Which are better? I know there are a lot of people complaining that Blood Angels are awful now, but I'm under the impression that they're still better than Codex Marines, and they're a fairly good Codex still. Have BA actually slipped just above Black Templar on the competitive Marine hierarchy, or are they still Codex Marines +1? Any reasoning would be welcome as well.

haha and here comes the moping crowd

I'd prefer people to say "oh well C:SM are better because they have Vulkan, more shooting, etc" than "BA suck because everything they have got nerfed" since BA were long considered identical to C:SM, but with additional units that made them better.

C:SM advantages:

1) Combat tactics
2) Tactical squads got much better, ASM got worse, espeicially BA ASM
3) Much better HQs/special characters (my lord the BA special characters suck)
4) Riflemen dreads in the elite slot
5) Thunderfire cannons
6) 12 man drop pods
7) Cheaper TH/SS terminators

BA advantages:
1) ASM as troops (but see #2 above)
2) Stormraven (for now)
3) Fast vehicles
4) Can select divination powers on libbies
5) Access to FNP and furious charge
6) LRs as dedicated transports (does this count? I guess)

Am I missing something? I know both of these codicies very well. #6 for the BA is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I mean these two codicies are probably the two most similar in the game now. The DA have more non-trivial differences I think.

I might add that most of the BA 'additional units' are just point sinks that don't perform well in 6th edition.

Also if you like dreadnoughts BA has the biggest and best selection. Currently that's about the only reason I am keeping my book at this point, that and DC have always been a fav of mine.

Not really. The ranged dreadnought is under the heavily contested heavy support slot. Libby dreads can't join units, and therefore fail as psykers for the same reason as Mephiston. HTH DC dreads and furiosos have delivery issues. The rifleman dread is simply better than all these choices.

I said if you like them, not that they're total game winners, which the BA army list really lacks.

Ah, okay, I thought you were adding to the BA advantage list. Sorry about that. They are fun and look cool.

Yes, C:SM got better this edition, and BA got worse. I'm basically going to repeat what Martel said, and go a little more in depth.

Combat tactics is completely amazing this edition, and really makes vanilla SM a competitive choice when choosing between Space Marine Chapters -- the versatility and defense against assault that it gives makes C:SM uniquely advantaged. Being able to just say 'I don't want to be in this combat anymore' is really damn good when you can't be escorted off the board like last edition. Now you just retreat from combat, and then shoot the unit that just charged you. Rinse and repeat. Comparing to another chapter, the Dark Angels' Grim Resolve is actually a hindrance to them, as they will often stay in a combat that they don't really want to be in, and ironically makes normal SM potentially better at shooting than the shooty DA. SW Grey Hunters are still probably better than C:SM tacs, but that's just because they're probably the best troops in the game. C:SM tacs aren't as flexible as DA tacs, as they haven't been updated to a 6th edition codex, but with the buffs to ATSKNF and Combat Tactics, they're quite good.

The Red Thirst is pretty bad now. It was still pretty marginal last edition unless you decided to take Astorath, and with FC only being +1S now instead of +1S and +1I, it's too marginal a benefit. Fearless did get buffed, but ATSKNF is still potentially better. Descent of Angels is again a nice little thing, but Combat Tactics is such a huge thing now that it's not really worth it, and you can no longer do null deployment awesomeness.

Assault Marines are worse because assault is worse this edition. Overwatch and random charge lengths made an already marginal unit just slip over the curb of not really usable. C:SM never uses them anyway, and their uses for BA aren't as good. They're still fast scoring troops with meltas, but meltas aren't quite as necessary anymore, and the improvements to shooting mean that it's generally tough to get them across the table. Furthermore you can't really give them a PF sergeant anymore due to your inability to hide him from being killed in a challenge.

Mephiston is now AP3 in CC, and more people are bringing plasma. I don't remember, but Dante may still have the unwieldy axe. Sanguinary guard got better because of the buff to 2+ saves, but are expensive units that can get shot up easily. They look awesome, and I really want somebody to make them viable, but even with 2+ armor, the nerfs to assault mean they won't often get their point's worth.

Whereas, both Pedro Kantor and Vulkan He'stan are crazy good now. Pedro drop-pods and Sternguard give you lots of close-range shooty where you want it, without any of the perils of Deep Striking Mishaps. Vulkan still gives you stupid good meltas, flamers (which got buffed with overwatch) and TH, which are all great.

Blood Angels still have DC, which while hilariously expensive, are hilariously destructive; now that Rage is only a plus, DC are generally good for BA.

I'd probably call BA the worst of the Marine Codices right now, although BT might be lower, simply because of its age (I also don't know BT that well). SW are great, C:SM are great, DA are at least okay, GK are at least good. Blood Angels are a Marine Codex with none of the good advantages that other chapters give to you. You don't get cheap and awesome troops and long range versatility of SW, you don't get Combat Tactics, you don't get the new toys of the DA, you don't get the henchmen, psykers, and mid-range shooting domination of GK. The things that C:SM did that were different from the BA got better, while the things that made BA not a carbon copy of C:SM got worse. They're still a Space Marine Codex, but that's about it. They still look awesome, and in the hands of a good general can do great things, but vanilla space marines are currently superior IMO.

Can't argue with a thing Thariinye said. Finally, some rational back up on the BA being the worst marine codex right now.

I'm just curious, you really rank the C:SM book above even DA? That's just surprising to me. I don't know the DA codex like I do C:SM and BA.

ASM can use jetpacks ..

Jump infantry get Hammer of Wrath - e.g. S4 autohits at I10 per model.

Plasma guns and Power Swords can no longer strip Feel No Pain.

 TedNugent wrote:
ASM can use jetpacks ..

Jump infantry get Hammer of Wrath - e.g. S4 autohits at I10 per model.

Plasma guns and Power Swords can no longer strip Feel No Pain.

Experience has shown that you almost NEVER get to use hammer of wrath. With variable charge distances you don't want to risk any charge over 5 inches, so you will be using the jetpacks to move as close as possible, losing that HoW attack.

Sure, you get FnP against power swords and plasma...but FnP is less useful against EVERYTHING ELSE.

The problem with BA is the troops choices. Our tacticals are pretty much the worst of them all. ASM can't, and shouldn't be, holding objectives. With the nerf melee has taken it makes even offensive use for the ASM dubious. Not really sure what to do about it either. Jumping ship to the other marine codexes is my current plan.

I still think there is some viability to mech BA i.e. Razors and MSU assault marines with plama guns (drop the packs off them), where they will have a slight advantage over C:SM.

Not arguing that they took a decent nerf though. My DoA + Pod army was pretty much ruined by the 50% reserves rule. Just made it no fun anymore. I still feel the FNP was a buff in the meta I play with, but there is lots of tailoring in my group so if I'm v'sing someone they knew to pack weapons to ignore FNP. As mentioned before, every one of their special characters took a beating by 6th edition. Our ability to deploy melta early to take out key targets has been dimished by fliers taking to the field in their stead. The change to Furious charge has taken the slight edge that ASM's needed to get the advantage over other Marine units, further compounded by random charge range and overwatch.

C:SM, out plays them in almost every way in my opinion.

I only have the one army. I'll just suffer until the next codex drops, I suppose. Although I'm getting myself some C:SM allies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho got better. All the rest of the special characters are now just supports for cobwebs.

I'm just curious, you really rank the C:SM book above even DA? That's just surprising to me. I don't know the DA codex like I do C:SM and BA.

I'm undecided. DA isn't as similar as BA to C:SM. It's a 6th codex, so you get neat things like your own Warlord Trait Table, abominably cheap Librarians and efficient generic HQ choices, more versatile Tacs, Devs that don't break the bank, Flakk. Then you have the DA specific stuff. However, it's debatable as to whether their stuff is really better or worse than the things that C:SM can do.

Sure, you get FnP against power swords and plasma...but FnP is less useful against EVERYTHING ELSE.

This is true -- I'd say that FnP isn't really any worse than last edition, but neither is it really any better. It's better against certain edge cases, but it isn't the superman thing that it used to be against small arms fire. Last edition you'd see people pour fire into them, and none would die because they'd have to fail a 3+ and a 4+. Now it's nice when it happens, but it's not something to rely on to protect your dudes.

ASM can't, and shouldn't be, holding objectives.

Which is why DC can actually work for the BA. You have a few MSU non-JP ASM with razorbacks. The ASM are just to hold backfield objectives, while the razorbacks give fire support. Then you have DC mobs either Deep Striking in or in Stormravens to destroy stuff.

FNP has gotten much better in this edition for T5 models, and less effective for T3 models. Its about constant for T4 models.
FNP has lowered its durability boost to bolters.
Previous FNP..: 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 1/2 = 1/18 (5.5%)
Current FNP....: 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 2/3 = 2/27 (7.4%)
No FNP.......... : 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 * = 1/9 (11.1%)

However the ability to take FNP vs power weapons or weapons that deny saves is a huge advantage. I was playing a BA player the other day and I hit his squad with my helldrake. I caused 8 wounds and he FNP'ed 5 of them. Its not common, but when it happens its a real PITA for the other guy.

