News:

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Changes to the BA codex  (Read 2003 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dangerousdave0042

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Country: gb
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Blood Angels and Tyranids
Changes to the BA codex
« on: August 8, 2015, 03:22:38 PM »
Ok, so we all know the BA codex was absolutely terrible, especially in light of the updates to the SM and DA codex. So here are some of my ideas on how to make it better and more Blood Angeley.

For a chapter that apparently "owns the skies" we have no anti air except the stormraven and flak armed devastators. I don't see why we ahouldn't have access to the stalker/hunter and the AA formation from the SM codex?

Failing that (or as well as) we should definitely have our own version of the stormtalon (I was going to call it blood talon, but that name's taken). My view of this is close air support like a harrier jump jet. As such I would give it vector dancer (maybe replacing strafing run), and I would limit its weapon to a max 24" range - so no missile launchers or lascannon. DA have all the plasma, but BA were all melta, so I was thinking something like:

Hurricane meltas - three twin linked melta guns (probably far too overpowerd though)

So I would probably go with twin linked meltagun to replace the assault cannon, and twin linked heavy flamers one single HF on each side sponsons giving you one TLHF - so you could fire the heavy flamer to the left or the right and have it count as TL. I owuld then give it POTMS so it can fire the weapons at different targets.

Overpowered? I don't think so as you have to get CLOSE, and it's just one meltagun. This would fit the BA theme of getting in close.

I would change the Baal strike force bonus from +1I back to Descent of Angels. This is an absolute must for the next BA codex. Put the +1A as a Warlord Trait.

Put Assault squads back as troop choices.

Add in the vindicator and Whirlwind formations

Reduce power weapon cost for VV in line with SM codex.

Reduce terminator cost in line with SM codex.

Change SP from HQ back to Elite (Corbulo can stay as HQ). Let SP take terminator armour.

Change Corbulo FNP to 3+ or 4+.

Give us an option for a generic Chapter Master.

Let the formation that lets us assault after DS come on automatically on turn 1 instead of rolling for it. You're paying 1000+ points for it plus the units that actually then DS from turn 2. I mean, come on, you are basing the whole army around this. If it doesn't come in turn 1 the game is over. It's not like other codexs don't have formations that come in auto turn 1.

Improve the attacks on our dreadnoguhts. I mean a standard SM shoot dreadnought is now better in cc than death company dreadnought. WTF!?

This is a long list and I've probably missed other nerfs that need to be fixed as the problems with teh BA codex are so vast!
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Offline Slick Samos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Country: gb
  • Que!!
  • Armies: Tau, Dark Angels & Salamanders
Re: Changes to the BA codex
« Reply #1 on: August 8, 2015, 04:37:47 PM »
Personally I'd let you make some of those changes, especially as Blood Angels are 6th Edition and the new Space Marine Codex is 7th Edition. 

So if it's in the generic codex then you should be able to field it exactly as stated (including all points costs), simply adjusting the Chapter Tactics to the Blood Angels ones where applicable... 

For pick up games, write two lists one with the opponent allowing you to do this and one RAW.  With friends, importing rules from the newer codex as they were written should be perfectly fine. 

Specifically this means:

Generic Chapter Master - as C:SM
Vehicle Formations - as C:SM
Dreadnought Stat-line - as C:SM
Vanguard - as C:SM
Terminators - as C:SM
Access to Storm Talons - as C:SM

This is the bare acceptable minimum.  I cannot see any reasonable person denying you this.

Slick Samos

(Obviously a reasonable person is someone who I think is reasonable based on my own reasonable standards so is in no way subjective...)
Play more games, paint more models...

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Changes to the BA codex
« Reply #2 on: August 8, 2015, 04:49:17 PM »
More than anything, price adjustments / stat homogenization should be expected.

Our "Chapter Tactic" is weak, compared to many others. Some additional ability, be it assault from reserve, or adding counter attack... something... should be in order.

I'd love to see some kind of alternative Anti-Air option, but I somehow doubt it. It's a reason to start an allied SM detachment, after all.

A redistribution of elite options to other places would help... a lot. I loved having Dreads in multiple slots. I miss that. Everything I want to use is in the elite slot right now.

Online Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3012
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Changes to the BA codex
« Reply #3 on: August 8, 2015, 05:53:44 PM »
Improving rules?  I'm in!

I agree that the Angels should get all the missing vanilla Codex units and some of the vanilla Formations.  Maybe Rage and re-roll Deepstrikes too.  And definitely match the points up with the vanilla Codex too.

Offline Wyldhunt

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Changes to the BA codex
« Reply #4 on: August 9, 2015, 12:57:31 AM »
This probably belongs in the Forge, guys. :)

I only played BA briefly (with proxy models), so take what I say with a grain of salt.  To me it isn't all that important that BA have access to generic marine book options.  There's no reason for them not to have vanilla marine options, but if you want to build a list around hunters/stalkers, thunderfires, and grav centurions, you can just use the vanilla marine rules.  You can still paint them red, but you aren't missing out on much aside from the chapter tactic at that point (and several other chapters are arguably solid replacements for them anyway). 

To me, the whole point of giving BA their own book is to support a measurably different playstyle.  In 5th edition, that playstyle was all jump packs all the time. Which was cool.  No other marine army did that (or at least not well), and your BA-specific units such as Sang Priests supported that.  Now days, BA don't do jump pack armies all that well. I mean, you still do them better than most, but that's not saying much.  Sang Priests are frustratingly unhelpful/rare now, and assault marines aren't troops. 

So if we're tweaking BA, the first items on my wishlist are to move assault marines back to troops and to do something with the sang priests (maybe make them an attachable character tac and assault squads can take?) to make them more prevalent.  Lots of sang priests jump packing into action with their assault marine and death company buddies isn't bad, and your chapter tactics actually look pretty good on paper (to me).  The army has simply lost its overall cohesive theme.  Rather than being "jump marines," they're just normal marines that stab slightly better (who cares when you can't reach assault reliably?) and lack a handful of the newer/better toys.

And to boost scouts and dreads to be inline with the newest marine books. 

There's a good argument for rolling BA and SW into the generic marine book, but that's a whole other discussion.

Online Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3012
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Changes to the BA codex
« Reply #5 on: August 9, 2015, 04:28:32 PM »
Assault Marines need to be moved back into Troops for sure.  And maybe the Priests could be 1-3 as a single FOC (HQ or Elites?) choice without actually taking up a slot, like IG Priests and Pyskers.

Offline Wyldhunt

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Changes to the BA codex
« Reply #6 on: August 9, 2015, 05:49:34 PM »
Assault Marines need to be moved back into Troops for sure.  And maybe the Priests could be 1-3 as a single FOC (HQ or Elites?) choice without actually taking up a slot, like IG Priests and Pyskers.

If someone were to make a Blood Angels decurion-style detachment, sang priests would make a lot of sense as an auxiliary option.

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11285
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Changes to the BA codex
« Reply #7 on: August 9, 2015, 07:58:21 PM »
What they will probably do is keep assault marines as fast attack and give the blood angels a detachment allowing them to use their fast attack choices as the required units.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

 


Powered by EzPortal