Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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).

DarthDiggler wrote:

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.