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.

 Gunzhard wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Definitely. But there's nothing wrong IMO with a Blood Angels list that's heavy on fliers. They just won't be making best use of what is IMO the best assets of a Blood Angels list. But at that point, we've gone from calling people WAAC in to complaining people aren't WAAC enough, the idea of which made me start laughing so hard people actually came to my desk and checked to make sure I was okay.

More trying to make the "best builds" for each army lore friendly. Which is a forelorn hope, but 8th has done a bit to turn back the clock truth be told.

True - the thing is, GW has said, many times, that the concept of 8th edition is built around rewarding "lore friendly" lists/armies for the first time really.

I mean.... that's gotta be the stuff in the codices we haven't seen, because it just isn't present in the indexes really. I am going to be unpopular and say the Decurion/formation system did a far better job encouraging that then 8th currently has.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I've played 40k for entirely too long, and I can tell you that if the cherry-picking bothers you, Tournaments are not for you. Tournies are all about picking the beast and most streamlined armies you can think of with the sole purpose of winning.
I quit playing tournies a long time ago for that very reason in a lot of mini games, they made them no fun for me anymore.

The current rules allow a ton of flexibility for people looking to build a cool list with a lot of themes and still do well against the majority of the field. Your allowed to play for fun if the min/maxing bothers you that much.

Of course - but this edition was supposed to be different. The super-friends monstrosities and the Flesh Tearer's Taxi service were mistakes that they have admitted to, and promised to fix. Frankly I could care less what some tournament hero jams together for a win... the only thing that I really didn't like was that he called it a "Blood Angels" list.

So, I understand not liking the spammy nature of the flyers list, but I think that it's more of a matter to do with issues of unbalanced unit design combined with how detachments work vs. the old ForceOrg chart. If anything I feel like it'd be more fluffy to not even need the squad and leader on the ground and have only flyers to actually represent an air force (without any other arms present) doing some sorties. But, while it's perfectly fluffy to have a bunch of aircraft pound the hell out of an enemy force, that's sort of problematic from the perspective of 40k as a game, what with all the unbalanced matches.

Also, I don't see why this can't be a spammy and fluffy BA list--granted, I think it was intended to game the system without a thought given to the fluff, but intention should have no bearing on whether or not it 'fits' the (almost meaninglessly subjective) definition of 'fluffy.' So many Space Marines have Close Combat / Jumpers as a specialty that it doesn't really set the Blood Angels apart from other chapters in a special way--Space Wolves, Black Templars, Raven Guard, those Shark guys, and (traditionally) the CSM as a general whole are all power-armoured supermen associated with in-your-face punchy aggression. Blood Angels field forces which have a greater emphasis on hand-to-hand and might have unique units to facilitate this sort of fighting, but that shouldn't mean that every fluffy Blood Angels army ought to contain Jumpers, Death Company, and/or Furiosos.

I think what I associate most with the Blood Angels is more their history as a Chapter rather than any particular unit type or army composition. The second biggest thing I associate with them? Their air force. They always struck me as the chapter which likes to fly the most.



TL;DR: I think it'd be a lot better if the rules/game balance encouraged less-spammy lists, but I think a 'bomb them back to the stone age' airforce is 100% fluffy for the Blood Angels--even though it could potentially hint at something not working quite right with the current game rules (though it's far too early to see).

And who knows, he could have actually been playing Blood Angels since the past few editions (even if he may or may not be a fluff BA player). I've bought stuff for my Space Wolves and Death Watch which they can't actually get access to, but which I wanted to have in my colours. Maybe he's painted his interceptors in Blood Angel colours--maybe he's had them like that in his collection for awhile. I just don't think we really know enough to pass judgment on it.

--As a thing I just realised: His army needs a warlord to be legal, right? I'm not 100% sure on the fine details of organisation rules yet, but since the patrol of 1 leader and the Blood Angel tactical marines was where he got his warlord from, would that make that patrol group his 'primary' detachment or something? Is there anything to how things are classified in the rules which would mean that putting a Heavy Flamer on that tactical squad might've made it so that (for entirely bureaucratic reasons) he /had/ to call the entire army a 'Blood Angels' army, since his warlord was in that detachment?

