Vaktathi

 

And you don't think this is the case with 6E and 7E books? 5E arguably had better external balance in most of its codices than any other edition (although internal balance was often an issue, as you noted) But since 7E books suffer from both internal and external balance issues, that's not really saying much.

Having played through each of these editions, I do think the newer books are better balanced internally and externally, despite the reductions in options and awful state of the core rules. That said, they're not perfect, but there's fewer outright pointless units and fewer "auto-takes" in general in the 7E books. The 6E books are something of a mess, with Eldar and Tau being clearly superior to everything else, the basic SM codex is the only one I really like.

 

 

Personally, I think the 5E core rules were better than 7E's core rules (though by no means perfect, so much so that I am continually surprised by my preference for it over other editions), while the 7E codex books in general are better designed than the 5E books in terms of internal balance and relative strengths to each other (but again, nowhere near perfect). Just my opinion however. The 5E books in many ways felt like they just came out and vomited new stuff for its own sake, often without really thinking it through. Some were taken from previous editions or Epic, the Griffon, Medusa, Thundefire Cannon (redone Thudd gun), while other felt like forced or like a duplication of effort or simple drug-induced bad ideas (e.g. Stormraven, Thunderwolf Cavalry, Paladins, Dreadknights, Wolfclaws, Nemesis Doomfists, Bloodfists, etc) The latter seems to have been somewhat toned down of late, though somewhat replaced unfortunately by formations and inclusion of increasingly scale-inappropriate units.

 

"I understand the logic behind this choice" is not the same thing as "this choice is a good decision."

I don't necessarily disagree with that statement in principle, nor have I stated that I fully agree with all of the changes. At the same time however some of them I think do make sense, and were fairly predictable.

 

And the idea that the changes of the 5E era are automatically flaws seems... rather presumptuous. I'm not arguing for stuff like 5pt Psybolt- but removing Psybolt entirely is a gross overreaction to a poor costing decision for a particular unit. Was 5pt psybolt breaking the ICs? Nope. Was it making GKSS overpowered? Not really. So why remove it when the Dreadnought was the problem?

This is an example I'd agree with, it could have been solved simply by fixing the costs. I won't argue that. That said, was their original inclusion really a great choice in the first place? That very question seems to be something of a topic of discussion elsewhere regarding some of the BA changes and has been asked of some things in some of the other recent books and their predecessors.

 

 

 

And if you're talking about IG's losses as the "others" there, I think you're inflating your own sorrows all out of proportion. IG lost a handful of units and got things that replaced most of them

Replaced one, the Griffon (removed for the *second* time, was in the 2E and 3E codex books, removed in the 3.5E book, reintroduced in the 5E book, and removed again with the 6E book) was replaced by the Wyvern to some degree. There's no direct or indirect replacement for the other units. The Taurox certainly isn't a replacement for anything, nor are Bullgryns, while Scions are just a new face on an old unit. Either way, it's not my intention to bemoan the IG codex (and, I'll be honest, I never used most of those units), but rather to contrast the differences in what we're talking about here.

 

A lof of these changes in the BA book are the type of thing that just happen when codex books change, as opposed to wholesale deletion of stuff as a result of unforseen business and legal issues. For example, few were upset that Dreads were moved from Elites to HS in the last BA book for instance or found that particularly troubling, just as there doesn't seem to be much to-do about it moving back. Just like BA's had W3 Chaplains in 3E, lost them with the 4E book, got them back with the 5E book and now seem to have lost them again. Or how the Reclusiarch in the 4E SM codex was the W2 Chaplain (while the W3 one was the Master of Sanctity) but in the 5E BA codex it became the W3 version. Again, a lot of these things are just simply things that happen with GW codex changes, and were predictable to one degree or another. DC were arbitrarily moved to Troops, them arbitrarly moving back isn't that surprising. Hell, look at Tyranid Warriors, they've been in every FoC slot except Heavy Support. Who knows where they could be next?

 

  BA lost their most popular troop choice and got a swift kick in the dick to replace it.

