is tough for the usual 2 power fist attacks these squads will have. Every shot aimed at the Furioso that can seriously threaten AV13/12 is one less shot aimed at your Stormravens/transports/Sanguinary Guard/whatever.

The only downside for the Furioso is that it's an elite choice...a choice that has much competition IMO...similarly the FA slot has much competition.

Well, you can ease the competition by using Honor Guard for your Sanguinary Priests, which would leave three slots for Furiosos and terminators, etc.

That's been my approach when I wants Furiosos as well.

Of course Honor Guard are damn fine in their own right.

Jack

Terminus wrote:The Furioso is dirt cheap. If he takes out a single guard squad and their chimera, he has paid for himself. Against MEQs, if you get good initial rolls (or even just average), you will destroy most of the enemy unit on your turn and finish them off during theirs. If you get crap rolls, you're still tying up a much more expensive unit and could very well annihilate them next turn.

AV13 is tough for the usual 2 power fist attacks these squads will have. Every shot aimed at the Furioso that can seriously threaten AV13/12 is one less shot aimed at your Stormravens/transports/Sanguinary Guard/whatever.

This is an argument against AV13 dreads, not against blood talons. Do you think ironclads (for almost exactly the same price) are OP? I'll admit I'm not terribly fond of ironclads myself; they're part of an unfortunate arms race, and I might've been happier if they didn't exist. But if the discussion is about blood talons... I really think the extra randomness is a drawback, not an asset, to a BA player.

DaveL wrote:
AV13 is tough for the usual 2 power fist attacks these squads will have. Every shot aimed at the Furioso that can seriously threaten AV13/12 is one less shot aimed at your Stormravens/transports/Sanguinary Guard/whatever.

This is an argument against AV13 dreads, not against blood talons. Do you think ironclads (for almost exactly the same price) are OP? I'll admit I'm not terribly fond of ironclads myself; they're part of an unfortunate arms race, and I might've been happier if they didn't exist. But if the discussion is about blood talons... I really think the extra randomness is a drawback, not an asset, to a BA player.

Slackermagee wrote:


Its a pattern I've seen throughout this new Matt Ward codex: the new army is getting upgraded versions of what the smurfs have for no extra cost or a marginal increase. Case in point: the fast predators. For a 15% increase in cost the AC/LC Blood Angels pred gets a 300% increase in firepower when moving 6" and the ability to shoot period when moving 12" over the smurf AC/LC predator. And that's not all! For the next couple years, this predator will also move 6" farther when it really needs to motor! What a great (read imbalanced and thoughtless) price!

Other examples of 'get more for next to nothing' over the standard codex include:
>Assault marines and other deepstrikers being more reliable both in deployment and arrival from reserves for no increase in points cost
>Paying pennies to make large blobs of marines FNP/FC wherever they deploy from
>Getting more varied options for dedicated troop transport (frees up HS slots for those preds)
>A random chance to furious charge/fearless at the cost of tactical retreat in CC... for the CC oriented space marine army (a drawback, yeah right. woop-de-doo)

Bad codex writing at its finest. While others may like the BA codex for all the toys that it offers, it sets a horrible standard and treatment of the game as a whole.

I pretty agree with Slackermagee's type of thoughts.

Yeah... I think the SW codex did a great job of balancing the tradeoffs for the gains. A lot of the better Vanilla SM units aren't available (Attack Bikes and Sternguard for example) to make up for the other nice stuff. I don't think BA has the same type of tradeoffs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's OP by any stretch. I just think it steps on C:SM's toes a little because it doesn't lose very many units, but gains a lot more other options and toys.

It certainly does, it certainly does.

Good effort Mr. Ward, but you're working at Games Workshop, not Wizards of the Coast!

40 assault marines (taken with melta bombs of course) for troops, and the ability to take a total of 6 predators (3 Baal and 3 normal) makes me seriously want to switch from IG to Blood Angels, bit the thing that keeps me in IG is that we now have Vendettas with the 3 twin-linked lascannons and able to field up to 9 Battle tanks in fun as hell Not to mention taking Creed to give that Chimera that the Melta vets in the Scouts special rule.... o.o

Slackermagee wrote:Its a pattern I've seen throughout this new Matt Ward codex: the new army is getting upgraded versions of what the smurfs have for no extra cost or a marginal increase.

