4ed Blood Angels Codex FAQ

[Venerable Jazzman]

4th Ed Blood Angels Codex FAQ

This thread has been prepared to help clarify rule interpretations concerning the 4th edition Blood Angels Codex, released in the June & July 2007 issues of White Dwarf magazine worldwide. A number of rules and typo issues were raised by players, most of which were corrected in the .pdf download made available in August '07, which also contained an official FAQ.
The download version is available from the US GW site,

Although the files are different sizes, there doesn't appear to be any difference between the two.

Some rules continue to need some clarification. In all cases, we've used the basic principles of Rules as Written (RAW) to come to our suggested solution/interpretation.

Where a B&C question has been answered by the official FAQ, we've made it clear in the answer.

Please note that any questions not answered by the official FAQ are not definitive: they are the best solution/interpretation that we can make.
In the event that any Q&A presented here may impact your friendly or tournament gaming, make sure to clarify the use of these answers beforehand.

Typos

The original WD lists had a number of typos, most of which have been corrected in the .pdf download version. The only remaining source of contention is:

Q: Captain Tycho has 2+ save/Artificer Armour in army list, but is 3+ in the summary?
A: It would seem fair to say that as Artificer Armour is listed, it is intended that Tycho has a 2+ save.

Additionally, Jervis has admitted that Tycho's Preferred Enemy:Orks rule was included to reflect his background and fluff, and he hadn't realised that it had no effect on Tycho's actual combat ability...:tu:

Rule Interpretation Issues

The following is a list of issues raised by certain rules specific to BA armies. As stated above, the answer provided has been formulated by applying the rules present in the BBB (where applicable) and RAW as the basis for the application.

Death Company unit size
Q: Can I take more than 10 Death Co in my army; I've seen some army lists with up to 14 DC?
A: Yes, it is possible to have more than 10 DC, as long as you haven't bought any additional DC members for the unit:
If you read the blurb at the top of the DC entry, it states:

"Note that the number of models in the unit is determined by the number of squads in the army, as described in the Unit Composition section below"

The Options section says:

"You may take additional DC models if you wish, as long as the total number of models in the unit does not exceed 10."

So if your army contains 2 Honour Guard, 3 VAS or Terminator squads, 6 Tac or Assault squads, and 3 Dev squads, according to the first part of the DC rules above, you generate 14 DC.
And following the second quote, as you're not taking any additional models, the restriction on having more than 10 DC doesn't kick in.

Wait, so how exactly does the Death Company work?!

Unlike the 3rd Edition codex, we no longer lose a man to the Death Company. The costs for extra DC inducted is already worked into our codex prices.

So, the 115 points we pay for a tactical squad (for example) is not 4+1 DC, it is a 5man tactical squad PLUS 1 Death Company marine.



Venerable Dreadnought Limit
Q: In Codex Space Marines, it states that only one Dreadnought can be upgraded to Venerable but I don’t see this limitation in the BA Codex Update. Can BA’s take more than one Venerable Dreadnought?
A: Yes - there is no limitation on the number of Venerable BA dreadnoughts other than the typical FOC limitations for the unit itself. All three dreadnoughts can be upgraded to Venerable status for the points listed.

In addition, there is no limit/restriction on the Death Co upgrade for Dreadnoughts, so it is perfectly possible to have three Venerable Death Co dreads if you wished.

Free Transport Exchanges and scoring Victory Points
Q: For several squads that come with Jump Packs standard, the rules state that, “the Squad may remove it’s jump packs to count as Infantry, and may then have a Drop Pod or Blood Angels Rhino as a dedicated transport vehicle at no additional cost.�? How then do these vehicle units count toward scoring Victory Posts?
A: Transport models that are acquired in this way are unique in that their point cost is included in the parent squad. Therefore, unlike other dedicated transports, these models are worth zero (0) VP for scoring purposes.

The “Typhoonado�?
Q: In Codex Space Marines, it states that certain Landspeeder weapon upgrades cannot be used together but I don’t see that limitation in the BA Codex Update. Can BA’s use any/all weapon upgrades on their Landspeeders?
A: Yes - the limitations formerly associated with the Tornado and Typhoon LS distinctions are not present in the BA Codex Update. Such models can be employed by BA armies within the total weapon upgrade limitations listed in the Codex Update.

