Blood Angel Lore vs. Gameplay Identity

[Panzer]

 

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.

 

My idea put in proper words. Nice job, I like it. ;)

[Damon Nightman]

I think the Unseen has a pretty good point... nothing else to add haha

[TheHarrower]

The Unseen, on 29 Aug 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

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

 

No, they don't, but really no other army has it called out more in the fluff then we do. There have been sidebars that mention "the flaw" in past Codexes. It is a big part of what makes the Blood Angels what they are. You don't see the same with other armies.

The Unseen, on 29 Aug 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

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

 

I do agree that having your army be susceptible to rules by random die rolls sucks. The old Ork rules come to mind. I would prefer to have total control over my army as well, but if done elegantly I think the rules could address it.

[Quixus]

 

The Unseen, on 29 Aug 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

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

 

No, they don't, but really no other army has it called out more in the fluff then we do. There have been sidebars that mention "the flaw" in past Codexes. It is a big part of what makes the Blood Angels what they are. You don't see the same with other armies.

What? World Eaters aren't all lobotomised in the fluff? Orks don't fight amongst themselves? Eldar aren't nearly extinct? You could construct crippling flaws from all of those fluff bits, yet none of those armies aren hit with that nerf bat.

[Arkangilos]

Well the thing about night lords is a terrible analogy.

 

One: they are space marines, their eyes are better than their natives.

Two: they wear helmets, and their helmets filter the light.

 

Our flaw is the only thing our chapter has that sets it apart other than their need to fly like their Primarch. It (the red thirst) is consistently described as terrible. It makes the Blood Angels, in their blood thirst, attack allies, abandon positions, give up advantages, and be so brutal in combat that it literally makes inquisitors think the BA are on the cusp of Damnation. Unless we show it as a flaw as well as a benefit, we will never have an accurate and lore friendly rules that depict the chapter.

[Djangomatic82]

A flaw doesn't necessarily need to be represented as an attribute loss in the data sheets, as in -1 shots for +1 attack. I could be used in a more elegant fashion, where in that it coaxes us, the players into a play style/list construction  that isn't really followed by other chapters. Say something like instead of losing models to Battle Shock, those models that would be removed are instead boosted to DC stats and charge the nearest unit (friend or foe, requiring the player to be mindful of positioning and such) and so on until they are destroyed or the game is over.
This would introduce a risky incentive to build lists using larger groups of units, instead of the usual MSU style. We gain the benefit of having more bodies on the field and any benefits that come from that (like better buff scaling, ablative bodies, etc...) but become susceptible to losing control of our units if casualties get too high.
Mostly, I'm trying to say, maybe we need more playstyle incentives instead of flat attribute buffs.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Djangomatic82

[Crimson Ghost IX]

I would like to respectfully disagree with those calling for further in game negative flaw rules.

 

It has sucked enough playing Blood Angels now for several editions.

I would very very much like for GW to get the positives right first.

 

The black rage is fine as is IMO currently.

Red Thirst better be overall an overwhelming net positive... (But I see why it is being discussed)

 

Playing Blood Angels for the love of Blood Angels has been enough of a negative for quite some time.

If they go too far then GW can reel it in with "flaws" if a nerf is needed.

 

Until then I am happy with our boys eating serfs/civilians outside of the gaming table.

[TheHarrower]

 

I would like to respectfully disagree with those calling for further in game negative flaw rules.

 

The black rage is fine as is IMO currently.

 

Fair enough and I agree probably better not to introduce a flaw mechanic. I'll disagree on Black Rage though. It should be a 5+.

 

Djangomatic82, on 29 Aug 2017 - 1:46 PM, said:

Mostly, I'm trying to say, maybe we need more playstyle incentives instead of flat attribute buffs.

 

I agree, but I'll take it a step further. I think all armies in 40K could use more playstyle incentives.

Edited August 29, 2017 by TheHarrower

[Indefragable]

I think Ark has a point about the flaw (and he has been annoyingly consistent about it for as long as I have been on here forums ;) )....

 

...however, simply put, if we were to have any sort of drawback on the 8th Ed TT, then we would need to have some insane positives to balance it out. One has to look at the game system as a whole, and it is not currently in vogue to have factions with flaws or drawbacks.

 

I am especially sensitive to that fact having played 6th Ed IG in the Decurion-happy 7th Ed. The last IG Codex was filled with "let's dial this down a notch" or "yea..but it should have a downside as well" and let me tel you it was :cuss -ing atrocious, most especially because no other force had such self limiting factors.

 

It can be done, but the benefits would have to far outweighs he negatives to have a hope of bringing us up to par, let alone put us even remotely ahead. Automatically make charges, +1A, +1To Hit, +1 To Wound, always strike first, and are -1 To Hit to enemies. ......and we'd STILL get shot off the board.

