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.

In other words, it's a blood angels tactical squad. Because that's how the indices work right now. Stop your complaining about things like that at LEAST until we get new books.

 Melissia wrote:
In other words, it's a blood angels tactical squad. Because that's how the indices work right now. Stop your complaining about things like that at LEAST until we get new books.

Hah, thank you I will not. Index or Codex or nothing -- that's not the point, it's the lame cherry-picking of best units; that was a totally obnoxious problem with 7th, and here we see it happen right out of the gate in 8th. It also happens to bother me more being Blood Angels, if you don't like it just ignore my post and carry on with whatever it is you do.

So, seeing as tactical marines and space marine captains no longer count as blood angels in your eyes-- your words, not mine-- how exactly do you BUILD a "proper" blood angel force? Because this just stinks of No True Scotsmanist arguments.

 Melissia wrote:
So, seeing as tactical marines and space marine captains no longer count as blood angels in your eyes-- your words, not mine-- how exactly do you BUILD a "proper" blood angel force? Because this just stinks of No True Scotsmanist arguments.

I think the issue was less him taking those units so much as his army not including any elements particularly thematic of blood angels. It is a bit odd to see a blood angel army with no assault elements to speak of.

Right, so we should change the rules of the book so all Blood Angels armies should have a mandatory choice of at least one assault marine squad? Come on, let's find a fix for this that will satisfy this no-true-scotsman feeling going around.

 Melissia wrote:
So, seeing as tactical marines and space marine captains no longer count as blood angels in your eyes-- your words, not mine-- how exactly do you BUILD a "proper" blood angel force? Because this just stinks of No True Scotsmanist arguments.

If you're trying to argue that 6 flyers, several being stormtalons, 1 captain and 6 marines (insert keyword BA); and no units chosen from the Blood Angel section of the Index, is what you consider a "Blood Angels" army then this is a fruitless exercise.

 Melissia wrote:
Right, so we should change the rules of the book so all Blood Angels armies should have a mandatory choice of at least one assault marine squad? Come on, let's find a fix for this that will satisfy this no-true-scotsman feeling going around.

It's funny that you are literally arguing in bad faith as per your sig. It's the same idea as telling a Dark Eldar player to just "add Eldar" to make a competitive list in the last edition. Or CSM to just add Forgeworld Renegades... We take our toys seriously, to varying degrees. It's a major stretch to call this "no true-scotsman feeling" and you know it is.

The cherrypicking of the best unit is fixed balancing those units.
Nobody is gonna spam a unit that is properly balanced in points. Spam is bad because people spam the best unit.

The problem is the perception of "Good units" and "Bad units" as something that is acceptable. There should be only balanced units. As the game is made by humans is acceptable to have units better balanced that others, but we should always try to achieve balance, fixing things all the time.

SilverAlien wrote:

 MikhailLenin wrote:

PUFNSTUF wrote:

 MikhailLenin wrote:
I dont think so. i am pretty happy with how it plays.

How was using soulburst instead of crescendo on the troupes?

Functionality wise, Soulburst is better imo, allows you to have a sort of Domino Effect in which proves vastly more flexible than having the ability to fall back and still charge (Which you can still do that with Soulburst)

Really? Huh. Crescendo seemed like the only rule that might be as good as soulburst, so I guess running eldar as ynarri is probably the right call always.

Yea it's interesting to hear. Most of the people in the harlequin tactics thread thought crescendo was better.

 Melissia wrote:
Right, so we should change the rules of the book so all Blood Angels armies should have a mandatory choice of at least one assault marine squad? Come on, let's find a fix for this that will satisfy this no-true-scotsman feeling going around.

He could've saves a few points and just bought a regular Flamer, and there would literally be NO element of Blood Angels. That's it. It's literally the Heavy Flamer.

 Gunzhard wrote:
It's funny that you are literally arguing in bad faith as per your sig.

It's called taking your argument to its logical extreme.

