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.

it would have been funnier if they'd left Assault Marines as troops and then Blood Angels players would have continued trying to force an all-assault list in a shooty edition and subsequently complained about how much their new book sucks.

All I can say is my pretty golden honor guard bites the dust. But the new plastic crack loooksss sweet. Between my deathstorm box and 2-3 boxes of those tac squads and my new terms ouch wallet hurts. Bright side the guy that does all my painting commissions is probably adding up how much he is about to charge me. So lets take stock we lost 0 some stuff got moved around and we got new models. Seems the no models codex could have been worse but we avoided that making blood angels again look way cooler then any other space marines . Any one else notice the sgt in the term box looks a lot like the special character from the Deathstorm box?

Where are these BA Termies? I wanna see em!

darkcloak wrote:
Where are these BA Termies? I wanna see em!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/3060/618311.page#7415330

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
it would have been funnier if they'd left Assault Marines as troops and then Blood Angels players would have continued trying to force an all-assault list in a shooty edition and subsequently complained about how much their new book sucks.

Maybe forcing the internet to accept that Tactical Marines are freaking fantastic will finally happen. It won't, but it's a step in the right direction.

BaalSNAFU wrote:

Old psychic powers replaced with new terrible ones? Yes
What? The new powers are arguably better than the old ones
Honor guard straight up deleted? Yes
Okay, that sucks but what exactly do they accomplish that Sang Guard isn't capable of doing?
ASM troops? Of course not.
A dick move by GW, I agree
Godawful relics? You betcha.
How are they bad? The jump pack is extremely good, extra warlord trait from the best warlord table is also very good, access to slighty better casting of powers, an AP2 weapon that strikes on initiative on an army that has an army wide FC.
Mephiston Lord of Death again? Nope, still lord of spankers.
The Matt Ward Mephiston was beyond ridiculous, he can now join squads and enjoy good protection from LOS shenanigans while retaining his ability to shred WK and MEQ's alike.
Access to Astartes tech? Nope.
What? Grav guns on bikes is a pretty big deal and heavy flamers on tacticals makes salamanders green (more green) of envy.

My answers are in red.

So the biggest nut shot is the loss of not one, not two, but THREE troops choices. All of them jump-pack infantry.

I'm trying to think of an analogue for this, but I'm not sure there is one in modern 40k history.

For Guard this would be like veterans AND conscripts moving out of troops

For Nids it would be like loosing termagaunts, rippers, and genestealers in the troops slot

In this game the single most significant source of flavor for the army is it's troops. So they took a codex with elite jump pack troops and have now forced them to choose between foot slogging one special weapon tacticals or lol scouts.

That's like if Dark Eldar got their venom warriors replaced by bullogryn. It completely changes the army.

And for everyone arguing that 'it's in the fluff omg lol' are you ready to loose ANY variant troops for space marines? Because biker troops will go away under that mindset since the Scars are codex compliant. More importantly if you were using a homebrew chapter and YOUR fluff is that you are a jump-pack happy assault army, well, I guess there is always forgeworld.

Sameness= Less Player Choice = Less Fun

I hate that the 'competitive gamer' crowd can't play like responsible adults (OooOOOooOO check out my 5 flyrants!) so none of us get to have characterful codexes anymore. Awesome!

I was with you right up until you blamed anyone but GW for screwing the game up.

Competitive players (and I am categorically not one) only use the tools they are given, so blame the cross eyed hunchback handing them to them.

Makumba wrote:
Yeah well that isn't exactly the truth. Other chapters use their assault company for bikers and drivers , BAs don't. they use them all as RAS. So they do have more RAS in their companies then other chapters.

Some people don't like fluff being changed to fit the rules. In the holy tome that is Codex: Angels of Death the Blood Angel were 100% codex adherent in regards to RAS, Bikes and Speeders. RAS inexplicably became troops in the 4th edition White Dwarf codex without any explanatory fluff to justify it, with the fluff only being altered to justify it in the last codex.

 Silverthorne wrote:
So the biggest nut shot is the loss of not one, not two, but THREE troops choices. All of them jump-pack infantry.

I'm trying to think of an analogue for this, but I'm not sure there is one in modern 40k history.