 

Now....in 30k, where almost every Legion has a limitation, it's different story.

 

The bottom line is that we need buffs right now, and any drawbacks, no matter how fluffy, will only hurt us unless said buffs are good enough to be a net gain.

[Arkangilos]

 

 

 

 

The Unseen, on 29 Aug 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

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

No, they don't, but really no other army has it called out more in the fluff then we do. There have been sidebars that mention "the flaw" in past Codexes. It is a big part of what makes the Blood Angels what they are. You don't see the same with other armies.

What? World Eaters aren't all lobotomised in the fluff? Orks don't fight amongst themselves? Eldar aren't nearly extinct? You could construct crippling flaws from all of those fluff bits, yet none of those armies aren hit with that nerf bat.

Orks fighting amongst themselves is represented by... Orks fighting themselves.

 

The scale of battles are too small to represent the limited number of Eldar, who still have high enough populations to field armies larger than modern armies.

 

World Eaters aren't lobotomized, they have implants that make them feel pain if they aren't angry. They don't have parts of their brains removed.

I think Ark has a point about the flaw (and he has been annoyingly consistent about it for as long as I have been on here forums ;) )....

 

...however, simply put, if we were to have any sort of drawback on the 8th Ed TT, then we would need to have some insane positives to balance it out. One has to look at the game system as a whole, and it is not currently in vogue to have factions with flaws or drawbacks.

 

I am especially sensitive to that fact having played 6th Ed IG in the Decurion-happy 7th Ed. The last IG Codex was filled with "let's dial this down a notch" or "yea..but it should have a downside as well" and let me tel you it was :cuss -ing atrocious, most especially because no other force had such self limiting factors.

 

It can be done, but the benefits would have to far outweighs he negatives to have a hope of bringing us up to par, let alone put us even remotely ahead. Automatically make charges, +1A, +1To Hit, +1 To Wound, always strike first, and are -1 To Hit to enemies. ......and we'd STILL get shot off the board.

 

Now....in 30k, where almost every Legion has a limitation, it's different story.

 

The bottom line is that we need buffs right now, and any drawbacks, no matter how fluffy, will only hurt us unless said buffs are good enough to be a net gain.

I definitely want a huge buff on top of the downside.

[Helias_Tancred]

Also something else to consider is what I call the Anthropology Race effect. 

 

Years ago I learned in college that the various human races have far more in common than anything that sets them apart. The same can be said for ANY space marine army (minus GK as they truly are a unique SM army imo). All of the space marine armies have a lot more in common than they do anything that truly makes them different than the next. We are very resilient, have access to some of the best weaponry, are very flexible in building an army, and can do moderately well in close combat or at shooting.

 

My last match was the Konor Campaign game 1. I fielded a Blood Angel force that literally shot my Dark Eldar opponent off the table by the end of turn 3! .. and he fields a shooty DE list! I had one unit, terminators lead by First Captain Karlaen out of a Land Raider, that actually got into close combat. And we are a space marine chapter whose forte is close combat or the assault?

 

As time goes on I see the various marine chapters playing more and more alike with the true differences growing smaller. That can be for better or for worse depending on your preference? In 8th edition I don't really see where GW has changed this bottom line fact. Sure each chapter gets their specific trait, and access to tailored stratagems and other trinkets, but in the end in this edition its going to come down to small details that set us apart.

... and I'm not holding my breath for anything in our upcoming codex that deviates from that design focus.

[brother_b]

The identity of the Blood Angels has evolved. Before any books, codexes, or even special miniatures they were just one of the founding legions. All the other stuff came afterwards, including the jump pack/assault stuff. I still have the mono-pose sgt. and tactical marines. That was it. As the game grew, and the canon grew, especially with actual books being written (I still have to read some), the chapter evolved.

 

I'm all for some flavorful goodies and stratagems but I'm absolutely against anything that randomizes the army or adds dice rolls (there are too many already). I also don't get the idea of wanting a flaw. The flaw is represented on the tabletop with DC models. We don't have to actually play out some sort of negative effect for our minis. 

 

I get it, I'm back after years and was pleasantly surprised about all the new rules, units, and especially beautiful models/minis being released specifically for the BA. I am hopefully optimistic that they'll get it right and please all BA players.

[Panzer]

 

I'm all for some flavorful goodies and stratagems but I'm absolutely against anything that randomizes the army or adds dice rolls (there are too many already). I also don't get the idea of wanting a flaw. The flaw is represented on the tabletop with DC models. We don't have to actually play out some sort of negative effect for our minis. 

