Heru Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 I did search for a thread like this, but I couldn't find one so I thought I'd make one. - 1st Founding - Blood Angels - 2nd Founding - Angels Encarmine Angels Sanguine Angels Vermillion Blood Drinkers Flesh Tearers - Later Foundings - Flesh Eaters (Chaplain Desmodus style) Knights of Blood Lamentors (21st Founding) - DIY - Death Eaters (My one) Red Dragons (Demoulius) Storm Angels (Brother nathan) Blood Phoenix (THE_Lim_Dul) Sons of Baal (BrotherTim) Not included above: Blood Consuls = Haven't seen their scheme (do they even have one?) Blood Legion = Diagonal tiger stripes of red and lightning blue... Red Wings = They are pale snow and ruby (don't know how that is supposed to be laid out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plague Angel Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Hey, cool! Though a couple of things. The Blood Drinkers are a later founding, not a second one. And as much as we all love everything about Desmodus' Flesh Eaters, isn't the official scheme for them red/white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Hey, cool! Though a couple of things. The Blood Drinkers are a later founding, not a second one. And as much as we all love everything about Desmodus' Flesh Eaters, isn't the official scheme for them red/white? Â ^^ What he said. Â Also I believe the new codex states that the Blood Swords are actually not a Blood Angel successor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plague Angel Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Also I believe the new codex states that the Blood Swords are actually not a Blood Angel successor. Oh yeah, that's true as well. It's in the "don't assume a chapter is descended from Sanguinius just because they have 'blood' in their name" section, and it names Blood Swords and Blood Ravens specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meracalis Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Flesh Eaters also all fell to the black rage, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wax_Assassin Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Good thread, but I gotta say: you need to give the 1st founding BA black shoulder trim! That's the only way to go. :jaw: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heru Posted March 27, 2010 Author Share Posted March 27, 2010 Hey, cool! Though a couple of things. The Blood Drinkers are a later founding, not a second one. And as much as we all love everything about Desmodus' Flesh Eaters, isn't the official scheme for them red/white? Blood Drinkers are listed as a 2nd Founding Chapter (page 8 Codex Space Marines - the table that is copy pasted everywhere). The official scheme for the Flesh Eaters is the same as the Blood Angels (apart from their Chapter badge). Which is why I went with Desmodus' version. Â Also I believe the new codex states that the Blood Swords are actually not a Blood Angel successor. Oh yeah, that's true as well. It's in the "don't assume a chapter is descended from Sanguinius just because they have 'blood' in their name" section, and it names Blood Swords and Blood Ravens specifically. Hmm and yet the are in Red Fury as a Blood Angels successor. :sigh: Codex trumps BL novel I guess (even if said Codex is written by Matt Ward)... Â Are we 100% sure Blood Swords are mentioned as "not a BA successor" (ie can I get a direct quote from the new Codex)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoulius Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 mind if i add my own DIY blood angels to this list? i havent fleshed out their fluff or used the SM painter yet but perhaps its finally the time for it? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plague Angel Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Hey, cool! Though a couple of things. The Blood Drinkers are a later founding, not a second one. And as much as we all love everything about Desmodus' Flesh Eaters, isn't the official scheme for them red/white? Blood Drinkers are listed as a 2nd Founding Chapter (page 8 Codex Space Marines - the table that is copy pasted everywhere).  Huh. Conflicting information in two codices written by the same guy.  Are we 100% sure Blood Swords are mentioned as "not a BA successor" (ie can I get a direct quote from the new Codex)? "There are other surviving Chapters whose names and traditions would suggest a connection with the Blood Angels — the Blood Swords and Blood Ravens amongst them — but these Chapters do not claim Sanguinius' lineage, truthfully or otherwise." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heru Posted March 27, 2010 Author Share Posted March 27, 2010 Hey, cool! Though a couple of things. The Blood Drinkers are a later founding, not a second one. And as much as we all love everything about Desmodus' Flesh Eaters, isn't the official scheme for them red/white? Blood Drinkers are listed as a 2nd Founding Chapter (page 8 Codex Space Marines - the table that is copy pasted everywhere).  