Are We Chaos?

[ElectricPaladin]

Well, that got your attention!

 

As the date of our new codex (finally!) comes close, I find myself wondering what it's going to be like. Specifically, I wonder if we, as a community, are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Allow me to explain what I mean: Chaos players have a somewhat deserved reputation for complaining about their codices. As far as I can tell, it boils down to two problems: either the codex isn't very good - which happens to every army once in a while, because GW is very bad at consistently writing good rules - or the codex doesn't include what the community of Chaos players want it to, usually specifically rules for the Chaos Legions. The second complaint ultimately comes down to a breakdown in communication between GW and its players. Either GW hasn't effectively communicated how the renegade marines are cooler, or they haven't communicated why a Chaos Legion army isn't really playable in 40k, or the players haven't communicated how intense their desire is to be able to field an effective Chaos Legion force (or someone on one or both ends isn't listening, which is probably also part of the equation). So, until one side breaks - until the players embrace playing renegades or GW releases a codex that includes an effective Chaos Legion army list - the complaining will go on.

 

So, I look at how the game has been going these last couple of editions, and how the Blood Angels codex has reacted, and I wonder... are we Chaos? Are our hopes and expectations of our new codex in line with GW's vision of the Blood Angels?

 

When I first started Blood Angels in 5th, they were sold to me (quite literally) as the power armor assault army. Some of their design seemed to fit this: +1S and +1I on the charge were easy to come by, land raiders were available as a dedicated transport option for all sorts of different units, and could Deep Strike, we had a powerful assault transport skimmer, and we could hold our entire army in reserve, deploying it directly up our opponents' nose when they reliably arrived from Reserves on Turn 1, thanks to the Descent of Angels special rule.

 

6th and 7th have seen the weakening of many of those traits. Reserves changed, Furious Charge changed, transports changed.

 

The reason I ask is this: since we know that GW isn't all that good at consistently writing rules that reflect what they want to see on the table, how possible is it that we all have a warped idea of what the Blood Angels are? Maybe they weren't really intended to be the power armor assault army. Maybe they were always intended to be something else.

 

What are your answers to this question? Do we have any Blood Angels vets, from the time of our first codices, who can chime in and provide their perspective?

[The Yncarne]

If GW knew what they wanted the Blood Angels codex to be, players would likely see:

• more consistent rules in regards to the Black Rage or Red Thirst
• more consistent rules in regards to how Death Company are supposed to work or what role they play that differs from assault squads and vanguard vets
• provide a game mechanic that enables the army to achieve its 'theme' on the tabletop

I believe that Blood Angels don't have a champion on the design team so the rules and philosophy tend to change every codex. I was surprised when the new units in the existing codex arrived, but it was more of the start of a trend rather than something to really set them apart from other Codex chapters.

 

I'm probably underestimating GW's ability (or care) to write decent rules. I think Blood Angels are going to be sub par until the main rules have shooting be just as (not more than) important  as the other game phases.

 

As for chaos players, I'd be happy if the codex's namesake was worth taking. I want to run evil space marines, but it seems like GW wants me to play with cultists and a handful of daemonic engines. That may be Codex: Minions of Chaos, but it isn't Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

[sockwithaticket]

I'm not a vet, but I would ask: If they don't see us as the Assault marines (as it were), then what do they see us as?

It is concerning that they perhaps don't see us as being close combat specialists because I don't trust them to come up with a decent alternative niche/role.

[Xenith]

Chaos players have a somewhat deserved reputation for complaining about their codices. As far as I can tell, it boils down to two problems: either the codex isn't very good - which happens to every army once in a while, because GW is very bad at consistently writing good rules - or the codex doesn't include what the community of Chaos players want it to, usually specifically rules for the Chaos Legions.

 

Why the 'either' in there? Both of those statements are simultaneously true, and have been since 2007. 

 

Try the Chaos subforum again. It's got a lot better after the initial...year...of pain. This codex really isnt as bad as the gavdex.