Because honestly, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You're trying to say "There's nothing on the blood Angels index in that army!" But you're wrong. Here, I'll prove it. Here's a list of items that the Blood Angels portion of the index says is part of the Blood Angels army from page 89 of the index, with items on that player's list in bold:


This is in addition to the units listed as unique to Blood Angels in the book. An army that contains these can, if the player wishes, be tagged <Blood Angels>. If you do, librarians get access to the Sanguinary discipline, characters with access to the Pistols and Sergeant Equipment lists may replace one or both of their gear with inferno pistols and hand flamers, and units with access to the Heavy Weapons list may purchase heavy flamers.

Thus, every single item on that list is from the Blood Angels index. Not a one isn't.

Right now, with the index as it is, this is how the Blood Angels list works. Same with all the other Space Marine lists. Games Workshop will inevitably create a unique codex for Blood Angels that will differentiate them from more codex-adherant chapters, of that I have no doubt. But you're trying, with your no-true-scotsman fallacy, to claim that unless someone takes the unit list the way YOU want them to, it's not a REAL Blood Angels list. And I say bollocks to that!

Blood Angels have stormravens and captains and tacticals just like a lot of other chapters. There's nothing unfluffy about a list where a blood angels captain on patrol with some tacticals calls in air support when faced with an overwhelming enemy force. Honestly it's not even all that strong, it just caught people off guard. If people had been better prepared for airpower to be used, it'd have likely been crushed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Right, so we should change the rules of the book so all Blood Angels armies should have a mandatory choice of at least one assault marine squad? Come on, let's find a fix for this that will satisfy this no-true-scotsman feeling going around.

He could've saves a few points and just bought a regular Flamer, and there would literally be NO element of Blood Angels. That's it. It's literally the Heavy Flamer.

Not according to the actual blood angels section of the book. You know, in case you want to bother reading it.

 Melissia wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
It's funny that you are literally arguing in bad faith as per your sig.

It's called taking your argument to its logical extreme.

Because honestly, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You're trying to say "There's nothing on the blood Angels index in that army!" But you're wrong. Here, I'll prove it. Here's a list of items that the Blood Angels portion of the index says is part of the Blood Angels army from page 89 of the index, with items on that player's list in bold:

Spoiler:

Assault Squad
Attack Bike
Bike Squad
Captain
Captain in Gravis Armor
Captain in Terminator Armor
Captain on Bike
Chaplain
Chaplain in Terminator Armor
Chaplain on Bike
Company Ancient
Company Champions
Company Veterans
Devastator Squad
Dreadnought
Drop Pod
Hellblaster Squad
Imperial Space Marine
Inceptor Squad
Intercessor Squad
Land Raider
Land Raider Crusader
Land Raider Excelsior
Land Raider Redeemer
Land Speeders
Librarian
Librarian in Terminator Armor
Librarian on Bike
Predator
Primaris Ancient
Primaris Lieutenants
Razorback
Rhino
Rhino Primaris
Sanguinary Novitiate (notes to use the Apothecary datasheet from page 21); may uniquely take jump packs
Scout Bike Squad
Scout Squad
Servitors
Sternguard Veteran Squad
Stormraven Gunship
Tactical Squad
Techmarine; may uniquely take jump packs
Techmarine on Bike
Terminator Assault Squad
Terminator Squad
Vanguard Veteran Squad
Vindicator
Whirlwind

This is in addition to the units listed as unique to Blood Angels in the book. An army that contains these can, if the player wishes, be tagged <Blood Angels>. If you do, librarians get access to the Sanguinary discipline, characters with access to the Pistols and Sergeant Equipment lists may replace one or both of their gear with inferno pistols and hand flamers, and units with access to the Heavy Weapons list may purchase heavy flamers.

Right now, with the index as it is, this is how the Blood Angels list works. Same with all the other Space Marine lists. Games Workshop will inevitably create a unique codex for Blood Angels. But you're trying, with your no-true-scotsman fallacy, to claim that unless someone takes the unit list the way YOU want them to, it's not a REAL Blood Angels list. And I say bollocks to that!

Blood Angels have stormravens and captains and tacticals just like a lot of other chapters. There's nothing unfluffy about a list where a blood angels captain on patrol with some tacticals calls in air support when faced with an overwhelming enemy force. Honestly it's not even all that strong, it just caught people off guard. If people had been better prepared for airpower to be used, it'd have likely been crushed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Right, so we should change the rules of the book so all Blood Angels armies should have a mandatory choice of at least one assault marine squad? Come on, let's find a fix for this that will satisfy this no-true-scotsman feeling going around.

