angels of death might be available to BA soon?

[Blindhamster]

I ordered the cards when I saw they were a legitimate option for BA. It's good that they at least thought about that consistency there... just wish they'd also thought about it for CSM (who should certainly have at least a couple of the schools) and possibly other factions.

[Zeller]

It would be cool if all space marine formations, including the unique BA ones, were in one book like this. I just can't fathom why GW chose that horrid cover. 

[sockwithaticket]

It is true - no units or options for us.

 

They responded on Facebook, the book appears in each chapters section due to the missions and psychic powers.

 

If we want to use any of the new units or formations it's suggested that we 'house rule it' which is not really good enough for anything outside of a random game with mates and I have some mates that wouldn't even allow that.

 

That is utterly pathetic. It would take them all of 30 seconds to write that they were planning an errata for BA and then all of an afternoon's work (being extremely generous regarding the time required) to actually write the errata our codex is due.

 

*Takes deep breath to suppress the Rage*

[Xenith]

 

That is utterly pathetic. It would take them all of 30 seconds to write that they were planning an errata for BA and then all of an afternoon's work (being extremely generous regarding the time required) to actually write the errata our codex is due.

 

*Takes deep breath to suppress the Rage*

 

 

Yes, and then when that afternoon's errata was released:

 

"what the hell are these half baked formations, they look like someone threw them together in an afternoon, I could have done better!"

 

It's taken GW since Jan 2015 to update C:Black Legion and C:Crimson Slaughter to the 7th ed decurion/formation game, and people are still unhappy with the results.

 

Why should they put half an afternoon's work into a free product, when that same time could be spent developing something that will sell?

[sockwithaticket]

 

 

That is utterly pathetic. It would take them all of 30 seconds to write that they were planning an errata for BA and then all of an afternoon's work (being extremely generous regarding the time required) to actually write the errata our codex is due.

 

*Takes deep breath to suppress the Rage*

 

 

Yes, and then when that afternoon's errata was released:

 

"what the hell are these half baked formations, they look like someone threw them together in an afternoon, I could have done better!"

 

It's taken GW since Jan 2015 to update C:Black Legion and C:Crimson Slaughter to the 7th ed decurion/formation game, and people are still unhappy with the results.

 

Why should they put half an afternoon's work into a free product, when that same time could be spent developing something that will sell?

 

 

Sorry, but how exactly would it take them very long to do the bare minimum of:

Predators, Whirlwinds etc. can now all be taken in squadrons of 1-3

Scouts now have the same BS and WS as their CSM equivalents

Dreads now have the same base attacks as their CSM equivalents

The formations in codex Angels of Death can also be used by faction BA (or whatever the hell the wording is supposed to be these days)

The BaC models and whatever rules they're getting can be used by faction BA.

 

I'm not suggesting they rewrite the codex, these are quick, easy things that have been mentioned on here by various members over the last little while.

 

Why do it? How about keeping your customers on side? When equivalent unit entries in a newer book have an improved profile to those in an older book it's nice to make people not feel like they've been shafted in the great game of power creep.BA are an original legion, why would they not have the same access to Contemptors and Cataphracti as other first founding chapters?

 

Ultimately, to me, it doesn't much matter as I don't game, but it is the sort of thing that casts a pall over how I feel towards the company and my collection. it kills motivation to paint stuff at the least, meaning I'll likely be grabbing more Malifaux  or Afterlife next time I make models purchase rather than GW and maybe even cause me to offload some of my marine stuff.

[Xenith]

For what it's worth, I agree completely, but I am somewhat of a cynic.

 

Both of GW (although they seem to be turning around) and the vocal protesting online playerbase.

[Frater Antodeniel]

 

 

 

That is utterly pathetic. It would take them all of 30 seconds to write that they were planning an errata for BA and then all of an afternoon's work (being extremely generous regarding the time required) to actually write the errata our codex is due.

 

*Takes deep breath to suppress the Rage*

 

 

Yes, and then when that afternoon's errata was released:

 

"what the hell are these half baked formations, they look like someone threw them together in an afternoon, I could have done better!"

 

It's taken GW since Jan 2015 to update C:Black Legion and C:Crimson Slaughter to the 7th ed decurion/formation game, and people are still unhappy with the results.

 

Why should they put half an afternoon's work into a free product, when that same time could be spent developing something that will sell?

 

Sorry, but how exactly would it take them very long to do the bare minimum of:

Predators, Whirlwinds etc. can now all be taken in squadrons of 1-3

Scouts now have the same BS and WS as their CSM equivalents

Dreads now have the same base attacks as their CSM equivalents

The formations in codex Angels of Death can also be used by faction BA (or whatever the hell the wording is supposed to be these days)

The BaC models and whatever rules they're getting can be used by faction BA.