Not denying that. All I've done is extrapolate my reasoning behind why I think GW thought it was the way to go.

 

*shrug* I'm not going to argue whether game mechanics are "working right" with you. You said the Devilfish wasn't tough enough to qualify, and that's not true.

 

Also, for reference: a BS4 Plasma Gun from the front of a Predator has an 11% chance to remove an HP; a Plasma Gun from the front of a Jinking Devilfish has a 7% chance to remove an HP (although admittedly it also has a .5% to Explode the Devilfish.) So sorry, against those S7 guns the Devilfish is actually significantly tougher.

Hrm, I'm going to take issue with the math here.

 

 

A BS4 plasma gun firing two shots against a jinking Devilfish will inflict an average of 0.22 HP's (2shots*(2/3 for BS4)*(1/3 chance of inflicting a Glance or Pen)*(1/2 Jink save)=0.22 HP's inflicted on average) and .0185 Explodes results (2shots*(2/3 for BS4)*(1/6 chance of inflicting a Pen)*(1/2 Jink save)*(1/6 chance of exploding=.0185 average Explodes results), against a Predator in the open with no cover save using the same equation, it will inflict the same amount of average HP loss, 0.22, and zero chance of an explodes result. If the Devilfish does not Jink (or say an order like Fire On My Target is used on it or Perfect Timing power), then it loses 0.44 HP's on average and .037 Explodes results. If the Predator is able to gain even a 5+ cover save, it's only taking 0.147 HP's, or 0.11 HP's is it's getting a 4+ behind an Aegis Line or Ruin or the like. 

 

Under pretty much any of those circumstances, the plasma gun is still inflicting more damage on average against the Devilfish than against the Predator from the front.

 

 

Either way, I've never seen someone try and equate Predators and Devilfish, especially as the Devilfish also serves a significantly different battlefield role, it's a dedicated transport and not a battle tank.

 

So what you're saying is not "the Baal Predator does not belong in the FA slot," you're saying "I don't think the Baal Predator should exist because I don't like it," because you're basically saying that every single thing that is unique about it in any way is something it shouldn't have.

You're putting words in my mouth and deriving conclusions I never stated.

 

 

Sure the Baal can exist. But it's a battle tank, it is neither a light scout vehicle, nor faster than anything else in the BA armory. Its role and armor are far more suited to Heavy Support, and it existed there just fine (and without Scout) in that same slot before and will exist just fine back in HS now. I guess you can call that "not wanting it to exist" I guess, but it's exactly that type of unit escalation that I feel brought the game (in part) to some of the mess that it's in, and no other army has such a heavily armored tank in FA that I can think of off the top of my head (I could be wrong I guess but I can't think of anything), particularly not when everything else is just as fast.

 

By the same token, I think the Vendetta too belongs in Heavy Support (like the Stormraven) instead of Fast Attack for many of the same reasons, being both very heavily armored for a flyer (AV12 both front and side instead of AV10 or AV11 like most newer flyers or the pre-5E FW Valkyrie), and mounts lots of heavy & accurate long ranged weapons. I was actually somewhat surprised when it *wasn't* moved to Heavy Support, and won't be surprised or upset if it gets moved there in the future.

 

 

No, you wouldn't put them in the FA slot.

GW isn't putting them in FA either anymore...

Lots of people were very puzzled by that FoC placement when the last book came out, I was not the only one that found the choice curious. The chance of that occurring was something many should have been prepared for as a possibility.

Nothing about the FA slot indicates that it shouldn't have units with strong firepower or defenses- Wraiths are FA units, after all, and they are significantly tougher than most models (3++ save, two wounds) and hit harder than even a lot of CC specialists (S6 Rending attacks.) But I think you'd have a hard time convincing people that they, or Attack Bikes, or Stormravens (which are WAY tougher than Predators of any kind) or Thunderwolves or many other tough-and-hard-hitting units shouldn't be part of that slot. Fast Attack is defined by its units being maneuverable, hence the name.

