Hello fellow dakka dakians, I have a question for y'all. I used to be the only one in my gaming community that played tau, and now everybody does, so it's really lame and I don't really want to play them anymore. Unfortunately, I sold most of my Blood Angels and what I have I don't think is really competitive. Listed below is what I have remaining:
Dante
Librarian
Chaplain
3 Sanguinary Priests
1 Furioso Librarian Dread
10 Sanguinary Guard
10 Death Company
1 Death Compant Dread
1 Drop Pod
10 Assault Marines
5 Devastators
I don't really have much money to spend on this hobby anymore, as I got laid off at the beginning of the summer, about 2 weeks after I bought a car :/ However I do have a 25$ gift certificate for my local gaming store, which I'm thinking of saving until the new Space Marine veteran boxed sets come out in September(?) or maybe grabbing Mephiston. Anyways, does anybody know of a 1500 or 1850pt list that would be competitive?
Thanks guys!
A Librarian is a great HQ, just remember to roll on the Divination table. Depending on the weapons in the DC you could field 2x10 ASM with priests (I hope the DC and priests have JP's?) Seeing as you don't have many units I would finish that list with Dante and 2x Sanguinary Guard and a Furioso-dread in a droppod. (DC-dread probably has the same gear anyway) That leaves you with a few points to take a Devastator-sqd with some upgrades.
When you say 'competitive', what do you mean? This list won't win you any tournament, you really need Tau for that But you will probably have fun playing the community and even have a chance of winning depending on the competitiveness of their lists.
I participate in a thread almost just like this about twice per month...I used to give a real answer about how I've been trying to win with Blood Angels, and I'm sure somebody will come along this thread and really break it down for you, but my answer now is going to be "Wait 3 weeks and then buy Codex: Space Marines."
Hopefully for you, you didn't make the mistake of painting those Angels red.
Kangodo wrote: A Librarian is a great HQ, just remember to roll on the Divination table.
Depending on the weapons in the DC you could field 2x10 ASM with priests (I hope the DC and priests have JP's?)
Seeing as you don't have many units I would finish that list with Dante and 2x Sanguinary Guard and a Furioso-dread in a droppod. (DC-dread probably has the same gear anyway)
That leaves you with a few points to take a Devastator-sqd with some upgrades.
When you say 'competitive', what do you mean?
This list won't win you any tournament, you really need Tau for that But you will probably have fun playing the community and even have a chance of winning depending on the competitiveness of their lists.
Thanks Kangodo! Yea everything I have has jump packs, was going for the whole descent of angels thing when I first started them. As far as competitive you hit the nail on the head, I just wanted something I could play casual games with and not get completely tabled. For tournaments I will definitely be resorting to my Tau I'll give that list a shot in the upcoming days and see how it works, maybe my failures were just the heavy dependence on death company. They hit like a truck when they get into CC with anything but man, they are REALLY expensive.
tomjoad wrote: I participate in a thread almost just like this about twice per month...I used to give a real answer about how I've been trying to win with Blood Angels, and I'm sure somebody will come along this thread and really break it down for you, but my answer now is going to be "Wait 3 weeks and then buy Codex: Space Marines."
Hopefully for you, you didn't make the mistake of painting those Angels red.
Pretty much this. BA codex alone can't generate a competitive list and if you ally in say, Tau, there are still better chapters to team up the Tau with.
Librarian:
Prescience is great for the Devastators.
Forewarning is great since it keeps them alive.
Perfect Timing is a blessing too! (See what I did there?)
Scriers Gaze can work great if you keep Dante, 2xSG and an ASM in reserve, it's almost a guaranteed T2 Deep strike.
If you encounter a lot of vehicles, you could take some Infernus Pistols on those SG.
My ASM are standard equipped with two Melta-guns, I tend to DS them with Dante so I get a perfect three melta-shots on a vehicle.
Another tactic is to DS the first two groups and then either use Dante+ASM to get close to the Banner or DS the ASM first and try to get Dante+SG(banner) close to them.
If you have three Priests with JP's you might even consider giving each DS-group their own priest.
The downside of SG is their lack of 5++, FNP almost makes up for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Pretty much this. BA codex alone can't generate a competitive list and if you ally in say, Tau, there are still better chapters to team up the Tau with.
News and Rumors has some leaks on the Vanguard Veteran squad If that codex has a line saying that these changes are also for Blood Angels, then we can throw our DC's out of the window till the new codex.
Those are new minis; no word on new rules. I'm sure they'll get a modest price drop, plus the grab pistol, but it would be nearly unprecedented for that to cross over to BAs prior to our next codex being released.
If you're only using them for local friendly games then we don't have to worry about being *TOO* competitive. With that in mind, certain things you will always want/need to take, then on top there are a couple of decent combinations in here.
Your core should be the Librarian, Priest, Assault Marines and Devastators. This is to get bodies on the board as Blood Angels' biggest problem at the moment is that we always get outnumbered thanks to high points costs on our specialists. As mentioned, you want to take Divination on the Librarian to get Prescience, and keep him with the Devastators (this also gives them a little durability in close combat should they get caught on their own). The Priest should go with the Assault Marines instead. I would only really get a Priest for the Devastators too if you really don't have enough points for anything else.
For the extras, you can do worse than Dante with all 10 Sanguinary Guard - this gives you more scoring troops, half of which have a 2+ save. Make no mistake that they are still fragile against massed fire, so try to keep them out of line of sight until you're ready to charge with them.
The other route would be to go with 5+ Death Company (I prefer anywhere between 7-10, but their expense with jump packs has been long debated here) so you can get the Death Company and Furioso dreads. Despite what people will tell you about hull points I find quite a few opponents can struggle taking down both AV13 *and* AV12 that ignores shaken/stunned before one of them reaches their lines. If you go this route, most of the time you won't want to take the pod as this splits the threat and can actually make it easier to take the Dreads down.
I think its a waste to have a 100 pt libby babysitting a devastator squad with only 4 heavy weapons. Especially because the bump from BS4 to BS4 TL is not amazing. I feel like the BA need all models fully participating to maximize their chances. I find that having my libby move out with my mobile elements has all kinds of benefits. Besides, I think presciencing MM attack bikes is more valuable than devastators anyway.
Hopefully for you, you didn't make the mistake of painting those Angels red.
Thankfully, GW has a chapter known as "Blood Ravens" that follow the codex astartes (albeit with more than usual librarians). That's how i will use my red marines as 'codex marines' when this book comes out in September.
Thanks for all the input guys! I'm going to be trying a BA list Saturday night against a friend who plays DA at 1850pts, and I think I'll field the whole libby, devastators, assault marines, dante, furioso and 2x 5 sanguinary guard (with 3 sang priests obviously). I do like tetrisphreak's point about Blood Raven's, and I think that may be a viable option in the future, especially seeing as Blood Angels aren't likely to get a supplement codex when the new Space Marine Codex comes out. I think I will field the libby with the devastators, simply beause the last game I fielded the Blood Angels with devastators they actuallly did absolutley nothing, hitting almost never and doing next to nothing when they did actually hit, so I think prescience would REALLY help me there. At 1850pts I think I could also have a little "Dante Bomb" and field 5 Sanguinary guard each with a melta pistol, having 6 (including Dante) melta shots hitting a tank hard, and then having the meltas from the assault squad hitting another tank. Then if I have the points I'll give the other Sanguinary Guard squad some melta pistols, just for the hell of it. Then I'll have the Furioso have Sanguinary Shield and Blood Lance so it can at least have some form of save and a way of taking out armor as well. As said though, I'm gonna try them out tomorrow night and I'll report back with my findings. Again, thanks a lot guys, I really appreciate the support!
I you have the devs armed with MLs, the libby won't help that much.
Here's math from another thread:
Without prescience support, you are looking at
2.666 hits (weighted Gaussian average) * .667 (chance to pen or glance) = 1.78 hull points.
Granted, you'll get 1.33 pens, but this has a lousy 0.22 chance to explode the Rhino. (AP 3 sucks)
It only gets worse when going against the fronts of Chimeras. I don't see how this can be seen as "taking care" of transports.
It's not random negativity. It's because the weapon doesn't kill anything fast enough in practice to warrant a heavy slot. Trust me, I wish what people said about the ML were true. I'd use it.
With a second look at prescience support:
0.89 (weighted to hit with prescience) * .667 to glance/pen * 4 shots = 2.37
From this, you'll get 1.78 pens with a 0.30 chance to explode the Rhino.
So by adding a 100 pt babysitter, the Gaussian average is still pretty far from killing a *Rhino* in one volley. So who here wants to dedicate a heavy slot and an HQ to failing to kill a Rhino?
Looking at this, it doesn't seem worth a 100 pt babysitter for BA devastators armed with MLs. I'm not sure its even worth it for any BA devastators. I'd rather let me ASM reroll shooting AND hand to hand.
A librarians only get two powers, and so their chance of getting "ignore cover" any given game is not very good. Plus, the librarian is another guy swinging a power axe. Sadly, this means that we are mostly helpless against serpent spam. Of course, even Tau are having problems with serpent spam.