 

I'm not suggesting they rewrite the codex, these are quick, easy things that have been mentioned on here by various members over the last little while.

 

Why do it? How about keeping your customers on side? When equivalent unit entries in a newer book have an improved profile to those in an older book it's nice to make people not feel like they've been shafted in the great game of power creep.BA are an original legion, why would they not have the same access to Contemptors and Cataphracti as other first founding chapters?

 

Ultimately, to me, it doesn't much matter as I don't game, but it is the sort of thing that casts a pall over how I feel towards the company and my collection. it kills motivation to paint stuff at the least, meaning I'll likely be grabbing more Malifaux  or Afterlife next time I make models purchase rather than GW and maybe even cause me to offload some of my marine stuff.

 

 

To be answers more precisely about your question regarding the Blood Angels Errata, GW staff already possess one like that since November 2015, when i provided them with the raw material that you describe, and that is showed bellow :

 

http://i.imgur.com/erna0cw.png

 

http://i.imgur.com/PtlAGm3.png

 

So GW possess the paper sheet since 2015, and i hardly think of a more strict Errata than this one.....

[sockwithaticket]

For what it's worth, I agree completely, but I am somewhat of a cynic.

 

Both of GW (although they seem to be turning around) and the vocal protesting online playerbase.

Yeah, I don't imagine anything is ever going to be 100% positively embraced by the online community. Perhaps it's the more positive actions of late that made me so exasperated at this response. Despair I can deal with (card carrying nihilist/ pessimist right here), it's the hope that's a killer.

 

 

 

*SNIP*

 

To be answers more precisely about your question regarding the Blood Angels Errata, GW staff already possess one like that since November 2015, when i provided them with the raw material that you describe, and that is showed bellow :

 

 

*SNIP*

 

 

So GW possess the paper sheet since 2015, and i hardly think of a more strict Errata than this one.....

 

 

Nice one, brother. Seems pretty comprehensive to me. Out of interest, how long did it take you to put it together? Let's see if my 'afternoon of work' assertion has any merit.

[SM1981]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is utterly pathetic. It would take them all of 30 seconds to write that they were planning an errata for BA and then all of an afternoon's work (being extremely generous regarding the time required) to actually write the errata our codex is due.

 

*Takes deep breath to suppress the Rage*

 

Yes, and then when that afternoon's errata was released:

 

"what the hell are these half baked formations, they look like someone threw them together in an afternoon, I could have done better!"

 

It's taken GW since Jan 2015 to update C:Black Legion and C:Crimson Slaughter to the 7th ed decurion/formation game, and people are still unhappy with the results.

 

Why should they put half an afternoon's work into a free product, when that same time could be spent developing something that will sell?

Sorry, but how exactly would it take them very long to do the bare minimum of:

Predators, Whirlwinds etc. can now all be taken in squadrons of 1-3

Scouts now have the same BS and WS as their CSM equivalents

Dreads now have the same base attacks as their CSM equivalents

The formations in codex Angels of Death can also be used by faction BA (or whatever the hell the wording is supposed to be these days)

The BaC models and whatever rules they're getting can be used by faction BA.

 

I'm not suggesting they rewrite the codex, these are quick, easy things that have been mentioned on here by various members over the last little while.

 

Why do it? How about keeping your customers on side? When equivalent unit entries in a newer book have an improved profile to those in an older book it's nice to make people not feel like they've been shafted in the great game of power creep.BA are an original legion, why would they not have the same access to Contemptors and Cataphracti as other first founding chapters?

 

Ultimately, to me, it doesn't much matter as I don't game, but it is the sort of thing that casts a pall over how I feel towards the company and my collection. it kills motivation to paint stuff at the least, meaning I'll likely be grabbing more Malifaux or Afterlife next time I make models purchase rather than GW and maybe even cause me to offload some of my marine stuff.

To be answers more precisely about your question regarding the Blood Angels Errata, GW staff already possess one like that since November 2015, when i provided them with the raw material that you describe, and that is showed bellow :

 

http://i.imgur.com/erna0cw.png

 

http://i.imgur.com/PtlAGm3.png

 

So GW possess the paper sheet since 2015, and i hardly think of a more strict Errata than this one.....

That's a great start. Great work. Throw in access to a Venerable Chaplin Dreadnought, access to the Codex Space Marine formations / detachments, Frag Canon Devastators, Heavy Flamer Devastators, and Grav Canon Devastors and I would be throwing money at them for that content in a codex.