 Arandmoor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Hoenstly - limititng armies to 1 detachment at 2000 points might actually produce a competitive game - it makes you have to make choices. Battalion for balanced approach - vanguard or spearhead if you want to dominate with the big guns.

1 Detachment at 2k points means that you might as well say "we're not using detachments. Go back to the org chart from previous editions".

Except - you are choosing your force order chart...you can literally take exactly the units you want - except - you will get less command points for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 andysonic1 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Hoenstly - limititng armies to 1 detachment at 2000 points might actually produce a competitive game - it makes you have to make choices. Battalion for balanced approach - vanguard or spearhead if you want to dominate with the big guns.

This is the new knee jerk reaction I'm seeing this week on Dakka Dakka. Meanwhile FLG is saying spam lists will settle down as players realize they aren't going to win against TAC lists who rely on tactics over brainlessly spamming the flavor of the month. Plus, if that aggressive codex schedule is correct, we'll be seeing a ton more rules per army every month. There is currently no reason to restrict detachments beyond the 3 per 2K at this time. Any local house ruling like this will kiss their local meta goodbye.

8th is apparently like Dark Souls. It seems incredibly difficult and challenging but once you "get it" the game becomes a cakewalk.

1 detachment isn't restrictive in the least - but it does reduce spam. 80% of the armies I make are a single battalion at 2k - could easly make 3k batallions.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Hoenstly - limititng armies to 1 detachment at 2000 points might actually produce a competitive game - it makes you have to make choices. Battalion for balanced approach - vanguard or spearhead if you want to dominate with the big guns.

1 Detachment at 2k points means that you might as well say "we're not using detachments. Go back to the org chart from previous editions".

Except - you are choosing your force order chart...you can literally take exactly the units you want - except - you will get less command points for it.

To be fair, some armies really don't need that many CP. If you're running mostly "big models", you don't care as much about battleshock. If you're relying on weight of fire dakka, you don't care as much about rerolls, and if you're mostly airborne, you don't care about interrupting the opponent's attack sequence in melee.

"I have more CP" is like saying "I have less KP" in 5th, an artificial gamey mechanic that gives the illusion of an advantage but ironically sets you up for losing.

 Likan Wolfsheim wrote:
So, I understand not liking the spammy nature of the flyers list, but I think that it's more of a matter to do with issues of unbalanced unit design combined with how detachments work vs. the old ForceOrg chart. If anything I feel like it'd be more fluffy to not even need the squad and leader on the ground and have only flyers to actually represent an air force (without any other arms present) doing some sorties. But, while it's perfectly fluffy to have a bunch of aircraft pound the hell out of an enemy force, that's sort of problematic from the perspective of 40k as a game, what with all the unbalanced matches.

Also, I don't see why this can't be a spammy and fluffy BA list--granted, I think it was intended to game the system without a thought given to the fluff, but intention should have no bearing on whether or not it 'fits' the (almost meaninglessly subjective) definition of 'fluffy.' So many Space Marines have Close Combat / Jumpers as a specialty that it doesn't really set the Blood Angels apart from other chapters in a special way--Space Wolves, Black Templars, Raven Guard, those Shark guys, and (traditionally) the CSM as a general whole are all power-armoured supermen associated with in-your-face punchy aggression. Blood Angels field forces which have a greater emphasis on hand-to-hand and might have unique units to facilitate this sort of fighting, but that shouldn't mean that every fluffy Blood Angels army ought to contain Jumpers, Death Company, and/or Furiosos.

I think what I associate most with the Blood Angels is more their history as a Chapter rather than any particular unit type or army composition. The second biggest thing I associate with them? Their air force. They always struck me as the chapter which likes to fly the most.