 

Anyway, onto BA. This thread seems a little...redundant with the 'your hopes for 2014' thread going on, but I'll comment.

 

Both BA and SW are power armoured assault armies. BA could move faster, but SW were tougher and fought better (minus the death company).

 

Someone, I think it may have been Kirby on 3++ said the wise words that you should play BA as if they were Eldar. They are fast marines, able to apply pressure to wherever it is needed the most in the opposing battleline. They are still Space Marines, and as such 8/10 squads in a battle company are geared towards ranged warfare. Use your speed to apply rapid firing bolters to where they are needed the most.

 

I think the BA dex needs very little in the way of rules changes. In addition to what I have posted elsewhere, making land raiders fast/allowing a 12" flat out would cement the theme of the army.

 

My armies follow the general demi-battle company principle. Usually 2 tac squads; 1 assault; 1 dev; Death co.; various support.

[Charlo]

I think it will all be okay in the end. Our current codex did have a lot of identity and individuality but the changes in 7th took away a lot of that and also neutered some of our best units:

AP3 sang guard, loss of our own very cool phychic powers, wasted high Iniative on some of our premier combat characters, AP4 Lemartes, loss of our own flyers, not to mention our antiquated points values which are very evident when you put our forces along side a Vanilla force even.

Blood Angels are a codex chapter yes, but so are the Raven Guard and Iron Hands by most accounts, but look at their 2 lines of rules that change and individualise everything in the army. We get a whole book instead of these two lines, so I imagine in the next month or so when the codex hits we will have something special.

In terms of comparing us to Chaos, I think GW is in an OK place with Chaos at the moment, but yes non Legion Rules combined with a whole dedicated download for "The Crimson Slaughter" (Who? Why should we care?) is just poor marketing like you said. I would definitely be up for Legion Supplements though (give Iron Warriors Please).

It could be worse though, we could be Dark Angels

[ElectricPaladin]

 

Chaos players have a somewhat deserved reputation for complaining about their codices. As far as I can tell, it boils down to two problems: either the codex isn't very good - which happens to every army once in a while, because GW is very bad at consistently writing good rules - or the codex doesn't include what the community of Chaos players want it to, usually specifically rules for the Chaos Legions.

 

Why the 'either' in there? Both of those statements are simultaneously true, and have been since 2007. 

 

I was trying to refer to the fact that the Chaos codex seems to have had one, the other or both of these problems off and on throughout the years, not that it was always one or the other.

 

This is turning into quite a spirited discussion! Just as planned...

 

To answer sockwithaticket's question, I think there are a lot of things the Blood Angels could be other than assault Space Marines:

• It could be that they are simply intended to be the fast Space Marines, decent at assault - because that's one of the things you want to do if you get up close and personal with your opponent - but not necessarily intended to win that way.
• Along with speed comes the idea that the Blood Angels are meant to be the close firefight Space Marines. Perhaps we aren't supposed to get into melee - maybe we were always intended to engage the enemy in close quarters shooting battles, with close combat expertise as, again, something we have a little bit of so that our main tactic of being very close to the enemy doesn't turn into suicide. This works well with the plethora of flamers and twin-linked assault cannons in our army list.
• Looking at the rules, we could also be the tough Space Marines. Army-wide 5+ FNP (or army wide if you try hard enough) on T 4, 3+ models is pretty hard to move without the right tools.

 

That said, I definitely acknowledge that our current rules are plagued by a certain... scattering. It isn't at all clear how our 5th Edition codex really intended the Blood Angels to be played, though as I've referred, it's clear that we've gamely made the best of it and passed through several tactics over the years.

[Shaezus]

Wouldn't call myself a vet - I took a 20 year hiatus after my closest friend and best gaming buddy passed away to leukaemia when we were teenagers - but I was BA all the way through 2nd and part way through 3rd ed and I don't think we were any different to other chapters back then. Missed the pdf, which is where things changed I think?