People saying that you can't play blood angels as vanilla are just being lame. I used to play my DA as vanilla before 6th came out and everyone I played was fine with it. Just as long as you don't start using BA rules and such nobody will care. Play them as whatever chapter you want as long as your opponent agrees with it.
I would like to preface this by saying I read no comments besides the OP's
Play tau
If you cant buy any models dont bother using what you have competitively because it is the farthest thing from it, you need a LOT of units to round that army out, then there is the fact that unless you are a VERY good general, blood angels are not going to do well regardless, especially vs tau.
If you cant buy any models dont bother using what you have competitively because it is the farthest thing from it, you need a LOT of units to round that army out, then there is the fact that unless you are a VERY good general, blood angels are not going to do well regardless, especially vs tau.
If all you did was read the OP, then you would have noticed the part where I said I don't really want to play Tau so much anymore. It's not fun. I like the Blood Angels fluff quite a bit and really like their models. If winning with them is a challenge then so be it, isn't that kind of what the game is about? Anyone I play against in my community that plays Tau upon seeing me field BA would either want to try a different Tau list than usual (which may help) or, as some people have more than 1 army, chose to play me with a different army. I'm mostly doing this because my friend hates playing against Tau (understandably so) and playing against my Blood Angels would be more fun. So the challenge is to make a list that is somewhat competitive with what I have or with some slight additions. While I realize it won't play well against other armies, my friend plays DA with lots of infantry, and almost no tanks, which would make the game hella interesting. I still have yet to play against him, but when I do I will post the results along with some pictures from the battle.
Thanks again for all the support and comments in the thread, I'm glad to see I got your minds buzzing
Actually this thread has got me thinking quite a bit about my black templar army i am trying to build up. Looking at these lists and suggestions it got me looking at the sanguinary guard and Dante
As far as competitive units go, wouldnt this be a fairly strong allied attachment? Dante and 5 SG with some melta pistols?
The other thing I was thinking about was that I could even run this group as a vanilla marine set if the BT do get rolled in to the SM codex. Call them the Black Angels. Even if I got some stuff from the DV set, I think the wings logo would fit with a chapter known as the Black Angels.
Icculus wrote: Actually this thread has got me thinking quite a bit about my black templar army i am trying to build up. Looking at these lists and suggestions it got me looking at the sanguinary guard and Dante
As far as competitive units go, wouldnt this be a fairly strong allied attachment? Dante and 5 SG with some melta pistols?
The other thing I was thinking about was that I could even run this group as a vanilla marine set if the BT do get rolled in to the SM codex. Call them the Black Angels. Even if I got some stuff from the DV set, I think the wings logo would fit with a chapter known as the Black Angels.
BT with BA allies? Depends on your BT army. An ally detachment should cover some weaknesses. Dante leading an SG squad can provide an alpha strike. But this makes only sense if you are able to support this unit. I could imagine that Mordrak and Dante would work together very well.
Icculus wrote: Actually this thread has got me thinking quite a bit about my black templar army i am trying to build up. Looking at these lists and suggestions it got me looking at the sanguinary guard and Dante
As far as competitive units go, wouldnt this be a fairly strong allied attachment? Dante and 5 SG with some melta pistols?
The other thing I was thinking about was that I could even run this group as a vanilla marine set if the BT do get rolled in to the SM codex. Call them the Black Angels. Even if I got some stuff from the DV set, I think the wings logo would fit with a chapter known as the Black Angels.
BT with BA allies? Depends on your BT army. An ally detachment should cover some weaknesses. Dante leading an SG squad can provide an alpha strike. But this makes only sense if you are able to support this unit. I could imagine that Mordrak and Dante would work together very well.
Right now my BT army consists of a drop pod with either a chaplain or marshall and bp/ccw initiates. this will come in on turn one and lay down a beacon for my TH/SS Termies.
The problem is that the rest of my army is going to be in the back. I will have a few 5man squads with lascannons and a termie squad with 2 CMLs.
So another DS hard hitting unit would help me out here.
Icculus wrote: Actually this thread has got me thinking quite a bit about my black templar army i am trying to build up. Looking at these lists and suggestions it got me looking at the sanguinary guard and Dante
As far as competitive units go, wouldnt this be a fairly strong allied attachment? Dante and 5 SG with some melta pistols?
The other thing I was thinking about was that I could even run this group as a vanilla marine set if the BT do get rolled in to the SM codex. Call them the Black Angels. Even if I got some stuff from the DV set, I think the wings logo would fit with a chapter known as the Black Angels.
BT with BA allies? Depends on your BT army. An ally detachment should cover some weaknesses. Dante leading an SG squad can provide an alpha strike. But this makes only sense if you are able to support this unit. I could imagine that Mordrak and Dante would work together very well.
Right now my BT army consists of a drop pod with either a chaplain or marshall and bp/ccw initiates. this will come in on turn one and lay down a beacon for my TH/SS Termies.
The problem is that the rest of my army is going to be in the back. I will have a few 5man squads with lascannons and a termie squad with 2 CMLs.
So another DS hard hitting unit would help me out here.
Well, you could also consider Mordrak and his Ghosts. They are a bit more durable than Dante and his SG.
Martel732 wrote: Dante and SG are unfieldable for TACatm because Eldar own their face so hard.
Would that mean that terminators are unfieldable as well? Also the cool thing about these guys is that they are scoring.
I mean this unit seems fairly strong. being able to DS without fail scattering means i can come in behind cover. Then with a jump infantry I can get to my target to assault. 2+ armor saves, with dante near the front to add 2+/4++ with 4 wounds. I mean these guys will tear some stuff up. Also the huge nerf to the enemy HQ seems like a big bonus. Normally your allied attachments dont affect your main force, but since this is an effect on the enemy, it DOES affect my main attachment. Bring in a banner with these guys and thats +1 attack. If I bring 5 SG and Dante, il probably lose at least 2 SG before I can charge. But thats 12 attacks with a master crafted power sword from the SG and 7 attacks from Dante with his MC power axe. also the enemy must pass leadership or be at WS1
Dante is not worth his points, not by a long shot. He got nerfed so hard in the BAFAQ it's almost sicking. The only named HQs the BA have worth feilding is Mephiston and Tycho, neither of which are all the great as allies because Meph costs as much as a LR and Tychos awesome ability only affects BA. If you must regail BA to an ally, take a Reclusiarch with DC or assault marines and a bloodpriest.
I think the reason Dante is not really a viable choice is that due to the 6th ed power weapon changes and the FAQ, he is armed with a power axe, which makes his high initiative useless. This combined with lack of Eternal Warrior means he will either get killed by weight of attacks or (admittedly rare) at-initiative AP2 weapons, or strike at the same time as things like TH or PF and be killed if he fails even 1 4++ save. The ability to bring SG as troops is also less useful now due to eldar having AP2 on everything and the preference for plasma for armies like IG and tau. So in essence, he fulfils neither his role as a combat character nor as a FOC manipulator.
SG can be effective, but are stuck at 5-man squads, have to wait at least a turn before being able to assault, and th fact they are scoring is not really useful due to the small squad size. Most armies can easily kill 5 T4 2+ sv models if they need to. The Death Masks are nice, but most armies are pretty resistant to Ld-indiced effects, as the armies with typically low Ld values often have ways of becoming fearless, such as Mob Rule for orks or Synapse for nids.
Dante's effect on the enemy HQ is useful, but not enough to mitigate his failings, as T4 and no EW is just a recepie for disaster against most CCHQ choices.
Icculus wrote: Why can't people explain their answers? You guys just say he is not worth his points and he is not a viable option. Why not? What makes him so bad?
Because on forums, your opponents army is able to fully dedicate itself to killing each of your units each and every turn. It's as if they have as many shooting phases, per turn, as you have units. If you put yourself into that mindset prior to asking any question on a forum, you'll be prepared for the horribly negative answer your guaranteed to receive.
To directly answer your question about Dante...people just can't get over paying more than 125pts for an HQ. What? Other people playing other codecies to it all the time? Yeah, I know, but don't expect anyone giving Blood Angel advice to suggest otherwise.
It is pretty silly Dante doesn't have eternal warrior, though. He's supposed to be one of the oldest Space Marines around, after all. Also, Hit and Run is never talked about, but it's probably his best added ability.
Paradigm wrote: I think the reason Dante is not really a viable choice is that due to the 6th ed power weapon changes and the FAQ, he is armed with a power axe, which makes his high initiative useless. This combined with lack of Eternal Warrior means he will either get killed by weight of attacks or (admittedly rare) at-initiative AP2 weapons, or strike at the same time as things like TH or PF and be killed if he fails even 1 4++ save. The ability to bring SG as troops is also less useful now due to eldar having AP2 on everything and the preference for plasma for armies like IG and tau. So in essence, he fulfils neither his role as a combat character nor as a FOC manipulator.
SG can be effective, but are stuck at 5-man squads, have to wait at least a turn before being able to assault, and th fact they are scoring is not really useful due to the small squad size. Most armies can easily kill 5 T4 2+ sv models if they need to. The Death Masks are nice, but most armies are pretty resistant to Ld-indiced effects, as the armies with typically low Ld values often have ways of becoming fearless, such as Mob Rule for orks or Synapse for nids.