TL;DR: I think it'd be a lot better if the rules/game balance encouraged less-spammy lists, but I think a 'bomb them back to the stone age' airforce is 100% fluffy for the Blood Angels--even though it could potentially hint at something not working quite right with the current game rules (though it's far too early to see).

And who knows, he could have actually been playing Blood Angels since the past few editions (even if he may or may not be a fluff BA player). I've bought stuff for my Space Wolves and Death Watch which they can't actually get access to, but which I wanted to have in my colours. Maybe he's painted his interceptors in Blood Angel colours--maybe he's had them like that in his collection for awhile. I just don't think we really know enough to pass judgment on it.

--As a thing I just realised: His army needs a warlord to be legal, right? I'm not 100% sure on the fine details of organisation rules yet, but since the patrol of 1 leader and the Blood Angel tactical marines was where he got his warlord from, would that make that patrol group his 'primary' detachment or something? Is there anything to how things are classified in the rules which would mean that putting a Heavy Flamer on that tactical squad might've made it so that (for entirely bureaucratic reasons) he /had/ to call the entire army a 'Blood Angels' army, since his warlord was in that detachment?

PFFF no - it's totally about the spam. GW made it so you have to start with half your units deployed. Know why they did it? So armies can't just atuomatically alpha strike you everytime with no risk. That is what this flyer list does - it starts in the corner (you can't do reasonable damage to it - then it flys in and destroys your 3 best units) It's not tactics or strategy - it's an unfair advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Arandmoor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Hoenstly - limititng armies to 1 detachment at 2000 points might actually produce a competitive game - it makes you have to make choices. Battalion for balanced approach - vanguard or spearhead if you want to dominate with the big guns.

1 Detachment at 2k points means that you might as well say "we're not using detachments. Go back to the org chart from previous editions".

Except - you are choosing your force order chart...you can literally take exactly the units you want - except - you will get less command points for it.

To be fair, some armies really don't need that many CP. If you're running mostly "big models", you don't care as much about battleshock. If you're relying on weight of fire dakka, you don't care as much about rerolls, and if you're mostly airborne, you don't care about interrupting the opponent's attack sequence in melee.

"I have more CP" is like saying "I have less KP" in 5th, an artificial gamey mechanic that gives the illusion of an advantage but ironically sets you up for losing.

I agree - the command points aren't an issue for an army of storm-ravens. However - if you were limited to 1 detachment - you really couldn't have an army of stormravens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I've played 40k for entirely too long, and I can tell you that if the cherry-picking bothers you, Tournaments are not for you. Tournies are all about picking the beast and most streamlined armies you can think of with the sole purpose of winning.
I quit playing tournies a long time ago for that very reason in a lot of mini games, they made them no fun for me anymore.

The current rules allow a ton of flexibility for people looking to build a cool list with a lot of themes and still do well against the majority of the field. Your allowed to play for fun if the min/maxing bothers you that much.

Of course - but this edition was supposed to be different. The super-friends monstrosities and the Flesh Tearer's Taxi service were mistakes that they have admitted to, and promised to fix. Frankly I could care less what some tournament hero jams together for a win... the only thing that I really didn't like was that he called it a "Blood Angels" list.

You are caring about the wrong things. Abuse of death-stars is equal to abuse of flyers in this edition. Who cares what he calls his flyer list? We don't even have chapter tactics yet!

Who knows if we'll ever get 'chapter tactics' really... it wasn't always a part of the SM codex; they seem to be looking back at the old 'character buff' chapter definition style, which I wouldn't mind if doesn't mean we see 50 Vulkans and 40 Calgars at one event etc...

It's also way too early to say the 'abuse of flyers in this edition' is equal to anything from 7th let alone death-star spam. He was absolutely taking advantage of a gimmick because it would (and did) work at that event but I'd say it's not likely to continue being totally dominant.

But seriously I don't care about that... the rules change, gimmicks and net-lists / WAAC-lists come and go and the tiers change from release to release - the Lore doesn't change much though and the narrative background behind a certain army that keeps people playing the same faction for 20 sometimes 30 years doesn't change much... that's what I care about mostly.

