Blood Angel Lore vs. Gameplay Identity

[Zeller]

I'm one of those who thinks that Blood Angels essentially should be played like a regular codex compliant chapter with the additional quirk that they prefer to be close and personal which is represented in being able to take more flamer than others, having fast tanks and having more kinds of Jump Pack units.

Unless of course you play one of those successor chapters who, willingly or not, fight more in line with the Red Thirst. Like Flesh Tearers and Knights of Blood for example. For those I'd reduce the shooty units (Devastators with long ranged weapon, Sternguards, Lascannon tanks, etc.) to a minimum and focus even more on melee units.

This is the correct Blood Angels approach. The rest are hold overs from players that obsess over jump packs, which is an affinity...not a chapter defining organizational trait.

[Indefragable]

So then why aren't we in Codex: Space Marines? Why aren't we "just" Red Marines?

 

 

It's an endless debate with people feeling strongly one way or another. I can't say one is "correct" because I certainly have my opinion. But for those who would rather just be Codex SM with a quirk, why should we have our own book? Let's be clear with each other.

[Blindhamster]

we ARE a codex chapter, we follow a codex chapter structure, then have a small number of additional units on top, required to account for the flaw.

 

That's how we were for many years.

Personally i would have preferred all marines went into one book, with possible exception being space wolves.

[bushman101]

what if we had a chapter trait that allowed us to fire our ranged weapons even in combat?

we fire our bolters and etc in melee because up close is where we like to be

[Panzer]

So then why aren't we in Codex: Space Marines? Why aren't we "just" Red Marines?

 

 

It's an endless debate with people feeling strongly one way or another. I can't say one is "correct" because I certainly have my opinion. But for those who would rather just be Codex SM with a quirk, why should we have our own book? Let's be clear with each other.

I don't see the problem? Blood Angels are fleshed out enough to barely warrant their own book and have lots of potential to make them even more different without breaking the codex compliance.

If anything, if GW would actually put real efford into each of the first founding chapters they all could warrant their own book on the same level we have currently. But seriously, who wants even more Space Marine Codices getting released? :D

[Helias_Tancred]

The bottom line is the game, Warhammer 40k, has always been very lacking at effectively producing a game that does the lore, fluff, novels, etc justice.

 

Sure it doesn't help when the designers screw the pooch on a chapter's rules that go towards representing that correct feel on the table, but at the end of the day the game is a poor engine for that.

If you can understand and accept that fact, it goes a long way to soothing your angst on this topic.

[Charlo]

The bottom line is the game, Warhammer 40k, has always been very lacking at effectively producing a game that does the lore, fluff, novels, etc justice.

 

Sure it doesn't help when the designers screw the pooch on a chapter's rules that go towards representing that correct feel on the table, but at the end of the day the game is a poor engine for that.

If you can understand and accept that fact, it goes a long way to soothing your angst on this topic.

 

While I agree with this sentiment, it's also a little bit of an excuse for the Devs.

 

I think plenty of armies have fantastic representation on the tabletop across a lot of GWs games/ systems.

 

BA are just a bit trickier than the other, more prominent/ obvious themes.

[Panzer]

It's only tricky because GW didn't do a good job to show the player what BA are actually about and so there are many different player with many different ideas of how BA should be.

Imo there's no problem doing whatever needed to represent BA on the table as they are supposed to be....if GW just decides on how they actually are supposed to be.

I mean I wouldn't even mind if they'd turn us truly into the Jump Pack Assault army and less codex compliant but so far we aren't really that.

[Charlo]

It's only tricky because GW didn't do a good job to show the player what BA are actually about and so there are many different player with many different ideas of how BA should be.

Imo there's no problem doing whatever needed to represent BA on the table as they are supposed to be....if GW just decides on how they actually are supposed to be.

I mean I wouldn't even mind if they'd turn us truly into the Jump Pack Assault army and less codex compliant but so far we aren't really that.

 

Thing is though, we are that... Really though, aren't we?

 

We have access to packs on more units than any other chapter.