As I mentioned FNP gets better with T5 units, like bikes. This is because you still get FNP to thunder hammers, LCs, and other STR 8 weapons. Nothing pisses off a TH/SS terminator squad than making 5-7 FNP saves.

FNP also got worse for T3 tools, like DE. FNP on wytches is not as hot when they are denied FNP from STR 6 shooting.

The ability to get FNP is one of the best things of the BA codex. It gives a flat 33.3% durability boost from most shooting. While the BA are hurting in some other ways, the ability to get FNP for thier army is a huge boost.

Yeah some of you may say the codex it's bad but wait till we get the new BA codex this year and dont give me the 5 year crap and gw is too lazy to do it I bet my social life on it! (nothing lol jk)
If not well... I'll be looking at what nids get

 Thariinye wrote:
SW Grey Hunters are still probably better than C:SM tacs, but that's just because they're probably the best troops in the game.

This is no comparison between C:SM/BA TAC marines and GHs. There is no 'probably' about it.

* GHs have an additional CCW
* GHs have a cheaper first special weapon
* GHs have a free second special weapon if there are 10
* GHs can be joined by a wolf guard in terminator armor. This combines wonderfully with the wolf banner
* GHs have the wolf banner, ranking as one of the best wargear items in the game
* GHs have MotW they can add to squads, giving them rending attacks
* GHs can be joined by ICs like wolf priests which give them outflanking and stealth.
* GHs have counter-attack

Grey hunters are argueably the best troop in the game.
C:SM TAC marines are one of the worst troops in the game.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Thariinye wrote:
SW Grey Hunters are still probably better than C:SM tacs, but that's just because they're probably the best troops in the game.

This is no comparison between C:SM/BA TAC marines and GHs. There is no 'probably' about it.

* GHs have an additional CCW
* GHs have a cheaper first special weapon
* GHs have a free second special weapon if there are 10
* GHs can be joined by a wolf guard in terminator armor. This combines wonderfully with the wolf banner
* GHs have the wolf banner, ranking as one of the best wargear items in the game
* GHs have MotW they can add to squads, giving them rending attacks
* GHs can be joined by ICs like wolf priests which give them outflanking and stealth.
* GHs have counter-attack

Grey hunters are argueably the best troop in the game.
C:SM TAC marines are one of the worst troops in the game.

I wouldn't say that C:SM tacs are bad at all, potentially a little bit overpriced, but with combat tactics being buffed, they're perfectly servicable troops. There are, imo, worse troops than C:SM tacticals, like say, Guardians, or wyches in any other capacity than suicide vehicle destroyers. Yes, tacticals are not as good as GH, I was equivocating there, but I don't see how they're a 'bad' unit, let alone one of the worst troops in the game. BA tacticals are lower on the scale and could be called bad, but C:SM tacticals I cannot see as terrible.

What about av 13 spam?
I know tanks got easier to kill, but they also got harder to shut down?
So:
3 baal preds
2 fast vindis
Stormraven
2+ blender dreads
plasma/las razorbacks with troops in
quad gun
a cheap libby hq

It seems to me that this is still quite a good army. You've got lots of armor which is all very fast and quite hard to stop moving. Sure you're light on troops, but they're mainly for scoring objectives.

 Thariinye wrote:
I wouldn't say that C:SM tacs are bad at all, potentially a little bit overpriced, but with combat tactics being buffed, they're perfectly servicable troops. There are, imo, worse troops than C:SM tacticals, like say, Guardians, or wyches in any other capacity than suicide vehicle destroyers. Yes, tacticals are not as good as GH, I was equivocating there, but I don't see how they're a 'bad' unit, let alone one of the worst troops in the game. BA tacticals are lower on the scale and could be called bad, but C:SM tacticals I cannot see as terrible.

Lets talk a walk through the armies, and see what their standard troop choices are, and how they compare to TACs.
Comparing them to guardians is not valid, as noone brings them in 6th. Using that as our measuring stick is akin to saying "Well, since BA assualt marines are better than swooping hawks, I should take them!" Lets compare them to troops people actually take in 6th.

BA : TACs ( or Assault Marines)
CD : TACs are better than Plague Bearers or Horrors.
CSM : Plague Marines/Noise Marines/Fearless cultists are better than TACs.
DA : TACs
DE : Warriors are better troops than TACs. In today's infantry heavy meta, massive poisoned weapons are supriour.
Eldar : Guaridan Jet Bikes are better than TACs. The ability to move 36" a turn, ignore terrain, and score is huge.
GK : Strike squads are better
IG : PG Vets are better
Necrons : Warriors are better. They are cheaper, have a better gun, and get a 5+/4+ reanimation protocols roll. Immortals are better.
Orks : Shoota boys are better
SoB : TACs are better than battle sisters
C:SM : TACs
SW : GHs are better
Tau : TACs are better than fire warriors
Tyranids : Termigons are better than TACs. Unit spawning FTW. Heck, even cheap fearless units are better than TACs.

So out of the armies, we have the following breakdowns.
Better than TACS : CSM, DE, Eldar, GK, IG, Necrons, Orks, SW, Tyrnaids
Armies using TACS : BA, DA, C:SM
Worse than TACS : CD, SoB, Tau

So, TACs score 10th out of 13 for 'best troop'. That seems to me like their pretty bad.
I'm not saying C:SM/BA/DA are bad. They have excellent units, but they have crappy troop choices.

I'd put BA above normal SM's and DA. The ability to have jump packs on scoring units is better for objective taking.
They can also randomly get FNP/Furious charge (can't remember which it is, maybe both) due to the blood rolls at the start of the game.
If you put in a sanguinary priest they definitely get a bonus. (although that is adding non-troops)

I agree with everything else though.

They get Furious Charge, which is worth a lot less than it used to be with the loss of the point of Initiative. Being Fearless is also worse than ATSKNF, since it prevents you from going to ground, which is very important for a unit sitting on an objective. It also means that in a combat where you're getting your butt kicked, you stay and die rather than back out and gun down your attackers.

I'd put BA as tied with Templars for the weakest of SM Codex because of the Accept Any Challenge nerf.

What's the accept any challenge nerf?

Also with jump pack assualt marines - why would you be using them for holding an objective?Not just taking someone elses?
Where do they get fearless from?

And on the flipside, Fearless would also mean that you don't run off your objective in the last turn due to a break test etc.

Accept Any Challenge now gives Rage rather than Preferred Enemy in close combat, so it's only useful if you get to assault, and only helps the first round of combat.

Once you've pushed something off an objective (which 10 BA ASM aren't going to reliably do anyway), you have to deal with getting counterattacked. Either they'll shoot you off of it, or they'll assault you back and BA ASM are bad for dealing with that. Fearless is the second side effect of The Red Thirst and while you don't have to worry about getting shot away at the end of the game, you're less likely to be alive since you can't just Go to Ground in Area terrain for a 3+ cover to stop someone from plasma-spamming you to death.

I really think you only play Blood Angels if you like their fluff and their unique models, not their capability in the game. I think players are saying they are so bad because of the stark difference in play styles between 5th and 6th editions. My Blood Angel list went from 1 loss total in my play group in 5th to never winning at all in 6th. It's a shock that some people won't ever get over so they label them as bad. It is possible that you can start BA now with no prior experience with them and be fine, though it won't be as easy as the more shooty marine options.

Not winning at all is pretty bad. If that result does not make the BA bad, what does? I mean I'm rocking about 45% wins and I'm pretty unhappy with them.

I'm at about 65% win with my BA. I have definitely felt hamstrung by the changes to them in 6th. I now run a foot army list with lots of shooty. Not really optimal for BA but better than running a 5th Ed style list. Next time I play I am going to use a vehical heavy list to test out the limitations of our fast vehicals. I don't have high expectations. As soon as I have more paint on my IG and DA they will be what I mostly run. BA are really more of a labor of love now for me. I also experienced the BA getting nerfed to all hell in 4th so I don't take the hit from 6th so hard. At least my guys don't run out of cover to charge a unit 3 feet away now.

I sat out 4th edition purely by coincidence. Sounds like odd numbered editions are where its at for BA!

 lunarman wrote:
What about av 13 spam?
I know tanks got easier to kill, but they also got harder to shut down?
So:
3 baal preds
2 fast vindis
Stormraven
2+ blender dreads
plasma/las razorbacks with troops in
quad gun
a cheap libby hq

It seems to me that this is still quite a good army. You've got lots of armor which is all very fast and quite hard to stop moving. Sure you're light on troops, but they're mainly for scoring objectives.

That's a good list. Armour is still good and BA fast vindicators are down right burtal. BA razor spam still is viable but it's not top tier like it was in 5th.

Thariinye wrote:...Logically written thoughts

Couldn't agree more. Well put.

TedNugent wrote:ASM can use jetpacks ..

Jump infantry get Hammer of Wrath - e.g. S4 autohits at I10 per model.

Others have mentioned this, but I thought I'd reiterate. HoW just doesn't happen with JP units. Moving 6" then the random charge distance is far too risky for what amounts to 1 attack.