I feel the wider a banhammer, the more the core system needs rebalancing. That and indiscriminate nerfs ultimately lead to the whole exercise being pointless. I remember awhile ago, reading about a wargame exercise the US Navy condicted called the MC02.

Team Blue had a carrier task force, and Team Red was "an undisclosed Middle Eastern Nation." The Red Team player (Admiral Paul van Riper) spammed torpedo boats, suicide ships and cruise missiles and used motorcycles to relay orders rather than radio or conventional communications, and the result was half the US force was sunk. So, do the TOs decide to go back, contemplate drawbacks to such a system (preliminary airstrikes/bombardments to damage roads, etc)? No. The Blue player complained that the exercise would be pointless if he didn't get his ships back, so the TOs declared that the US Carriers were "re-floated", then gave the Red Team a script that he had to follow. (Imagine winning with Tau, then being told you weren't allowed to shoot for the first 2 turns or so). Naturally the red player ragequit.

American tax dollars at work: Players whining about OP spam and nerfhammer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Well, if its entire strategy is clustering in a corner to get a quasi null-deploy, I can think of a few counters.

1: Bring some 48" weapons and deploy them across from the corner he's clustering in, but leaning toward the center so he has to go further to get out of their range. Make sure they're the last thing you put on the table, so by the time you drop them he's already committed.

2: Bring some 72" or greater weapons, deploy them near the center of the table and laugh with your 100% table coverage. Especially if you brought units that ignore LoS, or the only LoS blockers are too short to hide aircraft.

3: Bring some deep-strikers so that wherever he is, there you are.

It's not a 100% solution of course. Flyer spam does basically auto-win against an assault list, because outside of jetpack units, you can't assault flyers. Of course, I'm of the opinion that hitting your opponent with sticks in the 41st millennium is a silly idea anyway, but GW allegedly wants it to be a valid playstyle so I suppose they should take some steps to accommodate it.

 ross-128 wrote:
Well, if its entire strategy is clustering in a corner to get a quasi null-deploy, I can think of a few counters.

1: Bring some 48" weapons and deploy them across from the corner he's clustering in, but leaning toward the center so he has to go further to get out of their range. Make sure they're the last thing you put on the table, so by the time you drop them he's already committed.

2: Bring some 72" or greater weapons, deploy them near the center of the table and laugh with your 100% table coverage. Especially if you brought units that ignore LoS, or the only LoS blockers are too short to hide aircraft.

3: Bring some deep-strikers so that wherever he is, there you are.

It's not a 100% solution of course. Flyer spam does basically auto-win against an assault list, because outside of jetpack units, you can't assault flyers. Of course, I'm of the opinion that hitting your opponent with sticks in the 41st millennium is a silly idea anyway, but GW allegedly wants it to be a valid playstyle so I suppose they should take some steps to accommodate it.

There are definitely counters... though it seems nobody was built to counter flyer-spam at that event and that makes sense really.

Your last point - doesn't anything with FLY have the ability to punch flyers? ...so anyone with a jump pack?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I feel the wider a banhammer, the more the core system needs rebalancing. That and indiscriminate nerfs ultimately lead to the whole exercise being pointless. I remember awhile ago, reading about a wargame exercise the US Navy condicted called the MC02.

Team Blue had a carrier task force, and Team Red was "an undisclosed Middle Eastern Nation." The Red Team player (Admiral Paul van Riper) spammed torpedo boats, suicide ships and cruise missiles and used motorcycles to relay orders rather than radio or conventional communications, and the result was half the US force was sunk. So, do the TOs decide to go back, contemplate drawbacks to such a system (preliminary airstrikes/bombardments to damage roads, etc)? No. The Blue player complained that the exercise would be pointless if he didn't get his ships back, so the TOs declared that the US Carriers were "re-floated", then gave the Red Team a script that he had to follow. (Imagine winning with Tau, then being told you weren't allowed to shoot for the first 2 turns or so). Naturally the red player ragequit.

