knife&fork Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 They weren't "troops" in second edition, either. It is a 4th edition and 5th edition codex thing only. Just to clarify for those that wasn't involved at that time: RT : No real limits on what to take. BA somewhat fleshed out in the fluff, mostly the space hulk stuff and first war for Armageddon. 2nd ed: First proper BA codex, 'Squads' similar to 'core' in fantasy had assault marines available for all marines, but BA had an expanded focus on jumpers both in fluff and rules. For instance we had the very capable jump DC for the first time as well as the unique jump pack honor guards for characters and the veteran assault marines. In normal codex chapters the first company fought as terminators or tactical squads only. 3rd ed: Minidex, introduction of the modern force org. Assault Marines as FA. 4th ed: Assault Marines as troops. 5th ed: Assault Marines as troops. So looking at the history of our chapter it's not strange that people expect assault squads to have a central position. The 3rd ed codex was the odd man out. Yes you can go unbound and skip tacs and scouts, but in doing so you are punished by the rules and unbound lists are rarely welcome in PUGs or tournaments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminus Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Who cares what SM have, when we have DC, SG, librarians in furioso armour, fast vehicles, ASM with melta, FNP, +1 I and S on charge...DANTE, and...oh sorry am I boring you? Seriously people if you don't want to play with those then why bang on about it? Just pop along to the land of teletubbies where you will find just what you want. You forgot the Fragioso. As someone who dabbles in the Iron Hands, I would really really like one of those. And seriously, the formations are awesome. I know I keep talking about the Sanguine Wing, but for 32 points you get a jump-pack marine with stormshield and a lightning claw, 2 base attacks, with Furious Charge and Heroic Intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangilos Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 They weren't "troops" in second edition, either. It is a 4th edition and 5th edition codex thing only. Just to clarify for those that wasn't involved at that time: RT : No real limits on what to take. BA somewhat fleshed out in the fluff, mostly the space hulk stuff and first war for Armageddon. 2nd ed: First proper BA codex, 'Squads' similar to 'core' in fantasy had assault marines available for all marines, but BA had an expanded focus on jumpers both in fluff and rules. For instance we had the very capable jump DC for the first time as well as the unique jump pack honor guards for characters and the veteran assault marines. In normal codex chapters the first company fought as terminators or tactical squads only. 3rd ed: Minidex, introduction of the modern force org. Assault Marines as FA. 4th ed: Assault Marines as troops. 5th ed: Assault Marines as troops. So looking at the history of our chapter it's not strange that people expect assault squads to have a central position. The 3rd ed codex was the odd man out. Yes you can go unbound and skip tacs and scouts, but in doing so you are punished by the rules and unbound lists are rarely welcome in PUGs or tournaments. 3rd edition also had "veteran assault marines" in which you could take those as veterans, and flying honorguard. Just like you can now. Four of our Elite slots feature "Jump" units. Only one Elite slot in the C:SM features a jump unit. So, if you wanted to, you could take seven jump units using the standard Baal Strike Force, and five of those can be unique units. Units in our codex that can fly: HQ: Everyone but Tycho and Mephiston Elites: Command Squad Death Company Sanguinary Guard Vanguard Veteran Fast Attack: Assault Squads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 People are well aware of which units can take jump packs, but thanks for further proving my point I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangilos Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 People are well aware of which units can take jump packs, but thanks for further proving my point I guess? Proving your point that assault units are still the core of our army? No problem, glad we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 People are well aware of which units can take jump packs, but thanks for further proving my point I guess? Proving your point that assault units are still the core of our army? No problem, glad we agree. That was never the issue, now was it? The notion that assault squads in troops was some kind of weird, one off thing in our last codex, as well as the mandatory scouts and tacs were. I honestly I have no idea what you are trying to argue against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangilos Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 People are well aware of which units can take jump packs, but thanks for further proving my point I guess? Proving your point that assault units are still the core of our army? No problem, glad we agree. That was never the issue, now was it? The notion that assault squads in troops was some kind of weird, one off thing in our last codex, as well as the mandatory scouts and tacs were. I honestly I have no idea what you are trying to argue against. The argument is that they were only troops in one codex (two counting the PDF). They weren't "troops" in second edition. Even if we go by your account of second edition, they still weren't troops, as "troops" wasn't a thing yet. However, all of that is pointless because the flavor of our army has not changed. -edit- even in your example , you state that all sm could have the assault squads as core, and you said that we had edition all focus, listing the death company as an example. That's basically the same as in all editions, where all SM can get assault squads, and the BA get a greater focus on them, which has not changed. The point being in every codex but the PDF and Fifth, we were space marines plus new some unique toys. We weren't organized differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blindhamster Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 It doesn't really prove anything k&f. Blood angels have always featured jump infantry more, but for more time than not not as troops. 