Sanguinary Guard in 8th

[Fahlnor]

 

Using Heirs of Azkaellon to make the Sanguinary Guard more durable is actually a genuine option, but I don't think you can do it by armour saves. I'm not convinced by giving them a reroll to Wound, either - the Lieutenant and Sanguinary Guard Ancient already provide that exact buff.

 

How about something like this?:

 

The Sanguinary Guard are haunted by the failure to protect the Primarch Sanguinius at the last and so, in the presence of the warlord, will fight through wounds which would kill a lesser mortal. Models with this rule can roll a D6 for every wound suffered while within 6" of the warlord - on a roll of a 6, that wound is ignored.

 

Essentially giving them a 6+ Feel No Pain rule while they're near the warlord. That way they can benefit from Dante's rerolls to Hit, the Sanguinary Guard Ancient's rerolls to Wound and still get a nice buff from being near the warlord.

Make it a 5+ and that might be decent.

A 6+ is a joke.

 

And they definitely need a bodyguard rule. That's their literal job, but for some reason only company vets get that.

 

 

6+ is infinitely better than nothing. I think a 5+ is asking too much, unless we're also talking about adding a significant amount onto their current points. I would, however, increase the Death Company's native FnP to 5++.

 

I thought about the bodyguard rule and I do like it, but again I feel like we're beginning to stack too many benefits into our wishlist.

 

What would we say to a 6++ and the bodyguard rule?

[The Unseen]

 

 

 

Using Heirs of Azkaellon to make the Sanguinary Guard more durable is actually a genuine option, but I don't think you can do it by armour saves. I'm not convinced by giving them a reroll to Wound, either - the Lieutenant and Sanguinary Guard Ancient already provide that exact buff.

 

How about something like this?:

 

The Sanguinary Guard are haunted by the failure to protect the Primarch Sanguinius at the last and so, in the presence of the warlord, will fight through wounds which would kill a lesser mortal. Models with this rule can roll a D6 for every wound suffered while within 6" of the warlord - on a roll of a 6, that wound is ignored.

 

Essentially giving them a 6+ Feel No Pain rule while they're near the warlord. That way they can benefit from Dante's rerolls to Hit, the Sanguinary Guard Ancient's rerolls to Wound and still get a nice buff from being near the warlord.

Make it a 5+ and that might be decent.

A 6+ is a joke.

 

And they definitely need a bodyguard rule. That's their literal job, but for some reason only company vets get that.

6+ is infinitely better than nothing. I think a 5+ is asking too much, unless we're also talking about adding a significant amount onto their current points. I would, however, increase the Death Company's native FnP to 5++.

 

I thought about the bodyguard rule and I do like it, but again I feel like we're beginning to stack too many benefits into our wishlist.

 

What would we say to a 6++ and the bodyguard rule?

A 6++ is exactly a 1/6th increase in durability over nothing.

Math.

 

When you have 2 wounds per model at around 40 pts per model, you'll maybe save 2 extra wounds with it over the course of the game?

And that's if the opponent only shoots them with 1 or 2 damage weapons.

As soon as they bring D3 or better, its even less likely to matter since wounds don't roll over.

 

Their giving 6+ fnp equivalents to entire armies, and their considered, rightly so, to be some of the weakest tactics overall.

 

I'd much rather they get the bodyguard rule and more attacks.

Cause right now they can barely bully tactical squads, and actual melee units eat them for breakfast.

But I doubt that'll happen, because terminators are in the same boat, and GW didn't fix them in the codex.

[Fahlnor]

 

 

 

Using Heirs of Azkaellon to make the Sanguinary Guard more durable is actually a genuine option, but I don't think you can do it by armour saves. I'm not convinced by giving them a reroll to Wound, either - the Lieutenant and Sanguinary Guard Ancient already provide that exact buff.

 

How about something like this?:

 

The Sanguinary Guard are haunted by the failure to protect the Primarch Sanguinius at the last and so, in the presence of the warlord, will fight through wounds which would kill a lesser mortal. Models with this rule can roll a D6 for every wound suffered while within 6" of the warlord - on a roll of a 6, that wound is ignored.

