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.

Me too. But that is like me saying I would to have one supplement to take, instead of a cup of different pills.

Helps over all design too. Because when a codex is stand alone, GW can then make RG specific intercessors , as in rules. More sneaky and locked in to RG. Maybe IF intercessors have to option for boarding shields, again IF locked. BA bladeguard different from BT bladeguard, so armies like marines don't end up with the situation where [pick one best for an edition chapter] is the only sensible way to play.

Later on it could be used for campaign books to give BloodRose sister different version of units. Maybe not all GSC are hive scum that are mines. What if they were like the society GSC had on Sotha. GW could even splurg such "lists" in WD, just for fun. Ork pirates, Space Marine renegade/mercaneries. An Ymggral Genestealer Hive. Eldar exodites or corsair etc. Those armies wouldn't have to be 100% top tier 60%+ win rate, just a fun and different way to use models you already have.

Although in hindsight, using same models for multiple armies is probably something GW would not want to happen.

Ummm.....you've not seen either of the 30k Liber books, have you Karol?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Does anyone else find it odd that we routinely consider DG a seperate and distinct faction from other Chaos factions? Same with Thousand Suns. Yet GW insists that Space Marines all need TWO books to able to play.

The big difference IMO is that DG and TS actually lose quite a lot in exchange for having unique rules and units.
On the other hand, for the "unique" marine factions of the past SW, DA, BT and BA, GW eventually caved in to all the whining about not getting X, Y or Z so everyone simply got access to everything.
If DG and TS were able to run everything from Codex: CSM on top of their unique stuff, you would have to get two books for them as well, just like DA would not need two books if you cut out everything not unique to them but the most basic marine options.

honestly the supplements aren't a bad solution to the problem, I enjoyed the 8th edition supplements more as they really did a deep dive into the LORE of the chapters. in a few editions from now if you asked me if Supplement Imperial fists was worth picking up at a used book store for a few bucks for the lore I'd enchourage it, I sure as hell wouldn't say that about codex supplement space wolves.

 Jidmah wrote:


The big difference IMO is that DG and TS actually lose quite a lot in exchange for having unique rules and units.
On the other hand, for the "unique" marine factions of the past SW, DA, BT and BA, GW eventually caved in to all the whining about not getting X, Y or Z so everyone simply got access to everything.
.

I don't think GW "caved" in to anything, specialy the spreading of unique stuff. There are no non BA golden dudes, there is no non DA deathwing, no non SW TWC etc Also the access is not easy, when you have to buy two books and on top of that
Plus there is also IH, IF, CF, RG who didn't even get their unique stuff. And all of this is before judging the viability of specific marines. If anything comparing to what was accesible to space marines at the end of 8th ed, they lost a ton of options. they went from different lists for multiple marines to. You can play White Scars for a large chunk of 9th.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


The big difference IMO is that DG and TS actually lose quite a lot in exchange for having unique rules and units.
On the other hand, for the "unique" marine factions of the past SW, DA, BT and BA, GW eventually caved in to all the whining about not getting X, Y or Z so everyone simply got access to everything.
.

I don't think GW "caved" in to anything, specialy the spreading of unique stuff. There are no non BA golden dudes, there is no non DA deathwing, no non SW TWC etc Also the access is not easy, when you have to buy two books and on top of that
Plus there is also IH, IF, CF, RG who didn't even get their unique stuff. And all of this is before judging the viability of specific marines. If anything comparing to what was accesible to space marines at the end of 8th ed, they lost a ton of options. they went from different lists for multiple marines to. You can play White Scars for a large chunk of 9th.

i don't understand what you're trying to say.

Are you saying that CSM have access to Blightlords/ExaltedSorcerers/Mutalith/Plaguebursts/Blight Haulers/foetid drones/poxwalkers/tzaangors/etc?
Because they don't.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


The big difference IMO is that DG and TS actually lose quite a lot in exchange for having unique rules and units.
On the other hand, for the "unique" marine factions of the past SW, DA, BT and BA, GW eventually caved in to all the whining about not getting X, Y or Z so everyone simply got access to everything.
.

I don't think GW "caved" in to anything, specialy the spreading of unique stuff. There are no non BA golden dudes, there is no non DA deathwing, no non SW TWC etc Also the access is not easy, when you have to buy two books and on top of that
Plus there is also IH, IF, CF, RG who didn't even get their unique stuff. And all of this is before judging the viability of specific marines. If anything comparing to what was accesible to space marines at the end of 8th ed, they lost a ton of options. they went from different lists for multiple marines to. You can play White Scars for a large chunk of 9th.