American tax dollars at work: Players whining about OP spam and nerfhammer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

My point is this - there isn't enough restriction in GW's detachment system. There needs to be more - an army that is completely immune to assault should not be possible in a bound setting.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Well, if its entire strategy is clustering in a corner to get a quasi null-deploy, I can think of a few counters.

1: Bring some 48" weapons and deploy them across from the corner he's clustering in, but leaning toward the center so he has to go further to get out of their range. Make sure they're the last thing you put on the table, so by the time you drop them he's already committed.

2: Bring some 72" or greater weapons, deploy them near the center of the table and laugh with your 100% table coverage. Especially if you brought units that ignore LoS, or the only LoS blockers are too short to hide aircraft.

3: Bring some deep-strikers so that wherever he is, there you are.

It's not a 100% solution of course. Flyer spam does basically auto-win against an assault list, because outside of jetpack units, you can't assault flyers. Of course, I'm of the opinion that hitting your opponent with sticks in the 41st millennium is a silly idea anyway, but GW allegedly wants it to be a valid playstyle so I suppose they should take some steps to accommodate it.

There are definitely counters... though it seems nobody was built to counter flyer-spam at that event and that makes sense really.

Your last point - doesn't anything with FLY have the ability to punch flyers? ...so anyone with a jump pack?

That is why I pointed out jetpack units as an exception, yes.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I feel the wider a banhammer, the more the core system needs rebalancing. That and indiscriminate nerfs ultimately lead to the whole exercise being pointless. I remember awhile ago, reading about a wargame exercise the US Navy condicted called the MC02.

Team Blue had a carrier task force, and Team Red was "an undisclosed Middle Eastern Nation." The Red Team player (Admiral Paul van Riper) spammed torpedo boats, suicide ships and cruise missiles and used motorcycles to relay orders rather than radio or conventional communications, and the result was half the US force was sunk. So, do the TOs decide to go back, contemplate drawbacks to such a system (preliminary airstrikes/bombardments to damage roads, etc)? No. The Blue player complained that the exercise would be pointless if he didn't get his ships back, so the TOs declared that the US Carriers were "re-floated", then gave the Red Team a script that he had to follow. (Imagine winning with Tau, then being told you weren't allowed to shoot for the first 2 turns or so). Naturally the red player ragequit.

American tax dollars at work: Players whining about OP spam and nerfhammer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

My point is this - there isn't enough restriction in GW's detachment system. There needs to be more - an army that is completely immune to assault should not be possible in a bound setting.

Or maybe the system shouldn't let flyers hide in a corner, get the drop on anti-air elements, unload with everything before the defender gets to retaliate, and subsequently be both immune to assault while blocking off the enemy from moving past them? ("Quit mukkin' about with dose Stormbirdies and git to da Objective" "But Boss, dey might try ta squish us!") Or maybe Stormravens shouldn't be able to fire all their weapons from the edge of their wingtip? But sure, let's keep the banhammer going as a bandaid to underlying core rule issues.

I don't know how good/viable it actually is but ...a swarm of Tyranid Gargoyles harassing a StormRaven sounds soo awesome.

 Gunzhard wrote:
I don't know how good/viable it actually is but ...a swarm of Tyranid Gargoyles harassing a StormRaven sounds soo awesome.

As cool as it sounds it's hugely disappointing. They hit on 4s and wound on 6's. So a unit of 30 averages less than a wound to a storm raven. Their fleshbores also average less than a wound to it.

A unit of shreiks might give the raven a problem though. They still wont kill it.

This is the first published 8th Ed tournament results.

Should wait for 5+ major tournaments to post results and see what the top 4 or so lists are.

Is the list bad, certainly not.

Is it the best list ever, undcertain.

A lot goes into making it to the top tables in terms of dice rolls, opponent army etc. In 7th there were one or two major tournaments that saw Orks place first, but you would be hard pressed to find someone say those Ork lists were unbeatae, or the meta.