Blood Angel Flavor Discussions

[Charlo]

Why do we need to lose BS?

 

I'm not seeing why winning assaults should potentially debuff us.

[Luna707]

You could make little markers or just stack coins next to the unit to represent their level of red thirst. If you're real creative you could make little cherub models to act as thirst markers.

 

I really like this idea because they start out similar to normal Astartes and slowly transform until they become uncontrollable face eating monsters. I would say the loss of BS is fluffy because it represents them falling into blood lust and becoming frantic in the need for more carnage.

 

Also every 'gift' has a price, the Blood Angels know this more than any other chapter....

[NTaW]

This is an interesting idea that I like but would hate to track. I play a lot of X-Wing and the worst part of that game, despite my absolute love of it, is the stacks of tokens needed to play. It can get gosh darn (really trying with the censorship here) frustrating.

 

Streamline it and you have my support brother! :lol:

[sebs_evo7]

I like the rule that Charlo said. Getting rage and being forced to move/charge towards the enemy sounds awesome.

Honestly there is so much you could do with a BA formation in regards to fluffy deep strike or jump packs. I think it will be difficult for GW to stuff up these next round of formations for us but i do think they don't want to create CC monsters again.

[Zeller]

I feel like we're the infernus/hand flamer pistol CQC chapter. Plus there's the whole jump pack thing and fast vehicles thing. 

 

We don't necessarily need to have a weapon specialization like the other chapters. Besides, most of the weapon type affinities seem to be over stressed. Being able to field plasma cannons when other chapters couldn't didn't mean they spammed such weapons at the expense of others.

[Damon Nightman]

I think we should at least be on the same level of CC monsters as the space wolves with wulfen and TWC, but i don't know if that's gonna happen. I do kind of prefer the cheaper DC we have now that i think are pretty balanced overall and still hit pretty hard. I guess the DC are just missing out on the durability of taking Storm Shields and toughness 5.

 

Not sure if op was asking for unit statline changes, but SG should have 2 wounds and maybe WS5? And a little better rules for glaive encarmines or give them 3 attacks base. Increase points of course.... Maybe even have death masks give an invulnerable save... 

 

Formation including up to three 10 man squads of SG, Dante, and 1-3 priests. All gain hit and run and +1 WS (WS6 SG with priest attached!) Maybe some rule where the SG make "look out sir" save on a 2+ always? Hit and run is probably unnecessary...

 

Maybe a bit much there, but i want a SG formation and a priest conclave formation! lol

[Charlo]

SG mainly just need a damn invuln.

[Damon Nightman]

yeah, if there was only one thing that could be added/changed for the SG, i'd vote invuln. I just think all termies and SG should be upped to 2 wounds really. Termies seem to need some help for sure. The WS5 is just because i want them to stand out more from just regular vets, they are supposed to be the best of the best in a pretty CC oriented chapter... Glaive encarmines really aren't that great, i don't think master crafted makes up for losing the attack imo... 

 

I like where DC are being pretty cheap, but i just wouldn't mind upping the cost of the SG and making them stand out a bit more. I want them to be a squad that can somewhat stand up to most threats in a reasonable manner and actually protect an HQ. Right now they just seem like MEQ wreckers and not much else...

[Xenith]

Someone (probably Charlo?) suggested that all veterans should become W2 (and probably WS5).

 

Anyway, veterans are not unique to BA so this is veering away from the point of the thread...

[Damon Nightman]

Nope not unique at all, that's why i want our super Vets, SG, to stand out a bit more, especially in CC...

[Quixus]

Nope not unique at all, that's why i want our super Vets, SG, to stand out a bit more, especially in CC...

If our regular vets are supposed to be better than other vets, why shouldn't our scouts be worse than other scouts? I can see giving SG better stats, but vets and vets in TDA I think should have the same stats as their C:SM counter parts.

[Damon Nightman]

I wasnt saying we should have better vets, I said SG should be better and also suggested all terminators should have 2 wounds including every other faction. It would be silly for us to have better VVs or stern guard or termies, I was not suggesting we should

[Quixus]

:cuss I missed that comma.

[Charlo]

Someone (probably Charlo?) suggested that all veterans should become W2 (and probably WS5).

 

Anyway, veterans are not unique to BA so this is veering away from the point of the thread...

I did. But I've also been having a massive discussion over in the marine section about how to make terminators better :D

 

I agree with WS5 for the SG, they are supposed to be the ultra elite, above veterans.