 

The key word is assault. Outside of the turn sequence it has a different meaning to melee and close combat although it may include them. So yes we have arguably the most destructive cc unit in the game, point-for-point, with the death company but we are not a hand-to-hand army.

 

Our companies are indeed set around ranged combat, but we lack heavy and specialised firepower compared to C:SM and other factions; we are not a shooty army.

 

Quixus has already explained this well, but what makes us an assault army is our mobility i.e. Fast vehicles, and our dreadnoughts i.e...and you know it's true...frag cannons, magna-melta, and snippy claws. Land raiders still fit fine without fast upgrade because they act as moving fire support and protect their cargo at the same time. A fast redeemer though..come on GW, give the dog a bone! Sadly though we may be the most mobile chapter, we come nowhere near close to out-Eldaring the Eldar. Nor out-shooting them nor out-psyking them for that matter, but hey.

 

We need a new unit which catches up with the rules changes since 5th ed, to make us back into a force that can almost match the eldar for mobility, but also as hard-hitting as a goddammed Astartes response force actually is. So yup, give us another AV 12 fast skimmer transport please.

 

BTW apologies, I know I ramble sometimes but it's only cos of the awesomeness of the posts on here and how they revive the old passion for 40k and BA. And if you're a true BA nerd, you'll lap up all ramblings as though they are scriptured nectar :p

[knife&fork]

  They are fast marines, able to apply pressure to wherever it is needed the most in the opposing battleline.  

 

Yup.

Taking the enemy apart piece by piece using mobility is really the core element of our current codex. 

 

I had sooo much fun playing BA in 5th since there was so many valid ways you could play (different types of lists) and still be competitive. DoA, sure thing. Razor spam, go ahead. Assault cannons everywhere, why not? Massed FnP foot infantry, also doable.

6th killed DoA and footslog, but then we gained a huge boost to pods. 7th gave vehicles a boost and suddenly razors and landraiders were worth using again.

 

Matt Ward might catch a lot of flak (much of it undeserved) but in the end we got a really enjoyable codex. Try strolling into the subforums of other chapters and lists will be pretty predictable. in here everyone seem to find their own way of using the 'dex. In fact I often get surprised at the multitude of fun lists people make and manage to win with. :)

 

However, our first codex wasn't like that, neither was the second or the PDF. They've all had slightly different interpretations of the aggressive BA fluff. It's almost easier to say what we are not! We aren't siege army or a static gunline.

That I don't expect to change.

[sockwithaticket]

If we are to be the quick, close fire-fight marines (which we kind of are already), then I think our troop units need a pretty major overhaul. Our support units like Baals and Furiosos help us play that style well, but our tactical squads could do with having the option for 2 assault/special weapons like Grey Hunters do rather than 1 heavy + 1 special, assault marines would need to have access to bolters and/or relentless.

If the expected price drops appear and we can bring more bodies then widespread FNP will become more potent and we could be pretty, tough to shift. However, if we have to be closer to the enemy to be effective then that extra survivability becomes incredibly necessary to balance us out.

All of these would work for BA, but I'd say they are all part of being close range specialists rather than being individual specialisms.

[CornishMike]

 

 

In terms of comparing us to Chaos, I think GW is in an OK place with Chaos at the moment, but yes non Legion Rules combined with a whole dedicated download for "The Crimson Slaughter" (Who? Why should we care?) is just poor marketing like you said. I would definitely be up for Legion Supplements though (give Iron Warriors Please).

 

Did somebody ask for Iron Warriors?

 

Ask and ye shall receive...

 

http://www.natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-secret-messages-are-done-but.html

[Xenith]

 

 

 

In terms of comparing us to Chaos, I think GW is in an OK place with Chaos at the moment, but yes non Legion Rules combined with a whole dedicated download for "The Crimson Slaughter" (Who? Why should we care?) is just poor marketing like you said. I would definitely be up for Legion Supplements though (give Iron Warriors Please).

 

Did somebody ask for Iron Warriors?

 

Ask and ye shall receive...