He could've saves a few points and just bought a regular Flamer, and there would literally be NO element of Blood Angels. That's it. It's literally the Heavy Flamer.

Not according to the actual blood angels section of the book. Not that anyone has apparently fething read it but me, apparently, because reading is too fething hard for you people or something.

You could skip all that BS ...and look at the dudes list... 6 Flyers, several which were StormTalons which are not even on the list of "generic Space Marine units" that you can apply the <Blood Angels> keyword to (apparently you can't fething read it), and a captain and ONE 6man tactical squad. You're just choosing to be obtuse and that's on you.

 Melissia wrote:
Thus, every single item on that list is from the Blood Angels index. Not a one isn't.

Oops except for several of his flyers which make up the bulk of his army you mean...

Heck even your fluff reason doesn't make sense... yeah a Captain and a 6man tactical squad on patrol... and priest and a Rabi walk into a bar.

Was the models painted to be BloodAngels?

If the dude took time to paint his army and that is what he wants to play. Then POOR sportsmanship on anyone that calls him out on it.

If there were 3 'red' painted Marine GW supported Chapters and they all had 3 chapters had different versions/rules and 1 sucked, 1 was average and 1 was great. Why would you give a player grief over taking the best rules/legal list chapter?

You're acting like I have a reason to care that there's six fliers, as if that's somehow especially egregious. That's no different to me than some jackass taking an all-Knight army, or someone taking a titan or baneblade in their list. Neither one should be in the average game of 40k IMO. But this list was in fact a legal Blood Angels list.

By the way, the list given in the original post includes no Stormtalons. It includes four Stormravens and two Stormhawks. I'm assuming that's what you meant rather than Stormtalon (giving you the benefit of the doubt here); Stormhawks aren't listed in the Blood Angels list (which feels like an oversight, to me). Thus, the second flyer detachment, with two hawks and one raven, would have to be something other than Blood Angels in its <Chapter> tag unless the TO said otherwise. The first flyer detachment was a <Blood Angels> flyer detachment, and the patrol detachment was a <Blood Angels> patrol detachment.

And there's really nothing strange about what I stated. Tacticals operate in depleted squads all the time, sometimes for long periods of time in fact, because reinforcements for Space Marines are kinda rare (have you even read the initiation process for a Space Marine? It takes decades to produce a fully fledged battle brother!). In fact, I'm pretty sure I've read about single squads out on patrol in plenty of Black Library books.

 Melissia wrote:
You're acting like I have a reason to care that there's six fliers, as if that's somehow especially egregious. That's no different to me than some jackass taking an all-Knight army. Neither one should be in the average game of 40k IMO. But this list was in fact a legal Blood Angels list.

By the way, the list given in the original post includes no Stormtalons. It includes four Stormravens and two Stormhawks. I'm assuming that's what you meant rather than Stormtalon (giving you the benefit of the doubt here); Stormhawks aren't listed in the Blood Angels list. Thus, the second flyer detachment, with two hawks and one raven, would have to be something other than Blood Angels in its <Chapter> tag unless the TO said otherwise. The first flyer detachment was a <Blood Angels> flyer detachment, and the patrol detachment was a <Blood Angels> patrol detachment.

Nope, I could really care less what kind of WAAC monstrosity some tournament hero throws together, nor do I expect you to care... but you just made my point for me here, and yes I meant Stormhawks. It is 100% different than some jackass taking an all-Knight army, unless that all-Knight army was supposedly called "Blood Angels" and even ranking that way [as Blood Angels] on the ITC boards.

That said, do you truly believe he was going for a fluffy "Blood Angels patrol with airstrike" theme rather than a cherry-picked WAAC list?

Then IF he even did add the <Blood Angels> keyword to the first flyer detachment... where did you see that he did? There is literally no difference if he did or did not however, it's a generic unit - the majority of his army was generic space marine units, a good chunk without even the appended <Blood Angels> keyword. He took 2 flyer detachments for the extra Command Point make no mistake.

