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

Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion

 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:12 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
Ah. I found one potential hole in the Frenzied wording -

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.

According to RAW, this would mean that they would get the +1 to the initiative roll even if they merely moved into FF range and avoided base contact. I believe RAI wants at least one Blood Angel unit to actually make it into CC, right? Or even perhaps all that are able?

_________________
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: Mon Jan 20, 2014 5:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 1978
Location: Thompson, MB, Canada
E&C, IIRC, felt that that was too tricky to manage.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
What was too tricky? Can you explain SK?

Would the addition of the words:

[I]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. Furthermore, units may not choose to remain at fire fight range if they can reach base contact.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
I think that could work... I am trying to think if there are any holes or situations that could make that wording wonky.

What about "BA units that are able to do so must enter base contact with an enemy unit and every effort must be made to maximize the number of BA units in close combat"

This makes it so that it keeps the spirit of the rule intact, but by avoiding wording like "closest enemy unit" or whatever, it also allows the BA commander to make tactical decisions. Blood Angels are still Space Marines, and not Khorne Berserkers, after all.

EDIT: Incidentally, the rules do make reference to "charge moves". See NetEA 1.12.3 "Charge" and "engage" are used interchangeably.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 1978
Location: Thompson, MB, Canada
Reviewing the old threads, it was in the context of "if the BA fail their activation roll, they Engage". I believe the suggestion was that they should have to try and engage the enemy, rather than being able to move wherever they liked (since they could just Engage in the opposite direction). I think most of the proposed wordings were agreed to be too confusing.

A penalty for units that can reach base contact and don't could also work.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:48 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
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.

Sounds good. I must have misread it at first glance. Happy with way you worded it.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8875
Location: Manalapan, FL
Just to be clear:
No SG = SC is optional and can be placed anywhere allowed if taken
SG taken = SC is required but can be placed anywhere allowed OR must be taken by the SG?

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
If you buy the SG you have to take the SC and stick him in that formation.

There's nothing to say the Supreme Commander in someone's army has to be the Chapter Master. Supreme Commander is just an abstract for the commander of the force - usually high ranking. So basically, if Tycho were alive he could be a SC and the Sanguinary Guard would not be fielded because they only come out to play when Dante is on the field.

Do people feel this stipulation should go in the army list section as well?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 251
Location: Hungary
Hi there!

Reading through the draft, I'll point out some really minor typos, but first of all, thanks for the great work, and effort put into this!

UPGRADES
Heavy Support - there is multiple & selectible number of tanks to buy, yet the word "points each" is missing from the costs which is usually there in every list.

Hunter - the upgrade is singleton, but here there IS the word "point each", while upgrade states it clearly "Add 1 Blood Angel Hunter" and that's all. It's only confusing beacuse there are exceptions, like Salamander Chapter, where you can take multiple amount of Hunters.

UNIT REFERENCE SHEET
Blood Angels Predator - it is missing it's "annihilator" weapon config name.

Well that's all I could find for now. :)

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 278
Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
I think that could work... I am trying to think if there are any holes or situations that could make that wording wonky.

What about "BA units that are able to do so must enter base contact with an enemy unit and every effort must be made to maximize the number of BA units in close combat"

This makes it so that it keeps the spirit of the rule intact, but by avoiding wording like "closest enemy unit" or whatever, it also allows the BA commander to make tactical decisions. Blood Angels are still Space Marines, and not Khorne Berserkers, after all.

EDIT: Incidentally, the rules do make reference to "charge moves". See NetEA 1.12.3 "Charge" and "engage" are used interchangeably.


Whilst I can see this working, I think you would need to add that Blood Angels can engage the enemy in FF normally but at a -1 to initiative. As it stands, blood angels would not actually be able to initiate FF if they are too close to the enemy... This is a bit too restrictive IMO.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5253
Location: Bristol
Dobbsy wrote:
What was too tricky? Can you explain SK?

Would the addition of the words:

[I]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. Furthermore, units may not choose to remain at fire fight range if they can reach base contact.

It would impact negatively on the competitiveness of the list and a canny opponent would exploit it, moving his CC units like Terminators or Genestealers into range where they have to be charged if assaulted. They could be both contesting an objective and they need to be assaulted to get rid of them, but this would only go well in a FF.

In Space Hulk the Blood Angels Terminators aren't all 'Raagh! Hit them with our fists!', rather they strategically lay down weapons fire. The old must move towards nearest enemy BA mechnism in 40k happened on a roll of a 1 for each unit, not every time. Previous versions of the rule in the epic list represented the 1 in 6 move but it was moved away from.

I'd rather see it stay as just the +1 to engage, -1 if does other orders and forget the must CC bit.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:47 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
GlynG wrote:
I'd rather see it stay as just the +1 to engage, -1 if does other orders and forget the must CC bit.

"+1 to engage, -1 if does other orders" does have the virtue of simplicity. If in doubt KISS.

Would -1 to allother orders be too restrictive. How about +1 to engage, -1 to sustain?

Still can do all the things that other Space Marines do. But just nudges them into more assaulty options.

Cheers

James

_________________
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: Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 8:46 pm
Posts: 200
Location: Minneapolis, MN
I don't see a point cost for the 4 Storm Raven formation. Other than that it looks interesting.

_________________
Current EA Armies:
Steel Legion (6k+)
Orks (6k+)
Iron Warriors (Currently Building)
Daemons

My Commission Website: http://hulksmashstudios.webs.com
My Languishing Blog that will soon host some Epic stuff: http://hulksmash-homeplace.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:00 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Hulksmash wrote:
I don't see a point cost for the 4 Storm Raven formation. Other than that it looks interesting.

Yep, you're right it's missing. I'll adjust it for the live list. Cheers

Quote:
I think you would need to add that Blood Angels can engage the enemy in FF normally but at a -1 to initiative.

This is an interesting possibility.

I guess this all boils down to how we view "frenzy." The way I see it they're not frothing madmen like Khorne Bezerkers and can still see and use tactics to a degree but they tend to get a bit worked up as they close with the enemy - almost to the point of bezerk but not quite reaching it.

Quote:
I'd rather see it stay as just the +1 to engage, -1 if does other orders and forget the must CC bit.

Yeah I think this might have to be it really. I'm just not a fan of the wording of the rule.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:33 am
Posts: 340
Does anyone else think that adding a formation of sanguinary guard to the list is a bit weird. I'm not against adding them (in fact I think it's a good idea and an interesting way to better differentiate the marine lists) but a formation of them implies that almost every sanguinary guardsman in the chapter is present on the battle field (aren't there only about 30 of them in total). As a more fluffy proposal I would suggest them as an upgrade to a SC or character stand as they are essentially a bodyguard for the chapter elite.

In this vain you could also add an honour guard upgrade to the vanilla marines and various body guard units to the other lists. What do people think?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  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