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 love my BA, but sadly, lemmy really isnt all that great.
Its sad to say too since the model is one of the best BA models (IMO)

Yes, he can hurt stuff when hes half dead, but then it only takes someone to cause him 1 wound (or 3 that dont ignore PA) and its all over for him.
If he dropped points a bit then maybe.

The biggest drawback however if the DC you take him with.
Nice unit, but to keep up with him you need to double the cost for jump packs (WTF!?)
Dumbest part of the book.
They need a severe price drop to be worth taking though.

Still a nice unit that kills stuff, but so is anything you sink that sort of points into.
If you want a hard hitting character with a good unit for those points, take dante with a unit of sang guard that are tooled up.
Much better job of things.

Yes, BA razor spam was a thing. And it was good. But it was 100% gimmick on the durability of AV 11 in 5th. BA on foot got shot to death just like they do in 6th. 5th was the beginning of 6th, but no one knew it at the time.

Also: GK had answers to BA flank attacks. The GK got so much more value than BA out of each model that equally skilled generals really gave the GK a big advantage.

If you knew players that could only win with BA, all I can say is WOW, because once other players understood the BA, they were hard to win with.

champagne_socialist wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Can you use corbulos reroll to reroll either the scatter die or the d6 roll or does it count as rolling 2d6 so not allowing it? If you can it could make a vet unit incredibly accurate for the charge...

corbulo lets you have a single re-roll so yes you could reroll the scatter.

to make it more accurate you just need an inquisitor with 3 servo skulles (under 30 points total) so any vanguard deep striking within 12 inches of a servo skull will not scatter at all.

Servo Skulls are 3 points each not 3 points for 3.

BA aren't the best, and they are definitely bottom tier right now but they are FAR from unplayable. Thing with them is tactics. A good general can still run them effectively. The fact that you can't just automatic transmission them turns a lot of players off I think. DC is not garbage time imo...they just require finesse to use. I wreck face with them. Martel732 evidently doesn't. But I can see where inflated pricing and a shooter heavy meta hurts them. But not everyone plays WAAC tourney lists also so saying in a broad statement that they just plain suck is unfair and honestly owes a dollar to the dueschbag jar.

The old "tactics" argument. But a good general with Eldar will beat your good general with BA 95 out of 100 times or so. There is no "tactics" that can make up for the mathematical hole the BA are in. I also detect some "if other players just don't use good lists, then BA fine" vibe. Against good lists, both BA and DC are miserable.

Maybe there's some games where DC would be good, but over many, many games they are a liability. This makes them crap, regardless of your anecdotal experiences aside. I don't fear your DC in the least and that's with BA. Given that all other lists are better than BA atm, they shouldn't fear them either. You can thank 6th ed, not that DC were any good in 5th though.

"but they are FAR from unplayable"

Actually, with the release of IK, they are as pretty close to unplayable as I have seen them since 2nd.

" so saying in a broad statement that they just plain suck is unfair and honestly owes a dollar to the dueschbag jar."

And what is giving people a false representation of the true value of DC might I ask?

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, BA razor spam was a thing. And it was good. But it was 100% gimmick on the durability of AV 11 in 5th. BA on foot got shot to death just like they do in 6th. 5th was the beginning of 6th, but no one knew it at the time.

Also: GK had answers to BA flank attacks. The GK got so much more value than BA out of each model that equally skilled generals really gave the GK a big advantage.

If you knew players that could only win with BA, all I can say is WOW, because once other players understood the BA, they were hard to win with.

Some did, yes. And i dont disagree that it was sad. But when a bottom feeder gets to glimpse the light and then has it torn from him...kinda traumatic. The Good generals stayed and adapted.
And none of the good Generals ever fielded Lemartes.

Martel732 wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree about DC. They are a garbage time unit and end up hurting your list. They are overpriced assault in an edition where underpriced assault units are having a lot of trouble..

My opponents do not have enough shooting to kill 30 Death Company that drop pod in next to their scoring units., turn 2 all their scoring units are dead.

"the trick is to get the drop pod blocking line of sight to most of the opponents shooting."

You know, your opponent gets a movement phase as well. And counting on a drop to land precisely is not exactly a great plan in my experience. Often, using the pod as cover will put your foot sloggers two turns out of charge range. That's a turn 3 assault. Too late.

That's why you use more than one DC unit in pods.

Against good gun lines, you'll run out of bodies far before they will. You're making assumptions about terrain and assumptions about deep strike. Most good gun lines have WAY MORE than 3 shooting squads. Your DC will still die. Also, if this is your list and you draw Space Wolves, you just lost the game right then and there. This is not recommended at all. Vanguards are a dumpster fire because of their cost. No amount of scheming will change this. There's also the issue of bubble wrapping and interceptor ion accelerators.