Karol, you are completely missing the point. I'm not talking about chapter specific units at all, I'm talking about things like storm ravens, sternguard, ironclads, whirlwinds, apothecaries or even scouts. In the past, it was normal for BT, BA, SW or DA to not have all marine options, much more like GK or DG are today. New marine units weren't automatically added to the snowflake chapters and some never were.
8th edition was the first edition ever for all marine chapters to have access to all options that weren't chapter-locked.

And, frankly, that was a change that shouldn't've happened.

 Jidmah wrote:

8th edition was the first edition ever for all marine chapters to have access to all options that weren't chapter-locked.

9th actually. In 8th all the former standalone chapters had their own codex with not every option from the SM codex. With 9th those chapters didn't have their own codex but a supplement, so they gained total access to the SM codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
And, frankly, that was a change that shouldn't've happened.

I agree.

What is the point of Blood Angels not having Centurions?

 Vilgeir wrote:
I really hate what they've done with Sisters. Thanks to BR being stupidly more effective than every other order, and their consistent core rule changes have killed all other viable choices, the whole faction is really just one order, a handful of the same units, and a smattering of great secondary objectives and that's it.

Sure, they compete as one of the best factions, but it's the same damn single list since Neph launched and there's no reason to deviate.

That's generally what happens with subfaction rules. One, two if lucky dominates and rest are way behind played by just fans of those subfactions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Well I don't think you do need 2, I am talking theory not actual valid list which often for marines of all types include FW dreads, books to play with DG or 1ksons.

With marines GW has the problem that, if they wanted to have both primaris and all the classic marines in each marine book, they would end up gigantic each time. On the other hand they can't just cancel classic marines, or at least couldn't do it in 8th and 9th. Until most of the primaris line has a replacement option, I don't think GW physicaly can make a regular RG or IF books. But they aren't missing much. Just jump infantry, maybe mounted characters, but considering csm that is not a given and a replacment for termintors.

Well guess blood angels COULD skip the blood angel supplement...but that's "don't need two" in theory only...

 vict0988 wrote:
What is the point of Blood Angels not having Centurions?

What you don't have access to is as important to helping define character as what you do have access to.

I will say, though, that there should be some thought put into why certain Chapters may not have access to - or just choose not to use - certain units, rather than them just having been left out over time because of the process of updates. Whether that reason is that the local forge worlds can't produce something (for non-fleet Chapters), that a given unit doesn't fit their Chapter doctrines for combat, or that they have developed their own versions of a unit over time.

In the case of Blood Angels, their Chapter fighting style may not lend themselves to using Centurions that often - they've often been portrayed as very mobile fighting formations with an emphasis on assault, and if there's one thing that can be said about Centurions, it is that they're not all that mobile.

Would you say that Black Templars not having/using Librarians - something that still applies, as far as I'm aware - isn't something interesting about them as a Chapter, and something that tells us things about them?

Yea no problem with faction not having access to unit. I do have problem not having because of kit release date...

Some sort of logic and balance reason and it's fine.

But seeing GW is interested in making sure game isn't balanced that's not going to work alas.

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
What is the point of Blood Angels not having Centurions?

What you don't have access to is as important to helping define character as what you do have access to.

How about Blood Angels successors? None of them have Centurions? Keep in mind you can always choose not to use Centurions, but you cannot just choose to take a unit from another codex and change the rules to fit your codex. I don't think people were spamming BA Centurions in 8th when they were at their best, Raven Guard Cents were just better and people certainly don't spam BA Cents now. The option being there is only doing good, the players that really like Cents in their BA armies can use them and it's not hurting anything. Finding a BA player spamming SanGuard can't be too hard if that's what you're into.

 vict0988 wrote:
What is the point of Blood Angels not having Centurions?

Blood Angels are beautiful. Centurions are ugly. And stupid. But mostly it's cause they're ugly.

Not convinced absence defines character. It could perhaps - if things were more specialised or extreme - but they aren't. What you get therefore is factions who can basically do everything, i.e. have units for every unit archetype in 40k, and factions which just... don't. And this doesn't make them more defined - it just makes them limited.

For example, how are BA "who can't" take Centurions any more defined against say UM who could, but just choose not to because Cents are a bit rubbish at the moment?