 Gunzhard wrote:
It is 100% different than some jackass taking an all-Knight army

No, it's really not. Knights don't belong on the tabletop in normal games of 40k to begin with any more than fliers do.

 Gunzhard wrote:
That said, do you truly believe he was going for a fluffy "Blood Angels patrol with airstrike" theme rather than a cherry-picked WAAC list?

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, I don't think this list was very WAAC to begin with. Stormravens and Stormhawks aren't really all that strong, and have some fairly hard counters. People weren't properly prepared because it's the rfirst tournament of the new edition. This is really no different than 5th edition's Leafblower gimmick (which, itself, was pretty fluffy, it was just an artillery unit), and much like that, once people adjust their lists a bit it'll fall by the wayside to more balanced lists.

Or to put it more bluntly, I find more offense in your no-true-scotsman crusade against the list than the list itself.

Does it even matter if he was going for a 'fluffy' list?

Cant he just play with what he likes.

Some chapters have maybe 1 unique unit and then are all generic lists. But players still like to play them.

Was he 'gaming' the system...probably...who knows.

Not sure why this is even a discussion as long as it is legal.

I mean 'fluffy' lists would require 50% tac squads in most marines and loads of Guardians/DireAvengers in elder....but how often do you see that.....maybe in 8th. (not Avengers though...uck)

 Gunzhard wrote:
Then IF he even did add the <Blood Angels> keyword to the first flyer detachment... where did you see that he did?

I don't care, and from what I can tell, neither do you. It's just another way for you to go on your "NO ONE IS PLAYING PROPERLY LIKE I WANT THEM TO!" rant. Blood Angels have Stormravens. They use stormravens. There's nothing wrong with a Blood Angels player using Stormravens. No, Stormravens that Blood Angels use aren't different than Stormravens that Ultramarines use. But the same could be said about boltguns that Blood Angels use vs boltguns that Ultramarines use. In the end, they're still just marines, and they use a very similar pool of equipment.

They are not some wholly different species with a wholly different tech base and wholly different tactics and wholly different everything. They're Space Marines. These ones are blood-flavored.

My son has a Marine army (not Blood Angels colors) but half of it is all sorts of Jump Pack units (30+ jump pack models).

He HAD to take a blood angels successor chapter to get his jump pack apothecary and jump pack techmarine to be legal to play.

He just wants to use his models....not necessarily WAAC.

Sounds cool honestly.

 Melissia wrote:
Right, so we should change the rules of the book so all Blood Angels armies should have a mandatory choice of at least one assault marine squad? Come on, let's find a fix for this that will satisfy this no-true-scotsman feeling going around.

The actual solution is army wide rules for blood angels which encourage them to enter melee and offer comparatively little to other lists (like we had slowly been adding to most armies until 8th edition reset everything). Which we will hopefully get in a codex at some point.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Right, so we should change the rules of the book so all Blood Angels armies should have a mandatory choice of at least one assault marine squad? Come on, let's find a fix for this that will satisfy this no-true-scotsman feeling going around.

The actual solution is army wide rules for blood angels which encourage them to enter melee and offer comparatively little to other lists (like we had slowly been adding to most armies until 8th edition reset everything). Which we will hopefully get in a codex at some point.

Definitely. But there's nothing wrong IMO with a Blood Angels list that's heavy on fliers. They just won't be making best use of what is IMO the best assets of a Blood Angels list. But at that point, we've gone from calling people WAAC in to complaining people aren't WAAC enough, the idea of which made me start laughing so hard people actually came to my desk and checked to make sure I was okay.

 Melissia wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
It is 100% different than some jackass taking an all-Knight army

No, it's really not. Knights don't belong on the tabletop in normal games of 40k to begin with any more than fliers do.

 Gunzhard wrote:
That said, do you truly believe he was going for a fluffy "Blood Angels patrol with airstrike" theme rather than a cherry-picked WAAC list?

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, I don't think this list was very WAAC to begin with. Stormravens and Stormhawks aren't really all that strong, and have some fairly hard counters. People weren't properly prepared because it's the rfirst tournament of the new edition. This is really no different than 5th edition's Leafblower gimmick (which, itself, was pretty fluffy, it was just an artillery unit), and much like that, once people adjust their lists a bit it'll fall by the wayside to more balanced lists.