Methinks this is being somewhat overdramatic. The units still exist, and are still in the army, and several never should have been an option for Troops in the first place, one of which was limited and not scoring anyway. I don't think I'd ever seen Sanguinary Guard actually taken as Troops either in 4 years and playing in half a dozen major metro areas and several large events.

For Guard this would be like veterans AND conscripts moving out of troops

You mean after they already deleted a Troops unit, half the artillery, most of the Characters, and renamed the book and stormtroopers to something stupid sounding?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
So the biggest nut shot is the loss of not one, not two, but THREE troops choices. All of them jump-pack infantry.

I'm trying to think of an analogue for this, but I'm not sure there is one in modern 40k history.

Methinks this is being somewhat overdramatic. The units still exist, and are still in the army, and several never should have been an option for Troops in the first place, one of which was limited and not scoring anyway. I don't think I'd ever seen Sanguinary Guard actually taken as Troops either in 4 years and playing in half a dozen major metro areas and several large events.

For Guard this would be like veterans AND conscripts moving out of troops

You mean after they already deleted a Troops unit, half the artillery, most of the Characters, and renamed the book and stormtroopers to something stupid sounding?

I'm not saying the Guard didn't get boned. They did, hard and guard players are taking it quite a bit more stoically than just about any other recipient of the new 'diet fun' codexes. I'm making a comparison to help non-BA players get the magnitude of what is happening.

It's not really that the units are gone from the troops selection, it's that it changes the character of the troops section massively, which in turn changes the entire flavor of the army. A better example would be imagine if every guard troop unit with the 'infantry' subtype was replaced by a unit with the 'swarm' subtype, and a poison melee attack instead of a lasgun.

It's not the same army. It's not even a question of power gain or loss (although any time a choice is loss there is a subtle power loss) it's just a straight up lateral shift in what the army IS. If you have invested in the army, and now you find out that actually, it's not a jump pack assault army then you've got a legitimate right to be pissed. That's how DOA BA players are feeling right now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I was with you right up until you blamed anyone but GW for screwing the game up.

Competitive players (and I am categorically not one) only use the tools they are given, so blame the cross eyed hunchback handing them to them.

That's true, I think I've been watching too many FRONTLINE reports though. In general I feel like the big movers in the hobby are hardcore competitive guys, and I can remember when it was much more background, campaign, progession etc centric.

I think one of the best things that ever happened in this game was the expansion in 5th of certain HQs moving troops around. This is a much better solution than 'just go unbound, brah' that seems to get thrown around alot. That freedom to pick your style of troops based on the style of commander you liked led to much, much deeper immersion and choice in the game. I think the highest expression of that was in the few cases where the HQ could select wargear to move units into troops, which was even more wide open then choosing a locked in special character. Now all of that is being rolled back, which is a big loss to the hobby.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Methinks this is being somewhat overdramatic. The units still exist, and are still in the army, and several never should have been an option for Troops in the first place, one of which was limited and not scoring anyway.

Of course they should have been troops. Assault marines as troops was one of the defining aspects of BA as a separate army, take that away and you're left with C:SM with red paint instead of blue. If GW want to go in that direction then why have a BA codex at all? All it does is make you pay another $50 to get an "army" that should be a page or two in C:SM.

 Silverthorne wrote:
That freedom to pick your style of troops based on the style of commander you liked led to much, much deeper immersion and choice in the game.

IOW, unbound is exactly what you want.

 Silverthorne wrote:


I'm not saying the Guard didn't get boned. They did, hard and guard players are taking it quite a bit more stoically than just about any other recipient of the new 'diet fun' codexes. I'm making a comparison to help non-BA players get the magnitude of what is happening.

It's not really that the units are gone from the troops selection, it's that it changes the character of the troops section massively, which in turn changes the entire flavor of the army. A better example would be imagine if every guard troop unit with the 'infantry' subtype was replaced by a unit with the 'swarm' subtype, and a poison melee attack instead of a lasgun.

Care to elaborate on your opinion here? Cause that seems like an enormous stretch to me.

Also, if Assault Marines as troops was THE defining aspect of what an BA army was, you gotta ask yourself if they were at all interesting in the first place. The new book highlights their assault nature without bludgeoning you over the head with jump packs. The option is there, but it isn't the ONLY option.