PredaKhaine wrote:I'd put BA above normal SM's and DA. The ability to have jump packs on scoring units is better for objective taking.
They can also randomly get FNP/Furious charge (can't remember which it is, maybe both) due to the blood rolls at the start of the game.
If you put in a sanguinary priest they definitely get a bonus. (although that is adding non-troops)

It's almost like you didn't read anything. If the JP units are hanging back, they're not contributing. Even a small 5 man squad is 90pts that's not helping out in the game until the end. Wasting points like that in a rather elite army is not a way to win. You've just given yourself a 90pt handicap. It's not like they can't be ignored until later, since they won't be relevant until later anyway.
If they're not hanging back then they're probably in combat, where due to their lack lustre performance have either lost, ran and been finished off, or are stuck there. That scoring unit won't last long. At least TACs can take a heavy weapon and contribute from turn 1 while waiting to score later.

I'm starting to notice that sanguinary priests aren't as strong as they used to be either. They're less likely to survive due to precision shots, barrage sniping and challenges.

Martel732 wrote:
Not winning at all is pretty bad. If that result does not make the BA bad, what does? I mean I'm rocking about 45% wins and I'm pretty unhappy with them.

I assume that was directed at me. I am also a Warmachine/Hordes player and in that game you lose until you figure out how to play your list. If i hadn't started playing that before this happened I would probably have been raging about my army and sold it off instead of the new list building and trying new things method that I am doing now.

There's a limit to how much the BA can get out of trying new things when most of the codex is now overpriced compared to its on the field utility.

Sanguinary priests are still worth it I think because you can give them a power axe and let the sarge suck up the challenge. And FNP does work sometimes. Sometimes. Are they fantastic? No.

Martel732 wrote:
There's a limit to how much the BA can get out of trying new things when most of the codex is now overpriced compared to its on the field utility.

This sounds like me several years ago. If you notice my Dakka handle name, it's the name of a Chaos Chosen marine from a bit of fluff from 2 Chaos codexes ago. Back when the 5th edition Chaos codex came out I was really upset about it. They ruined my army the way I liked to play it and nothing anyone could say could convince me I could have fun with it. I had almost 4,000 points fully painted that I sold off in disgust. They had also previously ruined my fantasy Chaos army when they split Daemons off from the Chaos hordes book and took away the mingling with Beastmen. At this point, I am resigned to each new rules edition or each new army book that comes out will mess up what I am doing and just go with it. You either like your army enough to see it through or you don't and do something else.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at. I guess I get props for winning with BA when I do win.

I think what I am trying to say is to pick the army you like the looks/fluff of and the play style you like most and play it. Things will always change and you'll have to adapt. If you like shooting with a small assault force or no assault at all, play Vanilla Marines. If you like close quarters fighting and a challenge right now, play BA.

Right now I am shooting and have a small assault force with BA. That's my current adaptation.

 labmouse42 wrote:


This break down made me laugh at how subjective it is

BA : TACs ( or Assault Marines)
CD : TACs are better than Plague Bearers or Horrors.
CSM : Plague Marines/Noise Marines/Fearless cultists are better than TACs.
None of these are troops except cultists which are not fearless without a lord, so they come with a huge tax
DA : TACs
DE : Warriors are better troops than TACs. In today's infantry heavy meta, massive poisoned weapons are supriour.
Again a bit inaccurate, DE warriors are better now but are no where near as good as tacs. Tacs hit DE and wound DE on 3's and ignore their armor entirely all while having the usual bumps in skills.
Eldar : Guaridan Jet Bikes are better than TACs. The ability to move 36" a turn, ignore terrain, and score is huge.
Seriously? Guardian jetbikes outshine EVERY other scoring unit at mobility. Thats also about all they do well aside from dying and failing LD
GK : Strike squads are better
Not so sure. I agree warp quake is huge in certain matchups but they still are expensive and die like any other marine while having crappy AT and with universal 24" range, the last FAQ really took their teeth away with kill zones.
IG : PG Vets are better
PG vets are great offense but are not nearly as durable and btw you are including the chimera here I assume which isn't fair. But even with that chimera, when it explodes you just lost your unit.
Necrons : Warriors are better. They are cheaper, have a better gun, and get a 5+/4+ reanimation protocols roll. Immortals are better.
Again you are factoring royal court ie. HQ slots when considering the 4+ RP. That aside I don't agree, 4+ AS is MUCH worse. Immortals I would say are equal but again not better per point. The necron units pack a better survival rate at small arms fire but combat tactics makes the marines able to always play on their own terms. Again what makes these guys seem so much better is their broken transport not them individually. Don't believe me? Imagine TACS with access to NS
Orks : Shoota boys are better
Great tar pits, ok shooting. Problems are like others, can't tie C:SM down in a fight. Focus fire and a 6+ save makes these guys die in droves. Once below 10 they are garbage.
SoB : TACs are better than battle sisters
C:SM : TACs
SW : GHs are better
absolutely no argument here. GH are by far the best MEQ in the game. My biggest complaint with them however is they cannot combat squad. You have no idea how irritating it can be to have your opponent double out his scoring potential on you in objective games. Though this is a small price to pay.
Tau : TACs are better than fire warriors
Tyranids : Termigons are better than TACs. Unit spawning FTW. Heck, even cheap fearless units are better than TACs.
Again this is not fair, your comparing an HQ that can slot out to troops under another requirement. That aside if we are going to ignore points then there isn't a unit on the list better then the Tervigon.

So out of the armies, we have the following breakdowns.
Better than TACS : CSM, DE, Eldar, GK, IG, Necrons, Orks, SW, Tyrnaids
Armies using TACS : BA, DA, C:SM
Worse than TACS : CD, SoB, Tau

So, TACs score 10th out of 13 for 'best troop'. That seems to me like their pretty bad.
I'm not saying C:SM/BA/DA are bad. They have excellent units, but they have crappy troop choices.

Placing them in 10th is unfair really, as I feel ATSKNF, combat tactics and combat squads makes them point for point better troops then just about every other xenos. Better scorers? No, as stated guardian jetbikes are better at the grab and necrons or orks are better at holding them. TACS are more rounded and useful though in grind out circumstances.

Martel732 wrote:
Right now I am shooting and have a small assault force with BA. That's my current adaptation.

Unfortunately that is not what the BA book is designed to do. Vanilla does this strategy much better as several posters here have said. I tried to do this, but the selections leave a lot to be desired since you have to sacrifice their built in close combat ability while using their higher point cost shooting options. I am now working on lists that use my favorite models and units and seeing if i can win instead of trying to use things i didn't like or trying to play a style i didn't originally want to. BA are in a really awkward place this edition with everything they were designed to do being worse or harder to accomplish.

What built in close combat ability? That's the problem. They don't have any.

Martel732 wrote:
What built in close combat ability? That's the problem. They don't have any.

Furious charge is an army feature for BA and it is only a close combat ability. They have the best close combat dreadnoughts as well as the expensive death company that can do a ton of damage at the expense of a shooty option that other books may have. The army as a whole is designed for short range to close combat and both of those are worse now, whether it's because of a special rule changing (Furious charge losing the init bonus) or a basic rule change (random charge distance) the strength and theme of the BA army is weak this edition.

I don't think BA are bad, but I don't run a ton of troops in my lists. This thread is pretty damning to BA as a force, but everyone seems to be targetting their assault squads as being the issue. If assault marines are considered crap, just run less of them and add in more of what BA CAN do well.

Fast Vindicators are pretty amazing.

Baal predators can scout move and have a S6 AP3 template. Everyone loves it on the Heldrake (for good reason, as 360 torrent is better than what the Baal can bring), but no one even seems to talk about running it on the Baal even though it's much cheaper.

Drop podded Death Company.

Drop podded Furioso Dreadnaughts with Frag cannons.

Attack Bikes (or a normal bike squad) backed up by Librarians and Sang Priests on bikes for mobile and hard to take out FnP.

Out of break time, but there's just a few things that BA do well...

I've tried low troops, but it doesn't seem to work too well in 6th edition. The BA non-troop stuff is not so amazing that we can count on tabling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, flame tanks are much, much easier to frag than flame fliers. Although, admittedly, it *is* a way to deal with grey hunters.