Or to put it more bluntly, I find more offense in your no-true-scotsman crusade against the list than the list itself.

BS he was going for fluffy, not that I think those flyers are super hard either but given those missions it was a strong list. Your whole 'no-true scotsman' thing is utter Bs as well... The Blood Angels have had a codex since 2nd edition and so there is at least some common ground on what makes a 'blood angels army'. Flyers are ok - BA were one of the first to get StormRavens... but this list is just taking advantage of a stop-gap Index.

Further the validity of Knights or flyers in 40k is an entirely different point than the one I am making.

 Melissia wrote:
I don't care, and from what I can tell, neither do you. It's just another way for you to go on your "NO ONE IS PLAYING PROPERLY LIKE I WANT THEM TO!" rant. Blood Angels have Stormravens. They use stormravens. There's nothing wrong with a Blood Angels player using Stormravens. No, Stormravens that Blood Angels use aren't different than Stormravens that Ultramarines use. But the same could be said about boltguns that Blood Angels use vs boltguns that Ultramarines use. In the end, they're still just marines, and they use a very similar pool of equipment.

This is best part of your argument... where your opinion that Knights and Flyers don't belong in regular 40k because "NO ONE IS PLAYING PROPERLY LIKE I WANT THEM TO!" is exactly the kind of total crap "no true scotsman' bs you're accusing me of.

 MikhailLenin wrote:
I dont think so. i am pretty happy with how it plays.

Congrats on your fun day out! And thanks for Sharing

wes

 Gunzhard wrote:
Your whole 'no-true scotsman' thing is utter Bs as well...

The entire basis of your argument is a no-true-scotsman fallacy, with you whining that they aren't using a REAL Blood Angels list because they aren't playing the list like you want them to. Do I need to start grabbing quotes, here?

 Gunzhard wrote:
This is best part of your argument... where your opinion that Knights and Flyers don't belong in regular 40k

The difference is? I'm not going on multi-page rants about how people who take knights and fliers aren't playing properly. For that matter, I don't blame the players who take knights and fliers. A lot of people find Knights to be really cool. A lot of people find fliers to be pretty cool. Hell, I like 40k's flier designs. I just wish they were harder to take outside of higher points games where people have more points to spend to prepare for something like fliers, which often rely on a hard counter. But at the same time, 8th has made it MUCH easier to take down a flier without using a hard counter. So it's actually less of a problem now than it was back then, even with the all-flier lists being a thing.

I can deal with fliers and knights being in games without, unlike you, going on a rant about how much I hate players who take them.

You should emulate me. I'm pretty awesome, I think you can agree

 Melissia wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Your whole 'no-true scotsman' thing is utter Bs as well...

The entire basis of your argument is a no-true-scotsman fallacy, with you whining that they aren't using a REAL Blood Angels list because they aren't playing the list like you want them to. Do I need to start grabbing quotes, here?

 Gunzhard wrote:
This is best part of your argument... where your opinion that Knights and Flyers don't belong in regular 40k

The difference is? I'm not going on multi-page rants about how people who take knights and fliers aren't playing properly. For that matter, I don't blame the players who take knights and fliers. A lot of people find Knights to be really cool. A lot of people find fliers to be pretty cool. Hell, I like 40k's flier designs. I just wish they were harder to take outside of higher points games where people have more points to spend to prepare for something like fliers, which often rely on a hard counter. But at the same time, 8th has made it MUCH easier to take down a flier without using a hard counter. So it's actually less of a problem now than it was back then, even with the all-flier lists being a thing.

I can deal with fliers and knights being in games without, unlike you, going on a rant about how much I hate players who take them.

Grab as many quotes as you like, as I said... there's been a Blood Angel codex since 2nd edition, the idea of "what makes a Blood Angels" army is NOT my "no-true scotsman fallacy" personal choice of list as much as you're trying to force that concept on me. The idea of what makes a Blood Angels army has existed long before this dakka thread. His list was taking advantage of a new gimmick because he could and it was advantageous to do so.