[Silverson]

Sanguinary guard are meant to be our elite bodyguards so a rule that allows any model to accept challenges or auto take look out sir rolls would be fluffy to me,

 

A very good buff would be to give the Ws 5 base with 3 attacks and one of the following, better rules for Glaive encarimes, death masks giving fnp and/or a 4++ or 2 wounds a model.

[Charlo]

Sanguinary guard are meant to be our elite bodyguards so a rule that allows any model to accept challenges or auto take look out sir rolls would be fluffy to me,

 

A very good buff would be to give the Ws 5 base with 3 attacks and one of the following, better rules for Glaive encarimes, death masks giving fnp and/or a 4++ or 2 wounds a model.

 

I think that would be a little too much :P

 

Glaives should certainly have better, less clunky rules though. I'd prefer they just got a profile for all shapes something like:

 

S+2 AP2 on the charge

S+1 AP3 afterwards

 

Kind of like Phoenix Spears for 30k EC.

 

Suits us and makes Dante's Hit'n'Run more synergistic.

 

WS5 and a 5++ after this would make it fine.

[Silverson]

 

 

Sanguinary guard are meant to be our elite bodyguards so a rule that allows any model to accept challenges or auto take look out sir rolls would be fluffy to me,

 

A very good buff would be to give the Ws 5 base with 3 attacks and one of the following, better rules for Glaive encarimes, death masks giving fnp and/or a 4++ or 2 wounds a model.

I think that would be a little too much :P

 

Glaives should certainly have better, less clunky rules though. I'd prefer they just got a profile for all shapes something like:

 

S+2 AP2 on the charge

S+1 AP3 afterwards

 

Kind of like Phoenix Spears for 30k EC.

 

Suits us and makes Dante's Hit'n'Run more synergistic.

 

WS5 and a 5++ after this would make it fine.

So you really think that the 2 attacks is enough then? I find it terrible for such a unit that they are famed to be.

[Damon Nightman]

I agree it is somewhat shameful they only have 2 attacks. If you think it's too op, we would I think agree to raise the point cost to make it balanced. If it's appropriately priced, SG should be able to have those extra buffs imo.

 

The auto pass look out sir and being able to accept challenges would be super fluffy and cool. I think that is a good idea that isn't too much

[Charlo]

Yeah that rule exists in 30k and we'll no doubt see it there.

 

2 attacks is fine, purely on the grounds that not many basically troopers have 3 Base.

 

Perhaps a rule about choosing a weapon stance could factor this in with the Glaive:

 

Two handed: S+2, AP2

One Handed: S+1, AP3 +1A

 

That way you get either a high quality of attack or a high number of attacks.

[Damon Nightman]

That is a great idea! Well balanced i think and wouldn't really require much of a points increase imo, maybe just a little more.

[Charlo]

That is a great idea! Well balanced i think and wouldn't really require much of a points increase imo, maybe just a little more.

Wouldn't need any, or at least nothing big.

 

Jump troops are underpowered in the meta as is assault.

 

WS5, Glaive changes and an invuln is pretty much all they need.

 

Remember for attacks they also get the banner too. Or for lulz Sanguinor.

[NTaW]

Making the sword able to smack at AP2 negates the axes that come in the box, unless they get even stronger as well? It all feels weird to me but then again I don't deal too well with the slippery slope that can be homebrew rules.

[Charlo]

Making the sword able to smack at AP2 negates the axes that come in the box, unless they get even stronger as well? It all feels weird to me but then again I don't deal too well with the slippery slope that can be homebrew rules.

Not at all.

 

They used to all have the same profile, back before the game changed around power weapons.

 

Even in the book it just lists that they can come in a variety of formats.

[NTaW]

I remember the profiles (and the arguments when power weapons changed their profile before we got a 6th ed. FAQ), but power weapons have changed and I don't see GW giving an axe and a sword the same rule no matter how much I like what you posted I suppose. Unless the whole game goes back to a standard power weapon profile I'd wager there will be two different profiles for the two weapons despite their similar origins and application.

[Charlo]

I remember the profiles (and the arguments when power weapons changed their profile before we got a 6th ed. FAQ), but power weapons have changed and I don't see GW giving an axe and a sword the same rule no matter how much I like what you posted I suppose. Unless the whole game goes back to a standard power weapon profile I'd wager there will be two different profiles for the two weapons despite their similar origins and application.

 

But they would be the same weapon.

 

A Glaive Encarmine.

 

Same way as a chainsword or a little kinfe is a "close combat weapon"

 

Same as a Paragon blade in 30k can be modeled however you want.

 

Open your mind bro!