Dante's effect on the enemy HQ is useful, but not enough to mitigate his failings, as T4 and no EW is just a recepie for disaster against most CCHQ choices.
Aha. Now this makes sense and I can see what you mean about getting ID by a power fist or thunder hammer. However the idea with this squad is not be a deathstar or a force for taking down the big and nasties. This is a backfield deep strike to take out snipers/heavy support/artillery. So yes, I would agree that he is not a powerhouse.
My main powerhouse in the army is going to be my BT terminator squad and Initiatie blob. These guys with the TH/SS and the chaplain are what is going to cause the real damage and deal with the tougher threats
Dante is 225 pts and adds what exactly? He's an overpriced captain. And yes, I consider terminators practically unusable at this point with Eldar running around. Starcannons and pseudo rending just make a mockery of 2+ armor.
If you cant buy any models dont bother using what you have competitively because it is the farthest thing from it, you need a LOT of units to round that army out, then there is the fact that unless you are a VERY good general, blood angels are not going to do well regardless, especially vs tau.
If all you did was read the OP, then you would have noticed the part where I said I don't really want to play Tau so much anymore. It's not fun. I like the Blood Angels fluff quite a bit and really like their models. If winning with them is a challenge then so be it, isn't that kind of what the game is about? Anyone I play against in my community that plays Tau upon seeing me field BA would either want to try a different Tau list than usual (which may help) or, as some people have more than 1 army, chose to play me with a different army. I'm mostly doing this because my friend hates playing against Tau (understandably so) and playing against my Blood Angels would be more fun. So the challenge is to make a list that is somewhat competitive with what I have or with some slight additions. While I realize it won't play well against other armies, my friend plays DA with lots of infantry, and almost no tanks, which would make the game hella interesting. I still have yet to play against him, but when I do I will post the results along with some pictures from the battle.
Thanks again for all the support and comments in the thread, I'm glad to see I got your minds buzzing
I explained why you should just play tau, the key word in your post and thread is "COMPETITIVE" The models you have for blood angels are NOT competitive, thus it is impossible for you to play competitively without playing your tau or buying new models, which you stated you can not do. Simple logic would dictate that you either play tau competitively or play blood angels normally and probably lose a lot.
Either way I don't care, blood angels are one of my favorite armies, ive played them going on 10 years now and with a super competitive list and being a good general it is a huge challenge to post any wins in a competitive environment.
Aha. Now this makes sense and I can see what you mean about getting ID by a power fist or thunder hammer. However the idea with this squad is not be a deathstar or a force for taking down the big and nasties. This is a backfield deep strike to take out snipers/heavy support/artillery. So yes, I would agree that he is not a powerhouse.
While this type of unit is useful, the artillery/snipers/tanks are usually nothing that an assault squad with a couple of meltas can't deal with for under half the cost? Really, in 6th ed, there is nothing SG can do that ASM or even Vanguad veterans can't do just as well, usually for cheaper. With DOA, accuracy is less of an issue, and for the price of Dante and SG you could get 2 units to fulfil the same role if needed.
To be fair, SG and Vanguard fill completely different roles.
SG are a mop-up unit and/or backfield defender.
Vanguards are a disruption unit and forward attacker.
*Should always be taken with jump packs and very other little gear (except for the PFist on the Sergeant*
Martel732 wrote: I think SG are better than Vanguards. Vanguards don't even come with jump packs. Horrible.
True, I was just stating they are better for this particular role than SG. On the whole, I agree SG are better, but for neutralising a backfield unit, the PW and 2+ save are usually not needed, and are offset by the Vanguard's ability to charge from DS. As you don't need to load out on too much gear, that counters one of the key weaknesses of the vanguard. Personally, 5 ASM with a melta and meltabombs would be my go-to unit for this kind of thing.
They have different uses, so I don't know. I tried to equip them as close as I could: SG with Banner VV with BP, Power Swords and JP's.
SG have 2+, can be taken as troops, are Master-Crafted and fire two shots before Assaulting. VV on the other hand can assault after the DS.
So SG are better in the long run, but VV are (imo) better 'now' when I need them somewhere. I really wish SG, DC, ASM and VV's had more 'shared wargear' so I could do counts-as armies
Kangodo wrote: They have different uses, so I don't know.
I tried to equip them as close as I could:
SG with Banner
VV with BP, Power Swords and JP's.
SG have 2+, can be taken as troops, are Master-Crafted and fire two shots before Assaulting.
VV on the other hand can assault after the DS.
So SG are better in the long run, but VV are (imo) better 'now' when I need them somewhere.
I really wish SG, DC, ASM and VV's had more 'shared wargear' so I could do counts-as armies
I don't thinks equipping VV as SG is the right way to go, as as you say, they have entirely different roles. VV, if I were to take them, I would keep upgrades to a minimum, only JPs and posibly meltabombs, as a backfield disruption unit (although as I said, ASM do this better).
I am struggling to work out where SG fit in these days, as the fact they can be scoring A) requires a 225 point severely overcosted SC and B) is somewhat limited due to only being a 5 man unit. 5 TEQ, even with better mobility, are not hard to kill for most armies. I think they are best at hunting non-melee MEQ and other medium infantry, as ASM kill GEQ just as effectively, which is too much of a situational role to fit in most TAC lists, especially for such a large investment of points.
Yeah, it was just to compare.
That's actually another bonus for VV: They can take other stuff!
SG: I really don't mind their points and limitation, that is not their problem.
It's just that AP1/2 is spread all around and they have no chance of really surviving a good shooting.
And for a DS-army you would expect more Heroic Intervention-rules to be tossed around.
If only Dante gave that instead of Hit and Run :O
Martel732 wrote: Dante is 225 pts and adds what exactly? He's an overpriced captain. And yes, I consider terminators practically unusable at this point with Eldar running around. Starcannons and pseudo rending just make a mockery of 2+ armor.
If you're going to look at him only as an overpriced captain and ignore the Debuff to an enemy IC, unlocking SG as troops, 2+ armor save, potential death mask debuff, non-scattering deep strike for he and his entire unit, and the utility of Hit and Run, then he adds nothing. I won't even add in the +1 wound, as everyone just KNOWS he's going to be doubled out by the first volley of fire coming his way. *rolls eyes*
It's really pretty easy math, though. If you don't feel Sanguinary Guard are worth fielding, you're not going to use Dante. So, this is much less about Dante and what he brings to the table and much more about the viability of Sang Guard. The past handful of replies in this thread have been debating SG, and during those exchanges, no one is even talking about FnP. What gives? Whether by Honor Guard or Sanguinary Priest(s), if you're fielding Sanguinary Guard, you'd better have a FnP provider nearby. I may disagree with a lot of opinions on BA unit choices, but everyone is right when they say BA have a boots on the ground numbers issue. FnP really helps with all that...
But it doesn't help enough. And paying the priest tax to give 5 SGFnP is not going to save them from, say, starcannons or D-scythes. SG cost too much to be getting just a 5++ FnP save.
As for BA unit choices, there is no correct answer because they are all fatally flawed in the current state of the game.
I don't consider those items you listed off for Dante being worth anywhere near 225 pts. For 100 pts, DA librarians cast two divination spells a turn. Even if they were the same price, I'd probably take the level 2 psyker. But one is 125 pts more? If you like him, take him. But you are contributing to the BA body count defiict by doing so.
Martel732 wrote: Dante and SG are unfieldable for TACatm because Eldar own their face so hard.
Would that mean that terminators are unfieldable as well? Also the cool thing about these guys is that they are scoring.
But have no invul saves and therefore get annihilated vs any AP2 or massed rending. At least Terminators can conceivably survive against that.
Survive, yes, but I've already seen what Eldar do to Deathwing lists. They don't need to destroy the unit, just cripple it. And they do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: At the end of the day, VV are still super expensive power armor chumps that the BA can ill afford. There is rarely a single backfield unit that is worth the risk and cost that isn't bubble wrapped by a savvy player.
If you're going to look at him only as an overpriced captain and ignore the Debuff to an enemy IC, unlocking SG as troops, 2+ armor save, potential death mask debuff, non-scattering deep strike for he and his entire unit, and the utility of Hit and Run, then he adds nothing. I won't even add in the +1 wound, as everyone just KNOWS he's going to be doubled out by the first volley of fire coming his way. *rolls eyes*
I don't think the issue is him being doubled out in shooting so much as the fact in CC most tooled-up HQ's or even PF marine sgts will either kill him before he can hit or at the same time due to lack of EW, and with SG lacking characters, he is pretty much forced to accept challanges if he is with them (or waste his attacks altogether). The debuffs and busts are nice, but for the price of Dante you can take 2 divination libbys with upgrades, or are 5 points off a libby and reclusiarch, both of which I feel bring more to the table.