All of our special infantry are packs or option to pack.

Our biggest special characters have packs - including our Chapter Master, who is the only one (bar Shrike but he's only recently a CM!)

 

I know to many of you it's not how you see the BA, but I think in reality it's these that the majority of people think of. I've purposefully excluded massed assault squads however, as they are an anomaly from a WD codex with little fluff to support outside of "We fight so hard that we bring our reserve assault companies in a lot anyway!"

Edited August 29, 2017 by Charlo

[Panzer]

 

It's only tricky because GW didn't do a good job to show the player what BA are actually about and so there are many different player with many different ideas of how BA should be.

Imo there's no problem doing whatever needed to represent BA on the table as they are supposed to be....if GW just decides on how they actually are supposed to be.

I mean I wouldn't even mind if they'd turn us truly into the Jump Pack Assault army and less codex compliant but so far we aren't really that.

 

Thing is though, we are that... Really though, aren't we?

 

We have access to packs on more units than any other chapter.

All of our special infantry are packs or option to pack.

Our biggest special characters have packs - including our Chapter Master, who is the only one (bar Shrike but he's only recently a CM!)

 

Well that's the thing. Yes and no.

We have more access to Jump Packs but we don't do it better than others except for our two special units (DC and SG). And in fluff, while being shown often with Jump Packs, we are more often shown as ... without meaning it in any negative way ... "honorable Red Marines with quite some history and added flavour".

 

So in a sense both is true. We are the Jump Pack army but at the same time we are a "normal" Chapter with lots of special flavour. Kinda like White Scars being the Bike army but not really and Raven Guard being the Jump Pack army but not really as well.

 

Heh, typing it out makes me realise that I'm really bad at explaining what I mean.

[TheHarrower]

Helias Tancred, on 28 Aug 2017 - 11:47 PM, said:

The bottom line is the game, Warhammer 40k, has always been very lacking at effectively producing a game that does the lore, fluff, novels, etc justice.

 

I don't know. There are a lot of armies that play how they are depicted in fluff. Marines are always an issue though since you can't have 1 marine taking out an entire army singlehandedly.

 

It's only tricky because GW didn't do a good job to show the player what BA are actually about and so there are many different player with many different ideas of how BA should be.

Imo there's no problem doing whatever needed to represent BA on the table as they are supposed to be....if GW just decides on how they actually are supposed to be.

I mean I wouldn't even mind if they'd turn us truly into the Jump Pack Assault army and less codex compliant but so far we aren't really that.

 

This. There have been so many differences with our rules throughout the years I feel like GW doesn't know what they want Blood Angels to be. That was the whole crux of the issue and why I started this thread. I think the whole jump pack fetish comes from the 5th Edition Codex when assault marines were troops.

 

Honestly, I would be fine if they either put us in the general Space Marines Codex or paired us with Dark Angels and did an old school Angels of Death Codex. Having our own Codex has been more of a detriment throughout the years. I'd rather Blood Angels be folded in.

 

 

[Arkangilos]

It's not that they don't know what they want us to be, it's clear that they do know and they have tried. The problem is that they don't know how to accurately portray it. I think third edition was the closest they ever got, but a lot of people don't like that.

 

We are unique in that in the lore our flaw is actually a flaw. No other army has a flaw like it. Yet when they give us accurate rules, people complain because it's a flaw. That's why I think it should be a flaw. Sure we should get a bonus (a hefty one). But they cannot portray our lore accurately without giving us the negative that comes with the positive.

 

And I one hundred and fifty percent disagree with the rolling idea. All it will do is make us lose more character and more fluff.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Arkangilos

[Panzer]

It's not that they don't know what they want us to be, it's clear that they do know and they have tried. The problem is that they don't know how to accurately portray it. I think third edition was the closest they ever got, but a lot of people don't like that.

 

We are unique in that in the lore our flaw is actually a flaw. No other army has a flaw like it. Yet when they give us accurate rules, people complain because it's a flaw. That's why I think it should be a flaw. Sure we should get a bonus (a hefty one). But they cannot portray our lore accurately without giving us the negative that comes with the positive.