 

Essentially giving them a 6+ Feel No Pain rule while they're near the warlord. That way they can benefit from Dante's rerolls to Hit, the Sanguinary Guard Ancient's rerolls to Wound and still get a nice buff from being near the warlord.

Make it a 5+ and that might be decent.

A 6+ is a joke.

 

And they definitely need a bodyguard rule. That's their literal job, but for some reason only company vets get that.

6+ is infinitely better than nothing. I think a 5+ is asking too much, unless we're also talking about adding a significant amount onto their current points. I would, however, increase the Death Company's native FnP to 5++.

 

I thought about the bodyguard rule and I do like it, but again I feel like we're beginning to stack too many benefits into our wishlist.

 

What would we say to a 6++ and the bodyguard rule?

A 6++ is exactly a 1/6th increase in durability over nothing.

Math.

 

When you have 2 wounds per model at around 40 pts per model, you'll maybe save 2 extra wounds with it over the course of the game?

And that's if the opponent only shoots them with 1 or 2 damage weapons.

As soon as they bring D3 or better, its even less likely to matter since wounds don't roll over.

 

Their giving 6+ fnp equivalents to entire armies, and their considered, rightly so, to be some of the weakest tactics overall.

 

I'd much rather they get the bodyguard rule and more attacks.

Cause right now they can barely bully tactical squads, and actual melee units eat them for breakfast.

But I doubt that'll happen, because terminators are in the same boat, and GW didn't fix them in the codex.

 

Again, I think we need to be careful about how reasonable our wishlisting is. I do agree the Sanguinary Guard need something, but given that we're already asking for a points reduction for their weapons, there surely has to be a limit to how much of a native buff the unit itself gets.

 

At the moment, the Sanguinary Guard cost 22ppm compared to the Honour Guard at 21ppm. For that, they lose the bodyguard rule and one point of leadership, but gain jump packs and the Heirs of Azkaellon rule.

 

If we all agree that the bodyguard rule should be added to the unit, they're now paying 1ppm to lose a point of leadership and gain Heirs of Azkaellon and jump packs.

 

We can price jump packs conservatively at 2ppm (though eg. Company Veterans pay 3ppm for them), so we're now looking at a points-equivalent of 20ppm for the Sanguinary Guard vs. 21ppm for the Honour Guard and the difference comes down to Heirs of Azkaellon vs. one point of leadership.

 

So where do we go from there? A small buff such as a 6++ could conceivably be added without changing the points for the unit while still keeping the game reasonably balanced.  Something more radical such as adding an extra attack per model, however, would increase each model's combat effectiveness by 50% - I'm not convinced we could do that without adding at least 5ppm.

 

Would you be willing to take a points hike to add attacks? Bearing in mind that we're hoping to see points drops for the wargear (I think the Encarmine weapons were wrongly priced equivalently to force weapons, forgetting the fact that force weapons are priced specifically for characters), do you think we should also see an increase in the power per model? Would you be happy with, say, adding a bodyguard rule and dropping Encarmine weapons to around 7ppm?

[durdle-durdle]

How about the bodyguard rule and the ability to make heroic interventions at 6” if a character within 6” gets caught in Melee?

[Fahlnor]

How about the bodyguard rule and the ability to make heroic interventions at 6” if a character within 6” gets caught in Melee?

That could work. Nicely thematic!

[Indefragable]

Unless SG get some crazy snowflake special rules that cover a lot of ground, they are always going to be second rate.

 

Upping basic abilities/stats outright gives hope. I.e. 3W 3A and a 4++/5++ basically makes them flying GK Paladins...and what’s wrong with that? We’re supposed to be GOOD in melee after all. There’s nothing wrong with having a OMG NASTY unit in our book (so long as it’s actually balanced for points). Let’s not sell ourselves short in our hopes and dreams.

 

And I’m not necessarily advocating for 3W/3A but my point is that right now BA not only have some BAD units, but tons of units that my not be bad, but they just aren’t good either.

[brother_b]

I'm trying to find out what the difference is between DC and SG. Honestly, I've never used SG. They seem to be juts a little bit harder hitting and a  little bit tankier with the 2 wounds.

 

Besides that, to me they appear to have very similar rolls. Am I wrong with this thought?