It's really pretty easy math, though. If you don't feel Sanguinary Guard are worth fielding, you're not going to use Dante. So, this is much less about Dante and what he brings to the table and much more about the viability of Sang Guard. The past handful of replies in this thread have been debating SG, and during those exchanges, no one is even talking about FnP. What gives? Whether by Honor Guard or Sanguinary Priest(s), if you're fielding Sanguinary Guard, you'd better have a FnP provider nearby. I may disagree with a lot of opinions on BA unit choices, but everyone is right when they say BA have a boots on the ground numbers issue. FnP really helps with all that...
FNP does not really help with the SG's survivability in the long run, as many of the weapons that threaten them with AP2 also have strength enough to negate it, and against weight of fire it also doesn't help all that much. Priests have their place, but I would rather give FNP to ASM or even Tacticals, where it is more needed. Also, the cost of priests increases the already high cost by 25%, and just makes the unit more expensive. I would rather use the priest to support 200 points of ASM than SG, simply because they are more useful to the army as a whole. FNP helps the 'boots on the ground' issue, but also worsens it, with the cost 3 priests getting you the best part of another ASM or Tac squad.
FNP does not really help with the SG's survivability in the long run, as many of the weapons that threaten them with AP2 also have strength enough to negate it,
I count Lascannons, Bright/Dark Lances, proper Railguns, Melta, and Pulse Lasers... Since when is that "many"?
FNP does not really help with the SG's survivability in the long run, as many of the weapons that threaten them with AP2 also have strength enough to negate it,
I count Lascannons, Bright/Dark Lances, proper Railguns, Melta, and Pulse Lasers... Since when is that "many"?
Ok fair enough, I thought there were more. Also things like demolisher cannons, medusas, and any MEQ using PF/TH ect.
The real problem is that, for a 5-man squad, a 5+ save is not really enough insurance in the face of mass plasma fire or eldar pseudo-rending and the like, and with the squads capping at 5 men, only 2-3 have to die to cripple the squads. FNP is just better used elsewhere, in my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Don't forget the ever-awesome benefit of 5+ cover from Shield of Sanguinius.
These are BA. They should be maxing aura benefits at every turn if possible.
True, I just prefer to use ASM for scoring, SG require Dante for scoring, and are better purely as an assaul unit in my opinion. SOS is useful, but again, I would rather have it protecting more versatile and ultimately more useful models.
warpspider89 wrote: Should SG not be near other squads? Why are hypothetical people sending them out in isolation?
Not neccessarily in isolation, but if I have a choice between SOS hitting 2 squads of ASM or ASM and SG, I'd rather the former. When I do run a Libby with the SG, I tend to use divination to make sure their atttacks hit with the most possible value.
On a side note, what are people's thoughts on Death Company in 6th ed? I think the new version of Rage helps out, but how do people run them? With JPs, in a transport, or footslogging, and with what weapons, if any?
warpspider89 wrote: Should SG not be near other squads? Why are hypothetical people sending them out in isolation?
Well the OP was planning on a competitive build. I was planning on using Dante and SG as an allied attachment.
I suppose for the points I could just bring in another terminator squad for the BTs or even several 10man assault squads. Although, bringing in the SG and Dante will definitely draw the AP2 firepower away from my BT termies.
Well the OP was planning on a competitive build. I was planning on using Dante and SG as an allied attachment.
I suppose for the points I could just bring in another terminator squad for the BTs or even several 10man assault squads. Although, bringing in the SG and Dante will definitely draw the AP2 firepower away from my BT termies.
This is true, but that is a really expensive distraction! I would really suggest some ASM for more general purpose use, they are more durable as far as scoring is concerned. Something like this comes to about the same points as Dante+SG
This still leaves you with 35 points to spare for an upgrade to the reclusiarch or something for the BT. Will kill stuff on the charge, as well as providing 10 scoring troops and can combat squad.
Well the OP was planning on a competitive build. I was planning on using Dante and SG as an allied attachment.
I suppose for the points I could just bring in another terminator squad for the BTs or even several 10man assault squads. Although, bringing in the SG and Dante will definitely draw the AP2 firepower away from my BT termies.
This is true, but that is a really expensive distraction! I would really suggest some ASM for more general purpose use, they are more durable as far as scoring is concerned. Something like this comes to about the same points as Dante+SG
This still leaves you with 35 points to spare for an upgrade to the reclusiarch or something for the BT. Will kill stuff on the charge, as well as providing 10 scoring troops and can combat squad.
ASM arent scoring units for BT though. So maybe just getting another 10-man squad in a drop pod would work just as well, haha.
DC are best if you run them cheap and with Bolters. 20 points for a model that can fire two S4 attacks and then charge for four S5 attacks hitting on a 3+ (WS5) with built in FNP is pretty decent. Ten strong is just fine and a fair price tag.
Bring some metal boxes to shield them and footslog them up to midfield. Hold there and play the area control game. No need to babysit them.
That way they work as a solid unit that will either draw plenty of enemy firepower off your units as they move into position, which is fine since they can't score anyways, or, because they are less points & threatening without a JP, will be ignored until they are in place to deny objectives and generally muck up the enemies plans.
Like most marine units they are scale tippers not game winners.
*they do synergize with LRs either in them or behind them*
I suppose that's okay. Footslogging means you are unlikely to ever pull off an assault against a good opponent. They are still more expensive than tactical marines and don't score. I'll have to try this, but I don't see how this can really help against Tau or Eldar. They'll just shoot the DC if they become an issue after they shoot the units they really care about.
But remember the Eldar are not our only opponents. It's the fact that none of our TAC lists can stand up to the Eldar. I'd say tailored lists might have a chance, but not TAC.
It's not just serpent spam. Eldar can field multiple looks that slaughter BATAC lists.
Hmm... I think it could be done. I'm not much of one to accept defeat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wave Serpents and other transports are highly vulnerable to Vanguard Vets. Run them light as possible with Jump Packs, a melta bomb, a meltapistol, and a PF on the sergent runs around 195 points.
Drop in behind the tank. Nuke its armor with the melta. There is no serpent shield on the back. The tank should go down easy enough. Then charge the squishy 5 man DA squad within and wipe them out all in a single turn.
BA "solutions", such as they are, as simply too expensive to construct a list that can take on a big enough slice of the tournament scene. It's not a matter of leadership or list building, the tools simply don't exist in the codex. Or rather, you run out of tools too quickly.
That's true, and it would work against wave serpents, but I would never put VV in a TAC list. What are they going to contribute against chaos demons? Or any other list that kept their forces in a fairly cohesive arrangement for 2-3 turns? Like I do with the BA sometimes?
They'll find something tough and shoot/assault it to tie it up for a turn or two. Just enough to cause a little disruption. Why can't you find a use for a unit that has multiple S8 AP1 ranged attacks & multiple S8 AP2 close combat attack that can charge off the deepstrike?
Assault marines should be rocking as many flamers & hand-flamers as possible for just such a situation! It lets them tip the balance since they are too weak to win assaults through CC power alone. It also provides stronger overwatch.
warpspider89 wrote: As long as a single model survives it can score!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Don't forget the ever-awesome benefit of 5+ cover from Shield of Sanguinius.
These are BA. They should be maxing aura benefits at every turn if possible.
So now we are adding a priest AND a librarian to the mix to get this group of 5 to survive?
That are almost another 250 points!
It's just an issue that T4 doesn't mean thing anymore in this game. The amount of wounds that can be generated against T4 just melts away even 2+ saves. GW needs to make units with 2+ armor and T4 cheaper, because that combination just doesn't mean that much anymore. Xeno lists will spam wounds and spam wounds until your unit is crippled.
Just compare what our tac marines can do against something like a Riptide to what their fire warriors can do to our elites. The disparity is just too great. Marines are charged for stats and equipment and abilites (ATSKNF) that just don't matter that much anymore. I've had this argument at my FLGS with Xeno players. ATSKNF doesn't mean a damn thing is they are just tabling me by generating wounds.
I already PMed this to Martel, but I figured I'd share it on the forum. MSU Raven is a competitive list. It's a Rock list, and probably not GT worthy, but it can beat some serious competition. It is now tournament proven.
Quick caveat, we had two last second replacements (damn IRL), so we basically walked into every match with an auto loss and a toss up (at best, usually he got tabled, but he won a couple). This meant we couldn't use the Raven list as a counter punch unit like we planned, because we only had three "tournament players" on the team, and he was one of them. That said, he went 4-2 against some serious competition (discounting the first team because we ROFLstomped them)
He beat this list initially (the Tau list, scroll down a bit)
Then he beat this IG list (this is Quality Control, who placed third overall) (we actually beat Quality Control 3 games to 2, and stopped them from winning) (you have to click through few a bit) (well when I say we beat them, we did win 3 games to 2, but our replacement players both got tabled horribly, so we lost on battle points. haha)
Then finally he lost to this stupid nine Scythes list. Which we actually let him play because he knows the guy from real life, and we were out of the running so we let him have it.
So, not counting that Necron game (which he could have won had he had second turn), I think he proved BA can still win. It just takes a gimmick. 4-2 (or 4-1) at ATC is impressive. Especially since we played two of the top three teams.