2nd ed doesn't count because force org charts as we know them didn't exist. .. Just 'squads' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sockwithaticket Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The point being in every codex but the PDF and Fifth, we were space marines plus new some unique toys. We weren't organized differently. It seems sightly disingenuous to argue that they were only troops in two codices (yes the PDF counts) and that those two codices are some sort of abberation to be ignored. Those codices spanned June 2007 to December 2014, thus incorporating no less than 4 editions of the game. That seems like quite a significant amount of time to me and for anyone who started playing BA during that period they could very well argue that it was entirely within the flavour of the chapter to have assault marines as troops. It also seems slightly redundant to point to anything prior to 3rd (or anything at all within the 40k canon, to be fair) as the definitive characterisation and established 'flavour' of an army because everything is subject to constant revision and change. Some things stay the same or change minimally while others change drastically and how much you accept that and how much it conflicts with existing notions depends entirely on when you jumped into the hobby. I've used this analogy before, but it may bear repeating: your sense of an army and it's character/flavour is very much the same as your sense of a band's 'true' sound. eg, Person 1 listens listens to band x's debut and to them that's the definitive sound, everything thereafter sounds good but isn't quite the same. Person 2 discovers the band on album 3 and to them that's the definitive sound; the stuff that came before is ok, but it's just what got them to this point and the stuff after is fine, but just isn't quite the same. So if you came to BA with Angels of Death you'll have a different idea of what BA are about than if you came to them with the 4th or 5th codices. Coming earlier or later doesn't really matter as no one can possess or pass judgement on the true vision of BA character/flavour because it's not an objective thing; it's a nebulous concept subject to GW changes at any time experienced by individuals at different points in its evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangilos Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I never said that the PDF were to be abhorred, lol. I'm merely pointing out that those were the exceptions to the organization of the chapter. In all other editions (btw, third edition codex went into fourth edition, so the "not as troops" applies for four editions as well) the chapter has followed the codex astartes with a few minor exceptions, making them space marines + toys. I'm not saying forth and fifth were wrong, but supporting that this dex sits better with older players than newer ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I never said that the PDF were to be abhorred, lol. I'm merely pointing out that those were the exceptions to the organization of the chapter. In all other editions (btw, third edition codex went into fourth edition, so the "not as troops" applies for four editions as well) the chapter has followed the codex astartes with a few minor exceptions, making them space marines + toys. I'm not saying forth and fifth were wrong, but supporting that this dex sits better with older players than newer ones. Don't forget the 3.5 edition update. Anyway, this is all well and boring, and has been done to death in the BA news and rumours thread last december. BA have an emphasis on assault troops. They still do: Our assault troops are more plentiful and better equipped than any other chapters. The codex adherent blood angels have been brought into line with the space marine codex. Probably as people brought nothing but unfluffy armies containing no tactical marines for two versions of the codex and 2 1/2 editions of the game. Can we drop this now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaezus Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 To oil those wheels, I just found out at least one tormented soul is taking NINE wave serpents this weekend. Now with two epistolaries, if I get wings and blood lance I can see the potential for some turn one smackery, BA style: Meltacide ASM hit one, grav sternguard hit another, Sicaran another, and at best if I pull off wings and blood lane, Libby hits another three. Would be fun, right? Oh yeah and the damocles could have fun there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangilos Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I never said that the PDF were to be abhorred, lol. I'm merely pointing out that those were the exceptions to the organization of the chapter. In all other editions (btw, third edition codex went into fourth edition, so the "not as troops" applies for four editions as well) the chapter has followed the codex astartes with a few minor exceptions, making them space marines + toys. I'm not saying forth and fifth were wrong, but supporting that this dex sits better with older players than newer ones. Don't forget the 3.5 edition update. Anyway, this is all well and boring, and has been done to death in the BA news and rumours thread last december. BA have an emphasis on assault troops. They still do: Our assault troops are more plentiful and better equipped than any other chapters. The codex adherent blood angels have been brought into line with the space marine codex. Probably as people brought nothing but unfluffy armies containing no tactical marines for two versions of the codex and 2 1/2 editions of the game. Can we drop this now? Well, I agree with everything including the dropping it, but what exactly was the 3.5 edition update? I can't think of it right now :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaezus Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 On that note, can jink saves be taken against blood lance? Cant access my BRB :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrunTeufel Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 On that note, can jink saves be taken against blood lance? Cant access my BRB It says nothing about ignoring cover so yes jink saves still work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaezus Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 That's cool, cuz it means a totally non-anti-armour unit can