Case in point: the fast predators. increase in cost

>Assault marines and other deepstrikers being more reliable both in deployment and arrival from reserves for no increase in points cost

>Paying pennies to make large blobs of marines FNP/FC

>Getting more varied options for dedicated troop transport (frees up HS slots for those preds)

>A random chance to furious charge/fearless at the cost of tactical retreat in CC... for the CC oriented space marine army

OK, why don't you compare BA and SM Tactical Squads, for starters. Is the SM Tac Squad better? How about the SM Sternguard Veterans?

Those Preds pay more points for +0% increase in survivability.

SM AM are supposed to suck. BA AM are supposed to be good at assault.

So, wait, FNP/FC isn't free?

Gaining Land Raiders as a Transport is a nice option, but they're expensive and generally overcosted in the current environment. Their other Transports cost more.

Random chance is random chance - it's unreliable, and can penalize certain units significantly (Devastators, for example).

I'm sorry, but you're not getting it. BA are better than SM at assault, and worse at gunline. Build and play them as a Codex Astartes Battle Demi-Company, and they'll be horrible.

Actually, in a recent game I played, the extra points I paid for my Pred did make it both more flexible and more survivable. Being Fast meant I could move it forward to a better firig position than I had available in my deployment zone, then, when it was approached by a Razorback with a bunch of nasties in it, retreat away from the and stay out of combat range for another turn and still open up with all available weapons. So, for those extra points I got to take shots at side armour instead of front armour AND then retreat to stay alive longer.

Admittedly that was only the case in 1 out 4 games that day, but it did make a huge difference in that game, as the self-same Pred that survived by retreating also retreated a bit further still and was thereby able to take the shot that destroyed the Land Speeder contesting my objective.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the BA book is overpowered, but being Fast is a huge advantage for Rhino chassis vehicles. I think the BA book is slightly better than the SM one, but I wouldn't say it is as overwhelming as some people are making out. Many lists will be better off being built using the SM Codex still. Admittedly some will be better with the BA Codex.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, why don't you compare BA and SM Tactical Squads, for starters. Is the SM Tac Squad better? How about the SM Sternguard Veterans?

Well, Matt Ward couldn't make everything better. On the other hand, NOTHING is worse than standard space marines. Losing combat tactics for Descent of Angels (on a great many units) and a chance at FC/fearless isn't great, but how often will these units be losing close combat? Two attacks each for the SG vets and tac squads... why would you bother taking them when you have access to DoA assault marines? I mean, you could, and you could then give them FNP/FC for the cost of a termie (granting that bonus to every squad around them too) and have them sit in the middle of a board, contesting stuff.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Those Preds pay more points for +0% increase in survivability.

How does that refute the BS of a 300% gain in firepower while moving for a 15% cost increase?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
SM AM are supposed to suck. BA AM are supposed to be good at assault.

Uh... they're identical. The only difference being a lack of combat tactics and the ability to out deploy people better than chaos daemons. Seriously, BA AM shouldn't be better at both stages of deep strike deployment just for losing combat tactics (without even having to take a 200 point special character like smrufs do to boot!).

JohnHwangDD wrote:
So, wait, FNP/FC isn't free?

If it was actually free people would be burning codices in Baltimore and Atlanta right now. Instead, its half the cost of a AM squad that can cover multiple units. When you use it well (ie as you should be using it) you get crazy mileage out of a VERY cheap model.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Gaining Land Raiders as a Transport is a nice option, but they're expensive and generally overcosted in the current environment. Their other Transports cost more.

Their other transports cost more because they can move EIGHTEEN INCHES for the same standard 'cost of a power weapon' increase the predator got. Fast assault marines in a crazy cheap fast rhino? And Eldar thought they were good at that kind of thing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Random chance is random chance - it's unreliable, and can penalize certain units significantly (Devastators, for example).

It doesn't give rage. There is no drawback. None. Zero. Nichts.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're not getting it. BA are better than SM at assault, and worse at gunline. Build and play them as a Codex Astartes Battle Demi-Company, and they'll be horrible.

How are they worse at gunline with cheap, fast anti-tank/anti-infantry vehicles in the fast attack and heavy support choices? They can move and shoot effectively unlike the smurf preds. Its a gunline that can adapt to the enemy. In short, its BETTER.

To harp one more time on the loss of combat tactics: the smurfs lose it too when they want to do semi-cool things (in addition to having to buy a rather expensive HQ). Twin-link some weapons? Lose it. Gain stubborn and maybe some other minor effect? Lose it. Gain fleet? Lose it. They trade away this 'awesome ability' left, right, and center for better (according to the style of the player) abilities.