 

http://www.natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-secret-messages-are-done-but.html

 

 

The post you link to has nothing to do with Iron Warriors.

[bushman101]

I always viewed BA as a melee/close firefight army.

 

We've always had DC, so assault has always been part of the formula. Even when Black Rage changed and you gave the DC bolters, it was tough to deny their melee prowress.

Also Assault Squads, which has been a Troop choice since the pdf-dex.

 

5th ed gave us access to Melta and Flamer pistols, which kind of added to our shooting ability. And in my opinion, it's really hard to make a BA list without bolters, even if it's just to thin the numbers to help our assault elements (especially angainst things with superior intiative or numbers)

[Zeller]

Shaezus hit it right on the nail. We are not an assault army in the sense of melee focus. We are a codex chapter which excels at mobility. Whether it be tank, drop pod, aircraft, or jump pack, the Blood Angel shave a way, and a need, to get their men into the fight quicker than the rest. Once there, the BA execute war with all the ferocity of their genetic legacy no matter the range. 

 

The assault marines as troops idea was, in my opinion, a clumsy attempt at translating an affinity for jump packs into the army. It's completely unnecessary since one of the key defining features of the BA is their first company which had already been set apart in previous C:BA iterations. They have vanguard vets and exactly zero sternguard veterans. Of course, the Ward codex changed this but before his book this was true. Our elite units fight as assault marines when not in TDA. For whatever reason, sales most likely, GW gave vanguard veterans to everyone despite the past space marine books only having veteran tactical squads (stern guard). Additionally, BA honor guards are they only space marine command units that can use jump packs. So far GW has maintained this, which is good.

 

Our uniqueness has been eroded somewhat with GW's take on space marine veterans. The assault marines as troops once again differentiated the BA in addition to their existing unique units: the furioso dreadnought and baal predator. I think GW has an overall idea of what BA are in relation to the other books. The problem is the way they have gone about maintaining the differences between the space marine books. In some ways they are are making certain codexes obsolete with their all inclusive "blue book." Dark Angels, for example, always seems to come out before C:SM. Once C:SM comes out though the Dark Angels find their book is now over costed and overall less effective then the "blue book" counter-part. That is, at least, my perception of many DA players that I've talked to, read about, or whatever.

[SamaNagol]

Two things killed BA as a powerhouse assault army from 5th. Assault combat using AP values for armour saves and Furious Charge losing the I bonus.

 

Obviously there are other viable ways of playing BA now. But you are definitely squeezing more out of them than say Vanilla or Space Wolf players have to from their dex.

[Quixus]

Two things killed BA as a powerhouse assault army from 5th. Assault combat using AP values for armour saves and Furious Charge losing the I bonus.

 

Obviously there are other viable ways of playing BA now. But you are definitely squeezing more out of them than say Vanilla or Space Wolf players have to from their dex.

While this is not totally in accordance with the fluff (BA are a codex chapter after all), if you take away the greater penchant and ability for assault, BA pretty much become red Smurfs. Even if a strategy/army composition is fluffy you will not often see it, if it simply does not work well.

[SnorriSnorrison]

You know the thing about chaos?

 

It's fair.

[knife&fork]

Two things killed BA as a powerhouse assault army from 5th. Assault combat using AP values for armour saves and Furious Charge losing the I bonus.

 

 

and the nerf to multiple combats...

and random charge...

and no charge without los...

and the new disembark rules...

and the new deployment rules...

and overwatch...

and general speed improvement for anything not jump infantry...

 

and.... I'm sure I'm forgetting something :)

 

It was "death by a thousand cuts" as someone here phrased it.

[Quixus]

You know the thing about chaos?

 

It's fair.

Explain, please.

[Demoulius]

Interesting thread :)

I dont think were chaos, but akin to them.... Our codex isent terrible in some ways, and decent in others.