Okay, so I guess White Scar Bikers, Deathwing, Ravenwing, Genestealer Flood, Witch Cult, Veteran Regiments, Speed Freaks, Wraith Hosts, and Farsight Enclaves 'aren't that interesting' either. Varying the troop type is the ONLY way 40k 'subspecies' are created. Without a variant troop type, the entire concept of BA as an independent entity from SM goes down the well.

@falcon Unbound isn't new. It's always existed, and always been just about as popular. If we are going to just throw out such a big component of the core rules, I feel like most people wonder why bother at all?

 Silverthorne wrote:
Okay, so I guess White Scar Bikers, Deathwing, Ravenwing, Genestealer Flood, Witch Cult, Veteran Regiments, Speed Freaks, Wraith Hosts, and Farsight Enclaves 'aren't that interesting' either.

@falcon Unbound isn't new. It's always existed, and always been just about as popular. If we are going to just throw out such a big component of the core rules, I feel like most people wonder why bother at all?

There is no fluff precedent for BA to have ASM troops. It was a dumb thing to throw in in the first place. All of the above have a real reason for existing as troops, some of which are supplements (as could very well happen with BA). BA's fluff revolves around rage, which is an assault thing yes (and the rules reflect this well, imo) but there is no reason to have them get jump packs as troops. Not for a codex chapter.

Assault oriented marines with unique unit options, relics, wargear, psychic powers and a formation is far more interesting than just 'they get ASM as troops." Would it have been better to have just been rolled into the SM dex, and you get ASM as troops when you run Mephiston or some gak like that?

Not really worrying per say, I just have to decide if I want my homebrew chapter to be Blood Angels or Raven Guard (cause I love jump pack marines).

Right now the only differences that matter to me are:
BA: have sanguinary guard and Dante. I like that tacs can have a heavy flamer... But I don't really like tacs. Elite slot is insanely crowded. Death Company are a plus too.
RG: have better chapter tactics, better relics, and much more AA options. Centurions also (though IMO they were the worst GW model concepts I had ever imagined... Until I saw Space Wolf Santa).

Neither option has jump troops, both are likely to rely somewhat on drop pods. And either way assault armies are just plain inferior to shooting armies so it will be an uphill battle no matter what I choose.

 Las wrote:
There is no fluff precedent for BA to have ASM troops.

Every bit of fluff has to start somewhere. And fluff is less important than gameplay. BA with assault squads as troops have a legitimate gameplay niche to fill, and therefore having a separate codex is justified. BA that are just C:SM with some different USRs are a waste of a codex and should be consolidated into C:SM.

Assault oriented marines with unique unit options, relics, wargear, psychic powers and a formation is far more interesting than just 'they get ASM as troops."

Why is this an either/or thing? BA could have had all of the 7th edition stuff as well as assault marines as troops. You'd still have all of the current options, except you'd also have the option to play an interesting army that no other codex can duplicate. Now that's gone, and if you want assault marines you pay the same tactical/scout tax as C:SM and can't take a "pure" army outside of unbound (which hardly anyone allows).

Would it have been better to have just been rolled into the SM dex, and you get ASM as troops when you run Mephiston or some gak like that?

Better than what they have now? Yes. Then we wouldn't have a codex wasted on reprinting C:SM with a couple of USRs swapped as an excuse to charge another $50.

 Creeping Dementia wrote:
Not really worrying per say, I just have to decide if I want my homebrew chapter to be Blood Angels or Raven Guard (cause I love jump pack marines).

Right now the only differences that matter to me are:
BA: have sanguinary guard and Dante. I like that tacs can have a heavy flamer... But I don't really like tacs. Elite slot is insanely crowded. Death Company are a plus too.
RG: have better chapter tactics, better relics, and much more AA options. Centurions also (though IMO they were the worst GW model concepts I had ever imagined... Until I saw Space Wolf Santa).

Neither option has jump troops, both are likely to rely somewhat on drop pods. And either way assault armies are just plain inferior to shooting armies so it will be an uphill battle no matter what I choose.

Raven Guard have a special character who makes ASM troops. You could run a detachment of each and have the army you envisioned.

What Raven Guard character that does that?