Except nothing about the Baal's speed is exceptional within the BA army, normal Predators in the 5E codex are also Fast, as are Vindicators and Whirlwinds. 

 

Do you see a lot of Eldar and Tau units on foot these days with 4+ or 6+ armor? because I sure don't. And yes, outside of Melta (or Plasma, which they are unlikely to get) ASM aren't really going to hurt a lot of common units. That's exactly the sort of problem I'm talking about. A Drop Pod full of flamers isn't unique and special and interesting, it's something that other armies can already do and that is rather a niche use for the unit. That's why it's not an "effective ways to make use of them", as you put it. Units that don't function very well against large portions of the expected field are not effective.

 

 

No, but a unit that literally can't hurt the top four armies in the game most of the time is kinda a dead giveaway that unit isn't good, useful, or interesting. The thing with flamer Tacticals is a cute trick, but you're trying to make it out to be a meaningful replacement to the things BA lost, and it isn't, not in the slightest.

 

Tau yes, fire warriors and pathfinders in Ruins or behind Aegis lines and the like, quite frequently. Eldar, typically not, but sometimes.  You also need not drop the Tacs turn 1 if you've got other units to bring in and use to pop transports first or whatnot. But, I digress...

 

I had a big thing written up ready to get into a debate over whether it's not the loss of the Assault Marines innate unit properties that really are going to be felt, but rather the tactical capability of a specific special weapons loadout. However, there appears to a significant amount of emotion here, and it doesn't look like this particular avenue of discussion is going to be particularly agreeable or productive at the current time and with an incomplete picture of the codex, along with differing ideas on what exactly reflects the fluff of the BA's better, and will simply add unneeded stress on all involved if continued, along with getting further and further from my original post's point and intent. 

 

I'll sign off this particular thread at this point in light of that. Apologies if any offense was given for anything.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that was true for its 3E and 4E versions as well. I'm still not getting your point about how that was a radical divergence.

 

 

But that's not a pattern of 7E Marine books, it's a pattern of 7E books (and it's one I don't like at all.) It's removing the things that make different factions interesting and unique and giving them nothing in return.

I may be missing something, but looking at the 4E WD list, DC were limited to 10 models. It was theorectically possible to get a huge DC unit out of the 3E book given its random determination, but would in practice usually be 5-6 guys, rarely ever reaching even 10 strong.

 

Additionally, with regards to the pattern of the 7E books, I'm not trying to get at a qualitative jdugement of them (there are things I don't like about them as well), I'm pointing out that they're toning down the more ridiculous aspects of the 5E books. Lets be fair here, with some of these things, there was a degree of confusing "interesting and unique" with "powerful and undercosted". Not going to name names or point fingers, nor will I make any claim to this being addressed specifically at BA's, but this issues definitely existed with some books of that era that have been recently replaced.

 

Besides, It's not like they had the bulk of their characters, half their artillery, and a troops unit actually straight up deleted from the codex entirely simply because there were no plastic kits, while leaving most of the non-functional units still broken, on top of a painfully stupid name change, like they foisted upon the Imperial Guard.

 

 

Yes, but my point was that just because they're a codex chapter doesn't tell you all that much about what slots units should be in or anything like that. I mean, hell, even codex chapters have the Assault Reserve Company, so they should (in theory) be able to field a force of nothing but ASM.

They should also be able to field an entire company of Devastators too just as easily, that doesn't mean they need to make Devastators Troops however. Yes, C:SM has its thing for Bikers as troops, and again, that book is the exception to just about everything, in part because it's also responsible for portraying 99.7% of all loyalist Space Marine forces.

 

Additionally, those reserve companies typically aren't fielded as one big company, they're almost always parcelled out as needed to battle companies according to the needs of a campaign and the battle plans of individual commanders.

 

 

Remember, that is nominal, not actual strength. That very same codex goes on to point out that volunteers for duty in Assault Squads inevitably crop up any time losses are suffered, whereas other duties are often considered less important or glorious and thus often end under-strength. So while officially they have no more ASM than any other chapter, the reality of things dictates that all their ASM squads will be at full strength and their other squads likely will not be.

