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

Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
The recent discussion determined that SG have enough to be a stand alone formation having 30 men max. 4 units is 20 marines as opposed to a bodyguard of 4-5 marines (1 unit) that a Codex list might see on the battlefield. I specifically undersized them to emphasize they aren't always all there and are rare, as well as limiting their impact to a degree and making costing easier.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xenocidal Maniac
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
Jstr19 wrote:
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?


This topic has already been argued about extensively in two threads

viewtopic.php?f=73&t=26680

viewtopic.php?f=73&t=21407

_________________
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  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
It's all good. Jstr probably just missed the threads. :)

See my above post for brevity ;)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Jstr19
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:33 am
Posts: 340
Yeah I missed most of the discussion. I quickly skimmed over it and this issue doesn't seem to be have been discussed much at all. Most of the discussion was about whether SG should be included at all not what form that inclusion should take. But I'm not that fussed one way or the other I just think that having 20 out of about 30 (66.666%) of all of the SG on one battle field at the same time is very odd. Who's guarding Dante or the chapters relics? I'm not sure they would ever be deployed en mass like that.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xenocidal Maniac
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
It's no stranger than 2 or even 3 companies being deployed on a battlefield at any one time...

Keep in mind, only 3 companies of Blood Angels were deployed for the entire Armageddon campaign, yet I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash to see three companies of Blood Angels in an Epic game...

_________________
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  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Jstr19 wrote:
Yeah I missed most of the discussion. I quickly skimmed over it and this issue doesn't seem to be have been discussed much at all. Most of the discussion was about whether SG should be included at all not what form that inclusion should take. But I'm not that fussed one way or the other I just think that having 20 out of about 30 (66.666%) of all of the SG on one battle field at the same time is very odd. Who's guarding Dante or the chapters relics? I'm not sure they would ever be deployed en mass like that.

Well the idea is that Dante is the SC when they're on the field so that's why they're there. You asked who's guarding the chapter relics... the other 10 :)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
GlynG
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
I don't know that it's unreasonable, many chapters only have 50 or so suits of Terminator armour (it's rare for a chapter to have enough to equip the whole of the first company) yet these are freely available in epic. Death Company are included and there wouldn't be many of them either.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Jstr19
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:33 am
Posts: 340
Yeah anyway as I said I'm not all that bothered one way or the other, I just wanted to throw the idea out there in case it hadn't been thought about/debated. I don't want to get bogged down in discussions about specific points of GW fluff. GW is very good at maintaining a characteristic vibe for an army list but they are really not very good at developing original materials or maintaining their consistency. Consider it retracted.

I would just like to finish by asking that we consider adding these types of units to other the marine lists to help better differentiate the various flavours. For example the epic DA list is particularly hard to justify IMHO. Although to be honest GW themselves have had trouble differentiating DA's from vanilla marines in the last 3 iterations of 40K.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
wargame_insomniac
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:26 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Jstr19 wrote:
Yeah anyway as I said I'm not all that bothered one way or the other, I just wanted to throw the idea out there in case it hadn't been thought about/debated. I don't want to get bogged down in discussions about specific points of GW fluff. GW is very good at maintaining a characteristic vibe for an army list but they are really not very good at developing original materials or maintaining their consistency. Consider it retracted.

I would just like to finish by asking that we consider adding these types of units to other the marine lists to help better differentiate the various flavours. For example the epic DA list is particularly hard to justify IMHO. Although to be honest GW themselves have had trouble differentiating DA's from vanilla marines in the last 3 iterations of 40K.

But that is more for discussion in other playtest list threads rather than in BA thread.

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ole
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 7:28 am
Posts: 296
Location: Seevetal, Germany
Is there a reason why the scout ability is missing in the bike entry on the army reference?

It still says so in the netea army list compendium 2014-01-14.

Cheers,

Ole

_________________
Thousand Sons Army Champion

My pueppchenspieler blog

Building a House Devine Army
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
It's a typo. The Compendium is full of them for various reasons.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ole
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 7:28 am
Posts: 296
Location: Seevetal, Germany
In the notes of the Stormraven Gunship it says:
Planetfall, Reinforced Armour, Skimmer, Transport: (May carry 1 Dreadnought; plus 1 Blood Angels Terminator unit or 2 of the following Blood Angels units: Assault, Death Company Assault, Death Company, Tactical, Devastator, Scout or Tactical)

It's one to many, is it not?

Ole

_________________
Thousand Sons Army Champion

My pueppchenspieler blog

Building a House Devine Army
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yep that's a typo as well. Will correct it when I release the actual list. Thanks for the heads up. Keep them coming. :)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Commissar Holt
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Hungary
Heavy flamers on Baal Predators, missing ignore cover ability, from the reference sheet1.

Cheers.

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels v2.2 DRAFT ONLY for discussion
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Thank you sir!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 5
  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

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