How many Jump pack marines (troops) did BA players honestly bring in the first place? There's like nothing in the FA now with the removal of the Baal Predator and did people really bring more than 3 normal assault marines with jump packs, especially with jet pack honor guard, sang guard and death company on top of that? Realistically, the only time I saw BA players bring more than 3 units of assault marines, was to get cheap razorbacks, in which case nothing will change, because (assuming BA tacticals costs the same as DA and C:SM) the price of a msu tactical squad with 1 special weapon + combi weapon, with lasplas razorback, is identical to the former codex's cost of msu assault marines with 2 special weapons and lasplas razorback.
Besides, objective secured is highly overrated and doesn't prevent your assault marines from scoring.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
What Raven Guard character that does that?

An old FW one (from IA8) that wasn't updated in the 6th edition C:SM character update. Whether this means he is no longer a current option is open to debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zewrath wrote:
There's like nothing in the FA now with the removal of the Baal Predator and did people really bring more than 3 normal assault marines with jump packs, especially with jet pack honor guard, sang guard and death company on top of that?

It's not about FOC slots, it's about paying the troops tax. In the current codex you can take a pure assault marine army without any tacticals/scouts. In the new codex you have to take tacticals/scouts for your mandatory troops, which means breaking the theme of your army.

 Silverthorne wrote:


I'm not saying the Guard didn't get boned. They did, hard and guard players are taking it quite a bit more stoically than just about any other recipient of the new 'diet fun' codexes. I'm making a comparison to help non-BA players get the magnitude of what is happening.

It's not the same army. It's not even a question of power gain or loss (although any time a choice is loss there is a subtle power loss) it's just a straight up lateral shift in what the army IS. If you have invested in the army, and now you find out that actually, it's not a jump pack assault army then you've got a legitimate right to be pissed. That's how DOA BA players are feeling right now.

I get it, but it's just not quite on there. The units are all still there, and most of this stuff is unique to a single iteration of the Blood Angels, out of the five books they've had (or will have come the weekend). They're basically "un-Warding" the book and returning the army to its more "close combat Codex adherent" roots than the "aerial assault" specialized force of the Ward era.

DC for example were never troops until the last book. Sanguinary Guard didn't exist until the new book and almost never were taken as Troops anyway (though admittedly, for the like 3 people that run such lists, that does suck). ASM's were Troops only starting in the WD codex (that very few people ran), and weren't particularly popular until the Ward-dex which not only gave them access to special weapons they didn't have before (flamers and meltaguns), but discounted Razorbacks as well.

For those that see the army as what the 5E book presented it as, I'm sure the changes are drastic and enraging. For those that thought the 5E dex was an overreaching circus and remembered the BA's as a largely codex adherent chapter with a taste (but not obsession) for close combat and speed, this looks to be something of a "correction".

 Peregrine wrote:


Of course they should have been troops. Assault marines as troops was one of the defining aspects of BA as a separate army, take that away and you're left with C:SM with red paint instead of blue. If GW want to go in that direction then why have a BA codex at all? All it does is make you pay another $50 to get an "army" that should be a page or two in C:SM.

I'm of the opinion that never needed their own book in the first place but regardless, they do.

Ultimately I really feel the emphasis on ASM's as troops is being overfocused on. Between their inception as a distinct faction in the 90's and 2007, ASM's being the core of a BA army or "troops" once 3E rolled around wasn't a thing at all, and most weren't hopping around gobbling up assault marines with the 4E WD book. Even with the 5E Ward-dex, the Chapter organization on page 9 still very clearly shows that Tactical Squads outnumber Assault Squads by 2-1, and such should still form the core of their army.

Now personally, if I were writing the book, I'd have probably left ASM's as troops or made them an unlockable Troops like Bikes in C:SM, but this is the first "bonehead" GW move I've seen in a long while that I can at least see a logical line of thinking behind, even if it seems rather one-dimensional. "This is a codex chapter, and should be organized and played as such, with its unique special rules and units providing the differentiation rather than FoC swapping".

 Peregrine wrote:


It's not about FOC slots, it's about paying the troops tax. In the current codex you can take a pure assault marine army without any tacticals/scouts. In the new codex you have to take tacticals/scouts for your mandatory troops, which means breaking the theme of your army.

Well, even then I highly doubt that deep striking a suicide flamer squad in a pod breaks the theme to a great extent. Hell, even scouts deep striking with their Land Speeders wouldn't be a bad fit for a "Decent of Angels" theme.