We're getting into pure conjecture here on casualty rates and replacement for which we have nothing solid other than "blood angels like running in assault squads". We don't know that their assault squads will always be at full strength by any means, only that they have lots of volunteers for them. Such would nominally be up to their commanding officers and the demands of the battlefield.

 

In every depiction of the chapter, going back to the Angels of Death 2E codex, their official organization has consistently and clearly shown them to be a standard Codex organized Chapter and detailed exactly how many units of each type they have, with about twice as many tactical squads as assault squads. Nothing to indicate any difference in the number of squads than any other codex army, from 2nd edition through to the present day. Even the depicted Chapter organization, unless those tactical squads are always running at 50% strength or less and the assault squads always at 100% (which would be absolutely daft from any realistic military standpoint and has no indication in any BA fluff) there's no way there's even parity between the number of actual Tactical and Assault marines given the squad numbers given.

 

Even if they do prioritize the Assault squads for replacements, you're probably not talking much more than relatively small shift in the total numbers ratio, we might be talking about an effective difference of a couple dozen marines difference at best from their paper strength unless they're taking far higher casualties in their Tac squads than their Assault Squads (which should typically be exactly the opposite) and not even attempting to refill tac squads until Assault squads are completely up to strength, which would make for very poor battlefield doctrine. Often there simply wouldn't be the ability to transfer excess marines into assault squads also ("Sorry up-and-coming-Brother Bob, we had three openings in Assault Squads this morning after Squad Lucius took that battlecannon shell, but they're all filled now, 4th company needs loads of assault marines, but we in 5th have five tactical and two devastator spots open and 4th company is 37,000 Light Years away, go report to Tactical Sergeant Titus immediately")

 

I will also point out that officially there are only one thousand Black Templars, because they are supposedly a codex chapter. No one actually believes that, though.

And the Blood Angels have absolutely nothing anywhere in any fluff that's ever been written that would attribute a significantly out-of-the-ordinary number of marines to the Chapter that I've ever heard of (as opposed to the Black Templars where it's openly and clearly stated in their fluff they typically run about five to six thousand strong), and certainly not huge numbers of specifically jump pack marines.

 

GW's been pretty clear in spelling out exactly how many marines, tanks, command staff, dreads, squads, etc the Blood Angels have in clear detail.

 

 

 

Okay, but two things: one, that leaves everyone who liked that other army in the lurch

Indeed it does, and BA's are not the first to have to deal with that nor the worst affected by far. I understand the frustration, I've been there, I went through the loss of the 3.5E CSM codex, saw lots of purpose-built IG doctrine armies lose their unique abilities in 2009 (even though the 5E IG book was a big boost overall), I watched my CSM army become non-functional yet again in 2012, and I watched my old 2000pt IG tournament army become a 2310pt army (and much less effective overall to boot) overnight earlier this year. (Of course, all the while my Eldar haven't had to change a thing and remain perfectly viable and ridiculous...I should probably paint and play them again at some point. )

 

This happens pretty routinely.

 

and two, there's already two close-assault foot chapter- the Space Wolves and Grey Knights.

Lets not forget the Black Templars too XD In fact, basically all the "alternate" marines try to claim to be "fightier" save for the Dark Angels.

 

It comes back around to making codices unique and interesting- why would I bother with BA when SW and GK are just better than them at the things they supposedly do? Why have yet another chapter of punching space marines when the only real difference is the color of their armor? The "flying army" theme made BA distinct from the other chapters; the new book does not. They just become Red Space Marines.

They always largely were "red space marines". The 5E book certainly differentiated them more, but even at the time it was released it was seen as a rather hamfisted overboard attempt at justifying their separate existence, lots of people at the time thought it was quite overboard.