Taken further, how are say DE and Tau who can't take psykers any more defined than factions that could, but don't because they don't want to? Would a generic 80-90 point 2 power HQ with a selection of mortal wounds and buff/debuff powers suddenly transform those two factions on the tabletop? It seems unlikely. It would just be another model you could buy and play with.

Tyel wrote:
Taken further, how are say DE and Tau who can't take psykers any more defined than factions that could, but don't because they don't want to? Would a generic 80-90 point 2 power HQ with a selection of mortal wounds and buff/debuff powers suddenly transform those two factions on the tabletop? It seems unlikely. It would just be another model you could buy and play with.

I know it's not the point you're making but yes please.

 vict0988 wrote:
What is the point of Blood Angels not having Centurions?

What is the point of DG not having obliterators or vindicators or masters of possession?

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
What is the point of Blood Angels not having Centurions?

What is the point of DG not having obliterators or vindicators or masters of possession?

To sell the DG exclusive sculpts. For what it's worth I think DG should have those and I think CSM should have the Plagueburst Crawlers, that has been my opinion for a looong time. Think of all the DG players that have owned a Vindicator for 10 years and were told not to use, get that gak out of here. Let people play with their toys, that's the point of the game.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
What is the point of Blood Angels not having Centurions?

What is the point of DG not having obliterators or vindicators or masters of possession?

To sell the DG exclusive sculpts. For what it's worth I think DG should have those and I think CSM should have the Plagueburst Crawlers, that has been my opinion for a looong time. Think of all the DG players that have owned a Vindicator for 10 years and were told not to use, get that gak out of here. Let people play with their toys, that's the point of the game.

Hard no on plaguebursts being in regular CSM. They're demon engines created by Mortarion himself for his legion.

But yes, if Loyalists get their snowflake units AND the basic marine units, DG/TS/EC/WE should get basic CSM units too

Tyel wrote:


Taken further, how are say DE and Tau who can't take psykers any more defined than factions that could, but don't because they don't want to? Would a generic 80-90 point 2 power HQ with a selection of mortal wounds and buff/debuff powers suddenly transform those two factions on the tabletop? It seems unlikely. It would just be another model you could buy and play with.

Defining a faction isn't about what a player does or does not decide to take- it's about what the have access to.

If a DE uses a psychic power in Commorragh and perils, they have the capacity to create a daemonic incursion that tears the webway apart. This is a huge defining characteristic of the faction, and it's why they don't have the option.

A UM player who chooses not to take a psyker is not the same- maybe their psyker had Covid that day and had to quarantine. But a player's choice not to take something is not defining the faction in the same way that thing being unavailable does.

PenitentJake wrote:
Defining a faction isn't about what a player does or does not decide to take- it's about what the have access to.

If a DE uses a psychic power in Commorragh and perils, they have the capacity to create a daemonic incursion that tears the webway apart. This is a huge defining characteristic of the faction, and it's why they don't have the option.

A UM player who chooses not to take a psyker is not the same- maybe their psyker had Covid that day and had to quarantine. But a player's choice not to take something is not defining the faction in the same way that thing being unavailable does.

But my DE are not in Commorragh when they are fighting you are they? Instead I'm out in real space on the hunt for loot, sport or specimens (probably all three). Or maybe I am in Commorragh and I don't care about Vect's decree because he's an incredibly tedious elf. Or maybe I do care - but you know, desperate times call for desperate measures, and rather than being defeated I'm breaking out the psychic slaves from the hold and goading them to shoot out mind bullets.

Does this whole "no psykers allowed" really make DE more defined than Craftworld Eldar? Marines? Orks? CSM? How so exactly?

Are Dark Eldar defined by the inability to take Knights? If so, that's kind of weird isn't it?

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
What is the point of Blood Angels not having Centurions?

What is the point of DG not having obliterators or vindicators or masters of possession?

To sell the DG exclusive sculpts. For what it's worth I think DG should have those and I think CSM should have the Plagueburst Crawlers, that has been my opinion for a looong time. Think of all the DG players that have owned a Vindicator for 10 years and were told not to use, get that gak out of here. Let people play with their toys, that's the point of the game.

I tend to agree with vict's thinking here, Jid, though less so on giving the PBC to CSM.

