9th edition codex supplement

[Diagramdude]

I think you can just use the chaplain stratagem to guarantee a litany in the charge phase.

[redshadow]

Steven box’s blood angels masterclass

 

http://email.c.kajabimail.net/c/eJwdjstqwzAURL_G2hQL3auH7YUWLcHQdT8gXEtyokR-oCgx_fsqhYGBGZg53mrt_cSiRYECUBhQgNhz4FKPSvVGSfw6AfZjo4Tjd7rRFBeKia-hsKul2fnOCSGxqzYrj0bAMDmAWYEcDEv2Wsr-aORng2PVcRz8RevlSdkXciW6B3fb8m7CFFfKbd62pQUW3i9nH1J8hfx7jt62AAI6qZXpWLY7PROlRKuq6dBj5bv8g9U1VuxPLOHj-9SgNCj18AfFBUXR

 

Don’t know how long the link will work for, starts about 8 minutes in

Edited December 7, 2020 by redshadow

[Karhedron]

I think you can just use the chaplain stratagem to guarantee a litany in the charge phase.

Only if you have not already chanted a Litancy with the Chaplain this turn. There seem to be 2 preffered ways to run a chaplain at the moment.

 

1. On bike with the Master of Sanctity upgrade. This guy chants 2 litanies per turn on a 2+ and can move around the board to handy out buffs as needed.

 

2. Coming in from Reserves (Pod, TDA or Jump Pack) with Canticle of Hate and Icon of the Angel (or paired with a Chapter Champion in the Pod). This gives anyone nearby a 7" rerollable charge out of Reserves. This guy uses the stratagem because he can only use one Litany on the turn he comes on but you really want to make sure Canticle of Hate goes off. Lemartes works the same way without Icon of the Angel but for DC only.

[Warhead01]

This was in my feed this morning. 
I haven't played in nearly 2 years now so the way RAW vs RAI is covered in this video sounds like double speak to me now days. 
Just passing this along because I'm lost and it may be worth chewing over. 
Video title  "Are we playing combat doctrines wrong?"
Regarding how buffs stack and the language used in the BA supplement vs the SW supplement. 

 

[Xenith]

I really wouldn't worry about that too much. The title is clickbait, it's nothing to do with playing doctrines wrong, it's about a couple of niche stratagems and abilities that seem to forget the order of operations for attacks.

 

Play it as it makes sense to you and your opponnt until there's an FAQ.

[Warhead01]

I really wouldn't worry about that too much. The title is clickbait, it's nothing to do with playing doctrines wrong, it's about a couple of niche stratagems and abilities that seem to forget the order of operations for attacks.

 

Play it as it makes sense to you and your opponnt until there's an FAQ.

 

 

Will do! 

 

I wasn't seeing how either set of rules would imply the other was being used wrong, this being the age of bespoke rules so why should they be played the same. then the guy seems to wonder off talking about just the wolfen or something as his example. But you know after so much time away from the tables and a whole new edition rolling out and all. 

 

Thank you. 

[Blindhamster]

one thing im sad not to see, is a primaris sanguinary priest - especially as there is literally one in the new Astorath book.

[Fobzter]

or Dante riding an impulsor like in the Darkness in the Blood book!

[Morticon]

 

I really wouldn't worry about that too much. The title is clickbait, it's nothing to do with playing doctrines wrong, it's about a couple of niche stratagems and abilities that seem to forget the order of operations for attacks.

 

Play it as it makes sense to you and your opponnt until there's an FAQ.

 

 

Will do! 

 

I wasn't seeing how either set of rules would imply the other was being used wrong, this being the age of bespoke rules so why should they be played the same. then the guy seems to wonder off talking about just the wolfen or something as his example. But you know after so much time away from the tables and a whole new edition rolling out and all. 

 

Thank you. 

 

 

 

Its been discussed before, but in short the wording as is for the Priest ability (and technically Adaptive Strat) is such that we do not get Savage Echoes (the extra attack) on account that we have already determined the number of attacks we have before the Assault Doc kicks in.

 

He was looking at the small differences in wording  between the dexs to bring up a discussion of whether or not what is actually written was intended.  

 

I'm hoping this is addressed in the FAQ, because its horribly silly (not to mention blatantly unfair) that (almost) every other chapter has their special ability triggered after the attack - White Scars for example would benefit from the +1 damage, Raven Guard from the +1 to hit and wound vs Chars, while DA also would not see the benefit to their range increased.   

 

But expect BA players to get that pushback .

[keeblerartillery]

Mort, I actually think savage echoes IS now triggered by our chalice. The key is in the change of the wording (slightly) and comparison to red rampage.

 

Savage echoes states - while the assault doctrine is active, each time it fights, if it charged. Not “for the entire army” as red rampage does. Nor do the clauses read, like they used to, that the unit had to make said charge move whilst the assault doctrine was active. It now says - if it fights instead of charge. Therefore, I believe the distinction intentional, as well as the contrast to red rampage’s specific wording.