 

How should we be using DC/SG? I already know that DC struggle vs. hard hitting high T creatures, as my DC recently died whimpering vs. a hellbrute/Demon Prince. Not sure anybody could really deal with that, but hey.

 

So to me DC would be great against chaff/non-melee elite units.

 

So what about SG? Guidance would help because I just ordered a metal Sanguinator off e-bay and would like to get him in the pipeline (after my 20 scouts, 5 assault marines, libby, dread, DC, Devs, tactical squad, oh my).

[lazyj]

 

 

Using Heirs of Azkaellon to make the Sanguinary Guard more durable is actually a genuine option, but I don't think you can do it by armour saves. I'm not convinced by giving them a reroll to Wound, either - the Lieutenant and Sanguinary Guard Ancient already provide that exact buff.

 

How about something like this?:

 

The Sanguinary Guard are haunted by the failure to protect the Primarch Sanguinius at the last and so, in the presence of the warlord, will fight through wounds which would kill a lesser mortal. Models with this rule can roll a D6 for every wound suffered while within 6" of the warlord - on a roll of a 6, that wound is ignored.

 

Essentially giving them a 6+ Feel No Pain rule while they're near the warlord. That way they can benefit from Dante's rerolls to Hit, the Sanguinary Guard Ancient's rerolls to Wound and still get a nice buff from being near the warlord.

Make it a 5+ and that might be decent.

A 6+ is a joke.

 

And they definitely need a bodyguard rule. That's their literal job, but for some reason only company vets get that.

 

 

6+ is infinitely better than nothing. I think a 5+ is asking too much, unless we're also talking about adding a significant amount onto their current points. I would, however, increase the Death Company's native FnP to 5++.

 

I thought about the bodyguard rule and I do like it, but again I feel like we're beginning to stack too many benefits into our wishlist.

 

What would we say to a 6++ and the bodyguard rule?

 

I think a 5+ FNP would be reasonable if they stay at their current cost of 40-45 ppm. The addition of a FNP, to keep them at this point cost, would help balance them given that it's almost inevitable that they are going to get cheaper when the codex comes out.

 

I'm expecting them to get significantly cheaper due to :

 

A) their currently overcosted weapons. Codex space marines cut the cost of a power fist down to 12 points. Assuming that we also get this points cut, they are going to have to drop the cost of encarmine swords and axes, probably to below 10 points. Likewise, I would be astounded if angelus boltguns and inferno pistols dont get cheaper. An angelus boltgun just has to be cheaper than a plasma pistol. And who in their right mind is going to pay 20 points for a gun with a 6 inch range (3 inches if you want to use it to its full effect)?  I expect the angelus boltguns to  cost 3-5 points, with the inferno clocking in at 10-12.

 

B )  the new Eldar codex. Winters SEO (Youtuber, for anyone who doesn't know him) did a review of the new Craftworlds codex. He mentioned that around 30 units have seen points drops, some of them quite considerable. In addition, of the 30 or so unique wargear items, no less than 17 of them have seen points drops. Eldar players have been pretty vocal about not being able to compete due to overcosted units. We BA players have been vocal about the shortcomings of our army as per the index. GW,  it appears, listened to the feedback of the Eldar playerbase and made adjustments. I see no reason why the new and improved GW wouldn't follow this trend when it comes to our guys.

Edited October 21, 2017 by lazyj

[Fahlnor]

Unless SG get some crazy snowflake special rules that cover a lot of ground, they are always going to be second rate.

 

Upping basic abilities/stats outright gives hope. I.e. 3W 3A and a 4++/5++ basically makes them flying GK Paladins...and what’s wrong with that? We’re supposed to be GOOD in melee after all. There’s nothing wrong with having a OMG NASTY unit in our book (so long as it’s actually balanced for points). Let’s not sell ourselves short in our hopes and dreams.

 

And I’m not necessarily advocating for 3W/3A but my point is that right now BA not only have some BAD units, but tons of units that my not be bad, but they just aren’t good either.

I think the problem there is that we are still Space Marines. Sure, we have red armour and we like getting up close, but there's not really anything about the Sanguinary Guard which ought to distinguish them from other Chapters' Honour Guard.