Red Corsair wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:


This break down made me laugh at how subjective it is

BA : TACs ( or Assault Marines)
CD : TACs are better than Plague Bearers or Horrors.
CSM : Plague Marines/Noise Marines/Fearless cultists are better than TACs.
None of these are troops except cultists which are not fearless without a lord, so they come with a huge tax
DA : TACs
DE : Warriors are better troops than TACs. In today's infantry heavy meta, massive poisoned weapons are supriour.
Again a bit inaccurate, DE warriors are better now but are no where near as good as tacs. Tacs hit DE and wound DE on 3's and ignore their armor entirely all while having the usual bumps in skills.
Eldar : Guaridan Jet Bikes are better than TACs. The ability to move 36" a turn, ignore terrain, and score is huge.
Seriously? Guardian jetbikes outshine EVERY other scoring unit at mobility. Thats also about all they do well aside from dying and failing LD
GK : Strike squads are better
Not so sure. I agree warp quake is huge in certain matchups but they still are expensive and die like any other marine while having crappy AT and with universal 24" range, the last FAQ really took their teeth away with kill zones.
IG : PG Vets are better
PG vets are great offense but are not nearly as durable and btw you are including the chimera here I assume which isn't fair. But even with that chimera, when it explodes you just lost your unit.
Necrons : Warriors are better. They are cheaper, have a better gun, and get a 5+/4+ reanimation protocols roll. Immortals are better.
Again you are factoring royal court ie. HQ slots when considering the 4+ RP. That aside I don't agree, 4+ AS is MUCH worse. Immortals I would say are equal but again not better per point. The necron units pack a better survival rate at small arms fire but combat tactics makes the marines able to always play on their own terms. Again what makes these guys seem so much better is their broken transport not them individually. Don't believe me? Imagine TACS with access to NS
Orks : Shoota boys are better
Great tar pits, ok shooting. Problems are like others, can't tie C:SM down in a fight. Focus fire and a 6+ save makes these guys die in droves. Once below 10 they are garbage.
SoB : TACs are better than battle sisters
C:SM : TACs
SW : GHs are better
absolutely no argument here. GH are by far the best MEQ in the game. My biggest complaint with them however is they cannot combat squad. You have no idea how irritating it can be to have your opponent double out his scoring potential on you in objective games. Though this is a small price to pay.
Tau : TACs are better than fire warriors
Tyranids : Termigons are better than TACs. Unit spawning FTW. Heck, even cheap fearless units are better than TACs.
Again this is not fair, your comparing an HQ that can slot out to troops under another requirement. That aside if we are going to ignore points then there isn't a unit on the list better then the Tervigon.

So out of the armies, we have the following breakdowns.
Better than TACS : CSM, DE, Eldar, GK, IG, Necrons, Orks, SW, Tyrnaids
Armies using TACS : BA, DA, C:SM
Worse than TACS : CD, SoB, Tau

So, TACs score 10th out of 13 for 'best troop'. That seems to me like their pretty bad.
I'm not saying C:SM/BA/DA are bad. They have excellent units, but they have crappy troop choices.

Placing them in 10th is unfair really, as I feel ATSKNF, combat tactics and combat squads makes them point for point better troops then just about every other xenos. Better scorers? No, as stated guardian jetbikes are better at the grab and necrons or orks are better at holding them. TACS are more rounded and useful though in grind out circumstances.

This brings up a particular issue with troops, and really with most units: what roles are the units playing on the battlefield? Even for Troops, the way that different troops operate can be entirely different than the way other troops operate. Guardian Jetbikes want to do nothing, and then zoom around turn 5 and grab an objective, hoping the game ends. DE Trueborn want to sit in their open-topped transports and fire their whatever-guns. Tacticals and their like generally are survivable infantry that can contribute something to the battle while they're on foot. They can camp objectives or go upfield. Thus, many of the troops listed here are still good, but they're not competing with Tacticals in the same role. Of those that are directly competing, GH are still 'strictly better' (although not 100% accurate, the MtG term fits) than all other tactical units, but I'd still argue that C:SM tacticals are good in that category.

PM are more survivable, but much more expensive (thus putting out less effective firepower for their points), and need a lord to make them troops. Thus they're better at holding objectives, but not at contributing firepower to a battle.
NM have great long range shooting (you'll not find me arguing against how good blastmasters are), but they can only be equipped to do either long range shooting or moving upfield, not both. They also need a lord to be troops.
Strikes have better shooting at 12-24", but suffer from the aforementioned cost problems. Furthermore even with Force weapons, they want nothing to do with CC, and can't get out of it as easy as C:SM tacticals.
Necron Warriors and Immortals are nice, and have a bit better shooting than Tacticals, but they don't even have ATSKNF. They'll do wonderfully in a shootout (Warriors equivalent, Immortals a bit better), but they're even more boned in CC than DA Tacticals that have to stick around in a losing fight, as Ld10 doesn't matter when you lose combat by more than a few, and your I2 will basically ensure you get swept.

So, we have some weaknesses to other troops (except GH) that occupy mostly the same roles as C:SM tacticals (survivable foot troops). The tactical space marines of Codex: Space Marines aren't the best, certainly not, but they're not totally outclassed by all the other viable troops in the game, not by a longshot.

You can see that, even in survivable infantry, none of these troops (except GH) want to be in CC much at all. The fact that GH are perfectly fine with being charged is one of the biggest reasons they're so amazing. What Combat Tactics gives C:SM tactical marines over all of the other non-GH survivable foot dudes is the ability to get out of combat. The way you deal with survivable infantry is either to torrent them down with superior shooting, or tie them up in CC. Vanilla Tactical Marines can't get tied up in CC unless they're winning it. Yes they can be outshot, but one of the critical methods of destroying infantry like them is to silence their shooting with fast CC units. They can't be silenced like that, in fact it just lets them get more shooting in.

Brotherjanus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What built in close combat ability? That's the problem. They don't have any.

Furious charge is an army feature for BA and it is only a close combat ability. They have the best close combat dreadnoughts as well as the expensive death company that can do a ton of damage at the expense of a shooty option that other books may have. The army as a whole is designed for short range to close combat and both of those are worse now, whether it's because of a special rule changing (Furious charge losing the init bonus) or a basic rule change (random charge distance) the strength and theme of the BA army is weak this edition.

That reminds me of something I forgot to write about earlier, the Furioso Dreadnoughts. They also suffered this edition, not especially from any CC nerfs, but from nerfs to walkers. They can still do crazy awesome things (watch a blood talons DC Dread with Prescience on it just delete infantry swarms), but now that krak grenades can kill them all walkers that have less armor than Ironclads or Contemptors are vulnerable in CC. So BA having CC dreads means that this is another of the areas in which they're just not quite as sturdy as they were last edition.

Edit: Ignore some of what I just said about Furiosos. If they're actually AV13 instead of AV12, then they're still fine. AV13 means they're not killed by Krak grenades. They still are somewhat worse due to general vehicle nerfs, but if they're AV13, then they don't have the new walker weaknesses.

In this new edition, the missions are mostly objective based which requires you to play more troop heavy. If you do skimp on troops, you have to bank on a table wipe, which BA are hard pressed to do now. Since 2 of the 5 troop units they have can never score and their Tacticals and Scouts are worse than other marine's versions you are compelled to play the Assault Squads. The Assault Squads are better than other army's versions but right now the better use for them is as a minimum squad in a cheap razorback. This does not keep to their theme of being "Masters of the Skies". If this is what you want to do, then my suggestion of playing Vanilla marines for a shooty army still stands.

(my original post got erased when the site locked up, i forgot this next part)

I love the Furioso dread in a drop pod with a frag cannon, heavy flamer, and magnagrapple. It has the potential to do a crazy amount of wounds but you have to put the magnagrapple on it to avoid losing out on some kills. I have stopped using my Death Company dreads as they have constantly been killed by terrain, overwatch, or just in combat in general and have become less fun for me.

Quality of troops is very subjective. Your welcome to view TACs as top tier if you like. I view them as closer to the bottom because they are moderare at the job of troops --- objective grabbing/holding and damage output. TACs have average resiliance and bad damage output.

 Red Corsair wrote:
None of these are troops except cultists which are not fearless without a lord, so they come with a huge tax

Taking a MoN/MoS lord unlocks cult troops. PMs are extremely good troops as they have good damage output and are extremely durable at holding objectives. Noise marines have extremely high damage outputs. Furthermore a lord 'tax' implies something you must buy that's not very useful. A CSM lord is an excellent buy for its points.

 Red Corsair wrote:
[Again a bit inaccurate, DE warriors are better now but are no where near as good as tacs. Tacs hit DE and wound DE on 3's and ignore their armor entirely all while having the usual bumps in skills.

We can agree to disagree here. DE warriors are 53% the cost of C:SM TAC marines. This means they have twice the bodies to absorb shots and to return shots. Your also assuming that there is no cover. What really push large DE squads into the realm of 'good' is joining them with an IC like Eldrad. You may view this as a 'tax' but the way eldar/DE units are designed to work is through synergy.

 Red Corsair wrote:
[Seriously? Guardian jetbikes outshine EVERY other scoring unit at mobility. Thats also about all they do well aside from dying and failing LD

What is the role of troop choice? If your looking for units with high killy power, normally troops are not your go-to. Troops are there to take objectives and win the game. Jetbikes actually excel at this role! If your playing book missions, they also excel at taking the relic. While they have crappy damage output, they excel so strongly at their primary role its hard not to take them.

 Red Corsair wrote:
[Placing them in 10th is unfair really, as I feel ATSKNF, combat tactics and combat squads makes them point for point better troops then just about every other xenos. Better scorers? No, as stated guardian jetbikes are better at the grab and necrons or orks are better at holding them. TACS are more rounded and useful though in grind out circumstances.

You said yourself the problem. Jetbikes are better at grabbing objectives, and necrons/orks are better at holding them. Well rounded is all fine and good, but it makes for a lackluster troop. You know the phrase, jack of all trades and master of none? That's the TAC squad. It can do everything a little bit but fails when pushed up against a specalist unit. They can't outshoot sternguard. They can't outassault DE wytches. They can't outlast plague marines.

The proof is in the pudding, good sir. Go look in the Army Lists section. How many competitive C:SM lists spam TAC squads? Normally they take a minimal amount and then rely upon sternguard/tanks/stormtalons to do the heavy lifting. When I played a C:SM army I used bikes -- which I think are much better than TAC squads.