Simularities.... Many units are overpriced and some units have horrid pricing now compared to what they did in 5th (like our 1 wound SP's <_<) While some are still good (fast vehicles for example) others are often a horrible choice to take.... (most of our special characters for example) Loss of initiative wasent the only blow we got... Il defunct for knife&fork's pretty extensive list....

But how we did fare better then chaos is that our dex could be played in numerous ways. So while the nerfs hurt, we can still work around it (somewhat) and still keep trucking on. Emphasis is just alot less on outright combat and more a focus on combining shooting to weaken units first before ending their lives in combat. We generally dont want to stay to long in combat (or rather I dont...) but our mobility helps us pick our fights very well :)

So were more a chirgeons scalpel now compared to a huge mallet that we were earlier. And that incidentily, fits rather well with our fluff..... Go figure

[TheHarrower]

Two things killed BA as a powerhouse assault army from 5th. Assault combat using AP values for armour saves and Furious Charge losing the I bonus.

and the nerf to multiple combats...

and random charge...

and no charge without los...

and the new disembark rules...

and the new deployment rules...

and overwatch...

and general speed improvement for anything not jump infantry...

and.... I'm sure I'm forgetting something

It was "death by a thousand cuts" as someone here phrased it.

Seriously. We got hit with the nerf bat so many times it's not even funny. I'd add the changes to Scout and how Baal Preds couldn't drop smoke afterward and I still think I prefer the old FNP (maybe it's the prevalence of massed fire I have to deal with now and how much I pay for a model).

Anyway, I never took Blood Angels as an assault army. Sure, we have one of the premier assault units with Death Company, but mobility is our greatest strength. For me it was always being able to dictate where the battle was fought that I liked most about Blood Angels and all of the different builds we had available.

How GW sees us now I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet it won't be the same as 5th edition since so much of what we were changed. It seems a lot of other marines have rules I thought would be perfect for us (Raven Guard Chapter Tactics, Murder Fang Dreadnought, etc) and some Forge World chapter tactics would fit too (Red Scorpions: Purity Above All, Carcharodons: Blood Hunger, etc). I really don't know what's left for us or how we'll play in this edition.

[Morticon]

On a related note, are there any fluff-bunnies in the house?

 

Would anyone like to trawl the last few codices and check out how the BA are described in terms of their fighting style ?  ?

 

Anyone?

[ElectricPaladin]

Let me see what I can glean from the one codex I've got - the 5th Edition one:

 

Page 3: "The Blood Angels are the masters of war in all its forms, but the excel in the savage arena of close combat above all others..."

 

Page 4: "Assault squads, death company, sanguinary guard - these are the spearhead of your host, but the rest of your army must follow close behind. Stormraven gunships roar overhead, bringing fresh troops to the maelstrom. Tactical squads make their implacable advance, heavy weapons fire scouring the bastions of the foe, and tanks spur forwards to spit death at the enemy from point blank range."

 

Page 26: "As the Blood Angels tactical doctrine is one of continuos advance..."

 

From the fluff in the book, it looks to me - and has always looked to me, to be honest - that GW intended for the Blood Angels to take a combined arms approach. Just because we could do an all-jump, all-assault force doesn't mean that it was designed for us to play that way. However, I the fluff in the 5th edition book seems to suggest that Blood Angels were not intended to be "merely" fast. They were supposed to be good at close combat when they got there, with charging into melee a viable tactical choice.

[marine7312000]

3rd edition codex pg 7: As a Chapter, the Blood Angels excel at close quarters fighting. Even amongst these supreme fighters, there are those whose martial skills put them above their battle-brothers.

Pg 8: The Blood Angels always thirst for battle, and are always eager to enter the fray as quickly as possible.

 

I would say that Blood Angels in 3rd were designed to be a rapidly deploying strike force.

[Morticon]

So far, two references to BA excelling at close combat, and excelling beyond that of other marines.  Getting a small buff on the charge hardly represents that i'm afraid. 

PE in combat? Maybe? 

[marine7312000]

I also checked Angels of Death but didn't see anything describing their tactics.