Slackermagee wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, why don't you compare BA and SM Tactical Squads, for starters. Is the SM Tac Squad better? How about the SM Sternguard Veterans?

On the other hand, NOTHING is worse than standard space marines.

Losing combat tactics for Descent of Angels (on a great many units) and a chance at FC/fearless isn't great,

Two attacks each for the SG vets and tac squads... why would you bother taking them when you have access to DoA assault marines?

Sternguard without the ability to be Scoring are unquestionably worse than standard.

Losing Combat Tactics on Tacticals is worse.

Tactical Marines not being taken by BA? Then clearly SM Tacs are better!

Slackermagee wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Those Preds pay more points for +0% increase in survivability.

How does that refute the BS of a 300% gain in firepower while moving for a 15% cost increase?

It's a cost increase. That's all that matters. Measuring the firepower isn't the only measurement.

Slackermagee wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
SM AM are supposed to suck. BA AM are supposed to be good at assault.

Uh... they're identical. The only difference being a lack of combat tactics and the ability to out deploy people better than chaos daemons.

Seriously, BA AM shouldn't be better at both stages of deep strike deployment just for losing combat tactics (without even having to take a 200 point special character like smrufs do to boot!).

You just said that they're NOT identical.

BA AM should be unquestionably better than SM AM - that's what makes them different.

Slackermagee wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
So, wait, FNP/FC isn't free?

If it was actually free people

Thank you for conceding the point.

Slackermagee wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Gaining Land Raiders as a Transport is a nice option, but they're expensive and generally overcosted in the current environment. Their other Transports cost more.

Their other transports cost more because they can move EIGHTEEN INCHES for the same standard 'cost of a power weapon' increase the predator got. Fast assault marines in a crazy cheap fast rhino?

And Eldar thought they were good at that kind of thing.

Thank you. BA Rhinos cost nearly 50% more than SM Rhinos for no improvement in carrying capacity or firepower, while gaining only 6" more movement potential.

Eldar are a 4E Codex, not a 5E Codex.

Slackermagee wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Random chance is random chance - it's unreliable, and can penalize certain units significantly (Devastators, for example).

It doesn't give rage. There is no drawback.

Aside from losing Combat Tactics, which is good for Devastators.

Slackermagee wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're not getting it. BA are better than SM at assault, and worse at gunline. Build and play them as a Codex Astartes Battle Demi-Company, and they'll be horrible.

How are they worse at gunline with cheap, fast anti-tank/anti-infantry vehicles in the fast attack and heavy support choices?

To harp one more time on the loss of combat tactics: the smurfs lose it too when they want to do semi-cool things

BA are worse at infantry gunline, following the classic definition. BA are better at playing like BA, and we all get that. BA wouldn't play like SM, and that's the point you're willfully ignoring.

And thank you for conceding that BA are supposed to play differently.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Those Preds pay more points for +0% increase in survivability.

I'm sorry, but you're not getting it. BA are better than SM at assault, and worse at gunline. Build and play them as a Codex Astartes Battle Demi-Company, and they'll be horrible.

Actually without loosing any firepower a fast version of a tank is 33% more survivable than a non-fast version when it is being engaged in assault.

Getting hit on 6s is clearly more survivable than getting hit on 4s. And since there are armies like Orks and Nids that almost have to kill vehicles in HTH, the fast version of the predator/rhino/razorback is more survivable.


And I'm sorry but people who refuse to see the power creep in the BA codex are the ones just not getting it. Yeah the BA can produce almost the basic list as a Smurf list, but if you spam and focus on all the advantages that the BA have over the SM its a no contest situation. If you like the BA codex, thats fine. You want to play out of the BA codex, thats fine too. If someone wants to bitch about the power leap in the codex, thats their right too since it is clearly justified.

Some people still play jet bike seer council Eldar because they like the fluff, effect, and look of the army. They have just learned to harden their skin against the cries of OMG cheese. BA players will have to do the same.

Under the original BA Codex, there were whines of cheese, too. It's nothing new - practically every new Codex goes through the "OMG! B0RKEN!" phase.

Edited for being mean.

>Sternguard being scoring requires that you lose combat tactics.

>Its not a matter of either tactical squad being better, its a matter of the BA AM squad being better than both by a very long way. It would be like saying the SM tacticals are worse than the DA tacticals if you could take Sternguard as troops.