Simply put, TAC squads are the achilles heel of the C:SM codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thariinye wrote:
This brings up a particular issue with troops, and really with most units: what roles are the units playing on the battlefield? Even for Troops, the way that different troops operate can be entirely different than the way other troops operate. Guardian Jetbikes want to do nothing, and then zoom around turn 5 and grab an objective, hoping the game ends. DE Trueborn want to sit in their open-topped transports and fire their whatever-guns. Tacticals and their like generally are survivable infantry that can contribute something to the battle while they're on foot. They can camp objectives or go upfield. Thus, many of the troops listed here are still good, but they're not competing with Tacticals in the same role. Of those that are directly competing, GH are still 'strictly better' (although not 100% accurate, the MtG term fits) than all other tactical units, but I'd still argue that C:SM tacticals are good in that category.

That's a well though out arguement.

As I mentioned, the point of any 'troop' at the end of the day is to take objectives and deliver some damage output. Given a choice between the two, taking objectives is the more important role.

Some troop choices, like 30 ork shootas/guants do this by just blobbing over objectives and using their bodies to ablative absorb damage. Others grab objectives late game like eldar jetbikes. Some just stand and take whatever you can throw at them like plague marines.

So how are some units better? We could break units down and assign values to what we think their capacity to take objectives and deal damage is. Its a lot of work, but that could be a fun excercise.

 Thariinye wrote:
You can see that, even in survivable infantry, none of these troops (except GH) want to be in CC much at all.

Plague Marines don't care if they are charged either. Defensive gernades are great for that.
Why would you not want orks or nids in assault if the oppertunity is there? If I had 30 ork shoota boys, I would be more than happy to assault 10 marine TACs.

"Simply put, TAC squads are the achilles heel of the C:SM codex."

But not as bad as in 5th.

While I adore GHs, people tend to overlook the single weakness they have. Lack of heavy weapons. As a SW player I dislike having to buy a Razorback so I can have one scoring unit near my home objective, while still contributing. It'd be nice if I could toss a LC into a squad like DA.

Still, GHs are probably the best troop choice there is (IMO only IG vets compete for that title), and certainly the best MEQ.

That's funny, because I have been known to leave the heavies at home for tactical squads so they have 100% effectiveness on the move.

Martel732 wrote:
That's funny, because I have been known to leave the heavies at home for tactical squads so they have 100% effectiveness on the move.

So what do you do when it's turn 4 and all your troops are mid-field or in the enemy DZ against a gun line army? One cool thing about TACs is that you can combat squad them leaving a small heavy weapon team at home. I don't want to start running back home by turn 3, but I have done occasionally and it feels rather silly.

I despise my units not contributing, and having a cheap 5 man squad sit at home feels so wasteful. Normally they have a flamer and TL Las razorback, and just try to be inoffensive while everything else gets all up in my opponent's gak.

I often use tacs the way you describe, but for a few lists that employ sniper scouts, I push the tacs forward.

Martel732 wrote:
I often use tacs the way you describe, but for a few lists that employ sniper scouts, I push the tacs forward.

Yeah; SW don't get the option of a slightly cheaper, long range, 2+ cover save unit to camp. Meh, I wouldn't trade that anyway. I just live with my small unit that doesn't do a lot, and my GHs who run backwards if I'm worried about losing an objective to an enemy unit in my half.

Martel732 wrote:
"Simply put, TAC squads are the achilles heel of the C:SM codex."

But not as bad as in 5th.

Your correct there. They are not as bad as they were, but they are still not good.

Why would you take TACs over scouts/bikes?

The SW solution: bring more GH, dare people to dislodge you. Can't SW take riflemen dreads in the elite slot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Simply put, TAC squads are the achilles heel of the C:SM codex."

But not as bad as in 5th.

Your correct there. They are not as bad as they were, but they are still not good.

Why would you take TACs over scouts/bikes?

Bikes, no; scouts, maybe.

You mentioned something very simple here Martel732.

If your playing C:SM, why the heck are you not taking 2 squads of grey hunters and a rune/wolf priest as allies?
That really helps to shore up the C:SM weakness of crappy TACs and still gives some of the strong advantages of C:SM (null zone, storm talons, etc)

Yes, I've considered it. I just don't have the resources to get the codex/models. Plus I really wanted null zone for my BA, which you mean I ally with vanilla. But there's no reason vanilla shouldn't ally with SW.

Martel732 wrote:
The SW solution: bring more GH, dare people to dislodge you. Can't SW take riflemen dreads in the elite slot?

Yeah, but I never have enough points for more than one small squad of WG. When I do have points, I tend to get excited about Lone Wolves, just because I think they're cool.

I'm just asking because that would help the GH's lack of ranged weaponry. The riflemen dread is so good.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Fragnaughts for BA. They are great in drop pods( as long as they have AT support). BA have some of the cheapest heavy weapons for their devastator squads, which gets even better when you have a Divination Libby cast Prescience and the ignore cover powers on them. Plus, Baal Preds can put out silly amounts of firepower.

Lucarikx

 Lucarikx wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Fragnaughts for BA. They are great in drop pods( as long as they have AT support).

Lucarikx

See my last post above this.

 Brotherjanus wrote:

 Lucarikx wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Fragnaughts for BA. They are great in drop pods( as long as they have AT support).

Lucarikx

See my last post above this.

\

Oops....

I totally meant to do that... Just to reiterate how amazing they are.

Lucarikx

Unfortunately, fragnaughts do not make the codex. :(

Martel732 wrote:
Unfortunately, fragnaughts do not make the codex. :(

True, but they do make it more fun. I once shot a unit of 10 Daemonettes in a ruins and did over 30 wounds between the frag cannon and heavy flamer. Needless to say that unit was gone.

I agree with Brotherjanus. I killed 10 GH and 5 BC, and I almost got Lukas; with one dreadnaught! They do make gaming a LOT more fun

Lucarikx

 Griddlelol wrote:

It's almost like you didn't read anything. If the JP units are hanging back, they're not contributing. Even a small 5 man squad is 90pts that's not helping out in the game until the end. Wasting points like that in a rather elite army is not a way to win. You've just given yourself a 90pt handicap. It's not like they can't be ignored until later, since they won't be relevant until later anyway.
If they're not hanging back then they're probably in combat, where due to their lack lustre performance have either lost, ran and been finished off, or are stuck there. That scoring unit won't last long. At least TACs can take a heavy weapon and contribute from turn 1 while waiting to score later.

It's almost like I don't think the blood angels have got much worse isn't it?

I'm impressed. I mention a squad and you think of the worst way to run it and then tell me its bad.

Blood Angels need to fight like the eldar now. Unit synergy is key - if you charge with 1 lone squad, or try to just stand on an objective, that'll cost you the squad.

Assault marines work a lot better when your opponant is too busy worrying about podding fragnoughts, outflanking, scouting baals, stormravens (IMO - single best flier in the game) with hammernators and av13 dreadnoughts that can wipe a squad out in one turn and units using descent of angels to land behind your vehicles and melta them. Thats not including corbulo turrning a tac sqaud into a complete pain in the a**e with his 2+ FNP tanking. Did I mention fast vindicators?
Mephiston is ap3 now, so don't charge things he can't handle. Keeping him with the book powers (so jump pack) means he has the speed to avoid a lot of the ap2 characters - just use him to demolish someone's heavy support etc - ie put him right where your opponant doesn't want him. So yeah, just use him to kill everything else.
Edit: oops - forgot the obligatory podding sternguard too. And all vehicles being fast actually.

They lost the +1 I from furious charge (everybody did) and now it means they don't get to charge and kill marines first all the time. They are still easily good enough to give most armies a lot of grief.

IMO - The Blood Angels are still a good army - they just require more finesse to play them now.

Just enjoy the challenge

 labmouse42 wrote:


As I mentioned, the point of any 'troop' at the end of the day is to take objectives and deliver some damage output. Given a choice between the two, taking objectives is the more important role.

Some troop choices, like 30 ork shootas/guants do this by just blobbing over objectives and using their bodies to ablative absorb damage. Others grab objectives late game like eldar jetbikes. Some just stand and take whatever you can throw at them like plague marines.

So how are some units better? We could break units down and assign values to what we think their capacity to take objectives and deal damage is. Its a lot of work, but that could be a fun excercise.

It is probably a lot of work, but I'd think it would be worth it, just to get some analysis done. This thread might not be the thread to start it, but I'll just write some stuff here.

Off the top of my head, there are a few different measures of effectiveness, based on objectives and contributing to the fight.

First, we have Taking Objectives. This largely represents the mobility of the troops unit. Guardian Jetbikes are going to score very well here.
Next, we have Holding Objectives This represents a troop's ability to stand on an objective for longer than a turn. Survivability will be the main criterion here. Guardian Jetbikes won't score that well here, but Plague Marines will score very well.
After that, we have Contributing Dakka This represents the amount of firepower that a given troop outputs in a turn. Fire warriors and shoota boyz should do well here.
Then, we have Contributing Choppa This represents the willingness and ability of a given troop to be in CC.
Last we have Cost. This of course represents what you're going to have to pay to get what you get.

