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.

 Orange Knight wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They're better than Blood Angels as a melee Chapter as they get into melee significantly easier.

This right here is the perfect example of why you shouldn't believe all the things you read online!

It is a rare occasion to discover a statement as wrong as this lol. Oh dear...


Anyways, to answer TC: The Blood Angels are one of the best Astartes chapters, easily. The Black Templars are possibly the least competitive, unfortunately. That isn't to say that you can't make a decent army.

Actually making a charge > +1 to wound. Blood Angels are a one trick pony with Slamguinus even with Psychic Awakening.

Oh dear.

I don't think you even know about all the rules they get? I think you should quit while you're ahead to save face.

 Orange Knight wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They're better than Blood Angels as a melee Chapter as they get into melee significantly easier.

This right here is the perfect example of why you shouldn't believe all the things you read online!

It is a rare occasion to discover a statement as wrong as this lol. Oh dear...


Anyways, to answer TC: The Blood Angels are one of the best Astartes chapters, easily. The Black Templars are possibly the least competitive, unfortunately. That isn't to say that you can't make a decent army.

Only against other astartes.

Not at all. Do you guys follow the competitive scene at all?

Blood Angels are a very powerful faction, one of the strongest chapters. Not much variety of play, perhaps, but effective.

 Orange Knight wrote:
Not at all. Do you guys follow the competitive scene at all?

Blood Angels are a very powerful faction, one of the strongest chapters. Not much variety of play, perhaps, but effective.

Only vs elite castles with no counter charge. They considerably weaker vs large model counts.

They fall apart completely vs SW.

 Orange Knight wrote:
Not at all. Do you guys follow the competitive scene at all?

Blood Angels are a very powerful faction, one of the strongest chapters. Not much variety of play, perhaps, but effective.

LOL no they're not and yes we've been following for a while.

And only in ITC I'd add, too. They suffer in CA2019 pretty badly.

I play my Orange Knights as Blood Angels a lot. I play ITC a lot due to my local scene but I also play the CA missions.

If you are going to claim, rather comically I might add, that the Black Templars are more competitive than the Blood Angels, a sentiment in direct opposition to myself and the vast majority of the competitive community, you'll need to back that up.

Please, show me the evidence for this Black Templar dominance. Educate me. Where is this list making waves?

 Orange Knight wrote:
Oh dear.

I don't think you even know about all the rules they get? I think you should quit while you're ahead to save face.

All the rules have been reviewed. Yes, please tell me all about how hammer of Wrath and the Strat to give Death Company a 5+++ made them so much better LOL. Oh and all the Strats that keep Sanguine Guard still better than other options. Please keep going. Oh and all the Vanilla Strats they got that work better for the Vanilla Chapters that like to be shooting more in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orange Knight wrote:
I play my Orange Knights as Blood Angels a lot. I play ITC a lot due to my local scene but I also play the CA missions.

If you are going to claim, rather comically I might add, that the Black Templars are more competitive than the Blood Angels, a sentiment in direct opposition to myself and the vast majority of the competitive community, you'll need to back that up.

Please, show me the evidence for this Black Templar dominance. Educate me. Where is this list making waves?

Black Templar gets the good vanilla tools. They only lack Librarians. Also the fact you're talking about "dominance" when Blood Angels can't do that by themselves means you're not paying attention either. Also I don't care what you play your Marines as and what you do in your locals.

I don't use Death Company, but I do enjoy my long charging Sanguinary Guard who wound nearly anything on a 2+

Oh, and the fantastic strat and psychic power support. If you're making a case that based on doctrine alone the BT are better then it shows a complete lack of understanding in the game. It's not just core rules or Doctrines, it's also strats, synergies and support elements.

I'm not saying Black Templars are terrible. I'm saying the Blood Angels are far, far better. The sheer number of dice the BA play with. The BT CC output is very limited by comparison.

Yes and their Strats suck. You kinda proved my point. The only thing they got was stuff still putting Sanguine Guard on the top of their units.

Please, go and learn the blood angels. I implore you.

Don't dig anymore. Being stubborn and in denial when wrong is not a virtue.

 Orange Knight wrote:
Please, go and learn the blood angels. I implore you.