Again, 30 marines in drop pods land turn one. I have not yet faced an army that can kill all of them on their turn of shooting.

Then, even if 2 or 3 marines survive from each unit (But there are usually 5-7 that survive from each unit in my experience), the DC win the ensuing CC and there goes all the scoring units.

You may disagree with me, but your claims are unfounded.

BA assault marines are 2 points cheaper than DC and the Assault marines only do 1/2 the job of the DC marines.

 DeathReaper wrote:

BA assault marines are 2 points cheaper than DC and the Assault marines only do 1/2 the job of the DC marines.

Well yes, if we ignore the fact that ASM score.
Objectives win at least four games out of five.

I used to be a defender of DC, but the truth is that most shooty armies cripple them.
One unit of Dire Avengers or Guardians will wipe most of them with Guide/Presience (even more if they have Doom).
A singe Fire Prism will also wipe the floor with them.
If you get to charge Tau their Overwatch will wipe out pretty much everyone left from their previous shooting phase.
Another problem is that the DC can also be charged. They lose a lot of their effectiveness.
The true punchline is that the enemy can send anything against them and if he has any idea of the game he will use one of their great traits (called Fearless) and tie them up with something they can't deal with.

They have their time and place, but don't stick 30 of them against the enemy and expect that they'll win you the game.

I love the "if they get charged they die" argument because it has no basis. They are still Space Marines with WS5 and possibly power weapons. Still good. I don't know to many people who see DC and go "Huzzah! Auto win!" And then blindly charge with no thought. That's poor play. They are a tough unit to tarpit and honestly if you point your big bad beater (of which there are a few, but stressing the word few) then it still can work to the advantage of the DC player because that is at least two turns of CC that unit is tied up freeing up more time to get your other units in position.

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
I love the "if they get charged they die" argument because it has no basis. They are still Space Marines with WS5 and possibly power weapons. Still good. I don't know to many people who see DC and go "Huzzah! Auto win!" And then blindly charge with no thought. That's poor play. They are a tough unit to tarpit and honestly if you point your big bad beater (of which there are a few, but stressing the word few) then it still can work to the advantage of the DC player because that is at least two turns of CC that unit is tied up freeing up more time to get your other units in position.

I didn't say that's an auto-win. I never said that they were going to die. But the truth is that they are as good as dead when I send a single Wraithlord at them.
Think about it. Wraithlord. 125 points and considered to be one of the worst options in the codex. Wonder what the best ones will do?
He will slowly kill off all of the remainings of that 200+ point unit.

Oh, my bad... I didn't realise it was the DC who were tying up my unit

Look, all I'm saying is that there are simply too many flaws.

They are with flaw for sure, but you are making blanket statements assuming the other player is dumb enough to just let that happen. I run DC every single game I play and I always wreck with them simply because I am careful with what I point them at.

Also you assume that the player who charges DC will make all of thier rolls while the DC player fails all attacks, saves and FNP rolls. Dice is a factor as well

Good players don't give you the choice of what to point them at.

Assault units get to assault what your opponent wants to allow to be assaulted. Shooting armies get to choose what dies. That's the fundamental flaw with "being careful" or "tactics!" arguments.

Also, you can't get more than one DC unit without Astorath, and then you're just getting silly because he's a terrible HQ.


"You may disagree with me, but your claims are unfounded. "

That's not true, because I've tabled Astorath lists, and have seen one humiliated by GK. I know how to beat them It's not that hard.

"Also you assume that the player who charges DC will make all of thier rolls while the DC player fails all attacks, saves and FNP rolls. Dice is a factor as well"

No one said anything like that. DC are no more duable than a regular BA grunt with a SP babysitter. I don't need fantastic rolls to kill them. Just some sense, because their shooting sucks, and once you drop pod, you are foot slogging.

" I run DC every single game I play and I always wreck with them simply because I am careful with what I point them at. "

I guess your opponents never learn anything. There's not much to say about that.

Or maybe he has things other than Riptides in his meta.

Kharn and my Khorne Chosen always do well in my games. Perhaps because they face a large variety of units instead of only the nobrainers from each codex.

'Good' is relative. If you toss them against the top lists, of course they may seem lackluster. That does not make them bad. They are very decent if you fight the lower 60-70% spectrum, rather than the top.

"'Good' is relative. If you toss them against the top lists, of course they may seem lackluster. That does not make them bad. They are very decent if you fight the lower 60-70% spectrum, rather than the top."

That's skewing your data, however. Lots of units get a lot better if you take away all the good things from other people's codices.

Basically your argument is that if we play a different game, DC are good. Not being able to take on good units on a per point basis is the very definition of bad units. This makes DC bad. You don't get to pretend good units don't exist.

" Perhaps because they face a large variety of units instead of only the nobrainers from each codex. "

Opponents pulling punches does not bolster your argument.