 

However, ultimatley, I can't say *why* GW is turning away from the "flying" paradigm, only that it appears that they are. It would appear that, aside from the basic SM book and the concept of Chapter Tactics (which may have been a Jervis contribution), they're scrubbing Ward's lasting contributions from their game universe. They reverted back the transport capacity changes for instance. Grey Knights and Blood Angels are all now radically different than from his versions of these armies, and I suspect Necrons will be too. 

 

That's not actually true. BA have had Assault Marines as troops (and hence a focus on jump pack armies) ever since 4th Edition- which is to say, really since late 3rd Edition.

when their fluff really started shifting away from the combined Angels of Death book. Sanguinous has always had wings, and that distinction has defined the Blood Angels as an aerial chapter for quite some time now.

 

They got their 4E White Dwarf list barely a year before 5E came out, if that (and was not particularly widely used, I think I played a grand total of two of those WD BA armies in three years). Certainly not anywhere near 3E. While yes, Sanguinious had wings, it was associated far more with his metaphorical position in the lore and his divine presence in general than any sort of battle tactics his armies should emulate directly, at least until the 5E book which GW now seems to be actively rolling back.

 

That's a conflation of two utterly different ideas, though. The Baal Predator as a FA choice was nothing particularly special or surprising- you call it a "heavy battle tank," but it's not, really; within the context of the game, it's merely a mid-level tank approximately on part with the various Eldar chassis, the Devilfish, etc in terms of staying power and in many cases in terms of firepower. Moreover, having a fast, mobile, short-ranged tank intended for surprise assaults on the enemy absolutely makes sense in the FA slot; moving it into the HS slot neither makes sense nor allows for interesting army builds.

Typically things with frontal AV13 armor and up to three heavy weapons are not put on par with things like Devilfish. That's a stretch. Predators are described right in the codex as Main Battle Tanks. Given that *all* BA vehicles were fast, it's difficult to see why it needed to be in FA over HS, particularly as much of its armament wasn't ultra-close range.

 

AV13 is definitely into "heavy armor" range where you can't rely on multi-role weapons like autocannons or scatterlasers to deal with the threat (as you can againt AV12 or AV11 units) and need actual AT guns like Lascannons and Meltaguns to engage them.

 

BA's being the "SM armored company" army with AV13 combat vehicles in HS, FA, and Elites also fit neither the "Close Combat" theme nor the "Aerial Assault" theme. That was a big contribution to the last book being seen as reaching too far to justify its own existence when it came out four years ago, it was trying to do too many things in general. It wanted to be the Psyker army with HQ psykers and Elites dreadnought Psykers (more than any other army at the time could field I believe). It wanted to the SM Armored Company army. It wanted to be a CC heavy codex army. It wanted to be a jump pack and flyer army. For a single SM chapter, that was a stretch.

 

 

 

That's my core contention here, keep in mind; fluff can always be rewritten and has been many, many times, but the rules of the game dictate how it is played. When the rules remove interesting choices and options from the game, the game becomes worse as a whole. That's poor design and poor writing right there, regardless of what justification is used for it.

Some would argue most of these changes are fixing poor design from the last book. Besides, with the army-wide Furious Charge and Initiative bonuses, on top of people already thinking about lists with BA tac squads podding in and dropping 3-4 flame templates on units (squad flamer, squad heavy flamer, potentially up to two hand flamers on sergeant), I don't think they're going to be hugely worrying about characterful armies being built that still bring teeth.

 

Were it up to me, and I were writing the BA book, I would have made most of the changes that were made, but either left assault marines as Troops or made an unlock option for them the way C:SM does for bikes. I don't think there was anything spectacularly wrong with assault marines as Troops, but I can at least see the line of thinking behind the change as it has turned out.

 

 

Errr... you could only take one squad of Death Company (unless you fielded Astaroth, the guy who specifically gathers up members of the Death Company) in an army, which was exactly like the 3E and 4E iterations of the book.

Yes, but it was potentially the largest possible Marine squad in 40k also.

 

 

 

And Death Company Dreadnoughts have been around forever in the game and the fluff- it's not that they put guys into a Dread when they go crazy, it's that even guys in a Dread can succumb to the Black Rage.

