Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion

 Post subject: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:12 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Here is a draft for a possible 2.2 version that I'd like people to peruse and discuss.

Changes are highlighted in red.

Most notable change is the inclusion of the Sanguinary Guard. As the poll conducted split the community evenly, I feel it reasonable that a trial of this new formation is adopted - we won't know if we don't give it a try. While some don't like the idea, just as many people did, so if it does nothing more than help to generate play testing then it will at least be a positive addition for the moment. In the end, it will be easy enough to remove them if we find they bring little to the list. I think the argument that SG are quite different to a Veteran or Sternguard can be made, so I don't feel these other types would be a necessary addition in every Marine list.

This would obviously push development back but I'm not sure experimental is the right place for the list, more "at the beginning" of developmental. With a year of solid play-testing I think the list could still make approved by the next TP/compendium provided people actually play it and provide evidence.


Attachments:
BLOOD ANGELS SPACE MARINE ARMY LIST v2.2 draft.pdf [385.47 KiB]
Downloaded 1073 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 7:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5285
Location: Bristol
Generally looks great. Good to see Sainguinary Guard in there to trial :)

There are currently 4 different versions of Thunderhawk Transporter stats floating around at the moment (Scions of Iron, Black Templars, Blood Angels and the Horus Heresy list), which isn't ideal. So long as the stats keep the 4+ Reinforced Armour I'm happy to match whatever stats you go for in the BT list. Perhaps we could talk to Fattdex and try to get him to use the same too? Though I guess SoI will likely stay the same (just name them the SoI Thunderhawk Transporter and assume they use a lighter/weaker version from other chapters).

Is the lack of any CC and FF on it intentional or a typo though? I had the idea of artificially lowering the FF and removing the AP attack in the BT list to limit their bomber and/or empty air assaulting usage, but I still gave them 6+ 6+. I haven't really tested them yet but I was thinking 250 for 2 or 350 for 3 and would say 100 points each looks perhaps a little cheap to me for them, even with poor offense. In an air assault 4DC or 6DC of Reinforced Armour could soak up hits from the units they deploy, without really mattering that much if they should take damage or be destroyed. Maybe I'm worrying overly though, I haven't played air assault much yet to properly be able to judge.

The spacecraft will need adding Thunderhawk Transporters to the units they can transport, for planetfalling them. I suggest adding them as a separate entry so that a Strike Cruiser can carry 6 Thunderhawks and 6 THTs (you'd run out of space doing a Thunderhawk planetfall army otherwise and other chapters would carry and use THTs in addition to their THs too they just hadn't included them in the list number).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I'll have to go through it as I just cut and pasted the BT THT and changed the data sheet for transported units. I wasn't aware they were all different. I'll sort that out. If the SoI version does the same thing there's no reason it should be different.

Edit -
Quote:
In an air assault 4DC or 6DC of Reinforced Armour could soak up hits from the units they deploy, without really mattering that much if they should take damage or be destroyed. Maybe I'm worrying overly though, I haven't played air assault much yet to properly be able to judge.

It's possibly why SoI has them at 5+ RA. That said, I don't think you can normally expect to shoot down a TH in Air Assault, more just put BMs on them to limit engagement more. If you shoot at the THTs you still put BMs on them and the formations they're carrying.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 9:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
Wow! Well, obviously I am super jazzed to see the Sanguinary Guard in there for playtesting. That's really cool. I am working on the models for them as we speak and intend to playtest them during our upcoming league.

Wow, 475 points for four stands!!! Talk about glass cannon! Will be interesting to see how they play. Put them in a Thunderhawk with the Death Company... hmm... could be interesting. That would be one devastating assault.

I like the change to the Furioso Dreadnoughts joining the Death Company becoming fearless. That's a really good change.

Also the reduction of the missiles for the Stormraven from 4 to 2 is a good call. I just wish I had some models to represent these! As it is, I really can't use them because I don't have any models even approaching suitable for them.

The Thunderhawk transporters seem really cool, but I am not really getting my head around how I would use them.

Cool! I will try to get as many playtests out as I can.

_________________
Former Blood Angels Army Champion
Epic Gamers Los Angeles Chapter
Armies Played:
Blood Angels
Black Legion
Codex Marines
Imperial Fists


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 9:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Wow, 475 points for four stands!!! Talk about glass cannon! Will be interesting to see how they play. Put them in a Thunderhawk with the Death Company... hmm... could be interesting. That would be one devastating assault.

375 is a basic starting point for the formation. I felt they were slightly better than a Terminator formation given they're fearless and move 30cm with jump packs - which means they disembark up to 15cm in an air assault.

Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
I like the change to the Furioso Dreadnoughts joining the Death Company becoming fearless. That's a really good change.

Yeah it didn't really suit they weren't fearless and they join the Death Company - the whole reason the formation is fearless.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 9:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5285
Location: Bristol
Yeah... the THT is an unfortunate contentious issue, there has been a LOT of discussion about the THT going back over time.

Hena decided on underarmouring THTs at 5+ Reinforced in the Scions list so that (as per their background) THTs were used primarily as a transport and not a bomber or as a viable air assault formation on their own when empty. The THT is identically as tough as the Thunderhawk in 40k and SM aircraft are designed to be tough and to survive dropping into hot fire zones and many of us were very against the 5+, but Hena stuck with it.