 

That's just one flaw and honestly the minor (but more flashy) one. It's the Black Rage. The Red Thirst is something every Blood Angel Marine suffers from.

[brother_b]

Yeah, I meant flaw in the actual game (like game mechanic), not fluff. But yes you're quite right about the Red Thirst.

[Withershadow]

based on rules from previous editions, we are also a fast army. Not just in terms of movement (overcharged vehicles) but also in combat.

This generally gave us bonuses to Initiative (Furious charge, Quicken).

With Initiative gone, maybe we could chose the order of melee combat? Or maybe always get the charge bonus, even on turns we didn't charge?

 

Just ideas...

And bingo was his name-o. With Chaos and Codex marines sharing the same tactics, I would look towards Chaos for inspiration. Fulgrim was always a Sanguinius-wanna-be (Daddy even gave him a special bird icon to make him feel special), and they don't have a mirror in the SM Codex. So I would not be at all surprised if red thirst was an additional attack for every casualty caused, as well as always strikes first to represent Blood Angels skill and savagery. A stratagem to fight an additional time in a fight phase would also be appropriate. I would expect more stuff to be reused than to be brand new.

[SnorriSnorrison]

I'd say that the Red Thirst should give us a buff on the tabletop, but also a drawback - not just point costs. Drawbacks could be morale checks if an enemy unit is in range, and having to charge that unit if the test is failed. Or a roll of a D6 at the start of the movement phase, having to move towards the target on a roll of a "1" - or getting an extra D6 movement. Still, heavy weapons would be able to be fired in this edition, therefore it wouldn't be all that bad.

 

 

 

For buffs, the possibilities are endless. As mentioned above, Blood Angels could always fight first in the Combat phase, even though that would be massively good and perhaps unbalanced.

 

 

Otherwise, I personally wouldn't mind to get re-rolls in close combat for all, S5 on the charge, rolling 3D6 for charges and pick the highest 2, no LD checks in combat, always counting to have charged and getting +1 attack on the charge(just like DC), just to name a few. A flaw in this army would actually have to be outweighed massively by a very good advantage in the combat phase, since right in this very moment, we're a bit on the shorter end of the powerscale. However, with adjusted point costs, that might change with a new codex.

 

 

 

Snorri

Edited September 2, 2017 by SnorriSnorrison

[brother_b]

There should be no auto mechanic that forces your core units to act a certain way. This removes choices from the player and really handicaps BA players. I don't understand why people would want to handicap their units, even though I totally understand the fluff behind the thinking.

 

I'd rather have a choice in the matter regarding "drawback". Maybe a stratagem (free?) that you can affect a unit of your choice with the "red thirst", allowing +A or +S or FNP with a corresponding loss in BS or need to assault, something like that. Remove the randomness in command and let the player decide.

 

The on-the-table narrative stays the same. The Tactical Squad gave in to the red thrist and charged the cultists on the last turn. Does it matter that the player made the choice to turn on the "red thirst" or whatever you want to call the stratagem?

 

I don't want to slow the game down with more rolls or checks either.

 

Anyway, good feedback, good input, I still don't care and continue to paint up my BA because they're my chapter of choice.

[SnorriSnorrison]

Understandable. On second(or third thoughts) perhaps the LD checks if an enemy unit is within 12" makes most sense. So Devastators and other units dedicated to the ranged approach are safe, most of the time.

 

 

3rd edition was close to the perfect depiction of Blood Angels. The drawback was massive, as it could mess up you're game, but the buff provided let us strike before other marines and with a ferocity that had no match in the Imperium and even amongst Chaos forces.

 

 

There should be no loss of BS as a drawback. It should rather focus around the movement phase, perhaps having to charge when the LD check was failed extremely bad(like above 10).

We can still re-roll that, so, yeah.

 

 

On a different note: how are Wulfen so much better than DC? I've always seen them on the same level, power-wise. I feel the Black Rage should at least be 5+ FnP, and Wulfen get 2 wounds and shields on top of that...so perhaps a 4+ FnP for Death Company isn't too much to ask for?

Edited September 3, 2017 by SnorriSnorrison

[Indefragable]

On a different note: how are Wulfen so much better than DC? I've always seen them on the same level, power-wise. I feel the Black Rage should at least be 5+ FnP, and Wulfen get 2 wounds and shields on top of that...so perhaps a 4+ FnP for Death Company isn't too much to ask for?

 

Ummm....

 

 

Death Company:

Hidden Content

17pts apiece before wargear

 

M     WS    BS     S     T     W     A     Ld     Sv

6"     3+     3+     4      4     1      2      7       3+

 

And They Shall Know No Fear

Black Rage = +1A on the charge, 6+ Feel No Pain equivalent

 

Can take jump packs.