Drop Pods
Q: Many of the rule restrictions that apply to Drop Pods in other codices don’t appear in the BA Codex update. Can BA Drop Pods be used differently than those found in other army rules?
A: Yes - in the case of BA Drop-pods, the rules for DP’s are found under the Inertial Guidance System in the Blood Angels Wargear and Upgrades section and Dedicated Transport Vehicles, Drop Pod.

Many restrictions to using DP’s are not present. These omissions allow for a few changes in their use:

* Transported models are not required to disembark from the Drop Pod when landing.
* Models that disembark from the transport may re-embark as desired.
* Drop Pods are not required to deploy from reserves.
* Associated troops are not required to be deployed with the Drop Pod, i.e. the Drop Pod can be deployed separately from the unit.

In light of the official FAQ, these rules variances still appear to apply: the only clarifications are to reinforce that Pods are Immobile and count as Immobilised vehicles, and that BA cannot assault from a Pod in the turn it deep Strikes.
However, given that there is no need to disembark on the turn a Pod arrives, it has become a viable tactic to remain in the Pod for a turn, and then assault out of it on the following turn.

Transports: Rhinos, Razorbacks and Land Raiders
Q: There are no Access Points or Fire Points listed for these vehicles: are they now little more than mobile shooty terrain?
A: No - there is nothing to say that the Access Points or Fire Points have been removed from the BA Transports, or that they should be treated any differently to other Imperial transports. It seems most sensible to continue to use them they were.

Although may seem to contradict the approach taken with Drop-pods above, in the case of Pods the rules governing disembarkation are in the main body of the Codex:Space Marines. In the case of BA, the only rule in the main body of the Codex is Inertial Guidance, which makes no mention of the issues covered in Drop-pods above.

edit: The two points above are still causing some argument among the Frater (and the Mods :D). It would seem that OMG has put it best, in This Thread

The simple fact is that RAW is what it is and assumes that Rules As Written are always succinct, specific and essentially flawless. So you can’t just pick and choose. Either the rules are written RAW and therefore should be interpreted as RAW or they shouldn’t. That being said, the actual rules are flawed, ambiguous and open for multiple, legitimate interpretations.

Yet, because this is a game and not criminal law we can let common sense fill-in where the game designers have left glaring holes in their attempts to write flawless rules. Since the BA rules were so severely underwritten I think we have more ground to stand on than most to refer to other rules sets in an attempt to lend clarity. We shouldn’t have to but in some cases we have no other choice.

The real problem in my mind is determining when a rule should be taken at face value and when a rule should be looked at some other way. We can’t second guess what the game designers meant when they wrote the rule. We can’t rely on Rulez Boyz to give us consistent answers. The FAQ’s that are published are as woefully inadequate as the rules themselves.

So what’s the answer to the question? Run your Rhinos & Drop Pods as they appear in other codices but pay the BA point costs for them. That seems to be the best, common sense approach to playing your army on the table.

And continue to hope that they won’t wait years for a real codex as this one just did not have the quality needed to answer the simple questions asked in this thread.

-OMG

Whirlwind missiles
Q: In the WD's it nowhere states that we have to choose our missiles for our Whirlwinds. Can we therefore shoot both types in the same game?
A: This was previously cleared up in a FAQ that told us to use the Codex Marine variant. We have no answer for this at the moment, but by RAW you would be able to use either.

Combi-weapons
Q: Is there a requirement to specify which weapon (flamer/melta/plasma) is being combi'd with the bolter?
VAS can upgrade to combi-weapons, (rather than combi-flamer -plasma or -melta as specified in the BA Chaplain entry), so does this mean that the weapon does not have to be specified before the game?
The combi-weapon rule states to "Choose which of the weapons to use in the Shooting Phase", would this allow you to keep the option open until the combi- part of the weapon is used?
A: Although by RAW you would not be required to specify the weapon, for WYSIWYG/modelling purposes it would be required: it would also be a lot more sporting for your opponent.
In terms of tournament play, it would be best to clarify this position with the organizers.

Cyclone missile launchers
Q: Cyclone launchers are listed as an upgrade for Terminators, but what are the stats, and where can we find them?
A: They are listed in the Wargear reference book: (thank you, Obliterator :D)
Krak: 48", Str.8, AP3, Heavy 1
Frag: 48", Str.4, AP6, Heavy 1, Blast - Whether or not these refer to us is a different matter entirely since theyre different in different dexs.