 

Our chapter tactic will hopefully add some oomph to our units in melee, but beyond getting a slight edge in combat vs. Codex Space Marines, I don't see why we should deserve anything beyond that. Our units ought to be better in combat than other Chapters, sure, but I feel like a lot of players are looking for our army to become some sort of Mary Sue special snowflake force and there's simply nothing in the fluff to justify that.

 

I definitely agree that some of our units and wargear need points adjustments. I absolutely agree that we need some form of chapter tactic to help reflect the army better in its playstyle. But what exactly is our justification for suggesting our Honour Guard equivalent ought to have 3W/3A/4++? We're talking about adding a bodyguard rule and a 5+++ "FnP" rule, increasing their attacks characteristic or allowing them a heroic intervention to protect a character. What exactly justifies our Sanguinary Guard being that much better than Honour Guard?

 

There are a number of changes I would like to see in our Codex, including Assault Marines as Troops, 5+++ on Death Company, reduced costs for wargear for Sanguinary Guard and some sort of tactical bonus for bringing Dante, but I don't want us to suddenly become Super Space Marines.

[The Unseen]

I had a big long reply mostly done, realized I was ranting, and deleted it.

Deep breath... Starting Over.

 

To put it nicely Fahlnor, I don't even care anymore about "fluff justifications" for GW's rules, they threw that baby out with the bathwater already with space marine space marines, resurrecting a primarch with eldar death god magic somehow means he gets to resurrect himself in-game, bolters having the same ap as freaking flashlights, template weapons now are more effective when used against single models rather than large units, marines being one of the most morale susceptible armies in the game, ork Boyz that get 3 times as many attacks as a marine does, getting a promotion in-universe is apparently worth gaining 4 wounds, etc etc :cussing etc.

 

So if I can't have a set of rules that even resemble the fluff or realism, I'll settle for rules that actually somewhat work.

And currently I want Blood Angels to work as a primarily assault-based army with close ranged shooting support.

AKA what most of us here want to see in a BA codex.

So if getting to that point requires Sanguinary Guard to blow vanilla honor guard out of the water, I DON'T CARE.

 

Because having us be "slightly better in combat than vanilla marines" will leave us in exactly the same place we are right now, a bottom tier army that can barely put up a fight vs the other indexes, much less the new codexes.

 

If our unique units and playstyle are yoked forever into being almost but not quite the same as their vanilla equivalents, then they should roll us into the freaking codex, because at least then we'd actually be the same, rather than significantly worse every time their book drops and we wait 6 months to a few years for ours to come out, only for the process to start over again in less than a year.

 

Or, if GW wants us to actually be different enough to be a unique army, rather than vanilla marines sloppy assault seconds, they need to start acting like it and give us rules to support that.

[Fahlnor]

I had a big long reply mostly done, realized I was ranting, and deleted it.

Deep breath... Starting Over.

 

To put it nicely Fahlnor, I don't even care anymore about "fluff justifications" for GW's rules, they threw that baby out with the bathwater already with space marine space marines, resurrecting a primarch with eldar death god magic somehow means he gets to resurrect himself in-game, bolters having the same ap as freaking flashlights, template weapons now are more effective when used against single models rather than large units, marines being one of the most morale susceptible armies in the game, ork Boyz that get 3 times as many attacks as a marine does, getting a promotion in-universe is apparently worth gaining 4 wounds, etc etc :cussing etc.

 

So if I can't have a set of rules that even resemble the fluff or realism, I'll settle for rules that actually somewhat work.

And currently I want Blood Angels to work as a primarily assault-based army with close ranged shooting support.

AKA what most of us here want to see in a BA codex.

So if getting to that point requires Sanguinary Guard to blow vanilla honor guard out of the water, I DON'T CARE.

 

Because having us be "slightly better in combat than vanilla marines" will leave us in exactly the same place we are right now, a bottom tier army that can barely put up a fight vs the other indexes, much less the new codexes.

 

If our unique units and playstyle are yoked forever into being almost but not quite the same as their vanilla equivalents, then they should roll us into the freaking codex, because at least then we'd actually be the same, rather than significantly worse every time their book drops and we wait 6 months to a few years for ours to come out, only for the process to start over again in less than a year.