I liked a quote that I read in DashofPepper's 6th ed thread - it's not about making a TAC list now, it's about playing to your strengths and then minimizing your bad matchups because there's too much variety out there to have one-list-to-rule-them-all. My thinking is that BA sort of have to go for this if you want to not have a massive headache playing them.
Quick correction on myself, because they recalculated scores. BOLS placed 2nd, QC 3rd (they're one point apart). We definitely kept QC from winning, kind of hilarious.
Also, Mephiston is a hidden superstar in that list. He killed, and I'm not kidding, FORTY fleshounds against the Dogpile list. He also carves through non Iron Armed DPs, Riptides (if he can get there), basically anything that's not a Terminator squad. (A Riptide is basically a Termy, true, but Mephy is doing one wound for ID before a Riptide does 6)
Martel732 wrote: I am really hoping that VV get repriced in the new C:SM as to be actually useful.
Why do you think that VV would work in C:SM, even with a re-pricing, when they are only good if they can charge and getting the charge is undependable when you scatter 2D6?
VV only work for BA and that is because of Descent of the Angels
ASM arent scoring units for BT though. So maybe just getting another 10-man squad in a drop pod would work just as well, haha.
Just to clarify, I was suggesting you take these units as a BA allied detachment in place of Dante and SG, making them scoring and able to benefit from DOA, rather than straight from the BT codex.
Martel732 wrote: I am really hoping that VV get repriced in the new C:SM as to be actually useful.
Why do you think that VV would work in C:SM, even with a re-pricing, when they are only good if they can charge and getting the charge is undependable when you scatter 2D6?
VV only work for BA and that is because of Descent of the Angels
Because if they get repriced for C:SM, they'll be repriced for BA. Or maybe they'll let all VV have a descent of angles equivalent rule.
Thanks for that. Nice to see some good results from the BA codex against great competition.
@ those talking about priest and librarian tax for FnP and SoS: I know you all know this, but those powers work in a bubble. It IS totally possible, and probable, that you'll be granting FnP or SoS to more than 1 unit during your games. If not, maybe that's your issue?
And of course, there are weapons like the demolisher cannon, basilisk, and Tau riptide thingie that really mitigate the effects of FnP bubble and make us spread out.
anon's list is probably the best thing I've seen for BA in 6th, but I just can't see dropping $300 minimum to do better than average at tourneys. The worst part is, I don't even like the Stormraven. In fact, I kind of hate it.
Kangodo wrote: But we are Deep Striking them That's what you do with 2+ models and JP's!
Of course you are, but with D6 scatter, you deep strike whatever units you want first, THEN use Dante's non-scattering deep strike to help home the priest (of Honor guard priest if Dante deep strikes in with them) to the best possible location. See....Dante's utility is useful if you want it to be.
Kangodo wrote: But we are Deep Striking them That's what you do with 2+ models and JP's!
Of course you are, but with D6 scatter, you deep strike whatever units you want first, THEN use Dante's non-scattering deep strike to help home the priest (of Honor guard priest if Dante deep strikes in with them) to the best possible location. See....Dante's utility is useful if you want it to be.
But then you are using Dante's ability to get a priest in place to protect the SG, when the FNP would be better used to protect ASM, simply because the effect will benefit a larger number of models, and support the core of your army. The issue is not so much how to get FNP on SG as whether or not you SHOULD be doing it, leaving other parts of the army less protected. In my opinion, Priests are better used to protect ASM, preferably 2 squads, as to use them in the way you suggest above requires a 225 point character, and a 75 points preist, all to give one 200 point unit FNP. The fact you have to spend more than the unit itself to give it a 5+ save which ultimately will not help it survive to any great extent is something the BA, who suffer from horiffically low body count anyway, cannot afford to do. Yes, there is the option than the FNP bubble can hit other units, but in that case, protecting the ASM is more valuable.
Kangodo wrote: But we are Deep Striking them That's what you do with 2+ models and JP's!
Of course you are, but with D6 scatter, you deep strike whatever units you want first, THEN use Dante's non-scattering deep strike to help home the priest (of Honor guard priest if Dante deep strikes in with them) to the best possible location. See....Dante's utility is useful if you want it to be.
It's useful, but you pay way too many points to field it. *Every* unit is useful, but it has to undergo a cost/benefit analysis to determine if its *good*. Dante is not good for his points. Most deep striking schemes are not good anyway, because in a tactical game, I find reserves to a negative, not a positive.
"Most deep striking schemes are not good anyway, because in a tactical game, I find reserves to be a negative, not a positive." That is an opinion Martel and it is one presented without explanation.
I find the notion of ignoring a tactical option, without valid explanation, in a tactical game rather unusual, especially for an army that is currently at a disadvantage when playing the usual "bodies on the field firing" game that dominates the current meta. After all, BA lack serious firepower at range and they lack the bodies to sustain casualties in shooting exchanges.
The main argument against reserves/deep striking is that it reduces the amount of outgoing firepower over the limited number of turns available because models that are not on the field cannot shoot. However...
"Deep striking schemes" are probably the best thing that BA having going on for them because it mitigates one of their main problems: lack of bodies & lack firepower at range.
If a body is not on the ground, then it cannot be shot. Bodies in reserve are not on the ground, therefore they cannot be shot. It reduces casualties early game.
If Blood Angels lack competitive long-range firepower and the ability to sustain long-ranged fire fights, then Blood Angels should avoid fighting against the enemy at range. This is true. Their ranged options are lacking. Therefore, Blood Angels should seek options to close the gap.
Blood Angels can take much larger number of weapons that are most effective at close range - primarily flamer-type weapons and melta-type weapons. The short range character of these weapons supports the notion that Blood Angels need to close the gap between them and their enemies if they want to be effective.
Further, armies should be played in such a way that takes full advantage of their strengths. If an army has a strength that isn't being utilized, then the player of that army should adapt to take advantage of that strength. Blood Angels are better at Deep Striking than most armies due to Descent of the Angels. Deep Striking is a strength and, from the sounds of it, it isn't being utilized. Therefore, players should adapt to take advantage of that strength.
Automatically Appended Next Post: TL;DR BA players should go for all of the deep strike combo shenanigans available to them since it takes the greatest advantage of their various strengths.
Every opinion presented in this thread "without explanation" has maybe a half dozen explanations over the past few months on this forum. This thread gets restarted so frequently that I don't think Martel or Peregrine or anybody feels compelled any more to restate every nuance of their opinions. Do a search if you care and you'll find it all.
If a body is not on the ground, it can't shoot or assault either.
Deep striking piecemeals your list so your opponent can take you on a chunk at a time. I've had many games against lists using reserves determined before their reserves even got to roll. (I went first) You aren't saving any models, really because of 6th edition deployment rules. If you deep strike some of your army, my dakka list will just dakka what you are forced to start with on the map.
Closing the gap with deep strike comes at a horrible cost. The first cost is piecemealing as I outlined above. Secondly, in order to shoot, you can't spread out. This makes things like the sun cannon, battle cannons, or even the generic plasma cannon completely lethal.
I tore apart BA players trying to drop their whole list in 5th and I still tear apart BA players trying to use deep strike. The turn of not being able to assault, yet being in optimal dakka range is absolute murder. You can't count on fancy terrain. You CAN count on Tau opponents having interceptor, however.
Clearly, it appears the best thing the BA have going is Stormraven spam. This appears to best take advantage of our strengths. However, this also makes us the imperial version of chaos space marines, ie Codex: Storm Raven. I would use this any day over deep strike shenanigans if I had the models or inclination.
@Warpspider89: I will just go through it point for point and explain the lack of enjoyment I have with Blood Angels. The only reason I am starting to enjoy them again is probably because I haven't played them for 4 months and I think I suppressed the memories
You are right, they lack the bodies and the firepower to play it shooty. The problem is, and this will come back many times in this post, that shooting exist. The enemies shoot at us and they have killed enough to stop them from being a real threat in CC.
Deep Strike: ASM are okay, but they are still just MEQ's. SG die too fast and are way too overpriced for the punch and durability they give in the current meta. DC are at least 35 points each if you want to DS with them, they are very very expensive. DC make up for those points by having 5 attacks on the charge. But they are still non-scoring MEQ's and have only 3 attacks when you charge into them. And sometimes they are even too strong: You DS a 200pnt squad somewhere, a few get shot, you charge and a few die and you end up killing the enemy so they can unleash their fire again. VV are expensive, not scoring and cannot carry IC's.
Therefore, Blood Angels should seek options to close the gap.
By doing what? With the current weapon that most Xenos-armies field, you will DS and they kill enough models to stop them from being a threat. All that we are left with is subpar firepower.
The current good lists that BA field are 40-ASM with Predators, not really the iconic army that got me playing them.
Edit: Martel, did you see the Raven Guard-rumours? Tell me, on a scale from 1 to 10.. How jealous are you?
Honestly, any deep-strike maneuver has to be done in a wolf-pack style.
ASM need to be loaded up to the MAX with flamers to put out as many wounds as possible when they show up. Maybe give a small squad or two some melta to pop tanks so that a squad deep striking beside them, one that has flamers, can roast the gooey insides that come pouring out.