I forgot they were in the 4E book, I don't recall anyone ever taking one then, my mistake, (though they  do specifically note in that list that they put the crazy wounded guy into a dread, not that he's already in a dread when he goes crazy)

 

 

 

 

I think you mean "the changes to other Marine books in 7th editions, which many players have complained about because they aren't fun or interesting."

I mean, given the design paradigm they seem to have followed for all of the "Not the basic C:SM" book, the changes should come as no suprise. Not that you necessarily have to like them. The core SM book is the one exception, but it is an exception, and particularly next to the other 7E SM books, the changes are very much in line with them.

 

 

 

You do realize that many of the chapters nominally covered under the SM book aren't codex-adherent, right?

Yes but we're talking about one that is, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of those covered by the SM book are, and even the deviant ones still *largely* stick to the same rough organizational standard if not command and battle doctrines.

 

 

 

If they're an army with tons and tons of jump pack troops- which, according to the fluff, they are-

No, they aren't, that's just it.

 

Blood Angels don't have great gobs of assault marines. Their organization and troop dispositions are made clear, they are still based very closely around standard Codex organization with Tactical squads as their most numerous unit by far.

 

It's laid out plain as day right there in the 5E codex, page 9. The Blood Angels have 18 Assault Squads (two in each of the 2nd through 5th companies and ten in the 8th Assault Company), exactly like the Ultramarines, the only additional source of jump pack troops being 29 Sanguinary Guard in their own little extra non-codex command group. Meanwhile the Blood Angels have 34 Tactical Squads.

 

 

why wouldn't  they get access to ASM as troops, being that is how the game represents that sort of thing most of the time? Or, alternately, a unique FoC that lets them take FA units instead of Troops (a la the Company of the Great Wolf detachment.)

My guess, again, is that GW wants to represent them as a codex chapter with a close assault preference, hence the universal Furious Charge and universal +1 Init when charging that's rumored to be their army-wide special rule, as opposed to completing the re-write that was attempted with the last book and turning them into some sort of completely jump-oriented chapter.

 

 

The "preference for and skill at" aerial combat isn't represented at all as far as we can tell,

The whole "aerial combat" thing was a creation of the 5E codex primarily (along with lots of new fluff around the Stormraven). Before that, it as expressly portrayed as a "close combat" preference, not an "aerial" one. The ASM's as troops was originally intended to reinforce the close combat aspect, not some sort of aerial aspect. That said, the removal of assault marines as troops does surprise me as it was the primary tabletop differentiator of theirs, but I can see where they are coming from in doing so.

 

 

As noted, this book appears to be "un-Warding" the Blood Angels, and returning them to something more akin to their 2E/3E fluff (as the 4E book didn't have much fluff either way). As such, that whole "aerial" concept would be rolled back to the "close combat" thing from earlier editions. From the reactions on other boards, it appears that most people who have been playing BA's significantly longer than the 5E book don't seem quite as overly upset by the changes as those who started with the 5E book, for this exact reason.

 

 

 

which seems like a bit of a punch in the gut for people who had been playing that army for, oh, five years now.

It sucks for those players, I'm not going to deny that. However, some of the changes that appear to be imminent should have been obvious even from the release of the last book (e.g. heavy battle tanks were not going to stay Fast Attack forever just as it was clear to any IG player in 2009 that Vendettas would not stay 130pts when the next update rolled around) and most should not be surprised at most of the other changes (again, barring the change to assault marines, that is surprising simply because it was the primary tabletop differentiator) given the way most of the other books have been going of late.

 

 

 

 

Basically, what's the point of making BA a unique codex if they're not going to have anything unique about them? It seems like a huge waste of everyone's time.

That's a topic for another thread entirely, though I'm of the opinion that they haver never really *needed* their own unique codex, and that the last book was an overreaching attempt to hamfistedly justify one, and GW appears to be rolling much of that back but without wanting to simply roll them into C:SM.