" Perhaps because they face a large variety of units instead of only the nobrainers from each codex. "

"Opponents pulling punches does not bolster your argument."

Stop assuming that every single person who plays 40K is a WAAC player. This is the fundamental flaw in EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT you have made thus far regarding DC.

You knock people saying "tactics," but last I heard you play an army where the only "tactic" you use is stand and shoot (slightly overstated, but at it's base totally true and you know it.)

It seems like you are having different arguments.

Death Company is a bad unit. True, when compared to the average units in this game.

Death Company is a unit that can win. True, but it depends on the opponent's list.

Look, they have their flaws. If you want to play them and have played them successfully, good for you.
Keep on doing that and feel free to use them. But don't claim that they are a good unit.

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
" Perhaps because they face a large variety of units instead of only the nobrainers from each codex. "

"Opponents pulling punches does not bolster your argument."

Stop assuming that every single person who plays 40K is a WAAC player. This is the fundamental flaw in EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT you have made thus far regarding DC.

You knock people saying "tactics," but last I heard you play an army where the only "tactic" you use is stand and shoot (slightly overstated, but at it's base totally true and you know it.)

It's not a flaw. I'm looking at what units you are LIKELY to see from an opponent. Your local meta literally has no bearing on whether a unit is good or not in a general sense. I'm happy that they work in your meta. At least someone gets to use them. But in the overall game, they are garbage. This is very hard to deny or reasonably argue against.

As for tactics in 40K, there are only three phases on each player turn. Assault, shooting, movement. Currently, the game favors movement and shooting as the phases where the game is won. So to say that shooty lists "stand and shoot" is likely not accurate. More likely, they move and shoot. In fact, it's the mobility of BA that makes it easy for them to neuter other BA's DC units. Mobility matters against assault units. It doesn't do a thing against 36" scatter lasers except let you choose your graveyard.

I knock tactics because there are no tactics BA can employ to survive Eldar firepower except the "set the board up exactly how I want" tactic. There is too much mathematical disparity for tactics to be a dominant factor.

Fair enough but stop using WAAC mentality to say that they are bad. They aren't the best out there of course-they still use 5th edition pricing per unit. And of course they straight up fail against WAAC lists.

They are a good unit for what they do. The only argument posed is that they are so rofl overpriced. Really? So because they cost a lot they suddenly suck as models? In tournament play this is absolutely true, will concede that argument. They don't score-again conceded- but they can contest and frankly they never make up the core of an army anyways (unless it is a fluffy army.) They aren't there to score in the first place.

WAAC mentality is one of the things I feel ruin these discussions because it seems like so many tournament players blindly disregard anything someone says is good because "oh it gets stomped in Tourney Play."

Martel is trolling every single BA thread that comes out talking about how bad they are and what they can't do. Yet he bases every single argument he makes off of WAAC principles. His arguments rarely state anything other than points cost or "Tau/Eldar" would wipe them out. Or at least from what I have seen. I am sure he is a fine player, and pretty sure he's a good guy, but he has the debating skills of a broken record. If he is some "former BA lord" don't you think he should be offering advice on those who play them instead of saying what garbage they are? I know how "bad" they are and I still love them. Yet every time I highlight a unit there he is saying "that unit is garbage," or "that unit is a terrible choice," and frankly it sounds more like he is trolling.

Taken as they are, DC is a good unit assuming you can get past the narrow minded "they cost too much" stance. Seeing as how everybody says "oh those points are better used elsewhere" but then proceed to talk trash about the other troop choices, what do you say to that?

I say the BA codex is filled with horrible units for 6th edition. There is precious little advice to give with the codex as it is currently written. IK just made it worse.

To me, there is a big difference between WAAC and competitive. What is wrong with someone wanting to field the best list they can? It's not their fault GW can't do math.

WAAC play, to me, implies rules bending to the point of almost being a cheater. I can make a competitive Eldar list, without bending any rules or being a jerk, and massacre BA 95% of the time. That's not WAAC. That's GW failing.

"So because they cost a lot they suddenly suck as models?"

They cost too much for their battlefield utility. By definition, that makes them suck. Underpowered/overcosted = sucks.

"rarely state anything other than points cost or "Tau/Eldar" would wipe them out."

Or Necrons. Or Space Wolves. Or GK. Or IG. Or IK. Take your pick.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree about DC. They are a garbage time unit and end up hurting your list. They are overpriced assault in an edition where underpriced assault units are having a lot of trouble..

My opponents do not have enough shooting to kill 30 Death Company that drop pod in next to their scoring units., turn 2 all their scoring units are dead.

"the trick is to get the drop pod blocking line of sight to most of the opponents shooting."