SG should probably be deepstriking into friendly territory or shielded behind the bubble of the other deepstrikers to GUARD those. Fancy that... Sanguinary GUARDS GUARDING things more strategically valuable units
DC are a little too expensive to DS. Keep them cheap and sleazy. If they are to be DSed, then do it from Drop Pods as an initial disruption/movement blocking maneuver to control the flow of battle.
VV should be kept cheap, since they are sure to die, and have them tie up that one valuable critical thing for a turn or two. Give them a little melta goodness if you think that that critical thing will be in some sort of metal box. Keep them under 200 points.
None of these squads should exceed 250 points. It would eat up too much of a force's resources.
Listen to what you are typing. Keep the VV under 200? So somehow its okay to throw away 175 pts? BA can't afford suicide units. There aren't enough BA on any given table to go on that mission. What about lists with distributed firepower and no good VV targets?
The return fire against your proposed strike is potentially game ending. All I'd need is a few plasma hits or a two battle cannon hits, etc to wreck your clumped ASM. Or a helldrake.
It isn't throwing them away. It is using them effectively. Of course, they'll probably die, but it is fine for models and units to get killed if they do the job necessary to win you the game.
Honestly, I would be surprised if there was a single army list that didn't have at least one unit that you wanted to tie up - and kill, ideally. Can you provide an example of a list that has absolutely nothing that you would want to tie up - particularly around 2k points.
Battle cannon shots only spread out 2.5 inches from the center of the blast. If you're units are that close to each other then you are positioning WAY too close for the maneuver. Move the units a little further apart.
Besides, your VV would be able to take down one of those battle tanks and the ASM with meltas should be dropping the others. They should be risking the shot scattering into themselves if you are deep striking well.
If you deep strike and shoot your weapons, you can't get any separation at all. You have to deep strike them base to base. That's why drop pods are much better than generic deep strike: they allow a disembark move.
You can try what you propose, but VV have never been an issue for me, nor has deep striking marines. They do some damage and then I wreck their list piecemeal.
Well, that's one turn guaranteed, potentially two, depending on who went first that the opponent can tee off on your force that is forced to start on the board.
If your opponent has a way to subtract from the reserve roll, you may not be coming in turn 2.
Oh, so you think the firepower of an ASM squad is worth leaving them in deep strike formation? They only need to hit one unit with a battle cannon or group of plasma cannons. Or hell heavy flamers. The amount of ways this goes bad is legion.
Arriving piece-meal? Decent of Angels allows a re-roll to reserves for such units, so there's a much greater chance your units are all arriving turn 2.
There really does just seem to be a disagreement of beliefs here. One camp is pro-bodies and the other is ok with having some elite units mixed in with the generic bodies. The only difference is no one from the pro-elite camp is telling the pro-bodies camp that their method is stupid.
On a related note...Stormravens are now the strength of the BA codex? I thought Martel absolutely hated Stormravens. And hey, the guy talking about the results from the tourney also said Mephiston was a total stud and rocked face all day. I thought he was overpriced and hella-dumb to field? *rolls eyes*
Maybe running a 200pt+ model/unit isn't the end of the world after all.
I do hate them. And still hate them for their horrid inefficiency compared to helldrakes and Vendettas. I still think its pricetag sucks. But the proof is in the pudding. The guy took four and did very well. I have never considered spamming them like that, mostly because I don't own the models.
They shut down helldrakes immediately. They can even take out the Vendetta pay load of an IG aircav list I'd wager.
I have no idea what that list does against hordes, but it seems to be legit in the tournament meta. And it lost to a Necron air list and some kind of Eldar thing. Probably got all the troops vaporized before the Stormravens could do enough damage.
Sigh. Arriving on turn 2 in many situations is simply not good enough, especially if you happened to go second. That's two turns of being pounded with no reserves. I personally have crippled DE, BA, GK, C:SM, and CSM lists by turn 2. Imagine what a good codex could do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thinking about it, an IG air cav list might still have enough ground firepower to kill the scoring units of that list. I can't imagine that it likes SW drop pods, either. But I bet not many are using SW drop pods in tournaments.
There were actually a decent number of SW Drop Pod lists there, as a lot of teams were using them as their anti Tau build. Andrew was convinced he could take one, and he and I argued for a while. His plan was to spread out his squads in terrain, behind the Aegis, and using his 2+ saves to tank. In his words "once the Ravens come out the game is over" I remain unconvinced.
Horde is a weakness, for sure. That said, there are not a lot of horde Armies in tournaments. Not really.
Edit: he took out the Quality Control IG/Wolves list that was rocking 3 Vendettas. Which was surprising. QC's entire team were super good, finished 3rd.
4 Stormravens will over power the 3 Vendettas. The SW/IG guy needed to win on the ground.
I agree that hardcore SW drop pod would be a major problem. I've done this to GK players: once their Stormravens come out, I'm already in HTH combat with them, and the game is indeed over. If grey hunters get this list in HTH, its over I think.
I've been following this thread... I am more than a little fed up with our outdated codex. The new rules (rumored) for space marines make me want to curl up in a fetal position and cry. Ok... Moving on... I am in the more bodies camp. At the beginning of 6th (pre Tau, Eldar update) I had great success with a spammy / shooty list:
Terminator Lib with SS and force axe.
1 sang priest plain
10 termies with 2 x cyclone, 2 x chain fists
2 x 5 man devs with 4 ML each
2 x 5 man assault with 2 hand flamers and one flamer each
10 man Tac with PC and PG (aegis sitters, with priests and Devs)
Death co (8, bolters, 1 fist) in drop pod
Aegis with quad gun
I forget what I rounded the list out with.
Basically I flooded the field with low priority targets. 12 ML shots a turn were effective. The tacs held the aegis and a home point, and also (combat squaded) defended the devs from assault, all with the priest and Aegis with quad gun.
The list worked fairly well, it was nothing amazing and unfortunately a little dull to play. The BA codex is full of shiny trap units, units that exemplify the flavor of BA. When you take these units (which are over priced) it hamstrings your ability to compete against the newer codecies, I mean have you seen the points reductions on ALL the codex:SM units.
I went through this experience in 4th edition. When BA were potentially worse than they are currently. I bought into an IG army. Havin other armies is the only reason I still play 40k. BA were my first army (1994), my first true love. I have been tying to find a way to use them as allies, but it's just hard to justify.
The disparity in balancing between codexes almost makes me wish that there was a handicap rating on codecies. Tau and eldar are Easy mode just brin your Red staples "that was easy" button, press it and you win. BA and BT are probably the most severely handicapped codexes at the moment. If your winning with BA I would attribute it to having better command than your opponent and/or luck.
Once the new SM codex drops I will be playing "red" marines untill we get our new book.
See at the moment the new space marine codec isn't going to work for me, as the only troops I own are two 5 man scout units, death company and about 60 assault Marines.
Why wouldn't that work? If you take Shadow Captain Korvydae your only problem will be that you cannot field the DC and 10 ASM. Wait.. Scrap that.. Field them as Vanguard Veterans who are better, cheaper and stronger than DC-troops.
Korvy has the added bonus of being awesome, he's 5 points cheaper than a BA-Captain with the same gear and he has Artificer Armour with Hit and Run. His only downside is that you lose DoA, Red Thirst (hahahaha), jump-priests and well, that's it. There is a silver lining behind that sad cloud: You need Scouts, so why not infiltrate them and take a beacon to counter the loss of the "1D6 scatter"? I'm not even going to pretend like I care about losing Red Thirst. And priests are nice, but an army-wide Stealth almost makes up for that; now I can use those points on more tactical marines!
Bam! Instant-Raven Guard. You only need to add some water; I would advice TheLionOfTheForest's tears. Otherwise I could mail you some of mine.
warpspider89 wrote: "Most deep striking schemes are not good anyway, because in a tactical game, I find reserves to be a negative, not a positive." That is an opinion Martel and it is one presented without explanation.
I find the notion of ignoring a tactical option, without valid explanation, in a tactical game rather unusual, especially for an army that is currently at a disadvantage when playing the usual "bodies on the field firing" game that dominates the current meta. After all, BA lack serious firepower at range and they lack the bodies to sustain casualties in shooting exchanges.
The main argument against reserves/deep striking is that it reduces the amount of outgoing firepower over the limited number of turns available because models that are not on the field cannot shoot. However...
"Deep striking schemes" are probably the best thing that BA having going on for them because it mitigates one of their main problems: lack of bodies & lack firepower at range.
If a body is not on the ground, then it cannot be shot. Bodies in reserve are not on the ground, therefore they cannot be shot. It reduces casualties early game.
If Blood Angels lack competitive long-range firepower and the ability to sustain long-ranged fire fights, then Blood Angels should avoid fighting against the enemy at range. This is true. Their ranged options are lacking. Therefore, Blood Angels should seek options to close the gap.
Blood Angels can take much larger number of weapons that are most effective at close range - primarily flamer-type weapons and melta-type weapons. The short range character of these weapons supports the notion that Blood Angels need to close the gap between them and their enemies if they want to be effective.