[Hintzy]

I think it's more a matter of timing than wording. The two abilities state that the Assault Doctrine is active only "for that attack." The issue is that at the point a model is making it's attacks it's already previously calculated how many attacks it will make. With the two abilities in question the Assault Doctrine is not active during the attack calculation/allocation step, only the dice rolling step. At that point it's too late to add additional attacks.

[Blindhamster]

On the order hand, if it isnt active, the challace is pretty rubbish.

[BluejayJunior]

I don't see how one more attack turns it from rubbish to amazing. 

It's either increase AP by 1 or increase AP by 1 and get an extra attack.

It's still effective either way. 

[Diagramdude]

Would taking Artisan of War on a librarian dreadnought allow him to take The Armor Indomitus? The stratagem specifically says the warlord can be given The Armor Indomitus, but on the relics page it says The Armor Indomitus cannot be given to Vehicle characters.

[Vermintide]

While Assault Doctrine is active, Blood Angels get a bonus attack. That's cut and dry. Doesn't make a difference if the Assault Doctrine is active for the whole army or if it's only active for a single swing of a scout's knife- The Assault Doctrine is considered active. Therefore as long as he charged, he gets +1 attack, because that's what the rule for Savage Echoes dictates. So then, that bonus attack gets to have Assault Doctrine considered active too.

 

My two penneth. Gives you the attack when you charge, because nothing about Savage Echoes specifies when the assault doctrine has to be active for it to work, just that it is. This is one of those times try-hard pedantry is getting in the way of common sense.

[Diagramdude]

I can definitely see both points of view of the Chalice argument. After looking at the core rules again, I think the Chalice DOES grant +1 attack.

 

Page 21:

MAKE CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS

 

When a unit makes its close combat attacks, before resolving those attacks you must first determine which models can fight and how many attacks they will make, then you select the target unit(s) for all of the attacks those models will make and declare what melee weapons those attacks will be made with.

 

So there is a wording distinction between making your attacks and resolving those attacks. You must determine how many attacks the unit will make when the unit makes its close combat attacks! The Chalice clearly says each time the unit makes an attack, the Assault doctrine is considered to be active for that attack. So you go to make your close combat attacks, and determine the number of attacks you will make with the Assault Doctrine considered to be active for that attack instead. That triggers the extra attack from Savage Echoes, and then later on page 22 when you Select Weapon they have an additional -1 AP as well. 

 

I can see where the die-hards of the "Chalice doesn't give you a bonus attack" camp would disagree, but I think the wording of the core rules and the chalice are concrete. The Chalice says 'each time a model in that unit makes an attack, the Assault Doctrine is considered to be active for that attack.' The 'Make Close Combat Attacks' core rules on page 18 say when a unit makes its close combat attacks, you determine how many attacks they will make before resolving the attacks. The extra armour penetration part doesn't apply until page 19. 

 

The argument that at the point a model is making its attacks it's already previously calculated how many attacks it will make is false. Calculating the number of attacks is actually the very first step, and the Blood Chalice has already kicked in when you go to make that calculation. Resolving the attack involves the AP value, but calculating number of attacks is the first step, not a pre-step. 

[BrotherAetherick]

Would taking Artisan of War on a librarian dreadnought allow him to take The Armor Indomitus? The stratagem specifically says the warlord can be given The Armor Indomitus, but on the relics page it says The Armor Indomitus cannot be given to Vehicle characters.

 

Artisan of war only lets you choose Adamantine Mantle, Artificer Armour, Master crafted Weapon, and Digital Weapons. Still have the problem of the warlord trait saying you can take them, and the special issue wargear section stating vehicles cannot however..

[SnorriSnorrison]

The intention of the chalice wording is clear I think. If GW wanted us to gain an extra ap from the effect, they would have said so, since it’s only working in the devastator and tactical doctrine anyways so can’t stack with assault doctrine. Seems to be a case of poor choice of words as usual. RAW, the order attacks are generated at might disallow the activation of Savage Echoes, but it’s intended in my opinion.

Ultramarines have a similar ability (even though worded differently) and it was FAQ‘d to activate the tactical doctrine. That could’ve been in 8th, though.

[Diagramdude]

Whoops, I was thinking Artificer Armor when I wrote Armor Indomitus. He definitely can't take the Armor Indomitus, but I would be very interested in a Duty Eternal'ed Libby Dread with a 2+/5++ or a 5+ FNP.

[Hintzy]

I can definitely see both points of view of the Chalice argument. After looking at the core rules again, I think the Chalice DOES grant +1 attack.

 

Page 21:

MAKE CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS

 

When a unit makes its close combat attacks, before resolving those attacks you must first determine which models can fight and how many attacks they will make, then you select the target unit(s) for all of the attacks those models will make and declare what melee weapons those attacks will be made with.

 

So there is a wording distinction between making your attacks and resolving those attacks. You must determine how many attacks the unit will make when the unit makes its close combat attacks! The Chalice clearly says each time the unit makes an attack, the Assault doctrine is considered to be active for that attack. So you go to make your close combat attacks, and determine the number of attacks you will make with the Assault Doctrine considered to be active for that attack instead. That triggers the extra attack from Savage Echoes, and then later on page 22 when you Select Weapon they have an additional -1 AP as well.