I'm sure we could probably come up with some form of simple math that could give us descriptions of efficiency at each metric (maybe just divide other scores by cost? Perhaps more complex stuff.). It would still be subjective (there are different ways to contribute both dakka and choppa, as well as different mechanisms for getting to and holding objectives), but we'd have a baseline to work with.

Am I missing any categories that you think should be part of an effectiveness analysis?

 Thariinye wrote:
First, we have Taking Objectives. This largely represents the mobility of the troops unit. Guardian Jetbikes are going to score very well here.
Next, we have Holding Objectives This represents a troop's ability to stand on an objective for longer than a turn. Survivability will be the main criterion here. Guardian Jetbikes won't score that well here, but Plague Marines will score very well.
After that, we have Contributing Dakka This represents the amount of firepower that a given troop outputs in a turn. Fire warriors and shoota boyz should do well here.
Then, we have Contributing Choppa This represents the willingness and ability of a given troop to be in CC.
Last we have Cost. This of course represents what you're going to have to pay to get what you get.
Am I missing any categories that you think should be part of an effectiveness analysis?

I like your base functions
* Taking Objectives
* Holding Objectives
* Contributing Dakka
* Contributing Choppa

I think the first two should be scored equally, and the last two should be scored equally. Some people will say shooty should be worth more than choppa, but I believe that if your good at choppa you have your own advantages. For example, who is going to want to park 3" away from an objective covered in genestealers? The first two should be scored higher than the last two (maybe 30%-50% higher). There is a reason Tau warriors suck as troops, they can't move or hold worth a darn without significant investments of devilfish and leaders.

There are also methods you can use to increase your units effectivness. As I mentioned, I have been playing PMs in friendly games. One of the best force multiplier for the PMs is to bring a rhino. The ability to move 18" up to the objective you want to camp on is huge. This is why I think PMs score so high on the four criteria.

For purposes of cost, we should use a point-per ratio. I started already with my blog article Resilience-Per-Point (RPP). In short, I use this equasion for determining the value of a units Resilience.
Base resilience = 1/(((To Hit) * (To Wound) * (Fail Save) * (Fail FNP)) / (Wounds))
Divide this value by the cost of the model to get its resilience-per-point (RPP)
Base resilience per point = ((Base resilience)/(Point Cost)) * 100

You can use a similar concept to handle the other criteria. For purposes of damage dakka/choppa you want to compare how many wounds they can deliver to GEQ/MEQ/TEQ per-point. For purposes of taking objectives, you want to compare their ability to move in inches per-point, and give a multiplier (or additive bonus) if they unit can ignore terrain.

It's almost like I don't think the blood angels have got much worse isn't it?

I'm impressed. I mention a squad and you think of the worst way to run it and then tell me its bad.

Blood Angels need to fight like the eldar now. Unit synergy is key - if you charge with 1 lone squad, or try to just stand on an objective, that'll cost you the squad.

Assault marines work a lot better when your opponant is too busy worrying about podding fragnoughts, outflanking, scouting baals, stormravens (IMO - single best flier in the game) with hammernators and av13 dreadnoughts that can wipe a squad out in one turn and units using descent of angels to land behind your vehicles and melta them. Thats not including corbulo turrning a tac sqaud into a complete pain in the a**e with his 2+ FNP tanking. Did I mention fast vindicators?
Mephiston is ap3 now, so don't charge things he can't handle. Keeping him with the book powers (so jump pack) means he has the speed to avoid a lot of the ap2 characters - just use him to demolish someone's heavy support etc - ie put him right where your opponant doesn't want him. So yeah, just use him to kill everything else.
Edit: oops - forgot the obligatory podding sternguard too. And all vehicles being fast actually.

They lost the +1 I from furious charge (everybody did) and now it means they don't get to charge and kill marines first all the time. They are still easily good enough to give most armies a lot of grief.

IMO - The Blood Angels are still a good army - they just require more finesse to play them now.

Just enjoy the challenge

PredaKhaine wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:

It's almost like you didn't read anything. If the JP units are hanging back, they're not contributing. Even a small 5 man squad is 90pts that's not helping out in the game until the end. Wasting points like that in a rather elite army is not a way to win. You've just given yourself a 90pt handicap. It's not like they can't be ignored until later, since they won't be relevant until later anyway.
If they're not hanging back then they're probably in combat, where due to their lack lustre performance have either lost, ran and been finished off, or are stuck there. That scoring unit won't last long. At least TACs can take a heavy weapon and contribute from turn 1 while waiting to score later.

It's almost like I don't think the blood angels have got much worse isn't it?

I'm impressed. I mention a squad and you think of the worst way to run it and then tell me its bad.

Blood Angels need to fight like the eldar now. Unit synergy is key - if you charge with 1 lone squad, or try to just stand on an objective, that'll cost you the squad.

Assault marines work a lot better when your opponant is too busy worrying about podding fragnoughts, outflanking, scouting baals, stormravens (IMO - single best flier in the game) with hammernators and av13 dreadnoughts that can wipe a squad out in one turn and units using descent of angels to land behind your vehicles and melta them. Thats not including corbulo turrning a tac sqaud into a complete pain in the a**e with his 2+ FNP tanking. Did I mention fast vindicators?
Mephiston is ap3 now, so don't charge things he can't handle. Keeping him with the book powers (so jump pack) means he has the speed to avoid a lot of the ap2 characters - just use him to demolish someone's heavy support etc - ie put him right where your opponant doesn't want him. So yeah, just use him to kill everything else.
Edit: oops - forgot the obligatory podding sternguard too. And all vehicles being fast actually.

They lost the +1 I from furious charge (everybody did) and now it means they don't get to charge and kill marines first all the time. They are still easily good enough to give most armies a lot of grief.

IMO - The Blood Angels are still a good army - they just require more finesse to play them now.

Just enjoy the challenge

You are misusing the term "synergy'. No army I'm aware of can just send a single unit out and have things work out. But the cost of BA and the list of overpriced but ineffective goodies in the BA codex make this more likely. What you are describing is the same kinds of things all lists need to do.

Mephiston is now bad not matter how much you trying to insist he isn't. All the BA special characters are *bad* except Tycho. This is demonstrably true, when comparing them to other special characters that exist in the the game.

There is no amount of "finesse" that will compensate for paying more for units that simply do less compare to what's available in other codicies. Remember, they can play with "finesse" as well, and then mathhammer takes back over. In the end, averaged out across all possible games and all possible players, the mathhammer of the situation can not be avoided. I'm glad you are not dismayed by the 6th edition changes, but its best to be honest about the situation and not put on rosy glasses.

Tycho AND corbulo are our only characters worth taking. However in a BA list we are pressed for points and effective units. I'll take a librarian over most other HQ choices and use him to buff a squad. I don't expect much from him and I view him as an army tax, something that i HAVE to take. Now that DA librarians are so cheap it's like salt in the wound. For an army of space vampires, you would think we would have some decent HQ choices. Couple this all together with Dante and Astorath getting hit with the nerf hammer (now strike at I 1) I expect nothing from my HQ slots. That being said I am giving Tycho a go, he hasn't seen the table top since second Ed.

I'm not sure what the complaining about Dante is. Sure he's I1, but he's still got precision deep strike, an infernus pistol, his ridiculous death mask auto-nerf and hit and run to top it off. If you're wanting to run a combat captain, it's hard to go wrong with him...

Martel732 wrote:


You are misusing the term "synergy'. No army I'm aware of can just send a single unit out and have things work out. But the cost of BA and the list of overpriced but ineffective goodies in the BA codex make this more likely. What you are describing is the same kinds of things all lists need to do.

Mephiston is now bad not matter how much you trying to insist he isn't. All the BA special characters are *bad* except Tycho. This is demonstrably true, when comparing them to other special characters that exist in the the game.

There is no amount of "finesse" that will compensate for paying more for units that simply do less compare to what's available in other codicies. Remember, they can play with "finesse" as well, and then mathhammer takes back over. In the end, averaged out across all possible games and all possible players, the mathhammer of the situation can not be avoided. I'm glad you are not dismayed by the 6th edition changes, but its best to be honest about the situation and not put on rosy glasses.

This is the definition of synergy as I understand it.
Definitions of 'synergy' - 1 definition -

(n.) the working together of two things to produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects.

That was what I meant - covering an army by turn two with a lot of difficult to deal with units makes them harder to deal with than a more static army.

The list of characters that Mephiston beats flat are as long as my arm . I completely agree if you send him against ap2 characters with a 2+ and a lot of attacks he'll lose, but choose different targets and he'll make his points back a fair amount of times.

If you get him to someones back line, he'll wreak havoc - He can hide out of LOS effectively, then use his 12" move to get exactly where he needs to be. He can't be instant killed by much in the way of shooting, so unless multiple squads can see him they are unlikely to shoot him to death.
Then he gets into cc and he's so hard to stop - challenges mean you charge, take an overwatch and fight a character. He most likely kills that character, then goes into cc with the squad next turn. The squad don't get any bonuses in cc the next turn, so unless it's a dedicated cc unit, he'll still win. His Initiative is good enough that if you break, he will most likely sweeping advance your squad (unless its marines).
Unless your opponant is keeping someone like Lysander or Abaddon back to deal with him, they'll struggle to stop him. If they do, just fly off somewhere else and break stuff over there instead.