 Vaktathi wrote:
"This is a codex chapter, and should be organized and played as such, with its unique special rules and units providing the differentiation rather than FoC swapping".

And we have a place for that kind of army: C:SM, along with all the other chapters that are best described as "codex chapters with subtle variants". If you're going to have a chapter get its own codex it needs to have major changes. DA are a good example, as the all-terminator army is very different from anything you can take with C:SM. Same with the current BA codex, an all-jump-infantry army fills a niche of "mobile MEQs" that you can't do with C:SM. Sure, tactical squads and other "conventional" units existed for fluff reasons, but the focus of the codex was doing things that only BA could do. The new BA codex removes that and replaces it with a bland army that could easily go in C:SM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zewrath wrote:
Well, even then I highly doubt that deep striking a suicide flamer squad in a pod breaks the theme to a great extent. Hell, even scouts deep striking with their Land Speeders wouldn't be a bad fit for a "Decent of Angels" theme.

What part of "all jump infantry" as a theme was unclear?

 Peregrine wrote:

What part of "all jump infantry" as a theme was unclear?

*sigh* Why do I keep forgetting that you're more dense than a brick wall.

Most BA players that focus DoA play use a great amount of units that enter via deep strike, this does not mean that DoA players runs ALL MODELS on ALL CHOICES on ALL FOC with Jump packs. Stop being stupid. DoA uses jump packs, drop pods and even used to feature the Stormraven as a core playstyle of DoA. So in short, DoA theme is about anything that descends from the skies so things like, drop pods, stormravens, land raiders from thunderhawks etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
"This is a codex chapter, and should be organized and played as such, with its unique special rules and units providing the differentiation rather than FoC swapping".

And we have a place for that kind of army: C:SM, along with all the other chapters that are best described as "codex chapters with subtle variants". If you're going to have a chapter get its own codex it needs to have major changes. DA are a good example, as the all-terminator army is very different from anything you can take with C:SM. Same with the current BA codex, an all-jump-infantry army fills a niche of "mobile MEQs" that you can't do with C:SM. Sure, tactical squads and other "conventional" units existed for fluff reasons, but the focus of the codex was doing things that only BA could do. The new BA codex removes that and replaces it with a bland army that could easily go in C:SM.

I won't argue with that, again, as I think it should have happened anyway

That said, I also find the "all jump" thing to be somewhat...I struggle to find the correct word, but it wasn't really how many (if not most) BA armies played those ASM's. Many, particularly in 5E, simply ran them as "Tac's Plus", trading in the Jump Packs for transports, and pushing them forward with meltas. In fact, most BA armies I've faced have been far more mechanized than Jump oriented. The double-melta specials seem to be particularly important to many, with one gentleman on another forum finding my suggestion of the "4 templates on a tac unit in a pod" being of no use since they're not able to be simultaneously effective against Knights, Eldar, Tau, and Bikers. This makes the impression that it's not really ASM's, but rather their weapons choice, that is really important to many from how they actually use the units (and that if Tac's had the same weapons choices they probably wouldn't be complaining). Not all obviously, but many.

 Zewrath wrote:
Most BA players that focus DoA play use a great amount of units that enter via deep strike, this does not mean that DoA players runs ALL MODELS on ALL CHOICES on ALL FOC with Jump packs. Stop being stupid. DoA uses jump packs, drop pods and even used to feature the Stormraven as a core playstyle of DoA. So in short, DoA theme is about anything that descends from the skies so things like, drop pods, stormravens, land raiders from thunderhawks etc.

I really don't know why this is so hard to understand. DoA isn't just about having everything deep strike, it's about mobility. A tactical squad in a pod has a one-time deep strike ability, but after that it's a static unit. An assault squad gets the same ability to deep strike, but also gets to move 12" every turn. The only reason to take the tactical squad is to get a turn-1 deep strike to compensate for the idiotic 6th/7th edition rule where you automatically lose if you have no models on the table, even if your whole DoA army is about to arrive next turn. Now, instead of properly fixing DoA for 7th edition by allowing a "drop pod assault" rule where half your assault squads arrive on the first turn, you get to take useless tactical and/or scout squads to fill your mandatory troops slots.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Many, particularly in 5E, simply ran them as "Tac's Plus", trading in the Jump Packs for transports, and pushing them forward with meltas. In fact, most BA armies I've faced have been far more mechanized than Jump oriented.