This is where my point about actually having a think about what should and should not be included is important - if there's a good rationale for an exclusion, people are more likely to accept it, but for DG/TS there is some quite clear sales-based thinking to try to drive the new kits. I don't like it, but I can understand it - and I can see it walloping the World Eaters, too. Some of it should've been rolled back with the 9th ed book, though - if DG can have Rhinos, Land Raiders & Predators, it seems odd to exclude the Vindicator.

I can never remember who was involved in creating the Obliterator virus - I've heard conflicting info on if Morty was involved. If the canon has settled on him being involved, then I see no reason not to include Oblits; if it ends up being Pertubo, then having them be more of an Iron Worrier thing would fit.

I'm not familiar with the lore of the MoP, or how he operates, so I'm not going to comment either way on him.

@Tyel - Dark Elder not having psykers does make for a marked contrast to Craftworld Eldar, yes. The CE have almost ritualised their powers via the use of runes, shielding them from Slaanesh's influence/predation that way. The DE don't seem like a faction that would go for that sort of structure, so instead have allowed their psychic abilities to atrophy over time. They're both then contrasted by the Murder Clowns, and possibly the Corsairs, each of which showing different methods of dealing with this.

The lack of an in-codex Lord of War - as far as I'm aware - does tell us something about how they prioritise their use of resources, and where they deem it worth expending such power. Given the "I stab your back, you stab mine" nature of life in Commoragh, do you really see an Archon giving an underling access to something as powerful as a Knight, let alone a Titan?

Sure, some things should be ported over, but if you now just slap just those ~90 CSM datasheets into the DG army, what will actually remain of the fairly unique and unusually well-designed faction they are today?

Pretty much the same that would happen if you gave harlequins access to the full CWE arsenal without drawbacks or limitations - they would just stop being harlequins.

DG and TS players (and soon WE players) losing access to models they have been playing for many years is not great at all, and clearly is a business decision.

De facto, they just squatted the CSM version of DG and TS and created brand new armies. Those small codices without the accumulated bloat of the decades play and feel a lot more like DG or TS than any Emperor's Children, Word Bearer, Iron Warriors or Nightlord army has ever played and felt like a unique legion and not just Black Legion with a different paintjob.

The sole issue here is squatting the old armies, which really is no different from R&H getting the (legendary) axe. At the very least they should have added a generic nurgle/tzeench warband that allows players to continue playing their collection.
The new armies not having all the options is perfectly fine, though some decisions probably require re-evaluation.

 Dysartes wrote:
if DG can have Rhinos, Land Raiders & Predators, it seems odd to exclude the Vindicator

Especially since their fluff states that they acquire a great deal of their vehicles by virus bombing the crew and then stealing their ride. It doesn't make sense at all for them to steal the rhinos and predators, but leave the vidicators behind.

I can never remember who was involved in creating the Obliterator virus - I've heard conflicting info on if Morty was involved. If the canon has settled on him being involved, then I see no reason not to include Oblits; if it ends up being Pertubo, then having them be more of an Iron Worrier thing would fit.

There really isn't any conflict. The original virus was caused by a daemon of Khorne, but Mortarion and Perturabo cooperated to "industrialize" it. Due to their natures, the two of them are the only traitor primarchs which actually get along if they don't have to bear the other for extended periods of time.

I'm not familiar with the lore of the MoP, or how he operates, so I'm not going to comment either way on him.

Essentially those are the guys putting the daemons into daemon engines, and according to their lore MoP are usually found working in dark manufactorums. Barbaros, the DG home planet, just happens to be littered with manufactorums which are producing their various daemon engines. In lore, the Death Guard are probably the legion with more psykers focused on possession than any other.

I didn't chose those units randomly, they are the ones which have the least reason to not be in the DG codex. In general, there are a lot more good reasons to add those units to codex DG than there was for adding slow and lumbering centurions to the "red 'uns go fasta" marine faction.

When I started out with 40k BA were the current bestest army with their fast vehicles, deep striking death stars, troops with jump packs, psyker dreads, McFisto and the flying box pretending to be a plane. I played against them a lot. Whenever I face them today, I always am shocked how bland they have become, there is little to no uniqueness left in that army, they are just red ultramarines. The DG treatment would definitely have been better for them as an army than getting access to centurions.

You cannot really compare Emperor's Children with Death Guard and say "look how generic EC are" without recognising that EC don't have the options to make distinct EC lists. So you have not really proven that is an overabundance of choice that makes EC feel like a Black Legion knock-off.