[evildrcheese]

BA are an original legion, why would they not have the same access to Contemptors and Cataphracti as other first founding chapters?

 

.

This. Also DA and SW want a slice of that cake too. The topping on said cake? All the Johnnie-come-lately successor chapters somehow have these relics lying around, and 3 of the first founding chapters don't. Aggh it boils my blood.

 

EDC

[The4thHorseman]

I just asked Dariokan, who has the AoD Supplement in hand, how the use rules are worded.

 

 

How are the rule and formation uses worded with regards to use by other Codex's. Like does it say ANY Space Marine Army or does it mention specifically Codex: Space Marines.

 

I ask, only to see if theres a chance to argue that I can use them for any of the 3 other Codex Chapters.

 

Codex SM only. You can crawl back in your coffin, brother, I am sorry.

 

[DarkAngeal]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is utterly pathetic. It would take them all of 30 seconds to write that they were planning an errata for BA and then all of an afternoon's work (being extremely generous regarding the time required) to actually write the errata our codex is due.

 

*Takes deep breath to suppress the Rage*

 

Yes, and then when that afternoon's errata was released:

 

"what the hell are these half baked formations, they look like someone threw them together in an afternoon, I could have done better!"

 

It's taken GW since Jan 2015 to update C:Black Legion and C:Crimson Slaughter to the 7th ed decurion/formation game, and people are still unhappy with the results.

 

Why should they put half an afternoon's work into a free product, when that same time could be spent developing something that will sell?

Sorry, but how exactly would it take them very long to do the bare minimum of:

Predators, Whirlwinds etc. can now all be taken in squadrons of 1-3

Scouts now have the same BS and WS as their CSM equivalents

Dreads now have the same base attacks as their CSM equivalents

The formations in codex Angels of Death can also be used by faction BA (or whatever the hell the wording is supposed to be these days)

The BaC models and whatever rules they're getting can be used by faction BA.

 

I'm not suggesting they rewrite the codex, these are quick, easy things that have been mentioned on here by various members over the last little while.

 

Why do it? How about keeping your customers on side? When equivalent unit entries in a newer book have an improved profile to those in an older book it's nice to make people not feel like they've been shafted in the great game of power creep.BA are an original legion, why would they not have the same access to Contemptors and Cataphracti as other first founding chapters?

 

Ultimately, to me, it doesn't much matter as I don't game, but it is the sort of thing that casts a pall over how I feel towards the company and my collection. it kills motivation to paint stuff at the least, meaning I'll likely be grabbing more Malifaux or Afterlife next time I make models purchase rather than GW and maybe even cause me to offload some of my marine stuff.

To be answers more precisely about your question regarding the Blood Angels Errata, GW staff already possess one like that since November 2015, when i provided them with the raw material that you describe, and that is showed bellow :

 

http://i.imgur.com/erna0cw.png

 

http://i.imgur.com/PtlAGm3.png

 

So GW possess the paper sheet since 2015, and i hardly think of a more strict Errata than this one.....

That's a great start. Great work. Throw in access to a Venerable Chaplin Dreadnought, access to the Codex Space Marine formations / detachments, Frag Canon Devastators, Heavy Flamer Devastators, and Grav Canon Devastors and I would be throwing money at them for that content in a codex.

I am so shocked to see people griping like this on this forum [also you forgot to buff the librarian dreadnought, brother]. Each codex has its own identity, units and relics. What does a formation represent? It's a set of troops who fight together frequently enough to gain a specific set of rules that govern their familiarity and fighting prowess.

Well we don't get access to C:SM formations. Any guesses why? No, it's not because GW hates blood angels players. It's because we don't employ the same tactics with the same troops as them.

The angle of, "well at least we get the psychic powers" is really the right line of thinking, but even that is too little. These powers look awesome and fun to use!

 

All this complaining about not getting rules in someone else's codex supplement is ridiculous. This is literally the same as getting up in arms about not getting access to formations released in a Tau supplement! So calm your thirst brothers.

[Charlo]

DarkAngeal my brother, the frustration comes from us having a really awesome and well balanced codex update to bring us up to the bar in terms of where space marines were before then less than 6 months later having the bar moved very far forward again.

 

We got our own formations in Exterminatus but they were the test bed for 40k formations. They are large, unwieldy and a massive points investment for mostly little gain on the table. One of them is even functionally useless as it provides the same benefits as the Baal Strike Force in the codex just with a restriction on units you can take.

 

The main body of the griping comes from this, just as we caught up the other guys started a new race!

 

Now - I pride myself on trying to be positive on this issue and rallying the BA section with some cool words when/wherever I can. Honestly, other than the possibility of some nice free rules (and we as a forum have suggested TONS) to bring us in line, I'm not overly fussed about the demi-company etc.