Don't dig anymore. Being stubborn and in denial when wrong is not a virtue.

We already have everything. There's nothing MORE to learn. They and Dark Angels ended up with a lot worse than what Grey Knights got for example.

You are the only person on the Internet arguing that Black Templars are more competitive than Blood Angels.

Do you believe that you are correct and the rest of the world is wrong?

Show me 4 mono Black Templar lists that finished top 4 at large events. BA were doing that regularly prior to the lockdown.

 Orange Knight wrote:
You are the only person on the Internet arguing that Black Templars are more competitive than Blood Angels.

Do you believe that you are correct and the rest of the world is wrong?

Show me 4 mono Black Templar lists that finished top 4 at large events. BA were doing that regularly prior to the lockdown.

You're also arguing in another thread 60 Chaos Marines is durable and needs a lot of firepower to remove.

It would take 2000+ points of Primaris Intercessors to remove 700 points of CSM if every model could shoot?

Doesn't seem too delicate to me. Have you done the math?

Anything in number can become effective. It's about finding the sweet spot. Few try to experiment.

10 Guardsmen is nothing. 100 is an issue.

Slayer, do the maths. +1 to charge is in many cases better than rerolling one or two of the dice specially if you have reroll charges, the CP reroll, or all the stratagems Blood Angels have to get into combat.

Black Templars lack the units to make reaching combat effective and unlike White Scars with assault centuriones or basic intercessors putting out -1ap 2 damage attacks , they get the short end of the stick of the loyalists chapters.

BA are better than BT right now. But BT can engage more kinds of lists than BA I assure you. I've been using Box's list on the simulator and it's very strong vs marines with no counter charge. Guess what the meta was before lockdown? BA also fall apart completely vs raven guard and SW. BT don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orange Knight wrote:
It would take 2000+ points of Primaris Intercessors to remove 700 points of CSM if every model could shoot?

Doesn't seem too delicate to me. Have you done the math?

Anything in number can become effective. It's about finding the sweet spot. Few try to experiment.

10 Guardsmen is nothing. 100 is an issue.

Try 180.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orange Knight wrote:
It would take 2000+ points of Primaris Intercessors to remove 700 points of CSM if every model could shoot?

Doesn't seem too delicate to me. Have you done the math?

Anything in number can become effective. It's about finding the sweet spot. Few try to experiment.

10 Guardsmen is nothing. 100 is an issue.

All one wound marines are fragile. That's the exact problem with the DC for example.

 Galas wrote:
Slayer, do the maths. +1 to charge is in many cases better than rerolling one or two of the dice specially if you have reroll charges, the CP reroll, or all the stratagems Blood Angels have to get into combat.

Black Templars lack the units to make reaching combat effective and unlike White Scars with assault centuriones or basic intercessors putting out -1ap 2 damage attacks , they get the short end of the stick of the loyalists chapters.

Except you don't need the reroll with Black Templars that you're applying to Blood Angels. You just proved that Black Templars are more reliable, so thanks for that.

Honestly one of the biggest things hurting the Templars id their lack of psychic support. Without the wide range of buffs and protection a Psyker can bring in the current meta Templars are likely to watch important characters evaporate on a regular basis.

Plus they lose out on one of the most important powers in 8th: Null Zone.

They have a decent well balanced ruleset aside from that, but in an edition that doesn't favor melee they need to be broken at melee merely to be "good".

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly one of the biggest things hurting the Templars id their lack of psychic support. Without the wide range of buffs and protection a Psyker can bring in the current meta Templars are likely to watch important characters evaporate on a regular basis.

Plus they lose out on one of the most important powers in 8th: Null Zone.

They have a decent well balanced ruleset aside from that, but in an edition that doesn't favor melee they need to be broken at melee merely to be "good".

Just bring an Inquistor. They won't break your Doctrine bonus and have a decent selection overall.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Slayer, do the maths. +1 to charge is in many cases better than rerolling one or two of the dice specially if you have reroll charges, the CP reroll, or all the stratagems Blood Angels have to get into combat.

Black Templars lack the units to make reaching combat effective and unlike White Scars with assault centuriones or basic intercessors putting out -1ap 2 damage attacks , they get the short end of the stick of the loyalists chapters.

