BA Angels Blade

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.

**Martel732**

koooaei wrote:
I don't think wolfen have 'appropriate' rules.

Also, i see no reason to not be happy with DC. Rage, Fearless, FNP, Furious Charge, jumppacks and all for relatively cheap. They're a strong unit for what it's worth.

You guyz sound like some form of eldar. You know, like when they say: "We've got banshees => our codex is fine". Instead you say "we don't have TWC => our codex is bad". You've got other stuff. Other good combinations that work in maelstorm. Furioso dreads, DC, HF marines, now charging termies, cheap FNP priests that add WS to boot. Remember, their cost is comparable to painboyz that have 6+ armor and ld7, FC across the board and it's a way better CT for most things rather than counter-attack, hell, even fast predators have their uses. And what about Codex: thunder wolf wolves and wolfen wolves with wolf wolves on wolves? Yep, that's their whole codex.

T4 3+/5+++ being fragile in 7th ed is a reason not to be happy with DC. And being completely dependent on charging. DC are not a good unit. They are not cheap for how fragile they are.

**Bartali**

GW attempted to address that with the DCSF - a straight +1A within 12" of the DC Chaplain, and the relic crozius re-rolling 1's on FNP.

Doesn't go far enough though to make them tougher, or to boost their attack power when they don't have the charge.

**Martel732**

As I said, I'm taking my grav cannons and whirlwind squadron and running.

**Spacewolfoddballz**

Hey guys I don't get much play time. I have not been able to find what I am looking for and I am probably reading more into this question and its likely obvious... however, formation stuff is the biggest thing that confuses me these days in 40k.

Looking at the book, am I reading it correctly you have to take one of the two main formations on the chart in order to take the smaller I guess auxillary formations?

**locarno24**

Bartali wrote:
GW attempted to address that with the DCSF - a straight +1A within 12" of the DC Chaplain, and the relic crozius re-rolling 1's on FNP.

Doesn't go far enough though to make them tougher, or to boost their attack power when they don't have the charge.

There is a counter-attack relic. That strikes me as probably as important given how badly Death Company lose combat potential when charged.

**Mulletdude**

locarno24 wrote:
Bartali wrote:
GW attempted to address that with the DCSF - a straight +1A within 12" of the DC Chaplain, and the relic crozius re-rolling 1's on FNP.

Doesn't go far enough though to make them tougher, or to boost their attack power when they don't have the charge.

There is a counter-attack relic. That strikes me as probably as important given how badly Death Company lose combat potential when charged.

The CounterAttack relic still doesn't give the benefits of the BA's "chapter tactic." FC and Rage don't pop when CA goes off, so it's still underwhelming as heck. If it was Hit and Run for 30 pts, then we're talking. But CA for 30 pts? No thanks.

**Drasius**

Not to mention that the way it's worded, only the chaplain gets it and it doesn't confer to his squad as intended.

**nosferatu1001**

Indeed, GW dont realise that its only models with CA that benefit from the rule....

**Crimson Devil**

Spacewolfoddballz wrote:
Hey guys I don't get much play time. I have not been able to find what I am looking for and I am probably reading more into this question and its likely obvious... however, formation stuff is the biggest thing that confuses me these days in 40k.

Looking at the book, am I reading it correctly you have to take one of the two main formations on the chart in order to take the smaller I guess auxillary formations?

You need to have one core formation and one auxiliary formation to be a legal Angel's Blade. After that you can add up to 5 Command formations and any number of core and auxiliary.

**Dantes_Baals**

To run a list out of the book legally yes, Crimson Devil has it right. However there's nothing to stop you from bringing any one of the formations alongside a regular CAD.

**Spacewolfoddballz**

Crimson Devil wrote:
Spacewolfoddballz wrote:
Hey guys I don't get much play time. I have not been able to find what I am looking for and I am probably reading more into this question and its likely obvious... however, formation stuff is the biggest thing that confuses me these days in 40k.

Looking at the book, am I reading it correctly you have to take one of the two main formations on the chart in order to take the smaller I guess auxillary formations?

You need to have one core formation and one auxiliary formation to be a legal Angel's Blade. After that you can add up to 5 Command formations and any number of core and auxiliary.

Ok thank you for that.. sort of what I thought but I was not for sure.

.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
To run a list out of the book legally yes, Crimson Devil has it right. However there's nothing to stop you from bringing any one of the formations alongside a regular CAD.

Thank you that is good to know also

.