Brother-Captain Devlonir Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 you're conveniently ignoring the text in the codex that specifically states the red thirst to be directly and significantly related to the ingestion of blood. after all if the flaw only revolved around killing then there'd be no need for the red thirst since the black rage provides sufficient killing urges. "deep within the psyche of every blood angel is a destructive yearning, a battle fury and blood hunger that must be held in abeyance in every waking moment." straight from the codex. pg 13 "it is far from unknown for blood angels to temporarily succumb to it's lure at the height of battle" if the red thirst is just about spilling blood then what more is there to succumb to during the height of the battle the red thirst is the thirst for blood. and then there's the quote about the tower of amareo and the cries for the blood of the living which has already been quoted. I am not ignoring them at all. I am simply saying that the Red Thirst does not turn a Blood Angel into a 'must DRINK your blood *hiss*' kind of thing. The Red Thirst, both rule and fluff wise, describes the Blood Angels as forgetting their training and discipline and getting a desire to spill the blood of their enemies more directly. This is, rule wise, shown in that they loose Combat Tactics and gain Fearless and Furious Charge. Nothing comes between one fallen before the Red Thirst and their enemy, not even common sense. This is, as GvOzD said, the Vampire: The Masquerade type vampire that I like to compare the Blood Angels to. The current fluff and rules has, and I put this in bold because it is the most important part of my debate, not a single description of a Blood Angel stopping his fighting to drink the blood of their enemies. They do it only after the battle is done in every fluff description surrounding it. So what does this show us the Red Thirst is? A Blood Lust that increased their potency in battle while decreasing reason on the battlefield and, at the same time, a curse that makes them (possibly) do inhuman things and crave the blood of others when not on the battlefield. This is exactly the same as what the Inner Beast does in Vampire: The Masquerade, hence me comparing the two different universes and seeing the Blood Angels as Vampires in that sense, and not necessarily as Vampires in the Dracula (afraid of garlic/stakes through the heart, no reflection), Nosferat (a beast that shows this both inside and out) or Twilight (sparkles!! and an attraction to completely whiney and uninteresting girls) sense. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2645219 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plague Angel Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 This is exactly the same as what the Inner Beast does in Vampire: The Masquerade, hence me comparing the two different universes and seeing the Blood Angels as Vampires in that sense, and not necessarily as Vampires in the Dracula (afraid of garlic/stakes through the heart, no reflection), Nosferat (a beast that shows this both inside and out) or Twilight (sparkles!! and an attraction to completely whiney and uninteresting girls) sense. I, but... but... what... Nosferatu was a Masquerade clan. Dracula was a Gangrel. You're drawing a distinction between V:tM on the one side, and Dracula and Nosferatu on the other? But I... I don't... I can't... I just. What. What. What. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2645223 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Captain Devlonir Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 This is exactly the same as what the Inner Beast does in Vampire: The Masquerade, hence me comparing the two different universes and seeing the Blood Angels as Vampires in that sense, and not necessarily as Vampires in the Dracula (afraid of garlic/stakes through the heart, no reflection), Nosferat (a beast that shows this both inside and out) or Twilight (sparkles!! and an attraction to completely whiney and uninteresting girls) sense. I, but... but... what... Nosferatu was a Masquerade clan. Dracula was a Gangrel. You're drawing a distinction between V:tM on the one side, and Dracula and Nosferatu on the other? But I... I don't... I can't... I just. What. What. What. hahaha! I am of course meaning the defining aspects of different Vampire stories throughout history that most people know ;-) Dracula and Nosferat being their stories, not the V:tM versions of it. PS: I still say Dracula was a Lasombra.. he had no reflection ya know! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2645225 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Captain Kezef Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 This is exactly the same as what the Inner Beast does in Vampire: The Masquerade, hence me comparing the two different universes and seeing the Blood Angels as Vampires in that sense, and not necessarily as Vampires in the Dracula (afraid of garlic/stakes through the heart, no reflection), Nosferat (a beast that shows this both inside and out) or Twilight (sparkles!! and an attraction to completely whiney and uninteresting girls) sense. I, but... but... what... Nosferatu was a Masquerade clan. Dracula was a Gangrel. You're drawing a distinction between V:tM on the one side, and Dracula and Nosferatu on the other? But I... I don't... I can't... I just. What. What. What. Dracula was Tzimice It was revealed in the Transalvanian chronicles. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2645239 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoulius Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 am i the only one who finds it funny that we have so much vampire experts on the BA forums? :rolleyes: Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2645317 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Captain Devlonir Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Of course not! Many of us first got interested in BA because of the hint of vampirism in the chapter's fluff. Just to put them aside as just Space Vampires doesn't do them justice at all (unlike space wolves.. who are just Space Viking Werewolves :(, sorry had to tease). I think the major point here is: They have vampiric traits but are still the holiest and most pure heroes of the Imperium :-) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2645582 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roesor Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Either way you slice it you're all genetic deviants and in desperate need of the cleansing purifying powers of blessed promethium!!! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2645636 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plague Angel Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 This is exactly the same as what the Inner Beast does in Vampire: The Masquerade, hence me comparing the two different universes and seeing the Blood Angels as Vampires in that sense, and not necessarily as Vampires in the Dracula (afraid of garlic/stakes through the heart, no reflection), Nosferat (a beast that shows this both inside and out) or Twilight (sparkles!! and an attraction to completely whiney and uninteresting girls) sense. I, but... but... what... Nosferatu was a Masquerade clan. Dracula was a Gangrel. You're drawing a distinction between V:tM on the one side, and Dracula and Nosferatu on the other? But I... I don't... I can't... I just. What. What. What. Dracula was Tzimice It was revealed in the Transalvanian chronicles. So he was. That was an incredibly silly mistake on my part. In my defense, it's been years. And Requiem chased most of the Masquerade fluff out of my head. :D So yeah. "Vampires in space" is why I first came to the army, and then when I got here I realized there was so much more to them. It was a draw to me, and perhaps others. But there's nothing vampiric in thinking about the story of Sanguinius on Signus Prime, or defending the Emperor from Horus. Those are thrilling stories to me, not vampire stories at all — and yet purely and distinctly Blood Angel stories. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2645804 Share on other sites More sharing options...
shatter Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 +1 Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2646051 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Captain Kezef Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The appeal of VtM for me was the humanity angle. Trying to keep one's sense of self and humanity while coming to terms with the fact of being a blood-drinking monster with supernatural powers beyond logical explantaion. The Blood Angels have the same feel, it's the internal vampirism rather than fangs and blood drinking. Each BA tries to follow the noble ideal of his primarch while fighting back his own "beast" rhing him to violence and madness. This internal conflict sets BA apart from the other chapters in a way that is both unique and interesting. I got a little anoyed when a mate of mine accused me of running the two "chessiest" armies in 40k (BA and Space Wolves). It's annoying that, arguably, the two most unique and flavourful chapters seem to have become the poster boys for "cheese". I dread to think what I'll be called when I rebuild my Grey Knight force in April Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2646411 Share on other sites More sharing options...
balthaazar Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 the vampirism aside i'm pretty sure that in the codex it also mentions that they are one of the most refined and "humanist" of the chapters. that is they care more for the common man. Ultra marines are also very "down" with the normal imperial citezen. Also those quotes you are using say. it is something that they fight every day. NOT they give in every day. So yes I agree they have the thirst but they fight it as Sanguinius didnt have that thirst. So they agree that it is something that has happened since the Primarchs death. Sanguinius is described as one of the most noble of the Emperors sons. Even Horus thought that their very close love for each other would be enough to sway Sanguinius to the side of Horus Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2826435 Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I got a little anoyed when a mate of mine accused me of running the two "chessiest" armies in 40k (BA and Space Wolves). It's annoying that, arguably, the two most unique and flavourful chapters seem to have become the poster boys for "cheese". I dread to think what I'll be called when I rebuild my Grey Knight force in April For some people "Cheese" is everything that kicks their butt. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/221272-blood-angels-and-fangs/page/4/#findComment-2826758 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.