 

And I one hundred and fifty percent disagree with the rolling idea. All it will do is make us lose more character and more fluff.

Well almost no other army. Night Lords getting blinded as easily as they do is a pretty huge flaw with all those weapons shooting bright blasts I'd say. :D

 

The problem with our flaw is that it's not always there. It depends whether the Marine can control himself or not. Which would be at best represented by dice rolls. Tho that's some random stuff most people don't like.

 

I'd honestly go so far to say that it'd be fine if all Blood Angels would have +1A and -1BS. It would even work well together with our affinity of using flamer since BS isn't as important there. Wording the "Chapter tactic" would be a bit weird then since those adjustments would obviously be on the Datasheets already.

It also wouldn't be completely right since Blood Angels aren't worse at shooting than other Marines but that would honestly be the only thing I can think of that represents us being prone to abandon our shooting positions to get into melee without having to randomly test whether a unit now wants to get into melee or not.

[Charlo]

 

*snip*

 

I'd honestly go so far to say that it'd be fine if all Blood Angels would have +1A and -1BS. It would even work well together with our affinity of using flamer since BS isn't as important there. Wording the "Chapter tactic" would be a bit weird then since those adjustments would obviously be on the Datasheets already.

It also wouldn't be completely right since Blood Angels aren't worse at shooting than other Marines but that would honestly be the only thing I can think of that represents us being prone to abandon our shooting positions to get into melee without having to randomly test whether a unit now wants to get into melee or not.

 

Yeah.... No.

Why do we need that much a negative? Even Khorne Berzerkers are BS3+....!

 

I think something think akin to no battleshock tests when you are at a 50% unit strength or something is quite BA. Fighting to the last man etc.

[Panzer]

 

 

*snip*

 

I'd honestly go so far to say that it'd be fine if all Blood Angels would have +1A and -1BS. It would even work well together with our affinity of using flamer since BS isn't as important there. Wording the "Chapter tactic" would be a bit weird then since those adjustments would obviously be on the Datasheets already.

It also wouldn't be completely right since Blood Angels aren't worse at shooting than other Marines but that would honestly be the only thing I can think of that represents us being prone to abandon our shooting positions to get into melee without having to randomly test whether a unit now wants to get into melee or not.

 

Yeah.... No.

Why do we need that much a negative? Even Khorne Berzerkers are BS3+....!

 

I think something think akin to no battleshock tests when you are at a 50% unit strength or something is quite BA. Fighting to the last man etc.

 

It was in response of Arkangilos mentioning we'd need something negative. I wouldn't like that much either.

 

I just remembered something I've mentioned in another thread a few months ago. How about Blood Angel units having to do an LD check if an enemy is within charge range (so 12") and if they fail, they'll get a -1 to-hit modifier for shooting and something else in return. Re-rolling charges or rolling 2d6+2 or whatever.

It would add some random factor but it wouldn't take away the choice of what to do with a unit from the player and would represent the lack of concentration while being affected by the Red Thirst.

[Blindhamster]

Ark is probably right.

reintroduce the roll per unit each turn. on a roll of 1 they have to move toward nearest enemy and charge if they're able, but give them some hefty close combat bonus tied to that like +1 Strength and +1 A. Means that a blood angel that has succumb to the thirst is more dangerous than almost any other marine, but a marine succumbing to the thirst can also completely mess with your battle plans.

 

then give them a generic bonus that is always on (something like the advance and charge rule for example or always strikes first or hell, even something to do with morale, i dunno!)

[Arkangilos]

 

 

 

*snip*

 

I'd honestly go so far to say that it'd be fine if all Blood Angels would have +1A and -1BS. It would even work well together with our affinity of using flamer since BS isn't as important there. Wording the "Chapter tactic" would be a bit weird then since those adjustments would obviously be on the Datasheets already.

It also wouldn't be completely right since Blood Angels aren't worse at shooting than other Marines but that would honestly be the only thing I can think of that represents us being prone to abandon our shooting positions to get into melee without having to randomly test whether a unit now wants to get into melee or not.