Huh. Conflicting information in two codices written by the same guy. Wait he says differently in the BA Codex? But they have always been a 2nd Founding Chapter listed on the list of Chapters created in the 2nd Founding (every Codex that includes that list says so).  I declare that an illegal retcon attempt!  Are we 100% sure Blood Swords are mentioned as "not a BA successor" (ie can I get a direct quote from the new Codex)? "There are other surviving Chapters whose names and traditions would suggest a connection with the Blood Angels — the Blood Swords and Blood Ravens amongst them — but these Chapters do not claim Sanguinius' lineage, truthfully or otherwise." Ok I removed them from the list. It's still odd though, considering he "Codex Canonized" other fluff from that novel...   mind if i add my own DIY blood angels to this list? i havent fleshed out their fluff or used the SM painter yet but perhaps its finally the time for it? :huh: Sure that is why I put DIY there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoulius Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 The Red Dragons fluff pending, but basicly a chapter that keeps a few systems on the galactic east from the Maelstrom safe from Huron and his pirates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Wait he says differently in the BA Codex? But they have always been a 2nd Founding Chapter listed on the list of Chapters created in the 2nd Founding (every Codex that includes that list says so). Â Actually no. Back in 2nd edition the Blood Drinkers were explicitly stated to NOT be 2nd Founding Chapter. If you read the footnotes of the 3.x chart your referring to you'll see that what it actually lists is those chapters that the Apocrypha of Davio - a book not written till a thousand years after the event - names as 2nd Founding Chapters. (I actually mentioned that in a thread on the Blood Drinkers here last year, I wonder if Matt Ward is among us?) Its only a retcon if the new dex claims that the Apocrypha of Davio doesn't list the Blood Drinkers as 2nd Founding. Â relevant Buck Rogers quote: "He is a good man, believe me" ~ "I believe that you believe he is a good man". Â edit: correction, the Apocrypha of Davio was M33, so 2000 years after the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heru Posted March 28, 2010 Author Share Posted March 28, 2010 Wait he says differently in the BA Codex? But they have always been a 2nd Founding Chapter listed on the list of Chapters created in the 2nd Founding (every Codex that includes that list says so). Â Actually no. Back in 2nd edition the Blood Drinkers were explicitly stated to NOT be 2nd Founding Chapter. If you read the footnotes of the 3.x chart your referring to you'll see that what it actually lists is those chapters that the Apocrypha of Davio - a book not written till a thousand years after the event - names as 2nd Founding Chapters. (I actually mentioned that in a thread on the Blood Drinkers here last year, I wonder if Matt Ward is among us?) Its only a retcon if the new dex claims that the Apocrypha of Davio doesn't list the Blood Drinkers as 2nd Founding. Â relevant Buck Rogers quote: "He is a good man, believe me" ~ "I believe that you believe he is a good man". Â edit: correction, the Apocrypha of Davio was M33, so 2000 years after the event. You are quoting an era in which even the Flesh Tearers were not listed as a 2nd Founding Chapter (only the three "Angels" were confirmed as 2nd Foundlings). Funnily enough Matt Ward loves to copy paste much of the stuff in the new Codices from the 2nd Edition Codices... (see most of the "Ultra porn" lines - "everyone wants to be an Ultramarine"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 You are quoting an era in which even the Flesh Tearers were not listed as a 2nd Founding Chapter (only the three "Angels" were confirmed as 2nd Foundlings). Â So what? We know the Flesh Tearers are now a 2nd Founding Chapter because of the explicit fluff about it in the Index Astartes article, there is however no such corroborative evidence for the Blood Drinkers - only the oft repeated chart which says the Apocrypha of Davio says they are 2nd Founding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
son of sanguinus Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 is it just me or is anyone else with theyre pre-orders noticed that the chapter iconography section has marines that look awfully like the B&Cs space marine painter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 You are quoting an era in which even the Flesh Tearers were not listed as a 2nd Founding Chapter (only the three "Angels" were confirmed as 2nd Foundlings).  So what? We know the Flesh Tearers are now a 2nd Founding Chapter because of the explicit fluff about it in the Index Astartes article, there is however no such corroborative evidence for the Blood Drinkers - only the oft repeated chart which says the Apocrypha of Davio says they are 2nd Founding.   I think we can cut the Drinkers a bit of slack (albeit I’m biased ;) ) They were one of the first 12 Chapters in the original Rogue Trader, so if anything they should have been 1st founding when the list was drawn up. But I think for commercial reasons they were bumped from the hallowed first by GW along with Tearers and Eaters because of the similarity with the 'Chosen' Blood Angels.  