Units from the new Codex Space Marines
Q: Can Blood Angels use the new units from Codex Space Marines such as Sternguard, Venerable Dreadnoughts, Land Raider Redeemers and the updated rules for items such as Storm Shields, Typhoon Missiles or good items like Relic Blades?
A: Sadly, no. Until we get a codex update we will not have access to these things officially. In the case of some items, such as Typhoons and updated Land Raiders, those can be found in the Imperial Armor 2 Update, so if you are allowed to use those then you can access new items that way. Also, it is possible that we will not get all of these items when we do get an update, such as Sternguard may not fit into our codex.

Thanks as always for all your input into these efforts.

-OMG, Jazzman and Mortico and JamesI

[Morticon]

Wanna add anything about Psychic hoods and failure to list no double blocks? (ie: Only a single use of any one hood against a power).

[Venerable Jazzman]

I've edited the troublesome Drop Pod and Transport rules section above.

[Looted Monolith]

What if you deep strike a dreadnaought using a drop pod, dose it have the option of remaining embarked, much less the option of rembarking as it pleases?

[Calagar]

Hmm what can i do if i say wanted to buy equipment from a wargear list?

 

Is there no wargear list, meaning i cannot buy master crafted wapons... but f.ex can break immutable laws from C:SM's like field 2 iron halo's in one army.

[Venerable Jazzman]

Hmm what can i do if i say wanted to buy equipment from a wargear list?

You can't: there's no Armoury any more. All upgrades/options are listed for the unit.

[archseer]

Looted Monolith Posted Sep 7 2007, 12:11 AM

What if you deep strike a dreadnaought using a drop pod, dose it have the option of remaining embarked, much less the option of rembarking as it pleases?

 

i have the same concern as looted on dropping dreadies in drop-pods. As Drop-pods are open topped, so when one drops a dready in a drop-pod, the dready gets to shot on the turn it arrives. so dats one thing.

 

Assuming that yes, one does not have to disembark from a BA drop-pod n stay inside until the 'most opportune moment' presents itself, so then it disembarks.

 

What im trying to say is this. the dreadnaught can sit in its nice 12/12/12 open topped transport (read: bunker), open fire on everything within LOS and within range of its weapons. so sumone shoots at it, but, since the dready is in its nice lil bunker, one wud need to pop the bunker first.

 

so the bunker gets popped (which frm experience, armor 12 aint that simple to pop). so treat it as a destroyed transport (which is what the drop-pod is) and out come the occupants. if the occupants were flesh, they'd be entangled or stunned. But since the dready isnt of flesh and is an armored walker, n there are no rules covering vehicles/walkers having to forcibly disembark from transports, so the dready is neither stunned nor entangled. and can proceed to continue wat it was doing previously, or even juz charge into melee.

 

regardless of whether or not the dready is entangled/stunned or watever else which makes it incapacitated for one turn after it had to disembark frm the drop-pod, what this essentially means is this...

 

BA dreadnaughts using drop pods have an effective life of 2. as in, pop the 12/12/12 drop-pod before u can get to pop the 12/12/10 dready. nice work GW. ill await the enlightened opinions of the forum members to help me clarify this bit.

[Morticon]

Actually, the rules regarding entanglement will cover walkers too- as it states that it effects units that would not normally be pinned.

[Venerable Jazzman]

I thought there was something about vehicles within vehicles in the BBB: I'll go look. I don't think it's as simple as it should be.. :D

 

No surprise there... :teehee:

[Cezar29]

I`v got a guestion about bolt pistols. In new codex, it`s written, that all members for example of tactical squads are equiped with them. Does it mean that in close combat they gain additional attack for carrying close combat weapons?? In the main rules it is written, that as additional cc weapon counts plenty of stuff including pistols.

Can u explain me that?

[OwlandMoonGuy]

If you compare the army list entries in the DA & BA codex to those in Codex: Chaos Space Marines, you can see that loyal marines do not get the benefit of an extra attack in close combat. Typical Chaos marines have bolters, bolt pistols and close combat weapons as standard wargear. DA & BA marines do not and also cannot purchase ccw’s in their Options section.

 

With the inclusion of the bolt pistol, all loyal marines can shoot them prior to initiating an assault. Unfortunately, they still only get one attack in close combat.

 

-OMG

[BAArcamas]

1. 
   
   

Drop Pods

Q: Many of the rule restrictions that apply to Drop Pods in other codices don’t appear in the BA Codex update. Can BA Drop Pods be used differently than those found in other army rules?

