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.

I'm coming up against a friend's IG army in the next week, and currently building my list, now, I like to use devastator Squads, so they'll come in handy for tank hunting.

But moving onto my tactical squads, I'm contemplating keeping half of my tactical squads back, in cover or holding objectives, the other half, will be walking forwards to charge into assault, in rhino's to assault or in some other way, moving to confront the infantry.

For the troops "at the back", I'll more than likely take plasma cannons or lascannons and plasma guns/flamers, but the troops on the charge are my problem.

i'm not sure what options would be best, what do you guys recommend?

I'd say rush his deployment with everyone/everything. You can't shoot it out with the IG. They have more plasma than you.

Why are you taking tactical squads with blood angels? Why are you taking them against guard?

You only win objective games by having more than your opponent, not by holding the most in your own deployment zone. If you take all of your opponent's objectives with a DoA strike (or whatever), then you still win the game, and a lot more securely than if you're wasting points on backfield objective holders.

If you really, really must, then just take a small unit of camo-cloak scouts with a missile launcher.

"Why are you taking tactical squads with blood angels?"

The legitimate answer to this is that the BA ASMs can't win enough HTH combats anymore. I don't tailor lists, and I can say that I use tactical squads way more in 6th than in 5th. I'd say 80% of victories were won in the shooting phase, not the assault phase with the BA. Depressing, but true.

I had the same with my BA, Assault just didn't cut it, so i would shoot with my tacs then leapfrog them with my assault, but i never faced guard, 3 fast vindis can't be bad though, and sanguinary priests are your freinds

If it's mech Guard, or aircav Guard, your vindicators will look absolutely silly.

Use Death Company in a Drop Pod with Lemartes. This has scared me quite a lot in the past when 10 power weapons jump out of a drop pod right in front of my Infantry Platoon.

Take it from someone with over 6k of BA and 3k of IG; you have an uphil battle to beat IG with BA. If you don't go first forget it. Unless the opposing commander is incompetent or rolls all 1's and 2's. BA are over costed and underwhelming and guard are bargain basement priced with over kill weaponry.

Overcosted is the cardinal sin of 40K. None of the top tier lists have this problem. Look at the bottom tier, and you'll find it all over the place.

I'm tired of the average commentator listing the BA as a"middle tier" list without looking at how inefficient the list really is. I think people just get assaulted once by DC or something and lump the BA into "middle tier".

The BA are bad. I wish they weren't, but they are indeed bad. Maybe even very bad. And I can assure you they're going down another rung after the Elder codex drops.

If the IG player really knows what he is doing, your chance of victory is probably on the order of 10%. Most of my victories have come against the non-top tier lists.

At this point what codex is worse than BA?

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
At this point what codex is worse than BA?

Black Templar (Martel would argue against that, but they really are), current Eldar probably, and possibly Orks or Sisters.

No, I've always ranked BT in a dead heat with BA. Very similar problems. I like BT characters better and they both get the Stormraven. BA have libbies, though, which does help. Take your pick there.

Orks are better than BA. The Ork boy is a much better troop than anything the BA have access to at this point. Orks have numerous other cheap, effective units.

The Eldar are about to be much better I assure you.

Sisters have a WD codex so I should exempt them I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I try to be even-handed in my assessment. I'll be the first in line to say how nasty the BA are if they get a shiny new codex. The BA were hot in 5th for a while, until the late entries in 5th kinda stomped on them.

How is it Matt Ward wrote our codex and it sucks so bad, so soon. On the other hand if GW really cared they would faq the codex to fix the issues, but they won't because they just want you to buy another army. Same tactic worked on me in 4th Ed, I started a Guard army.

I'm wondering if GW even realizes they nerfed the BA badly with the core rulebook changes.

Matt Ward's just a guy. I don't hate him or love him. Ultimately, someone above him okayed his books anyway.

I don't hate of love ward either, but all the flakk he gets for writting overpowered codicies just seem out of place when you have a BA codex in hand.

It is possible that GW doest know how bad they nerfed our codex . Maybe they could hire some people to do continual play testing. Oh wait that doesn't bring in any direct profit.

The total nerfing is a sum of a dozen little nerfs, so it is very possible that they have no clue. I've met lots of people who insist there are no issues with the BA. Conveniently, of course, many of these players are Necrons, IG, or GKs.

Martel732 wrote:
The total nerfing is a sum of a dozen little nerfs, so it is very possible that they have no clue. I've met lots of people who insist there are no issues with the BA. Conveniently, of course, many of these players are Necrons, IG, or GKs.

I have to agree, I feel bad for my buddies that are still clinging onto the BA book. I guess I'll just have to keep killing their assault marines at I6 and say "Sorry, bro."

Would taking unwieldy away from all the ICs axes be a nice FAQ change to hold you guys over until your new book comes down the line.

This is why I'm using shooty BA a lot, which means I might as well be Tau, lol.

Martel732 wrote:
This is why I'm using shooty BA a lot, which means I might as well be Tau, lol.

Or guard

I don't see how they can fix the BA codex without a major overhaul or changes in points costs. FAQs generally don't change unit price costs without it being part of the errata. I think the new SM codex will help buff BA players for the time being. And as Martel said, once their new codex makes its way onto the shelves I'm sure they'll be top notch again.

As I have pointed how many BA players plan lists forgetting that their opponent is not an eggplant waiting to be assaulted, perhaps GW forgot that as well. It's still more likely that the BA problems are a comedy of accidents in the 6th CRB. Let's face it, the BA were aging badly by the end of 5th anyway. Stack on some nerfs, and BAMO. Bad list.

All these BA threads are making me depressed. I wonder how many of us are going to use the Space Marine codex once it comes out just so our red guys can ge some table time? For an army with such awesome back story, a primarch that died fighting horus, I would love to see an over powered codex for the BA next time around. When was the last time the BA were top notch ? Maybe 2nd Ed?

I would like to see our guys get a standard boost to initiative across the board. And Dante needs a redeeming statline/gear.

I like the DA codex, it was needed for their sad state that hey endured for years. I would not be happy wih something so simple for BA, they need flavorful units, without being over priced.

3rd edition. In 2nd edition, all Astartes marines were unplayable.

I don't mind a middle of the pack codex at all, as long as the BA can execute the fluff in a reasonable manner. Currently, they can't.

Wow. That's some negativity.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
Wow. That's some negativity.

Says a GK and Necrons player...

Come play the BA and get back to me, chief.