Thinking that Blood Angels are red Ultras is silly. Look at the lists they bring. Nothing alike. Look at the playstyle.

 vict0988 wrote:
You cannot really compare Emperor's Children with Death Guard and say "look how generic EC are" without recognising that EC don't have the options to make distinct EC lists. So you have not really proven that is an overabundance of choice that makes EC feel like a Black Legion knock-off.

And yet, DG somehow still feel unique despite the only thing they are bringing in actual lists that EC can't bring is a single tank and unique weapon options for their terminators.
There is more to an army than just datasheets.

Thinking that Blood Angels are red Ultras is silly. Look at the lists they bring. Nothing alike. Look at the playstyle.

*looks at recent competitive list and playstyle*

Nope, the same as my local players, which is your regular cast of primaris units with sanguine guard and death company instead of vanguard veterans with jump packs.

The only thing "unique" here is having better weapons on your jump troops... which is quite sad compared to what they had in 5th.

And let's face it - if sanguine guard and DC were below the curve in terms of internal balance, BA players would instantly drop them for a generic option.

 Jidmah wrote:
And yet, DG somehow still feel unique despite the only thing they are bringing in actual lists that EC can't bring is a single tank and unique weapon options for their terminators.
There is more to an army than just datasheets.

You don't think Disgustingly Resilient is part of the datasheet? Noise Termies with whips and a thematic EC rule, a pts-efficient plastic noise Dread and snakey Slaangor would 100% make EC a lot more unique. If an army is more than just datasheets what's the problem of giving DG the datasheets they are missing? Is it that there are no proper Nurgle versions of the minis?

Thinking that Blood Angels are red Ultras is silly. Look at the lists they bring. Nothing alike. Look at the playstyle.

*looks at recent competitive list and playstyle*

Nope, the same as my local players, which is your regular cast of primaris units with sanguine guard and death company instead of vanguard veterans with jump packs.

The only thing "unique" here is having better weapons on your jump troops... which is quite sad compared to what they had in 5th.

And let's face it - if sanguine guard and DC were below the curve in terms of internal balance, BA players would instantly drop them for a generic option.

I think you are confusing UM successors with UM. Vanguard Veterans and Assault Marines are not unfluffy for BA, BA have a Devastator Company and UM have an Assault Company, they are both SM chapters. I don't think Sanguard and DC need to be anything more than on-par with the other options for people to take them, because they are cool and as long as they are not an obviously inferior choice people will take them. When people are all taking the same option for every chapter it just reveals that the option is undercosted, like VanVets were and maybe still are. Even if the best Blood Angels option is SanGuard it's pointless if UM have a Dread list that will outperform the best BA list 99% of the time, because then people will just switch from SanGuard BA to UM Dreads. The layers and layers of rules makes this more likely.

Blood Angels have a different Super Doctrine, psychic discipline, relics, WL traits and Stratagems. I have no idea how you can say they are the same. From what I understand what makes UM successors cool is that they can redeploy, while Blood Angels deal more damage. The playstyles are different, even if UM successors try to be Blood Angels they can't.

Vindicators fit DG better than Plagueburst Crawlers from the 30k fluff I have read, but GW is a models first company so the fluff and rules are moulded to fit whatever models are coming out.

 Jidmah wrote:

Essentially those are the guys putting the daemons into daemon engines, and according to their lore MoP are usually found working in dark manufactorums. Barbaros, the DG home planet, just happens to be littered with manufactorums which are producing their various daemon engines. In lore, the Death Guard are probably the legion with more psykers focused on possession than any other.

I didn't chose those units randomly, they are the ones which have the least reason to not be in the DG codex. In general, there are a lot more good reasons to add those units to codex DG than there was for adding slow and lumbering centurions to the "red 'uns go fasta" marine faction.

When I started out with 40k BA were the current bestest army with their fast vehicles, deep striking death stars, troops with jump packs, psyker dreads, McFisto and the flying box pretending to be a plane. I played against them a lot. Whenever I face them today, I always am shocked how bland they have become, there is little to no uniqueness left in that army, they are just red ultramarines. The DG treatment would definitely have been better for them as an army than getting access to centurions.