A: Yes - in the case of BA Drop-pods, the rules for DP’s are found under the Inertial Guidance System in the Blood Angels Wargear and Upgrades section and Dedicated Transport Vehicles, Drop Pod.

Many restrictions to using DP’s are not present. These omissions allow for a few changes in their use:

* Transported models are not required to disembark from the Drop Pod when landing.

* Models that disembark from the transport may re-embark as desired.

* Drop Pods are not required to deploy from reserves.

* Associated troops are not required to be deployed with the Drop Pod, i.e. the Drop Pod can be deployed separately from the unit.

-OMG, Jazzman and Morticon

I recently talked to a GW employee about this and he stated that even though it wasn't part of the BA codex it still had to follow the SM codex rules for drop pods, has anyone heard differently?

[OwlandMoonGuy]

This is the makes sense approach and I would imagine that any official tourney will enforce the rules present in past army rules.

 

I would also think that any reasonable player will also take this approach. It’s just unfortunate that the BA rules are inadequate to cover them by themselves.

 

-OMG

[Renik]

this is one of perfect examples of rules as intended and rules as written but as omg said most toruneys will have in there rules pack blood angel drop pods have all the proper rules

[BAArcamas]

alright, for the time being I'm going with the idea that the BA codex has become independent of the SM codex and therefore doesn't follow the same rules. that sound ok?

[OwlandMoonGuy]

You would be perfectly RAW in doing so. -OMG

[Morticon]

Can we add in the Narthecium/Exsanguinator issue regarding low AP weapons as found in This Thread

[Venerable Jazzman]

Can we add in the Narthecium/Exsanguinator issue regarding low AP weapons

Well, we can: I've just spent an hour reading it and trying to formulate it down into something concise and useful, but I think it might take a bit longer than that..:)

 

I presume we're of the opinion that the Exsanguinator works against plasma etc?

[Octavulg]

I presume we're of the opinion that the Exsanguinator works against plasma etc?

We'd better be. :huh:

 

Perhaps something like:

 

My marine was wounded by a plasma gun, to the consternation of me and mine. Can my nearby Exsanguinator allow him to ignore the shot, or is he killed?

 

The wound can be ignored. Although the AP section of the BBB states that a weapon which pierces the armor using AP ignores armor saves, throughout the rules thereafter it is treated as if it were making armor saves automatically fail, rather than ignoring them completely. Several core rules rely on this interpretation, notably Instant Death.

 

Medipacks were also FAQed in an Imperial Guard FAQ as being able to save attacks of greater AP, implying that the Exsanguinator, which has a nearly identical function with regards to rules, could do the same.

 

Thus, although they technically can't by RAW, RAW becomes contradictory if they can't. Thus, it seems better to stick with the above interpretation.

[Venerable Jazzman]

Ah Octavulg, I like you..:huh:

 

unless anyone has any opinions to the contrary, we shall incorporate that into the FAQ in the next day or two.

 

Cheers

Jazz

[Brother_Raphael]

Also, (and I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet), all BA Dreadnoughts have a listed max strength of 6 in the Army List section of the new Codex. This differs from their description above, and if the Army List is right, (as with Tycho's rules) that' would be a wee bit different from standard marines. Furthermore, it means BA Dreadnoughts are weaker than their Veteran Sergeant counterparts.

[Morticon]

Theyre listed as having dreadnought close combat weapons which double strength to a max of 10. All good.

[Veahirin]

as far as I understand it that st 6 refers to their st if they were to lose their Dread. CCW.

 

-V

[mrhyde]

I was unable to access the FAQ on the GW website, (so this may have been addressed), but why are Tech-Marines not provided a Signum and Auspex like their counterparts in other chapters? For the same points as the SM Codex lists, the BA Tech-Marine is shorted some gear. This makes more frustrating since there is no way to purchase additional war gear anymore, let alone that the majority of the minis are modeled with the gear in question.

 

I'm not sure what's going on over there at GW, but between this "Codex" for BA and the recent CSM offering, they may want to consider some new sources of input.

 

thanks and keep up the good work...

 

mrhyde

[Morticon]

MrHyde- the techmarine is now the same as the DA techmarine. We have indeed lost signum and auspex. No reaon for it not to be on the model as fancy equipment >_, but sadly.. no in game affect. *sigh*