As an example - I went up against BA as chaos. I took a juggernought khorne lord - ap2, up to 13 attacks and a 4++. Mephiston buffed himself, then charged. He instant killed the lord before he could swing. Then started wiping his way through my berzerkers, smashed the maulerfiend I charged onto him before it could hit and generally, did his best to completely ruin my day. My list and tactics weren't great, but I didn't get a second chance.

I'm not saying anything along the lines of 'man up' or 'play better' and if 'finesse' came across that way it wasn't meant like that. I agree that assault has been nerfed in 6th and I know that I'm not going to change your mind on the BA, but I still don't think they are a 'bad' army.
The list of unique BA units I listed earlier are some of the hardest units to counter for a lot of armies.
An AV13 dread, being podded against an aegis defence line probably won't be killed by 4 str 7 shots. Then it gets to do what it wants. If you drop that in it's a major threat - and if someone chooses to shoot at with their quad gun, they aren't shooting something else that they might kill.
Combine this with out flanking Baal predators. If they shoot, they are every bit as bad as the helldrake - drop those two on someone's home objective.
Corbulo can make a squad all but immune to basic arms fire and can win challenges as he's got a decent strength and rending. Plus the fact that unless you are str 8 or causing instant death, he'll take everything you hit him with. And still not die.
All the vehicles being fast is great - you have predators that can move 12" and fire - they are so hard to hide from.
Fast vindicators are lethal.
I find the BA cost more, but the pay off is speed - all the vehicles can shoot more often than vanilla marines, purely by being fast and getting better los.
Storm Ravens will ruin people's day - an av12 all round flier with the fire power to destroy a squad in a turn, using POTMS to shoot something else as well. Against the aegis defence line with the quad gun, it can just infiltrate above 48" away and still shoot at the gun due to the blood strike missiles having about a 72" range - so there isn't safe area protection unless you have the icarus.
Then it drops hammernators and possibly another dread. Mephiston leaping out of the front is great for shock value.
10 assault marines, moving up the board to take an objective while someone is being shot, burnt and stabbed from all angles from turn one won't take as much shooting - this is why I used the term synergy - they are better because of whats around them.
Games aren't won with mathhammer. With Mathhammer, you can see the most likely result that a certain action will have. Nothing can predict the time that you shoot at a flier with a spare missile launcher, roll a 6, then roll another six, then have the flier fail it's evade and then roll another 6 and blow it out of the sky. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
The times it does are the reasons we playing like the game.

I'll stop rambling now...






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
I'm not sure what the complaining about Dante is. Sure he's I1, but he's still got precision deep strike, an infernus pistol, his ridiculous death mask auto-nerf and hit and run to top it off. If you're wanting to run a combat captain, it's hard to go wrong with him...

The death mask auto nerf is funny if you mix 30k and 40k. Horus - scared by Dante that much he loses a wound...
His I6 is still good for sweeping advances.

The only thing I don't like is that the sanguinor ran off with the eternal warrior for the BA. In the meantime Dante is the oldest living (whole) marine in the imperium. He's been around for something like 1100 years... but apparently not long enough to qualify for eternal warrior.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
I'm not sure what the complaining about Dante is. Sure he's I1, but he's still got precision deep strike, an infernus pistol, his ridiculous death mask auto-nerf and hit and run to top it off. If you're wanting to run a combat captain, it's hard to go wrong with him...

Goin from i5 to i1 is no big deal? Pretty big game changer IMO. Most other codex's vanilla HQ's can kill him, all he has to do is fail one invulnerable save to say a Tac sergeant with a powerfist, at that point who cares if the Srg dies also. I've been using Dante since second Ed. He used to strike at initiative, have a choice of using his axe (with two modes of attack) or using his inferno pistol in hand to hand, and also wasn't insta killed by weapons that doubled out his toughness. He was points costed for 5th Ed with a weapon that struck at initiative and allowed him to negate all armor saves. It's not that he's necessarily a bad character, he's just to many points for too little return. Pretty much all BA toons took a big nerf when switching over to 6th. Dante and Astorath same problem. Sanguinor and Mephiston share the same issue of only having ap3. The only way I would field Dante in this editon is with Sanguinary guard with all inferno pistols to nuke something turn one, nothing a Sternguard squad in a pod can't accomplish for cheaper points.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
I'm not sure what the complaining about Dante is. Sure he's I1, but he's still got precision deep strike, an infernus pistol, his ridiculous death mask auto-nerf and hit and run to top it off. If you're wanting to run a combat captain, it's hard to go wrong with him...

Goin from i5 to i1 is no big deal? Pretty big game changer IMO. Most other codex's vanilla HQ's can kill him, all he has to do is fail one invulnerable save to say a Tac sergeant with a powerfist, at that point who cares if the Srg dies also. I've been using Dante since second Ed. He used to strike at initiative, have a choice of using his axe (with two modes of attack) or using his inferno pistol in hand to hand, and also wasn't insta killed by weapons that doubled out his toughness. He was points costed for 5th Ed with a weapon that struck at initiative and allowed him to negate all armor saves. It's not that he's necessarily a bad character, he's just to many points for too little return. Pretty much all BA toons took a big nerf when switching over to 6th. Dante and Astorath same problem. Sanguinor and Mephiston share the same issue of only having ap3. The only way I would field Dante in this editon is with Sanguinary guard with all inferno pistols to nuke something turn one, nothing a Sternguard squad in a pod can't accomplish for cheaper points.

To be fair, he was a steal at 225pts in 5th, now he's just reasonable. And yeah, he can be killed by a PF-wielding Sergeant, but those aren't exactly common anymore according to the Internetz. He has the same worries as any non-EW character, if you're worried about a PF character then get a Sergeant or Priest to soak up the challenge for him and LoS anything else.

Everyone focuses on the AP 3 thing for Mephiston. That's not what is the biggest problem. He's 250 pts, he's a level 3 psyker, and *can't join units*. If I could put him in a unit and then cast divination like Eldrad can with his army, I'd still use him. It's the combination of AP3, and getting hosed out of a power selection, and he can't join units AND costing 250 points that makes him bad.

Dante for 225 is a bad joke. Seriously. And the joke's on the BA.

Games are not won with mathhammer, but they *are* won with decisions based on likely outcomes.

Using the Stormraven as a transport is a recipe for disaster. The Stormraven is not some super boon for the BA. It's a flier tax to be able to shoot down other fliers. It's overpriced for what it does and how it can actually be used, just like most units in the BA codex. The Vendetta makes it look just slowed, and I think the Helldrake is also a superior flier, all things considered. Not for anti-flier, but in terms of helping to win the game. The stormraven has performed in a very mediocre manner for me. If it doesn't show up till turn 3, and there are not fliers to shoot, it almost always is a waste.

I think you are confusing the idea of "BA have nothing good at all" with "BA don't have enough things that are reasonably priced and effective compared to other codicies." The BA are a bad codex. That's just what happens to some lists when GW shakes up the anthill. I'm fine with it, but lets not pretend the codex is not a train wreck when it clearly is.

So basically what your saying is a 225 point character needs a baby sitter so he doesn't get in over his head. Dante just seems like an old man who is past his prime.

It reminds me of a taunt from America's Army, "grandma was slow but she was old". Well Dante is certainly old.


Go look at Abbadons capability for just 40 points more, which doesn't
even cover the cost of adding a Sanguinary priest (nurse) to Dante (old man).

Dante was never a steal at 225 pts. Especially not in the edition of the "hidden powerclaw".

Martel732 wrote:
Dante was never a steal at 225 pts. Especially not in the edition of the "hidden powerclaw".

Dante hasn't been a steal since 2nd Ed. Lol

Dante at the very least should be an eternal warrior. That's bare minimum. Especially for *225* I can two librarians for that for dishing out divination love!

Ragnar would like to have a word with you... 245 points... what the hell was Phil Kelly thinking...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
So basically what your saying is a 225 point character needs a baby sitter so he doesn't get in over his head. Dante just seems like an old man who is past his prime.

It reminds me of a taunt from America's Army, "grandma was slow but she was old". Well Dante is certainly old.


Go look at Abbadons capability for just 40 points more, which doesn't
even cover the cost of adding a Sanguinary priest (nurse) to Dante (old man).

It's not even a tax/baby-sitter, because the unit he'd be with would have one anyway in all likelihood.

Martel732 wrote:
Using the Stormraven as a transport is a recipe for disaster. The Stormraven is not some super boon for the BA. It's a flier tax to be able to shoot down other fliers. It's overpriced for what it does and how it can actually be used, just like most units in the BA codex. The Vendetta makes it look just slowed, and I think the Helldrake is also a superior flier, all things considered. Not for anti-flier, but in terms of helping to win the game. The stormraven has performed in a very mediocre manner for me. If it doesn't show up till turn 3, and there are not fliers to shoot, it almost always is a waste.

I think you are confusing the idea of "BA have nothing good at all" with "BA don't have enough things that are reasonably priced and effective compared to other codicies." The BA are a bad codex. That's just what happens to some lists when GW shakes up the anthill. I'm fine with it, but lets not pretend the codex is not a train wreck when it clearly is.