Can take power weapons, pistols, or Thunder Hammers

 

 

 

Wulfen  

Hidden Content

37pts apiece before wargear

 

M     WS    BS     S     T     W     A     Ld     Sv

7"     3+     5+     5      4     2      3      7       4+

 

Bounding Lope: can Advance and Charge, and re-roll failed Charges

 

Death Frenzy: when you kill them, they get to fight again before being removed

 

With "Curse of the Wulfen" you can choose to give friendly SW Infantry or Biker units in 6" either +1A or the ability to re-roll failed Charges

 

Can take:

Wulfen Claws (default) = S(User) AP-1 D:1

Frost Claws = S+1 AP-2 D:1 re-roll failed Wounds

Thunder Hammers

Great Frost Axe = S+3 AP-3 D:D3, get +1A the turn you Charge

Storm Shields = so all the above also gets 3++

 

 

 

I don't mean to snarky, but just compare those two. Even with how much cheaper DC are than Wulfen, a squad of Wulfen would beat 2x or more their number of DC backwards with an arm behind their back and twice on Sundays.

 

Not only are they better stats and wargear, but they are self sufficient (native invuln, so no need to drag a Libby around; can Advance AND Charge AND re-roll Charges), but they also make they rest of your army around them better just by having them.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Indefragable

[SnorriSnorrison]

Yes, that's what I meant. Before 7th, they should've been at around the same powerlevel, no? At least with a Chaplain attached to the DC.

The "Bounding Lope" sounds good for DC also - and only fitting. No need to have them make the army around them perform better, but they should be comparable as far as elite combat units go.

[Orpheus Black Blood]

 

On a different note: how are Wulfen so much better than DC? I've always seen them on the same level, power-wise. I feel the Black Rage should at least be 5+ FnP, and Wulfen get 2 wounds and shields on top of that...so perhaps a 4+ FnP for Death Company isn't too much to ask for?

 

Ummm....

 

 

Death Company:

Hidden Content

17pts apiece before wargear

 

M     WS    BS     S     T     W     A     Ld     Sv

6"     3+     3+     4      4     1      2      7       3+

 

And They Shall Know No Fear

Black Rage = +1A on the charge, 6+ Feel No Pain equivalent

 

Can take jump packs.

Can take power weapons, pistols, or Thunder Hammers

 

 

 

Wulfen  

Hidden Content

37pts apiece before wargear

 

M     WS    BS     S     T     W     A     Ld     Sv

7"     3+     5+     5      4     2      3      7       4+

 

Bounding Lope: can Advance and Charge, and re-roll failed Charges

 

Death Frenzy: when you kill them, they get to fight again before being removed

 

With "Curse of the Wulfen" you can choose to give friendly SW Infantry or Biker units in 6" either +1A or the ability to re-roll failed Charges

 

Can take:

Wulfen Claws (default) = S(User) AP-1 D:1

Frost Claws = S+1 AP-2 D:1 re-roll failed Wounds

Thunder Hammers

Great Frost Axe = S+3 AP-3 D:D3, get +1A the turn you Charge

Storm Shields = so all the above also gets 3++

 

 

 

I don't mean to snarky, but just compare those two. Even with how much cheaper DC are than Wulfen, a squad of Wulfen would beat 2x or more their number of DC backwards with an arm behind their back and twice on Sundays.

 

Not only are they better stats and wargear, but they are self sufficient (native invuln, so no need to drag a Libby around; can Advance AND Charge AND re-roll Charges), but they also make they rest of your army around them better just by having them.

 

Yes, we are the poor brothers space marines XD, but i think wulfen are just too good and the death company a bit on the lower side. One just has to ask himself what were the designers thinking: "5+ feel no pain? that's outrageous, 6+ tops!" but wulfen can do everything.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Orpheus Black Blood

[Indefragable]

To add insult to injury, this post on WC evens lists the Canis Helix as a "better" flaw then the Red Thirst. golly gee?

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/09/04/celebrate-30-years-of-40k-the-top-5-mutations-in-warhammer-40000gw-homepage-post-3/

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the Red Thirst/Black Rage been around way longer than the notion of Wulfen?

[Panzer]

Well the article also mentions Squats so I wouldn't give a :cuss about what it says. :D

[Charlo]

Official Squat Acknowledgment?

 

RESET THE CLOCK!

[Arkangilos]

I don't understand what the problem is. Just because it's ordered that way doesn't mean ours is any less valued. Also, who cares if wulfen are better? In almost everything warewolves are stronger than vampires. It's a different curse, it's a different unit, and it's a different comparison. 

 

I'm not going to get upset over wulfen having better rules.