True in the past they have been specifically identified as from a later founding, but I think this was an error caused by the usual GW inconsistency in their development of a cannon 40k universe. One that was rectified by the Apocrypha of Davio.  They even appeared, although it was a small crawl on part. In the first 40k novels, Space Marine by Ian Watson and the first Rhino's decals were Drinkers ones.  These guys are as old as the game itself and deserve to be one of the first Chapters. They’ll certainly stay 2nd founding in my fluff :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan the Lurker Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Also I believe the new codex states that the Blood Swords are actually not a Blood Angel successor. Â Â Best part of that is in the Red Fury novel the Blood Swords are certainly a successor. Gotta love GW in these instances.... Â is it just me or is anyone else with theyre pre-orders noticed that the chapter iconography section has marines that look awfully like the B&Cs space marine painter? Â It isn't our painter they are using. They are using their in house Marine image (by JG I believe) that they have used for years. Same image they used for things like the Adeptus Astartes poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodunius Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 I think we can cut the Drinkers a bit of slack (albeit I’m biased ;) ) They were one of the first 12 Chapters in the original Rogue Trader, so if anything they should have been 1st founding when the list was drawn up. But I think for commercial reasons they were bumped from the hallowed first by GW along with Tearers and Eaters because of the similarity with the 'Chosen' Blood Angels.  The 12 chapters in the RT rulebook were stated to be a mere sample of the thousand or so chapters operating in the galaxy - it was never stated that they were all 1st founding, in fact the first detailed article on space marines noted that of the 20 chapters created in the first founding only 7 still existed.  Personally I like them being non-2nd Founding, it makes them a little more unique than being just another Blood Angel 'fraction'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 :yes: I totally agree. *thinks wistfully of his copy now lost to time due to the foolishness of youth.* Â I didn't mean to suggest that they were ever stated to be of the 1st founding I just thought they deserved to be having been in the group of Marine Chapters first described. Â I'll happily settle for the 2nd founding title as it is where I belive they belong and always should have been. :) Â GW are the acursed and ruinous powers when it comes to 40k continuity. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Nathan Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 If were allowed to add our own then i present the Storm Angels http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s317/generalhazard_album/models/spacemarineCAU1LT0G.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heru Posted March 29, 2010 Author Share Posted March 29, 2010 If were allowed to add our own then i present the Storm Angels Added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE_Lim_Dul Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 Here's the color scheme of my chapter: Blood Phoenix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 My Codex arrived today :huh: and all was shiny (apart from the awful cover art) until I reached the paltry paragraph given over to the successors :huh: . My beloved Drinkers are back to being an unknown founding. They are very partial to knocking back the claret which seems to have helped control the Flaw :) and they strive endlessly to be judged as equals to the other legendary Chapters ( does that mean that we're not).  They stick totally to the codex heraldry ( which is ok I've been working with that ) then they go and show a painted BD with BA Sgt markings (black pauldrons) :down:  Ah well, back to the fluff drawing board I have a fair bit of founding history to re write; I'll take comfort in the fact that as long as GW keep my chapter vague. My or anyone else’s take on them is fine <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Ah well, back to the fluff drawing board I have a fair bit of founding history to re write; I'll take comfort in the fact that as long as GW keep my chapter vague. My or anyone else’s take on them is fine :) Yeah, I like having vague fluff. I have my picture of what the Angels Vermillion are, and nothing in the new codex contradicted that, so I'm happy they kept my chapter vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burningblood Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 - DIY - Death Eaters (My one) Dude! My DIY successors are the inverse of this scheme. Black body with blood red extremities, silver trim and helms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.