Further, armies should be played in such a way that takes full advantage of their strengths. If an army has a strength that isn't being utilized, then the player of that army should adapt to take advantage of that strength. Blood Angels are better at Deep Striking than most armies due to Descent of the Angels. Deep Striking is a strength and, from the sounds of it, it isn't being utilized. Therefore, players should adapt to take advantage of that strength.
Kangodo wrote: But we are Deep Striking them That's what you do with 2+ models and JP's!
Of course you are, but with D6 scatter, you deep strike whatever units you want first, THEN use Dante's non-scattering deep strike to help home the priest (of Honor guard priest if Dante deep strikes in with them) to the best possible location. See....Dante's utility is useful if you want it to be.
It's useful, but you pay way too many points to field it. *Every* unit is useful, but it has to undergo a cost/benefit analysis to determine if its *good*. Dante is not good for his points. Most deep striking schemes are not good anyway, because in a tactical game, I find reserves to a negative, not a positive.
Basically this is why you can't get BA to work. You play to win the game, not have the prettiest army on paper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Deep striking is neither an advantage nor a strength though. Please try it against me. It will be a nice break from Eldar and Tau routs.
Absolutely false. As for proof you can look to Reece Robins battle reports. He deep strikes unit all the time, especially warp spiders who do not have any of the benefits of BA deep strikers.
If you say so. How exactly is deep striking going to help the BA?
I'm thinking it's because I don't own 4 Stormravens. Or so it would seem.
It's really hard to win the game when you are running out of units by turn 3-4.
Warp Spiders have a few rules that BA don't though. Like Battle Focus? LOL And no BA unit save Sternguard have the firepower of Warp Spiders. There's a big, big difference between deep striking warp spiders and deep striking ASM.
Please tell me the specifics of how this is not going to get your BA massacred, especially given 6th edition deployment rules. BA players have tried this against me in 5th and 6th and all lost. Usually horribly.
Martel732 wrote: If you say so. How exactly is deep striking going to help the BA? I'm thinking it's because I don't own 4 Stormravens. Or so it would seem.
It's really hard to win the game when you are running out of units by turn 3-4.
Deep striking help the BA by getting scoring units into the enemy backfield and attacking, with precision, key enemy elements. Does you whole army need to deep strike? No. Does your whole army need to be Stormravens? No. Will you deep strike into the middle of 3 Riptides with interceptor? No.
For all your concern about Eldar and Tau the BA have two very potent weapons against those armies. Lots of cheap armor 13 and Fear the Darkness. Tau have an especially rough time against that power. Riptides are leadership 9 and they are not fearless. They go away very fast. BA can, if they want, put out 5 fear the darkness spells a turn. Against a fearless army, switch those powers for book powers if needed.
Is it an autowin? No. Is it a chance? Yes. A chance and a positive attitude will lead to more victories than defeats.
As to warp spiders, battle focus is mitigated by the single d6 scatter the warp spiders do not get that the BA do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Deep striking warp spiders will target a different set of units than deep strike ASM. Don't compare them that way. I can combat squad my ASM on deep strike and attack two different targets. Spiders can not. ASM can melta a tank to oblivion, like Land Raiders, spiders can not.
I think you have a problem in wanting the ASM to do everything the other codex deep strikers do. They don't and they shouldn't. ASM targets a different than spider targets.
Kangodo wrote: Why wouldn't that work?
If you take Shadow Captain Korvydae your only problem will be that you cannot field the DC and 10 ASM.
Wait.. Scrap that.. Field them as Vanguard Veterans who are better, cheaper and stronger than DC-troops.
Korvy has the added bonus of being awesome, he's 5 points cheaper than a BA-Captain with the same gear and he has Artificer Armour with Hit and Run.
His only downside is that you lose DoA, Red Thirst (hahahaha), jump-priests and well, that's it.
There is a silver lining behind that sad cloud: You need Scouts, so why not infiltrate them and take a beacon to counter the loss of the "1D6 scatter"?
I'm not even going to pretend like I care about losing Red Thirst.
And priests are nice, but an army-wide Stealth almost makes up for that; now I can use those points on more tactical marines!
Bam! Instant-Raven Guard.
You only need to add some water; I would advice TheLionOfTheForest's tears.
Otherwise I could mail you some of mine.
I did have a look into some of thes characters a while back, what book is korvydae in again, and do we think his rules will be changing anytime soon? I may have to look into this. Since my blood angels are a custom successor chapter anyway, it's easy enough for me to justify a book change.
He's in IA8 IA9 has a comparable model called Elam Courbray (I believe he is an ultramarine) that makes them scoring, but not troops.
At the moment I am probably going to try:
Korvydae
Captain on bike (Or Librarian if that works)
1 Group of bikers = scoring
2 or 3x ASM = scoring
1 or 2 tactical marines = scoring
1 Scout Squad = scoring
Fill up the rest with some random pretty models, maybe even a command squad so I have a priest and a use for my DC/SG.
How about an alpha strike with Dante and Mordrak (GK allies)? Two units able to take on two different targets. Add a teleporting DK into the mix and you'll have a force to reckon with. Thoughts?
Kangodo wrote: He's in IA8 IA9 has a comparable model called Elam Courbray (I believe he is an ultramarine) that makes them scoring, but not troops.
At the moment I am probably going to try:
Korvydae
Captain on bike (Or Librarian if that works)
1 Group of bikers = scoring
2 or 3x ASM = scoring
1 or 2 tactical marines = scoring
1 Scout Squad = scoring
Fill up the rest with some random pretty models, maybe even a command squad so I have a priest and a use for my DC/SG.
Just read his rules, and this could be the answer to my Blood Angels woes for now. I'm thinking of converting my own Korvydae with the Lord Exectioner model and Death Co. Thunder Hammer. You could even add in some BA Allies, of a Reclus and Death co. with Jump Packs, giving Death Company his hit and run if he leads them, which will get around the problem of death company being charged and tied down.
Yeah, I was thinking of that too..
But almost every single conversion would be more expensive than buying him from FW.
On the other hand the lack of Raven-symbols means he fits my army better and that is worth a few euro's.
Kangodo wrote: Yeah, I was thinking of that too..
But almost every single conversion would be more expensive than buying him from FW.
On the other hand the lack of Raven-symbols means he fits my army better and that is worth a few euro's.
Thank you for the tip!
For me it's not, cost me £15 for either model, and I already have the parts for the conversion, either that or convert an Astorath into him.
In addition to the codex:stormraven list, BA should be able to field a pretty decent drop pod army.
Honor guard can load up with 4x special weapons
Access to sternguard, which are still pretty good, access to heavy flamers is very nice with the rise of xenos, special ammo is nice vs iron-arm MC's, and of course, they hit like a brick when they land
Assault marines are fairly cheap and can pack a decent punch on the drop with a dual-wielding sarge
Support it with stormravens, an AV13 wall of vindicators/baals, a small horde of attack bikes or your favorite allies
Pod armies are also good at grabbing first blood, linebreaker and for grabbing a relic quickly.
Example 1750 - without stormravens
Librarian (100)
5 Honor guard, 4x plasma, pod (210)
5 Sternguard, 2x heavy flamer, 3x combi-flamer, pod (195)
5 Sternguard, 2x heavy flamer, 3x combi-flamer, pod (195)
5 Sternguard, 2x plasmagun, 3x combi-plasma, pod (195)
5 Assault Marines, melta, 2x infernus pistol, pod (140)
5 Assault Marines, melta, 2x infernus pistol, pod (140)
5 Assault Marines, flamer, pod (105)
3x Multimelta AB (150)
3x Multimelta AB (150)
3x Multimelta AB (150)
1750pts
I'm actually feeling very good about the latest rumors. I have to finish painting my tac marines, but everything gives me great hope for victories in the near future!
It's interesting that the BA subcommunity is in two factions. There's those that still think there's a way, and those that have accepted mathematical arguments that say the BA are bottom tier, if not THE bottom.
I'm man enough to admit that the four Stormraven list completely took me by surprise. However, it seems that four Stormravens just have synergy that one or two do not. I've proxyed two, and have not been impressed. So there's that.
The rest of the possible lists, I'm not sold on any of them. Shooty BA, assault BA, deep strike BA, mech BA, red tide BA, all have serious or even fatal flaws in 6th edition. Most of the flaws center around unit inefficiency. That is, efficacy of said unit per point spent. In other words, the overcosted problem just can not be overcome without a gimmick like 4 Stormravens.
Mathematical arguments are fine but they do have a weakness: they take place in a vacuum. A mathematical argument may determine the number of models from unit X killed by the shooting of unit Y. It does that very well and simply too because it is an equation with few variables. Many factors like the availability of terrain (area/regular/LOS-blocking), the position of models in relation to terrain, the position of models in relation to each other, the ability to maneuver around terrain and/or models, the psychological impact of threats, and much more.
If an argument for the effectiveness of a model/unit does not take into account all factors, then it is a flawed argument. Mathematical arguments do not take into account all factors. Therefore, mathematical are flawed arguments for the effectiveness of models.
So, it is worth examining all possible options to find a way for Blood Angels. A more perfect argument for or against plans with the Blood Angels will include more of these factors.