I agree that it should be focussed as a transport and a straight translation from 40k would make it too good at other things (4 x Twin Heavy Bolters with high FF would be very good for ground attacking or empty air assaulting) but I much prefer the approach of doing the armour properly, so that it can survive and be tough as in it's primary role as it is meant to be, but artificially lowering it's FF and reducing (or ideally entirely removing as per Jimmy's suggestion that others agreed with too) it's ground AP attack to limit this instead. I suspect you copy and pasted the version from the old BT list in the Compendium, which I'd changed after taking on the BT list. The version in the old Compendium wasn't ideal as it changed to 4+ Reinforced for the Templars list only after Hena left, but left the cost unchanged, making it too good.

See this thread for a lot of discussion from a few months ago on the THT. As discussed there I am testing the following currently in the BT list: Armour 4+ Reinforced FF6+ Heavy Bolter Array 2 x 15cm AA5+ and I will certainly test the unit a lot. I've tested the BT THT in one game recently against Markconz, but I played poorly (rusty on air assault tactics after ground pounding so much) and the game was very one sided and overly quickly so I didn't learn much. For what it's worth Epic-UK originally had the THT at 5+ Reinforced but revised it to 4+ Reinforced a few years ago.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:08 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I think it can go to 4+ in all lists really. I don't like multiple versions as it tends to confuse people and ends up in a "oh wait, but the X THT has 5+RA, so which is the typo?" situation.

I think the reduction to its Air Assault capability is the right way to go and I've now adjusted the BA one to follow that but I think the price can stay at 100 each with those reduced stats (Heavy Bolter Array 2 x 15cm AA5+). Adding 200 points (for 2) as a formation's air transport (like the TH) seems a tidy option. I know there's the DC factor involved but the reduction in stats goes a long way to balancing this out.


On a separate topic, how do people feel about the wording of the Frenzied special ability? The words "charge move" seem incorrect as you don't charge per se in Epic. Should it read after "a move" or "engagement move?" It seems like it would kick in after the formation ends its move.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
I think the wording of the Frenzied rule is fine, and I think the "charge move" wording is deliberately meant to distinguish between actually making base contact with the enemy and simply engaging in an assault. I was pretty clear on the meaning, in any case. If you're close enough to make it to CC, you are subject to frenzy. If you are simply close enough to make an engage move via firefight, then you are not subject to frenzy.

And I think that's the canonical approach. Blood Angels like hand-to-hand combat, not simply close quarters shooting engagements.

_________________
Former Blood Angels Army Champion
Epic Gamers Los Angeles Chapter
Armies Played:
Blood Angels
Black Legion
Codex Marines
Imperial Fists


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:39 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
I like this list. If I can ever persuade my friend Dean to try playtesting, I would definitely be keen to giive this list a try.

I would have liked them to be only taken if SC was fielded, but I guess that might be too prescriptive.

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
wargame_insomniac wrote:
I like this list. If I can ever persuade my friend Dean to try playtesting, I would definitely be keen to giive this list a try.

Well E&C really gets the kudos here, I just made a couple of adjustments. :)

wargame_insomniac wrote:
I would have liked them to be only taken if SC was fielded, but I guess that might be too prescriptive.

Yeah I thought about this but in the end the SC may not be the Chapter Master


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
In regards to the Frenzied rule, how does the following sound?:

Some units are noted as being Frenzied. Formations that contain a Frenzied unit which can potentially reach base contact with an enemy unit after an Engage move will receive a +1 modifier to their initiative roll if they attempt to perform the Engage action. Formations that have a frenzied unit which can potentially reach base contact with an enemy unit after an Engage move will receive a –1 modifier to their initiative roll if they attempt to perform any action other than the Engage action.

I think it uses a slightly better wording as the "charge" word isn't really used in EA.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5285
Location: Bristol
Goodo on sorting out the THT :) I'll update the BT list to reflect it at some point in the next few days. Are we still good with CC6+ and FF6+? I can remove them completely if no ability for either was intentional, but I suspect it may have been a mistake and am unclear.

wargame_insomniac wrote:
I would have liked them to be only taken if SC was fielded, but I guess that might be too prescriptive.

They are in the draft list? Notes for Sanguinary Guard says "Formation must take the Supreme Commander upgrade." Which is only fitting. The SG are (BA chapter master) Dante's personal bodyguard, that's their role and purpose. It would make no sense for SG to be present on the battlefield without Dante. And if Dante is fighting he really must be represented by a supreme commander in epic, he's the oldest living space marine and known for his tactical brilliance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yep cc/ff 6+ all good. I just posted a THT thread too for clarity in lists.

In regards to the SC vs SG, like I mentioned, people who want to field an SC don't have to take the SG but anyone wishing to field the SG need to add the SC.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
I really, really like the direction this is going in!

I know some expressed dismay at the granularity of the addition of certain units, but I think these special units that the Blood Angels can field really help to differentiate them from other Space Marine chapters. BA don't have the equivalent of a very broad rule such as Pack Mentality, or very divergent formation arrangements, so having a number of these interesting units is great. It "feels" like a totally different army from Codex Astartes, as it should.

Ultra-elite, in-your-face, all-out assault. That's Blood Angels. The Loyalist Berzerkers.

The new wording for Frenzied is great.

_________________
Former Blood Angels Army Champion
Epic Gamers Los Angeles Chapter
Armies Played:
Blood Angels
Black Legion
Codex Marines
Imperial Fists


Last edited by Xenocidal Maniac on Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5285
Location: Bristol
Dobbsy wrote:
Yep cc/ff 6+ all good. I just posted a THT thread too for clarity in lists.

In regards to the SC vs SG, like I mentioned, people who want to field an SC don't have to take the SG but anyone wishing to field the SG need to add the SC.

Yes, thanks, have seen since.

Fair enough, misunderstood what was meant. I agree with that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net