>The predators cost increase comes with a disproportionate power increase which is a textbook example of an imbalanced unit.

>This is a mistake on my part and I apologize for writing hastily and being vague. What I meant here was that both SM and BA AM squads are identical stat wise but that BA AM have the edge in reliable deployment via deepstrike both in arriving from reserves and placement.

>Please don't selectively edit quotes, it's not fair to me and it's not kind to those trying to follow our (now very convoluted) argument. Also I can't find where I called them free, I've been referencing their insanely low points cost from what I can see.

>I deserve some hating from my stats teacher for using percents up until now... it was just convenient not having to say "costs as ______". I think we can all see that the standard upgrade cost to fast on a rhino is the same as for a predator. While its not useful for firing its so much more useful for getting into position. 6" extra per turn is huge and always has been.

>I will NEVER understand why codices cannot be allowed to remain at a set power level. Privateer Press has the same number of armies in their Warmachine/Hordes game system and still manage to keep everyone going at roughly the same pace. Saying that Eldar can't expect to compare to fifth edition codices is a cop out for GW's lazy and profiteering stance on codex updates.

>True, combat tactics is good for devastators. Its a shame that they lose it when people take a cool special characters (which I see fairly regularly, is the same true in your area?).

>Uh, you just ret-conned your first response into infantry gun line. Bad form. Anyway, other gun line armies, (Tau, IG, SM) but not all gun line armies, have the option to play as either infantry or mechanized. Sure BA are worse at infantry gunline but I don't think SM ever really played a good infantry gun line to begin with. They were alright with vehicles but BA are better... they're actually one of the best mechanized gun lines right now with six fast vehicles that can run anti-tank/anti-infantry in addition to razorbacks.

>BA could play differently but did they ever play differently before? They were like DA and BT, smurfs with some cool rules and slight changes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Everyone cries, "OMG look at all those cheesy new units and rules!"

With BA, we can look at the points cost and power analytically to prove power creep.

Also, just in case anyone forgot ('cause I've totally not said this before): Matt Ward also wrote the Daemons of Chaos book. That everyone hated and thought was game destroying. And have continued to hate well past it's release.

Also also: Can I get an official mod temperature check on this thread? I'd rather like to back off before it self-immolates and locks.

Slackermagee wrote:Wow, you really are an editing troll JohnHwang.

Also also: Can I get an official mod temperature check on this thread? I'd rather like to back off before in self-immolates and locks.

At least I don't need to call you names...

That won't be really necessary, as I'm not going to reply to you anymore. Hopefully, you'll do me the same courtesy for the good of the thread.

I'll self-report, too, just to be fair.

Sorry.

It isn't looking too good right now...

Self-regulate, self-police, whatever - but if doesn't get under control quickly it is getting locked and suspensions will probably get handed out.

I did see (at the least) some goalpost-moving, and possibly nonrepresentative editing. And on the other hand some excessive heat/namecalling. Debate appears to now be at the level of warm but cooling. Thanks for the self-awareness, folks.

Moderator hat OFF:

I can see valid points on both sides.

Blood Angels were widely held to be overpowered in 3rd edition, and did have a number of inexpensive or free nasty advantages. And there are often kneejerk cries of cheese when a new codex comes out. And IMO Daemons of Chaos is not generally considered to be overpowered. It plays in a unique way, and many players consider its randomness to be a substantial disadvantage. I really like how BA are designed to play differently than codex SM, and I think it's appropriate to give them advantages which encourage them to do so. Power creep can never be proven when you have contrary evidence like Tyranids, Chaos, and Dark Angels.

OTOH, BA definitely have some very nice, and inexpensive advantages, and the jury is still out- some may really prove to be underpriced. Fast is a really nice advantage for their vehicles. OTOH, 15pts here and 15pts there adds up, and winds up with less scoring in the list. The limiter on the fun new toys in the BA list is always going to be that most of them aren't Scoring. I've had one game against it so far and was impressed by the Fast stuff, by FNP from sanguinary priests, and by Descent of Angels. It's strong, but my Chaos certainly held its own, and that's a 4th ed book.

As others have said, you can defend everything in the book however you want. It just isn't justified.

What happened to the old Overcharged Engines rule? It seems like it would justify the whole Fast Vehicle.

There would be no way people could complain about Sanguinity Priests if they didn't have a 6inch bubble of FNP rather than the 40k standard of it only effecting its own unit.

Is this a hint that Warhammer should go to some kind of beta testing? It might make situations like this not possible.