force at least one WS into jinking. All going well that would mean at least 5 of 9 WS would be snap-shooting in his turn. Not sure if passengers' fire is affected when they disembark but I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartali Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I wrote this three months ago: Having had time to digest the Codex there aren't too many nerfs at all really. Most of the them are simply changes that bring us into line with the other Chapter's Codicies and our Wardisms have been reigned in and/or realigned. Coupled with (in most cases) a price drop, I'm quite happy with the new book. and I still stand by it. Whilst I've not had the pleasure of testing everything in my collection out yet, I am encouraged by my increase in performance and competitiveness. I adore the points decrease, I really enjoy having my Tactical Squads (of which I have lots) become useful again and I'm excited by the challenge presented on how to get my previous lists working in the next book. Many people have said that we have become a mono-build and how our previous Codex offered more flexibility and competitiveness. With respect, I feel this is short sighted. Outside of Morticon's exploits, we have been too overpriced to be competitive for a while now. DC and SG builds were nothing but fun/fluffy builds and outside of using Allies, we really couldn't compete. Today, we see a wealth of options still to be explored, DC and SG have been tweaked to become on the whole more useful and out changes have breathed life into what essentially stagnation of the game for us. We can hold out own amongst many of the 7th edition Codices and have a better chance of mauling the 6th edition power creep codices. Got to be a win there. Many people have sighted a perceived lack of flavour. Just by losing our Wardisms, we have not lost our flavour. Far from it, we have become what we historically are, a close range force with a tendency to wreck havoc in combat. That is our role and one we excel at. Not only that, but have you heard anyone wish we were had Ravenguard Chapter Tactics in the past month? No, me neither and long may it continue! We are unique and have become better. What more can you want? The 7th ed codex is a mono-build for me. I loved the 5th ed codex for the amount of choice it gave me. At various points I ran ASM/Devs, Razor Spam, AV13 Wall, Drop Dreads, ASM/Bikes and they where all as competive as each other. In the new codex, I can't get past a mono-build of DC/Bikes for my meta. Maybe that's because of the way 7th is, but I think the codex is at fault too. Ward's Dex put thought into the mechanics of different builds and put stuff in to make them work. You don't get that with the 7th ed codex, and are reliant on formations/detachments. That's not a bad thing of course, but we're being drip fed them. AV13 Wall for example may become a great choice again with the right detachment/formation, but we don't have that at the moment. In short, it feels like half a codex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 The need to get the most competitive build out of a codex arises from being surrounded by players only interested in competitive gaming. Now, I love competitive gaming and I myself build strong lists.... that being said, I certainly have no interest in doing that all the time. Let me pose a question to everyone: Do you believe, even for a second, that running a strong list is indicative of your ability as a player? I mean, anyone with half a brain can review the rules of 40k and pick out things that other units would struggle to interact or deal with. Anyone can put a Wraithknight and a Wave Serpent on top of a sky-shield and then cast invisibility. Anyone can run 5 Flying Hive Tyrants with their twin linked guns and haywire templates. Anyone can teleport invisible Centurions around and use Draigo as their shield. It would be hard to deal with, it would be horrible, and in no way does that make the players who put these combination together skilful. A lot of complaints I see revolve around being able to beat top lists, I've even seen mentions of 9 wave serpents. Who is playing this list and WHY are they playing it? Outside of a tournament where winning is actually at stake I would simply refuse to play something like that - not because I think it can't be beat, but because it's not fun to play and it's not fun to play against. Let's enjoy the game and put our lists into context. Having the best car at a race does not make you the best driver. In time a lot of the broken combinations people abuse will disappear as every codex is brought into line. Now, you may argue and say that you're only interested in building the best possible list, and I would simply respond by telling you that you have shown me nothing to make me believe you are a good player or tactician. Going back to the codex, I've reviewed it some more and compared it to the old one - it's definitely better. Some units have indeed been nerfed, and other things can't be spammed - but spamming is not as necessary as the codex has overall more competitive options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I never said that the PDF were to be abhorred, lol. I'm merely pointing out that those were the exceptions to the organization of the chapter. In all other editions (btw, third edition codex went into fourth edition, so the "not as troops" applies for four editions as well) the chapter has followed the codex astartes with a few minor exceptions, making them space marines + toys. I'm not saying forth and fifth were wrong, but supporting that this dex sits better with older players than newer ones. Don't forget the 3.5 edition update. Anyway, this is all well and boring, and has been done to death in the BA news and rumours thread last december. BA have an emphasis on assault troops. They still do: Our assault troops are more plentiful and better equipped than any other chapters. The codex adherent blood angels have been brought into line with the space marine codex. Probably as people brought nothing but unfluffy armies containing no tactical marines for two versions of the codex and 2 1/2 editions of the game. Can we drop this now? Well, I agree with everything including the dropping it, but what exactly was the 3.5 edition update? I can't think of it right now :/ They gave the assault phase a complete overhaul in Chapter