 

It is on a unit level basis where the discomfort lies - BS/WS 3 scouts, lower attack dreads, more expensive units, no vehicle squads, no access to basic units (land speeder storm/ storm talon/ thunder fire cannon) for seemingly no reason. Surely when our Dex was being made GW knew it was going to make all scouts more powerful again and such, it just seems incompetent.

 

I agree with you on the supplement level thing though - it isn't for us, but it is an amazing boon we get the Psy Powers, there would have been serious Black Rage on the boards if that hadn't have happened! I think of all the supplement people are just sad we don't get contemptor/ cataphractii access, but again, not a huge deal.

 

We'll get our time again and it'll end up like the wovles/ tau I recon, a nice digital update of goodies from a campaign.

[Blindhamster]

Just had confirmation from the warhammer 40k facebook page that the 30 year space marine is not usable outside or codex spade marines fyi

[Jolemai]

Just had confirmation from the warhammer 40k facebook page that the 30 year space marine is not usable outside or codex spade marines fyi

Wonder who asked that

[Blindhamster]

That'd be me!

[Charlo]

I already knew this was the case but whatever.

 

Can't say I'm too fussed - sure if you field him he may eliminate a riptide or something with a lucky roll - but probably not.

[Dempsey]

@ Frater Antodeniel

I just like to inform you that your rules errata for Blood Angels is used as official in my gaming club for patrol tournament - so your work was not in vain :-)

[Frater Antodeniel]

@ Frater Antodeniel

I just like to inform you that your rules errata for Blood Angels is used as official in my gaming club for patrol tournament - so your work was not in vain :-)

 

Thanks, i'm happy my work is usefull. =)

 

 

 

I am so shocked to see people griping like this on this forum [also you forgot to buff the librarian dreadnought, brother].

 

I personally choose to lets the Librarian Dreadnought Stats as the way they are. The main reason behind this choice is the fact that there is no equivalent within the C:SM, so i choose to consider the Librarian Dreadnought like any other Blood Angels Exclusive Independant Character and so choosing to not change its stats.

[Charlo]

As a Dread, that is ALSO a HQ he should have more attacks. A basic dread shouldn't have less than a hero.

 

If anything I'd rather it was only the librarian that got an increase if I had to choose one!

[Frater Antodeniel]

Fluff-wise, even a "basic dread" is a hero of the chapter....

 

Plus being a HQ slot doesn't means that you have more attacks, it mean that you are different to most of your kind.

 

Finally a Librarian strenght isn't only in his body, but also in his mind, even more when entombed within a Dreadnought. Plus, given the new Technomancy table, i think that our librarian dreadnought have become just as powerfull as it must be. More would be too much.

[Arkangilos]

My gripe isn't that we don't get access to all the fancy new formations, it's that our equivalent units don't even have the same stats.

 

I don't think we should get grav cannons or centurions, or we should get all the same units as them (we shouldn't). However, we should at least get the demi-company (we are codex compliant) along with some sort of assault formation.

 

Plus, I have a problem with the Cataphractii and contemptor not being available to us because we are a first founding, and it shuts out rules for all BA players that bought B@C.

 

Frater, as a dreadnought, the Lib Dreadnought should have the same amount of attacks as a standard dreadnought. 

[Canadian_F_H]

Well. The unofficial ba errata here is now officially part of my house rules.

 

And I really don't see why the contempt or and cataphract units can't just have da/sw/ba "chapter tactics" (I know they don't have the rule chapter tactics but they all have rules that I refer to as their chapter tactics)

[Charlo]

Well. The unofficial ba errata here is now officially part of my house rules.

 

And I really don't see why the contempt or and cataphract units can't just have da/sw/ba "chapter tactics" (I know they don't have the rule chapter tactics but they all have rules that I refer to as their chapter tactics)

 

Considering the stuff I have planned with Iron Hands allies I am incredibly thankful we don't have Chapter Tactics. Nor should we get them if DA/ SW don't have it!

 

FNP 3+ Bike Deathstars ;)

[Arkangilos]

Well. The unofficial ba errata here is now officially part of my house rules.

And I really don't see why the contempt or and cataphract units can't just have da/sw/ba "chapter tactics" (I know they don't have the rule chapter tactics but they all have rules that I refer to as their chapter tactics)

Considering the stuff I have planned with Iron Hands allies I am incredibly thankful we don't have Chapter Tactics. Nor should we get them if DA/ SW don't have it!

FNP 3+ Bike Deathstars

But we do basically have chapter tactics. Furious Charge and Fast Vehicles.