Yeah.... No.

Why do we need that much a negative? Even Khorne Berzerkers are BS3+....!

 

I think something think akin to no battleshock tests when you are at a 50% unit strength or something is quite BA. Fighting to the last man etc.

But that's not "quite BA". I have literally never read a story where they do that and others haven't. That's a space marine thing.

[Charlo]

You'd need a bigger bonus than +1S and A to justify losing control of a Shooting unit in z shooting game.

 

Randomness like that is not fun to me, personally.

 

Been there, done that, made the running devastators :P

[Arkangilos]

But hats my point, a flaw that causes that is exactly what the BA are and what they were supposed to be, but people don't want to play BA. They want to play SM + 1. They want the benefits without the flaw.

 

It's not that GW doesn't know what the BA should be. It's that we reject what they are supposed to be

Edited August 29, 2017 by Arkangilos

[Arkangilos]

I mean in the lore they have even killed their allies because they have lost control.

[TheHarrower]

Ark is probably right.

 

reintroduce the roll per unit each turn. on a roll of 1 they have to move toward nearest enemy and charge if they're able, but give them some hefty close combat bonus tied to that like +1 Strength and +1 A. Means that a blood angel that has succumb to the thirst is more dangerous than almost any other marine, but a marine succumbing to the thirst can also completely mess with your battle plans.

 

then give them a generic bonus that is always on (something like the advance and charge rule for example or always strikes first or hell, even something to do with morale, i dunno!)

 

I agree that 3rd Edition probably had the best representation for Blood Angels, but I don't want to roll for every one of my units each turn. That's just a PITA. If we wanted to represent something like this I'd go:

 

BLOOD ANGELS: RED THIRST

Blood Angels suffer from an unrelenting fervor to engage their enemy in melee.

 

Blood Angel Infantry, Bikes, and Dreadnoughts within 12" of an enemy unit need to roll a D6 at the beginning of the Movement Phase. On a roll of 1 or 2, the unit has given into the Red Thirst and suffers a -1 penalty to hit rolls for all shooting attacks and cannot voluntarily leave close combat. In addition, the unit yearns for battle and gains +1 attack and a +2 bonus to charge rolls.

 

This isn't as simple as I would like, but I think something along these lines could help. Some of the other stuff like locking opponents in melee, Descent of Angels type bonuses, and other stuff could be done through stratagems.

[Blindhamster]

I like that as a rule.

[Arkangilos]

Agreed. It also makes sense that the closer you get the more likely you are to go into Thirst mode (you can sense it better). So it isn't a threat until they are within sensory rangr

[TheHarrower]

I like that as a rule.

 

It's a start. It needs to have a bonus, but also have some sort of detriment. These are the hardest types of rules to get right, but I think it's a step in the right direction. It hurts shooting units and buffs melee units which is what we need.

[The Unseen]

Rolling for each unit is a terrible idea.

 

And having any kind of army wide downside doesn't actually work most of the time, and also doesn't make sense.

No other army has a "flaw" in their rules, even when it would be appropriate.

Night lords don't go blind when you shine a light in their face, sallies aren't actually slower than other marines, hell even khornate bezerkers suffer no penalty for supposedly being near mindless killing machines.

 

If the guys who will literally fall on their own blades to appease a bloodthirsty deity at a moments notice don't have a downside, why should we?

 

There isn't a way to balance a flaw like that, as if it's too crippling, it kneecaps the army, and if the accompanying bonus is too strong on units you can mitigate the flaw well be rolling over people.

 

And if you tie both the flaw and the bonus to a die the roll, congrats, now the army only works on the whims of a very small number of dice rolls.

And is now more random than tzeentch or orks.

 

I could handle bringing back the random rolling for models that fall to the rage again, but blood angels have more chapter doctrine, variance, and unique qualities that should be a chapter tactic more than "devestators occasionally run directly into combat, losing you the game".

 

No thanks, I'd like to keep control of my models like literally every other army in the game.