 

I can see where the die-hards of the "Chalice doesn't give you a bonus attack" camp would disagree, but I think the wording of the core rules and the chalice are concrete. The Chalice says 'each time a model in that unit makes an attack, the Assault Doctrine is considered to be active for that attack.' The 'Make Close Combat Attacks' core rules on page 18 say when a unit makes its close combat attacks, you determine how many attacks they will make before resolving the attacks. The extra armour penetration part doesn't apply until page 19.

 

The argument that at the point a model is making its attacks it's already previously calculated how many attacks it will make is false. Calculating the number of attacks is actually the very first step, and the Blood Chalice has already kicked in when you go to make that calculation. Resolving the attack involves the AP value, but calculating number of attacks is the first step, not a pre-step.

I think you could definitely be on to something, but the argument breaks down a little when they keep saying stuff like "...and how many attacks they will make" The inclusion of "will" implies that making the attacks occurs after the calculation of how many. But that's probably just me being pedantic.

[Morticon]

I can definitely see both points of view of the Chalice argument. After looking at the core rules again, I think the Chalice DOES grant +1 attack.

 

Page 21:

MAKE CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS

 

When a unit makes its close combat attacks, before resolving those attacks you must first determine which models can fight and how many attacks they will make, then you select the target unit(s) for all of the attacks those models will make and declare what melee weapons those attacks will be made with.

 

So there is a wording distinction between making your attacks and resolving those attacks. You must determine how many attacks the unit will make when the unit makes its close combat attacks! The Chalice clearly says each time the unit makes an attack, the Assault doctrine is considered to be active for that attack. So you go to make your close combat attacks, and determine the number of attacks you will make with the Assault Doctrine considered to be active for that attack instead. That triggers the extra attack from Savage Echoes, and then later on page 22 when you Select Weapon they have an additional -1 AP as well. 

 

I can see where the die-hards of the "Chalice doesn't give you a bonus attack" camp would disagree, but I think the wording of the core rules and the chalice are concrete. The Chalice says 'each time a model in that unit makes an attack, the Assault Doctrine is considered to be active for that attack.' The 'Make Close Combat Attacks' core rules on page 18 say when a unit makes its close combat attacks, you determine how many attacks they will make before resolving the attacks. The extra armour penetration part doesn't apply until page 19. 

 

The argument that at the point a model is making its attacks it's already previously calculated how many attacks it will make is false. Calculating the number of attacks is actually the very first step, and the Blood Chalice has already kicked in when you go to make that calculation. Resolving the attack involves the AP value, but calculating number of attacks is the first step, not a pre-step. 

 

 

This is not a bad find.  I remember reading it earlier, but for some reason didnt really take it in.  I'll have another look !

[Karhedron]

I think that we do get Savage Echoes from Blood Chalice due to the wording. The Blood Chalice states (emphasis is mine):
 

each time a model in that unit makes an attack the Assault Doctrine is considered to be active for that Attack instead.

Now this important because of the wording in the Core Rules:
 

Page 21:

MAKE CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS

When a unit makes its close combat attacks, before resolving those attacks you must first determine which models can fight and how many attacks they will make, then you select the target unit(s) for all of the attacks those models will make and declare what melee weapons those attacks will be made with.

 

So "making an attack" applies to the whole sequence of steps defined in the core rules. It is not just the step of rolling the attack dice, wound dice etc. That sequence of Hit, Wound, Save is specifically referred to as "resolving the attacks".

So I think that the Blood Chalice does trigger Savage Echoes because it is in effect the entire time the we MAKE our attacks, not just when we RESOLVE them.

EDIT - I have just reread Diagramdude's post and I think he is making the same point, just slightly better than me. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Karhedron

[Rhavien]

Guys, let me give you a hug. You've convinced me that we indeed get savage echos from the blood chalice :) I've played it with just the AP -1 till now.

[Indefragable]

Yay for effective +1A.

 

 

The sad part is something like this would literally take the devs one sentence (maybe even a single word, "yes/no") to definitively resolve the RAI. 

[Diagramdude]

I’m glad you guys find my argument convincing. Another piece of evidence in favor of the +1 attack is the Attacks Characteristic is a subset of the Make Close Combat Attacks section. Having Assault Doctrine active when you’re making that attack would increase the attacks characteristic by +1 for shock assault and another +1 for savage echoes.

 

To put it another way, each time a model makes an attack, the process instantly blossoms into a number of attack resolutions. That number is determined by the model’s Attack Characteristic. The Assault Doctrine is active for that attack, so the Attack Characteristic is at a +2.

 

Simply put, checking your attacks characteristic is the first step of making your attacks. You haven’t “passed the step in the rules” for number of attacks when you go to make the attack. You’re actually right at the step in the rules for number of attacks when you go to make the attack.