 

Or, if GW wants us to actually be different enough to be a unique army, rather than vanilla marines sloppy assault seconds, they need to start acting like it and give us rules to support that.

 

Sorry to say, but I think I almost totally disagree - it looks like we're both coming at this from almost opposite positions.

 

I do absolutely understand where you're coming from and, although I don't agree with your approach, I do appreciate why you might feel that way.

 

I'm sure we can both agree, however, that we just want the best for our boys in red and for the game in general.

 

[Indefragable]

Fahlnor:

 

(Didn’t quote to stop walls of text). Secondly, since tone can be lost in text, all this is said in a friendly-over-beers manner:

 

I would be inclined to agree with you...IF we we Red Marines + a few unique models (the current Black Templar scenario).

 

But we’re not.

 

We lack the capabilities of things like Centurions, Thunderfire cannons, etc... with nothing that can achieve the same tabletop results in place of them. In 7th, I used to talk about how I wish BA had “grav swords” as a way of pointing that we had absolutely nothing close to replicating the most powerful combo at that time (grav Centurions in Drop Pods). So my point is that when you stand back and look at BA compared to every faction in the game, you have to wholistically approach our gaps compared to the meta. And when you do that we are even more lacking than just looking at us vs our vanilla, GK, DA, and SW cousins.

 

And as for the fluff, I’m right there with you...except that GW doesn’t seem to care either. If they did, then we would have more than a single Flyer, other suits of Termie armor, etc... they inexplicably have not given us any of that, so we must forge our own path. Now considering GK got storm hawk/stormtalon, I am guessing we will too, but you see my point.

 

As for SG themselves...the fact that a special rule (Heirs) exists at all shows that GW agree that SG are more than just “Red (gold) Honor Guard.” Furthermore, they are a unique body specifically re-constituted by their leader (Azkaellon) to continue the legacy of protecting their beloved Primarch’s legacy. Honor Guard of other chapters are glorified bad- :cuss Vets. Few chapters have that specific history/legacy Directly attached to a Primarch.

[Panzer]

I'm with The Unseen one on that one. Not that I don't care about fluff justification for rules, there I actually disagree with him, but I too think that GW should either roll us into the vanilla Codex if they want to keep Blood Angels that similar to Codex Marines, or go all the way and make Blood Angels truly unique like Death Guard and TSons are unique compared to CSM as well.

[Thoridon]

With the new Codex I've updated the numbers to take our chapter tactic into account and it certainly changes things a bit for me:
 
Old / Index Numbers:

 
New Codex Numbers:

 

 
Thanks to the +1 to wound rolls, without a Priest buff factored in, the Encarmine Sword is now arguably stronger than the Power Fist was in the Index. The new Fist is still ahead against the toughest targets but drops further behind against infantry where the Sword got a nice boost and the Fist saw no change as it was already wounding on 2+. When you add in the +1 Strength from a supporting Priest the Sword looks even better, gaining another boost against T4 targets (where it now wounds on a 2+ with everything combined) and to the big T8 stuff where the extra strength moves it out of the half or less bracket. The Fist only gains a small boost against T8 from the Priest, and the advantage it has there is now much smaller than before (1.39 vs 1.11 compared to 1.11 vs 0.74 from the Index).
 
The Axe is stuck in an awkward position for me. It's the most expensive weapon but without a Priest it's identical to the cheaper Sword against most infantry, weaker against T6/T7 (many monster types and vehicles) and slightly stronger against T8. With a Priest tagging along it remains the same as a Sword against the weakest infantry but is now worse than a Sword against both Marines and big T8 stuff (where they end up in the same strength/wound roll bracket but the sword has the extra AP).
 
I honestly see no reason to take the Axe now and I'm baffled that it's the expensive choice. With or without a Priest the Sword is stronger all-round than the Axe and it does so at a lower points cost.
 
So overall I'm thinking if you have a Priest tagging along you might as well take the Sword, or perhaps to phrase it better if you're thinking of adding a Priest it's only really worth it from a damage perspective if you have a unit of Swords where you'll still not gain against T3 or T6/7 but it will add a nice boost against T4 and T8. There's no point adding a Priest for the strength boost if you have Axes/Fists against most targets, it would only really help with the healing side.
 