And there is NO difference in your opinion on Knights and Flyers, and at this point I'm entirely certain that if some jagoff told you to just shutup about your opinion regarding Knights and Flyers you'd be going on multi-page rants (as you actually have already). It is literally exactly the same "no-true scotsman" argument you are trying to force on me though.

Nor did I ever say I hated the guy or flyers or knights or that I can't deal with them. You're just arguing in bad faith - even if you are awesome.

 Gunzhard wrote:
there's been a Blood Angel codex since 2nd edition

And according to the blood angels codex right now, blood angels can take stormravens, captains, and tacticals. In fact, I'm pretty sure they could take all those things in 7th, too, it was just probably harder to fit that many stormravens in a list without using some obscure Formation or other (I'm far too lazy to look it up).

 Gunzhard wrote:
The idea of what makes a Blood Angels army has existed long before this dakka thread

And it includes vehicles, tacticals, and captains.

 Gunzhard wrote:
And there is NO difference in your opinion on Knights and Flyers

Whatever it helps you sleep at night, you sad, judgmental little man. I don't really see much of a point of continuing this conversation at this point, though, if you can't tell the difference between "Eh, I don't like this, but I'll deal" and "I HATE THIS I HATE THIS THESE PLAYERS ARE DOING IT WRONG THEY NEED TO STOP AND CHANGE IT IMMEDIATELY!" as you have been arguing, viciously accusing players who don't play the lists like you want them to of being WAAC and playing the game wrong.

 Melissia wrote:
Definitely. But there's nothing wrong IMO with a Blood Angels list that's heavy on fliers. They just won't be making best use of what is IMO the best assets of a Blood Angels list. But at that point, we've gone from calling people WAAC in to complaining people aren't WAAC enough, the idea of which made me start laughing so hard people actually came to my desk and checked to make sure I was okay.

More trying to make the "best builds" for each army lore friendly. Which is a forelorn hope, but 8th has done a bit to turn back the clock truth be told.

 Melissia wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
there's been a Blood Angel codex since 2nd edition

And according to the blood angels codex right now, blood angels can take stormravens, captains, and tacticals. In fact, I'm pretty sure they could take all those things in 7th, too, it was just probably harder to fit that many stormravens in a list without using some obscure Formation or other (I'm far too lazy to look it up).

You could always do Unbound... point unchanged.

 Melissia wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
The idea of what makes a Blood Angels army has existed long before this dakka thread

And it includes vehicles, tacticals, and captains.

Eh not really, though sure, it may have included some of those things, I'm beginning to think you've never seen Blood Angels before.

 Melissia wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
And there is NO difference in your opinion on Knights and Flyers

Whatever it helps you sleep at night, you sad, judgmental little man. I don't really see much of a point of continuing this conversation at this point, though, if you can't tell the difference between "Eh, I don't like this, but I'll deal" and "I HATE THIS I HATE THIS THESE PLAYERS ARE DOING IT WRONG THEY NEED TO STOP AND CHANGE IT IMMEDIATELY!".

Oh ha ok... You can't continue because your point is 100% hypocritical and this is a childish response to mask that. That's ok, goodnight then.

I've played 40k for entirely too long, and I can tell you that if the cherry-picking bothers you, Tournaments are not for you. Tournies are all about picking the beast and most streamlined armies you can think of with the sole purpose of winning.
I quit playing tournies a long time ago for that very reason in a lot of mini games, they made them no fun for me anymore.

The current rules allow a ton of flexibility for people looking to build a cool list with a lot of themes and still do well against the majority of the field. Your allowed to play for fun if the min/maxing bothers you that much.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Definitely. But there's nothing wrong IMO with a Blood Angels list that's heavy on fliers. They just won't be making best use of what is IMO the best assets of a Blood Angels list. But at that point, we've gone from calling people WAAC in to complaining people aren't WAAC enough, the idea of which made me start laughing so hard people actually came to my desk and checked to make sure I was okay.

More trying to make the "best builds" for each army lore friendly. Which is a forelorn hope, but 8th has done a bit to turn back the clock truth be told.

True - the thing is, GW has said, many times, that the concept of 8th edition is built around rewarding "lore friendly" lists/armies for the first time really.