approved. This is the first time the rule where you could only charge what you shoot appeared. There was also some funky stuff with pistols, then the 4th ed combat phase was a mix of the 3 and 3.5 rulesets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The need to get the most competitive build out of a codex arises from being surrounded by players only interested in competitive gaming. I get what you are saying, but gaming is competitive by nature. The power gap between a good list/good unit and bad list/bad unit is also much greater than you give it credit for. People obsess about the list building in 40k largely because it's such a huge part in deciding who wins or lose. With two people of equal skill list building/list matching and luck will largely be the deciding factors. Admittedly this is also a large part of what gives the game it's lasting appeal for many of us, because there is no one prefect list and the dice can always mix things up. Getting the most out of a codex isn't just about placing well in tournaments, it can also be something simple as not losing every PUG at your local store or club against pretty casual lists. When we have a codex like ours, one that isn't completely over the top or have less than a handful of obvious builds/units, then it usually doesn't take much to make or break a list. Going back to the codex, I've reviewed it some more and compared it to the old one - it's definitely better. Some units have indeed been nerfed, and other things can't be spammed - but spamming is not as necessary as the codex has overall more competitive options. This however I agree with completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangilos Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I never said that the PDF were to be abhorred, lol. I'm merely pointing out that those were the exceptions to the organization of the chapter. In all other editions (btw, third edition codex went into fourth edition, so the "not as troops" applies for four editions as well) the chapter has followed the codex astartes with a few minor exceptions, making them space marines + toys. I'm not saying forth and fifth were wrong, but supporting that this dex sits better with older players than newer ones. Don't forget the 3.5 edition update. Anyway, this is all well and boring, and has been done to death in the BA news and rumours thread last december. BA have an emphasis on assault troops. They still do: Our assault troops are more plentiful and better equipped than any other chapters. The codex adherent blood angels have been brought into line with the space marine codex. Probably as people brought nothing but unfluffy armies containing no tactical marines for two versions of the codex and 2 1/2 editions of the game. Can we drop this now? Well, I agree with everything including the dropping it, but what exactly was the 3.5 edition update? I can't think of it right now :/ They gave the assault phase a complete overhaul in Chapter approved. This is the first time the rule where you could only charge what you shoot appeared. There was also some funky stuff with pistols, then the 4th ed combat phase was a mix of the 3 and 3.5 rulesets. Oh... I didn't put chapter approved as a .5, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz431 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I think the OP asked if people were happy with the dex? I'm building first company and originally was going under the assumption that I would be unbound. I had one game against a fellow unbound Dredbuild. Tough match. Almost tied the game at the end, it was fun. Then I saw EXTERMINATUS. And the 16 elite squad build with ObSec. I am currently using the intervention force till I can finish building my other vets. First turn deep strike with terms is GREAT. Move then shoot, yes please. Bunker down to weather the following storm, can do. Wait for their assault or prep mine, got it. The following game was against tyranids. I included two libs with my three 10 teams, combat squaded to make objective attacking easier. I even brought a toned down whirlwind suppression force from Damnos, if my opponents realize that the new game system allows for all formations, I'd have an easier time against hordes. Barely lost that one. Yesterday I used similar tactics, but with 3/10 bolternators, 2 libs versus noise marine list at 1600 points. Combat squaded toward all the objectives, scatters were with me, barely. I won this game the cards were with me. The multiples were medium+. But the main thing was that in all three games, I had fun, and that my opponent had fun. So three games into new dex 1W/2L/0D, and having fun as the OP asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 To oil those wheels, I just found out at least one tormented soul is taking NINE wave serpents this weekend. Now with two epistolaries, if I get wings and blood lance I can see the potential for some turn one smackery, BA style: Meltacide ASM hit one, grav sternguard hit another, Sicaran another, and at best if I pull off wings and blood lane, Libby hits another three. Would be fun, right? Oh yeah and the damocles could have fun there too. If your Librarians drop down, hold out thier hand and shatter multiple wave serpents with sheer force of will it is pretty clear to me who has the best damned codex around if you ask me Imagine the look on thier little pointy faces? A Mon'keigh psyker outdoing them. Delicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 First turn deep strike with terms is GREAT. Move then shoot, yes please. Great to see you running the archangels, I'm building mine up too, the 1st turn DS with 50 terms is amazing. Although, the move then shoot is from the orbital assault formation, which is 3 term squads who do not get the 1st turn deepstrike. I wish the demi company got the first turn DS, then I may be able to actually use them in a game as the full company is well over 2000pts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartali Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 The need to get the most competitive build out of a codex arises from being surrounded by players only interested in competitive gaming. Not at all, my post was made in the context of mostly playing friends who I've known for thirty odd years. It's a nice friendly social enviroment, with beer and pizza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.