Without a Priest? Sword or Fist. If you're expecting to face a lot of infantry with some T6/T7 monsters/vehicles then I'd say the Sword looks best overall. If you're expecting to face a lot of big stuff (T6-T8) with minimal 'chaff' to clear through then the Fist would probably still be your best choice. If you don't know, or you expect a relatively balanced enemy, you can't really go wrong with a mix of Swords and Fists.
 
Having done this I'm disappointed that half my SG models have Axes, including a batch I just painted for the RTS, but the new chapter tactic is a big boost for the Swords along with their slight points drop. I just see no reason why I'd want to run the Axe now when the cheaper Swords and Fists are better. Looks like I have some chopping and repainting to do...

Edited December 5, 2017 by Thoridon

[Xenith]

Good work and thanks for the analysis.

 

So an axe wounding t4 on a 2+ with -1 AP has an identical chance of causing a wound as a sword wounding on 3+ with -3 AP?

 

That's a bit disappointing. I was thinking/hoping the axe would be the choice if you didn't have a priest.

 

I guess overall denying the opponent a dice roll is more powerful than boosting your own.

[Thoridon]

vs marines (T4 / 3+ / 1 wound) with 2 attacks,

 

Sword

2 * (4/6) = 1.33 hits

1.33 * (4/6) = 0.89 wounds

0.89 * (5/6) = 0.74 unsaved wounds

 

Axe

2 * (4/6) = 1.33 hits

1.33 * (5/6) = 1.103 wounds

1.103 * (4/6) = 0.74 unsaved wounds

 

I was hoping the axe would have a niche too, but it just seems the sword and fist are better for the different roles despite being cheaper.

 

Incidentally the same will apply to normal units looking at power swords vs power axes as the only change there is 1D vs the D3D on these blades. It looks like the new Codex has really provided the biggest boost to swords, while fists and (particularly) hammers remain the extra oomph options against big targets. That's not necessarily a bad thing for me as I prefer the aesthetic of swords for Blood Angels and it means I can move all the axes to my Wolves for a better feel but it does mean the axe (both Encarmine and Power version) is now comparatively weaker than the sword than when comparing older Index stuff.

 

It's why the axe still being more expensive doesn't really make sense from a numbers point of view, but I'm certainly very happy with the indirect boost to swords.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Thoridon

[Xenith]

For non-BA the axe is the better generalist, I feel, and pushes marines to wound MEQ on a 3+, which is reflected in the increased points. For us, the axe doesn't have too great a benefit due toi red thirst and access to priests, so can be eschewed in favour of the sword. 

[Crimson Ghost IX]

Thoridon. Thanks for this data.

 

Red Thirst is So Boss.

Those wounds are doing d3 each.

 

At the lower/useable pts value and considering our other happy tricks coming in the new dex...

I look forward to having a chance of dancing with Mortarion for a proper beatdown with the unit that should be involved. *yep.

 

Been a long time coming fellas...

[JamesI]

For non-BA the axe is the better generalist, I feel, and pushes marines to wound MEQ on a 3+, which is reflected in the increased points. For us, the axe doesn't have too great a benefit due toi red thirst and access to priests, so can be eschewed in favour of the sword. 

I think this is right.

 

I found I prefered the axe in 7th or using the Index.  But now, swords or fists for cheapness and keep a priest handy.

[Panzer]

I think it's also important to keep in mind that after the first round the +1 to wound bonus is gone so if you're stuck it goes back to the old chart.

 

Now we just have to see how often something like that actually happens which means we need two things. Lots of playtesting and patience to wait for the data to come in. ^^

[Thoridon]

I think it's also important to keep in mind that after the first round the +1 to wound bonus is gone so if you're stuck it goes back to the old chart.

Unless you're getting counter-charged, in which case the bonus is back on :p

 

It's a fair point though, something that will occur at times. Even so, I think I'd still prefer the cheaper swords/fists. Axes still aren't much different from swords without the chapter tactic, it's only against T8 where swords become a wet noodle without the +1 to wound (with axes still being moderately damp noodles). If you're likely to face those targets then a couple of cheaper fists will hold up in subsequent turns much better than the axe.