True, but that was a problem caused by 5th edition's issues with transport spam combined with the 35-point discount on transports making assault squads the cheapest way to get more Razorbacks on the table. The solution to that isn't removing assault squads as the core of the army and replacing them with tactical squads, it's fixing the access to cheap transport spam (something 7th already did by nerfing vehicles).

Also, this was certainly how it went in tournaments and competitive environments, but at least the DoA army existed as an option in less-competitive games. And it was the only thing interesting about BA, transport spam was just the same transport spam everyone else was doing, but with better math optimization.

This makes the impression that it's not really ASM's, but rather their weapons choice, that is really important to many from how they actually use the units (and that if Tac's had the same weapons choices they probably wouldn't be complaining).

That's part of it, but the issue with weapon selection is that it's part of why tactical squads suck. Having to split weapons between static heavy weapons and short-range assault weapons creates a unit with no coherent purpose, and many/most players are eager to replace it. But the fact that assault squads were a popular replacement for the tactical tax shouldn't be a reason to get rid of them for the people who actually enjoyed fast MEQs. That just takes away options and brings everyone down to the same boring level of using the same boring tactical squads that every C:SM army has to use.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
This makes the impression that it's not really ASM's, but rather their weapons choice, that is really important to many from how they actually use the units (and that if Tac's had the same weapons choices they probably wouldn't be complaining).

That's part of it, but the issue with weapon selection is that it's part of why tactical squads suck. Having to split weapons between static heavy weapons and short-range assault weapons creates a unit with no coherent purpose, and many/most players are eager to replace it. But the fact that assault squads were a popular replacement for the tactical tax shouldn't be a reason to get rid of them for the people who actually enjoyed fast MEQs. That just takes away options and brings everyone down to the same boring level of using the same boring tactical squads that every C:SM army has to use.

And the problem there wasn't even the assault marines, it was the fact that you could remove the jump-packs for a transport discount. I agree with your response there, but i wouldn't call tactical troops boring - i'd call them bad. Look at all the different ways they've tried to make tacticals appealing over the years: they've tried size restrictions and size-related weapon restrictions, they've tried giving them free missile launcher & flamer if you take a full squad, they've tried making them one of only two scoring units, the only thing that works is outright forcing them (or an arguably worse squad) to be taken as tax. I'm happy to pay tax when it goes to something worthwhile - the tactical tax is a waste of money. They need to fix the unit, rather than remove the competition.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I agree with your response there, but i wouldn't call tactical troops boring - i'd call them bad.

They're both. A unit can be underpowered and it might not be a complete waste as long as it's a fun unit. But tactical squads commit the ultimate sin of being a weak unit that is also incredibly boring. I have never looked at a tactical squad and thought "hey, I wonder what cool things I could do with this". Every time I think about making a space marine army, even the most casual "take all the fun units" kind, my first goal is to figure out how to remove or minimize the tactical squads.

 Peregrine wrote:

I really don't know why this is so hard to understand. DoA isn't just about having everything deep strike, it's about mobility. A tactical squad in a pod has a one-time deep strike ability, but after that it's a static unit. An assault squad gets the same ability to deep strike, but also gets to move 12" every turn. The only reason to take the tactical squad is to get a turn-1 deep strike to compensate for the idiotic 6th/7th edition rule where you automatically lose if you have no models on the table, even if your whole DoA army is about to arrive next turn. Now, instead of properly fixing DoA for 7th edition by allowing a "drop pod assault" rule where half your assault squads arrive on the first turn, you get to take useless tactical and/or scout squads to fill your mandatory troops slots.

No, what you're describing is just an army with great mobility. That's no different from bike marines, wolf cavalries or a list with heavy use of assault marines and land speeders.
DoA is precision deep strike en masse. Realible scatters, inertial guiding systems, locator beacons all readily available for your army. Besides, most marine armies have a suicide squad, either in forms of sternguards, LotD or just plain tactical marines you just use as a throw away unit to do damage. Many use assault marines with melta weapons and suicide them after landing them with DoA, I don't see the problem (from a gameplay perspective) in having a unit that does exactly that, but has bolters instead of chainswords. Furthermore, I can hardly see why a land speeder scout unit wouldn't be considered mobile, if that's what you're after.