You are wrong,
The MoP is not responsible for putting daemons in engines. He is responsible for putting daemons in people. Infact it's warpsmiths that do the former and they have a kind of schism over that becaue MoP are regarding daemons as something that is to be respected atleast, whilest Warpsmiths regard daemons as cheap and easy fuel / pilots, which leads to some massive differences.
When they work together, then in general you get venomcrawlers, which are in essence parasites/ fuel silos for forges and warp energy.
If anything that means that Warpsmiths should be in the DG dex.

 vict0988 wrote:

You don't think Disgustingly Resilient is part of the datasheet?

contrarly to popular belief, Disgustingly Resilient is NOT the legion trait and it is indeed, a datasheet ability. (which explains why stuff that isnt DG-exclusive don't get it)

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
And yet, DG somehow still feel unique despite the only thing they are bringing in actual lists that EC can't bring is a single tank and unique weapon options for their terminators.
There is more to an army than just datasheets.

You don't think Disgustingly Resilient is part of the datasheet? Noise Termies with whips and a thematic EC rule

You did compare the DG legion trait to the EC one, right? That's where your "thematic EC rule" is, though pretty much every iteration of it was badly designed.

a pts-efficient plastic noise Dread and snakey Slaangor would 100% make EC a lot more unique.

I doubt so. Having cultists with snake legs and a dread with a new gun won't do anything for EC unless those units are more efficient than whatever else is currently used in their place.
The difference between poxwalkers, PBC and blightlords and cultists, predators and CSM terminators is fairly small outside of effective wounds per point values.

If an army is more than just datasheets what's the problem of giving DG the datasheets they are missing? Is it that there are no proper Nurgle versions of the minis?

Uhm, I think you are (most likely unintentionally) twisting my argument there. Adding three or four flavorful datasheets from CSM will not break DG. Adding all of them will.
DG feel as they do precisely because they can't just add in a bunch of cheap fast units to get their contagions everywhere they need, have extremely limited shooting options and are forced to rely on slow, expensive models who do the lion share of their damage by hitting things in melee.

Adding raptors, bikers, havocs, helldrakes or disco lords would totally ruin that feel.

I think you are confusing UM successors with UM. Vanguard Veterans and Assault Marines are not unfluffy for BA, BA have a Devastator Company and UM have an Assault Company, they are both SM chapters. I don't think Sanguard and DC need to be anything more than on-par with the other options for people to take them, because they are cool and as long as they are not an obviously inferior choice people will take them. When people are all taking the same option for every chapter it just reveals that the option is undercosted, like VanVets were and maybe still are. Even if the best Blood Angels option is SanGuard it's pointless if UM have a Dread list that will outperform the best BA list 99% of the time, because then people will just switch from SanGuard BA to UM Dreads. The layers and layers of rules makes this more likely.

But... isn't that kind of what I was saying? While browsing for BA lists I saw an IW lists which won some GT by spamming jump honor guard. Paint that army red, and it's almost the same as a BA army which placed well a few weeks earlier.

Blood Angels have a different Super Doctrine, psychic discipline, relics, WL traits and Stratagems. I have no idea how you can say they are the same. From what I understand what makes UM successors cool is that they can redeploy, while Blood Angels deal more damage. The playstyles are different, even if UM successors try to be Blood Angels they can't.

I hate to tell you, but as an opponent yellow marines, red marines, blue marines, green marines and black marines are all, in the end, just marines. Sure, you bring different relics and maybe have some different gotcha's to watch out for, but those 3-4 CP you spend on unique stratagems, the two models holding traits or relics, or those successor shenanigans don't make that much of a difference in the big picture, especially when playing against players that aren't highly skilled.
It's kind of like no one really knows or cares about which DG plague fleet or ork clan they were up against, it's either all the same to them or they just assume the most competitive option.

The only loyal marines which "feel" different to play against currently are DA because their super annoying terminators actually require you to adapt your tactics, though I have to admit that I haven't played against either DW or SW with their new supplements. And no, I don't consider GK to be included when I say "marines" *sprays Karol with water*

BA definitely felt like a unique army in prior editions, in this one playing against them is no different to UM than UM are different to IF.
In my subjective opinion I feel like they would be a much better army if they couldn't just fill all their gaps with generic SM cookie-cutter units.

Vindicators fit DG better than Plagueburst Crawlers from the 30k fluff I have read, but GW is a models first company so the fluff and rules are moulded to fit whatever models are coming out.

Mortarion developed the PBC from the vindicator and the predator, but there really is no reason for the DG to leave a vehicle behind that normally would perfectly align with their strategy just because they have a pimped version of it at home. The most likely explanation here is that GW was worried that "tank with big round gun" would eat the sales of "newer tank with big round gun".