The storm raven won't compare well to the vendetta - because nothing does. The vendetta is insanely good for what it costs. The helldrake has been faq'd to sell more models .
In the meantime it has a great range of weapons, av12 all round so you can't even shoot it in the back. Then it drops another av13 dreadnought and 5 hammernators into you. What else can do that?
It's a support craft - it's rules enable you to get dreads and hammernators into threat range the same turn as the outflanking baals arrive and the dreadnought drop pods come down, while hammering down with 5 weapons.
If you are just using it to take out enemy fliers, then take an aegis defence line instead, it's a lot cheaper. Make the enemy react to you rather than the other way round.

I don't see the ba as a bad codex because no other codex gives you the amount of 'horrible, in your face target prioritising choices' so quickly.
EG
Baal pred and a Fragnought both attack the same unit - which one do you take out? Shoot the pred and the dread charges. Shoot the dread and the tank crisps you. And this is turn 2 at your end of the table.

Oops, nearly forgot - BA also get the blender dread. You know, the unit which charges and keeps hitting till everything is dead. ALL other marine armies would kill to have that as an option.

IMO - The sentence beneath is hyperbole.
"but lets not pretend the codex is not a train wreck when it clearly is."

"Games are not won with mathhammer, but they *are* won with decisions based on likely outcomes"

Occasionally it comes down to one dice roll. For example, the thread about Abaddon - the mathhammer shows he's awesome against lots of characters. So what happens when he deep strike mishaps and kills himself?

If you are so down on the BA that you literally can't see a way to win, then I see it as you've got 3 choices. You can
1)play a different army
2)pin all your hopes on 7th coming along and being the perfect, balanced game.
3)sell up.

I've won plenty of games. But still less than half. I'm not "down on the BA", GW made 6th down on the BA.

Actually I think the blender dread is rather weak due to delivery problems. I never use them, and I don't ever worry when I see one on the opposing BA list. I didn't like them in 5th, and now that they are AP3, they are even worse. The fragnought is much, much better than the blender dread. I would never take a blender dread in the elite slot over a rifleman. The blender dread is another BA point sink toy that ends up having limited success in the actual battles. Too many crappy toys in the BA codex.

The Stormraven can not be used as a transport. I have reiterated this over and over. This invites disaster than the BA can ill-afford. Not only do you risk losing everything in it, you risk poor reserve rolls. The Stormraven fails as a transport. I have beaten every BA player that has put stuff on board that thing that I have played. (Admittedly it helps that I know exactly how to counter every trick the BA have) In the best case, the contents can assault on turn 3. Too late in many cases. The Stormraven is best used as anti-air. I don't want people "reacting to it", I want it to live and shooting down helldrakes.

I think the BA fail as a "horrible in your face" army because their choices aren't that scary and the model count it too low. Games can be lost in a single turn of shooting in 6th edition and running up into your opponents grill with too few models is a good way to have that happen.

I don't own a different army and I'm not selling this one. I'll just a lose a lot in 6th and not worry about it because its a GW game. It's just intellectually dishonest to allow people to rationalize their way into thinking this codex is still good. It is not.

We're down to opinion now -
Mine is that they are not a bad codex.
Yours is that it is a bad codex.

Why am I intellectually dishonest for not agreeing with you?

Part of it is not opinion. They are paying the same points for units that are *demonstrably* less effective than in 5th edition. I guess I should amend that to say its intellectually dishonest to try so say they didn't get nerfed.

I suppose you can hold the position that the nerfs "weren't that bad" and there is no right or wrong answer to this. How many competitive lists do you play against? What's your track record in general games?

I also gave specific reasons as to why the units you praised are not as good as you are making them out to be. The problems I stated are not opinion.

The worst part is that I don't think GW was trying to specifically nerf the BA. It just kinda happened randomly by a lot of little things. But they add up to serious problems.

The reason I said it's opinion is we are not going to agree - not that I'm dismissing what you're saying.
We're both looking at this book in different ways - you are focussing on what the BA have lost. I'm looking at the amount of things they still have.2 different ways of looking at the same thing.

So why compare against 5th edition?
Compare yourself to other current codex's.

I'm not saying they weren't nerfed from 5th - all assault armies were.
What I'm saying they are not 'bad' now, in 6th.

Breifly - Back to the raven (as an example) - you said the downside was crashing. hammernators survive a crash on a 3+. The other downside you gave is poor reserve rolls. This can happen to anything in reserve.
My points are It's still got more guns than most other fliers and it can fire more as well with POTMS. It also has better armour than most and ceramite hull (iirc).
Get an adl if you are only using it to chase helldrakes - it's cheaper and you'll get more men on the board.

Forcing your opponant to react to what you are doing is the best way to screw over your opponants plans.

And for the record - I play Eldar. I've played them since 2nd ed. I win more than I lose but that means nothing whatsoever.
The point is I like my army and look at the positives, rather than only thinking about the negatives. If you want bad, come play as eldar - we've got lots of 'bad' units

Lets just agree to disagree. It'll take less time.
Good luck with your games

Yes, but not all assault armies lost a point of init from their schtick.

I agree the Eldar are a very "peak and valley" codex. They have some great units, and then some total crap. No arguments from me there at all.

I understand your point about the raven. It pays dearly in points for all the advantages that you list. But understand that by putting actual units in the Stormraven you open yourself up to crashing and bad reserve rolls for 500+ points and not just 200+. I have won several games where I won despite my raven showing up late because it was empty. I just had to suck up extra turns of flier fire. Survivable. It would not have been survivable if I had units on it instead of on the battlefield. I avoid poor reserve rolls by not reserving. (Which is another thing about the raven I hate; it must start in reserve, but at least all fliers get hit with this).

I would still rank the Eldar codex ahead of the BA codex from a competitive standpoint, but I agree that the Eldar codex has many unfieldable units. The BA codex has a lot of stuff that seems good but just underwhelms in practice. It is still techncially fieldable, it's just far, far from top tier stuff. For the Eldar codex to be strictly superior than the BA, I feel they have to spam a lot, which I understand that many people don't like. However, I'm sure the Eldar are due for a codex soon. Not so for the BA.

Agreeing to disagree does not actually determine the actual reality of the situation. There is only one reality. Either the BA codex can compete using the features you listed or it can not. I have played many games with them in 6th edition, as they are my only army and from where I'm sitting, the mobility scheme is not cutting it against good opponents.

Right - now you're arguing with agreeing to disagree.

OK so we go back to the storm raven (again)
I say 'It's better than a lot of other fliers - it has more guns, can fire more guns, has better armour, can drop dreadnoughts right where you don't want them, it got buffed in 6th as it became a flier and reserves were boosted to a 3+ on turn two.'

So now you tell me its bad now because you roll poorly for reserves.
Earlier you told me mathhammer means you can't win against another dex.
So by your reasoning, statistically, your storm raven should turn up turn 2, two out of three times, so I don't see that argument as anything to make me change my mind. I agree it's expensive, but it's also effective.

How are eldar more comp than BA? I've not heard that one before.

Ok, a scenario for you.

Fire dragons on an adl, with a quad gun. 3 x 3 scatter walkers and a farseer with them.Pathfinders behind the adl as well(which is a fairly common set up). In drops a fragnought and a baal pred. What do the eldar do?

Answer


What specific units make the eldar better than the BA?
The BA should be eldars worst nightmare. They are marines, that are as fast as the eldar, their vehicles have better shooting and they win in assault against anything bar harlequins - and the harlies are made for fragnoughts and baals to kill with fire.

Actually don't answer that, I'm past caring.

Again, good luck with your games.

Alright. Good enough.

I might add there is no way to "drop in" a Baal pred, though.

I meant outflank or scout move.

The BA may be good against Eldar. I have actually managed a winning record vs Eldar. (Doesn't make up for my 1-alot vs CSM) I mean I think Eldar played against 1000 enemies using spam lists of their good stuff will win more games than BA and their overpriced toys vs the same 1000 enemies. More competitive is not limited to heads up.

I might add that at least where I play, I can't get a Baal flamer predator anywhere close to juicy Eldar targets without it being fragged in some manner. I stopped trying to be cute, and my record vs Eldar improved.

 Thariinye wrote:


Whereas, both Pedro Kantor and Vulkan He'stan are crazy good now. Pedro drop-pods and Sternguard give you lots of close-range shooty where you want it, without any of the perils of Deep Striking Mishaps. Vulkan still gives you stupid good meltas, flamers (which got buffed with overwatch) and TH, which are all great.

With Pedro you however lose combat tactics which you just praised. Stubborn is cool and fluffy, but CT is better.

 Crimson wrote:

 Thariinye wrote:


Whereas, both Pedro Kantor and Vulkan He'stan are crazy good now. Pedro drop-pods and Sternguard give you lots of close-range shooty where you want it, without any of the perils of Deep Striking Mishaps. Vulkan still gives you stupid good meltas, flamers (which got buffed with overwatch) and TH, which are all great.

With Pedro you however lose combat tactics which you just praised. Stubborn is cool and fluffy, but CT is better.

I wouldn't say that the vanilla marines are insanely better than the BA anyway. I'd call the vanilla marines a decent codex, whereas the BA are poor. The vanilla marines simply aren't the IG or Necrons. I'd lable Pedro and Vulkan "solid" but not "crazy good".