Lets keep exploring the options. Some interesting new points have been introduced here from MSU Ravens to Dante/Mordrak deep strike shinanigans.
Psychological impacts are a non-issue against experienced players. Experienced players will assess the threats in a rational manner and proceed accordingly.
I prefer the mathematical vacuum to counting on terrain being in my favor. In fact, since terrain is pseudo-random, it would seem that over many games, terrain may very well cancel out.
This leaves us back with just math. Math dictates which decisions are the most prudent. Math dictates how much fire it takes to down any given model or unit. The mathematical arguments are the only arguments we can make a priori, since we can never know terrain or opponent psychology.
Why do you think that the impact of forcing an experienced player to continually make tough decisions is inconsequential?
Rational decisions vary between individual players based on their theoretical understanding of the game, their personal experiences, and the issues at hand. Two experiences players may make different choices based on the factors even if asked the same "question" or presented with the same scenario. A Blood Angels player may present another player with multiple threats. If these are all of near equal significance, then the enemy player must make judgements about which is slightly more important. The more difficult this decision is, the more likely it becomes that the wrong choice will be made. If the wrong decision is made repeatedly, then the compounding effect becomes more likely to win the Blood Angels player the game.
Further, each time the enemy player is forced to make those decisions they are taxed mentally. The size of the tax increases as they punish themselves, which varies based on the severity of the consequences of their choices. This is a psychological impact. The compounding effect of these impacts lends itself to the Blood Angels player winning.
Terrain may be partially random but how the players interact with the terrain is not. Unless terrain is utilized equally by each player and is equal in each instance, in effect creating a perfect balance of benefits and disadvantages, which is highly unlikely given the countless variables from psychology to board size, then terrain cannot be assumed to "cancel itself out".
If there are other factors than the math, then just the math is not enough. There are, as demonstrated; so it is not enough.
Simply put, there are too many "no brainer" decisions in 40K. If you drop units in my face, I just mathematically determine the best way to treat them. There is no tax. It's just a big math problem for each individual decision. Furthermore, the amount of mistakes BA must force at the moment is prohibitively high, while the amount of mistakes we can tolerate is very low.
Most terrain is a 5++ save. It takes luck, and often both players agreeing to utilize LOS blocking terrain. The 5++ save is also quantifiable via math.
I submit that particularly in the case of BA, there is little for most codices to fear from our "multiple threats". This is because of the lack of mathematical efficiency of our units. Most of our threats are jokes to the other codices. (Because of their cost or nerfs) They can buy units that can cripple our multiple threats from range while we can not buy enough units to survive the pounding. Math.
Martel732 wrote: Simply put, there are too many "no brainer" decisions in 40K. If you drop units in my face, I just mathematically determine the best way to treat them. There is no tax. It's just a big math problem for each individual decision.
Contradictory much? If it is a big math problem and you're doing it in your head, then that is taxing. Players don't have their calcuators or spreadsheets out in games -hopefully! It would take forever. Only armchair generals have the luxury of all that time.
They [other players] can buy units that can cripple our multiple threats from range while we can not buy enough units to survive the pounding. Math.
Which is exactly why Blood Angels players need to avoid getting into the ranged firepower game. All the more reason to bypass that "pounding" by deep striking in close against a segment of the enemy's army with lots of flamers & melta for hard strike against the enemy before they retaliate. Can't let them hit full force. Use mobility for advantage.
The strike the BA can deliver via deep strike is too weak. BA players have tried it against my shooty and mech BA lists and I have cut them to pieces. I can't imagine what Eldar or Demons would do to these lists. The drop scheme does not back enough punch for the BA, I think. Furthermore, it's a dubious choice to set up an army to be assaulted when that army relies on assault for their buffs to kick in, such that they are. Compare our situation to SW.
One problem is that many Xeno armies can absolutely decimate three drop pods worth of marines in one turn if they are in rapid fire range. Which they will be since you are shooting meltas.
I'm not being contradictory. I imagine most good players have many of the math problems worked out ahead of time or can trivially estimate. If you drop DC and a dread in my face, I'll shoot the dread with anti tank and the DC with anti infantry. Not very difficult. Then the damage I cause is determined by math.
There's also the issue of bubble wrapping and using the deep strike rules against the BA player. It's just a really poor scheme in practice.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, if your opponent has long range firepower, it's automatically a long range shoot out, because of the units you are forced to deploy. So they get shot up, and then the hero deep strikers come in, fail to do enough retaliation, and then they get blasted, since they are not allowed to assault. Actually, if you are playing against Tau, they get blasted before they can do anything, but that's only one opponent.
This scheme didn't even work in 5th. I'm not sure why people want to try it after it has been nerfed by deployment rules. Desperation, I suppose.
Many xeno armies are ruined by large amounts of flamers. It goes both ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The kind of deep-strike you are describing is obviously underpowered. If you deepstrike in a pitiful fashion like that, then you better expect for things to not work out. And if you can't hide a a couple units behind LOS blocking terrain for a turn, then its not a surprise that you're losing games.
Competitive BA army? I think that BA is best used as an ally detachment for a shooty army like Tau or IG these days. Here BA could be used for counterstrike if an enemy unit threatens the front ranks of the main detachment.
Martel732 wrote: Psychological impacts are a non-issue against experienced players. .
This could not be more false. In a recent battle report against daemons Reece Robins, a top level experienced tourney player, makes this statement after the game.
However, the Turkey did psyche me out, you are right, and I said that in the video point blank. I do hate the damned things, too! Haha, such a stupid, OP unit.
Warpspider has it right. Math in a vacuum is not a good way to make an army. Maybe that is why Some people have so much trouble with BA. That and a defeatist attitude won't help. It is obvious there are people who get the BA to work. All of these people can not be trolls. However if all you are doing is lining up two armies on an open board against each other and using probability to determine results, then you are not playing 40k.
Martel732 wrote: This scheme didn't even work in 5th. I'm not sure why people want to try it after it has been nerfed by deployment rules. Desperation, I suppose.
Totally agreed, I don't even play BA but whenever a BA player or the like used Deep Strike against me I'd laugh, easily weather the shooting attack and then charge them myself, denying them their charge bonus, FC and +1I and then crush them in combat. I've never really been a fan of deep striking, it just leaves you too vulnerable unless you have a massive alpha strike to back it up (hence why Sternguard are terrifying).
Martel732 wrote: Psychological impacts are a non-issue against experienced players. .
This could not be more false. In a recent battle report against daemons Reece Robins, a top level experienced tourney player, makes this statement after the game.
However, the Turkey did psyche me out, you are right, and I said that in the video point blank. I do hate the damned things, too! Haha, such a stupid, OP unit.
Warpspider has it right. Math in a vacuum is not a good way to make an army. Maybe that is why Some people have so much trouble with BA. That and a defeatist attitude won't help. It is obvious there are people who get the BA to work. All of these people can not be trolls. However if all you are doing is lining up two armies on an open board against each other and using probability to determine results, then you are not playing 40k.
His mistake, then. I think it's foolhardy to count on psychological effects, since you never know when they are going to happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warpspider89 wrote: Many xeno armies are ruined by large amounts of flamers. It goes both ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The kind of deep-strike you are describing is obviously underpowered. If you deepstrike in a pitiful fashion like that, then you better expect for things to not work out. And if you can't hide a a couple units behind LOS blocking terrain for a turn, then its not a surprise that you're losing games.
You can't count on LOS blocking terrain even being on the board. What part of that don't you understand?
Additionally. please describe a BA list with a non-pitiful deep strike. I think you'll find that the units add up pretty quickly. Or better yet, show me a battle rep where this works against a tournament quality xeno list.
DarthDiggler wrote: This could not be more false. In a recent battle report against daemons Reece Robins, a top level experienced tourney player, makes this statement after the game.
However, the Turkey did psyche me out, you are right, and I said that in the video point blank. I do hate the damned things, too! Haha, such a stupid, OP unit.
Nice quote. But did he lose because he made a bad choice?
And what if you face the same opponent with your army?
If Blood Angels are about hoping that your opponent makes mistakes, so you can win, than I would say they have a problem.
I think the point about psychological effects was not that they should be relied on, but that math-hammer does not equal a win.
He was saying that there are always other factors to consider besides how the math hammer looks. Use every tool available, if you can intimidate your opponent verbally at the table and force him to make stupid decisions, go for it. And while I'm convincing my opponent to attack my distraction unit, try to calculate that tactic in to math-hammer. you cant.
I agree there are other factors. But they can't be factored in a head of time like mathhammer. The terrain is as likely to favor your opponent and it does you. There's no way to know. Sure, if there's stuff to hide behind, I'll use it, but counting on that being there is foolish.
Relying on forcing your opponent into mistakes is a bad plan as well, I think. Eldar lists that can table me via firepower in four turns don't need me to make mistakes. They just force me to pick my models up regardless of my decisions.
I'll give that list a shot in the upcoming days and see how it works, maybe my failures were just the heavy dependence on death company. They hit like a truck when they get into 
A, but we were still stuck with expensive marines.
than we are currently.