Except you don't need the reroll with Black Templars that you're applying to Blood Angels. You just proved that Black Templars are more reliable, so thanks for that.

Slayer, you should stop following the internet competitive "wisdom" as some kind of biblical mandate when you only need to watch the actual pros of this game , and read them talking about all of the nuance the game has. Theres not many black and whites, specially outside ITC.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly one of the biggest things hurting the Templars id their lack of psychic support. Without the wide range of buffs and protection a Psyker can bring in the current meta Templars are likely to watch important characters evaporate on a regular basis.

Plus they lose out on one of the most important powers in 8th: Null Zone.

They have a decent well balanced ruleset aside from that, but in an edition that doesn't favor melee they need to be broken at melee merely to be "good".

Just bring an Inquistor. They won't break your Doctrine bonus and have a decent selection overall.

True. But it doesn't fix Templars as a chapter, nor does it help anyone who is trying to monocodex or doesn't have the White Dwarf with Inquisition rules.

 Orange Knight wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They're better than Blood Angels as a melee Chapter as they get into melee significantly easier.

This right here is the perfect example of why you shouldn't believe all the things you read online!

It is a rare occasion to discover a statement as wrong as this lol. Oh dear...


Anyways, to answer TC: The Blood Angels are one of the best Astartes chapters, easily. The Black Templars are possibly the least competitive, unfortunately. That isn't to say that you can't make a decent army.

In fairness i'm not after a super competitive army, as i'd mostly be playing for fun at the end of the day,

Though i did have another thought of taking a few sisters of silence and maybe a vindicare in the army to deal with high power psyker units aswell, to be even more anti-psy

 Orange Knight wrote:
It would take 2000+ points of Primaris Intercessors to remove 700 points of CSM if every model could shoot?

Doesn't seem too delicate to me. Have you done the math?

Anything in number can become effective. It's about finding the sweet spot. Few try to experiment.

10 Guardsmen is nothing. 100 is an issue.

I said it in the other thread but my list's HQ block - 3 Talonmasters and Sammael in Sableclaw - can destroy roughly 26 CSM models per turn and can split fire in such a way that they aren't wasting anything against MSU spam. That's 764 points removing ~300 points per turn for a very respectable 39.3% efficiency. That rises by a significant amount if they get to fire turn 1 while devastator doctrine is up.

That's enough to clear objectives, and I can use my scouts, black knights, etc. to prevent you from firing back at my HQ while leaving the rest of my list to clear your actual threats. Or I can ignore 700 points that can't shoot at ~40% efficiency and win because you have a vast amount of easily removed dead weight in your list.

Do people make a distinction between the current Meta lists and "hobby level" lists?

I've never been a power gamer or a WAAC player or whatever people call them these days, always preferring a more fluff based approach to my army lists. But then I've never played in a tournament. To people treat FLGS games as tournaments?

I can see the point in taking the "best" army but i can alao see the point in taking the "it's also pretty damn good and has some excellent attributes but isnt quite so handy in other areas" lists.

It's kind of self-explanatory, because the truth of the matter is that there's no point in a question like "is X good, is Y worth taking" when the context is beerhammer/hobbyist type games. The answer is always "if you like the models/units then yes". Judgement calls about the value of units only make sense in a competitive context.

Kayback wrote:
Do people make a distinction between the current Meta lists and "hobby level" lists?

I've never been a power gamer or a WAAC player or whatever people call them these days, always preferring a more fluff based approach to my army lists. But then I've never played in a tournament. To people treat FLGS games as tournaments?

I can see the point in taking the "best" army but i can alao see the point in taking the "it's also pretty damn good and has some excellent attributes but isnt quite so handy in other areas" lists.

BlaxicanX touched on it but there's also the fact that if you don't know somewhat objectively how units relate to one another in terms of power it will be hard for players looking for an even yet fluffy game to bring matched lists to battle with.

No ture, I worded my query badly. I was more trying to ask if the two main contributors are on the same page, they are both talking about competition lists and not one WAAC and the other Effective yet fun. (Not to say winning tournaments isn't fun).