You know, your opponent gets a movement phase as well. And counting on a drop to land precisely is not exactly a great plan in my experience. Often, using the pod as cover will put your foot sloggers two turns out of charge range. That's a turn 3 assault. Too late.

That's why you use more than one DC unit in pods.

Against good gun lines, you'll run out of bodies far before they will. You're making assumptions about terrain and assumptions about deep strike. Most good gun lines have WAY MORE than 3 shooting squads. Your DC will still die. Also, if this is your list and you draw Space Wolves, you just lost the game right then and there. This is not recommended at all. Vanguards are a dumpster fire because of their cost. No amount of scheming will change this. There's also the issue of bubble wrapping and interceptor ion accelerators.

Again, 30 marines in drop pods land turn one. I have not yet faced an army that can kill all of them on their turn of shooting.

Then, even if 2 or 3 marines survive from each unit (But there are usually 5-7 that survive from each unit in my experience), the DC win the ensuing CC and there goes all the scoring units.

You may disagree with me, but your claims are unfounded.

BA assault marines are 2 points cheaper than DC and the Assault marines only do 1/2 the job of the DC marines.

To drop 30 DC turn 1 you need to pay a minimum of a 515pt tax. Astorath (220pts), 2 naked asm squads in pods (200pts), 3 pods for the DC (95pts)... thats not counting the 600pts of unupgraded DC. Now factor in that you have to put astorath in somewhere (lets say a basic asm squad as wound sponges, not a great unit for 320pts with astorath but keeping the cost low to keep it a fair summary), and a minimum of 1 raven for AA if you want to be slightly competative and we are looking at 1415pts. In a 2k game your opponent can now simply move away from the drop pods as you only have 600ish points on the table to threaten him elsewhere. And thats going barebones with everything!

Martel732 wrote:
To me, there is a big difference between WAAC and competitive. What is wrong with someone wanting to field the best list they can? It's not their fault GW can't do math.

Broken. Record. You say the same thing every time. Nothing is wrong with it. But the way you post, it is like you are saying that "because in MY AREA this doesn't work, then it must be the same for all areas," as if your meta is the standard by which all meta should be judged by. So you believe in fielding the best army that you can? Why can't Blood Angels do the same? Just because you feel the DC are a waste of time by no means makes it law. It makes it opinion. However you try to put forth your opinion as if it is law and forget anyone who disagrees with it because you know better and they clearly don't.

And while I might lose to the factions you suggested, believe me when I tell you I would put up one hell of a fight before going down. With my BA. And that, taking into account that I play a 5th edition codex, is fine by me. Winning isn't all. Fun is. If you have fun beating the living tar out of every single person you play because you field only the VERY BEST units you can then GREAT! But man you really tear down BA players and their unit choices like you are gods greatest gift to 40K and that really sucks to see.

It's not just an opinion. I have a lot of data and all the mathematics on my side. It's not just my area; it's the totality of all areas averaged together. There are indeed certain things that work better in my area because of things like high Helldrake count, but I DON'T talk about those because it's not applicable in a GENERAL SENSE. If I sound like a broken record, it's because there's not much to say about BA. They suck. Horribly. NOT the players. The list. Because of GW. Not your fault. Not my fault. But it doesn't help pretending that they are not awful in every phase of the game except movement. They can't deal damage, take damage, shoot well, or assault in the current meta.

I honestly don't think BA will put up the fight you think they will against most of those lists I posted. Been there, done that. I guess you can drag it out against Necrons and Space Cheese, but the outcome is rarely in question.

I'm not exactly beating the living tar out of anyone these days. If I take a super-optimized BA list, I might win 40% against the field. And all wins are close and by objectives and most losses are tablings or lopsided.

DC are not a good unit.

They are an okayish unit. Not great, but certainly not hopelessly bad. Charge them into Slugga Boyz and watch the sparks fly. You may say that will never happen. That happens all the time for me.

Your fallacy lies in assuming that not using the top units is pulling punches. It's not. It's just another priority. If I select my army mainly from an appearance and background view, it may end up decisively subpar using tournament standards.

However

If I fight my friend and he too uses such a list, suddenly tactics start to matter much more. And the game becomes more fun to play IMO. And this is just as much the 'right' way to play 40K.

In a vacuum, I kind of agree, but in the context of Codex: Trap Unit, they are awful.

Consider what you are leaving out of your list in order to take these guys. They don't contribute in any meaningful way in the shooting phase, and against many foes, the extra killing power is totally wasted. Then realize you are already short on quality scoring troops and and short on shooting. Taking a unit like this just puts you even further behind in the parts of the game that matter.

I'm not sure you're understanding Martel...the way you play isn't wrong. They direction your arguments come from is. I'm presuming you play a lot of tournaments. This makes sense why you would be so hard on the Sons of Sanguinius. But I'm talking casual play where mercilessly ripping you opponents throat out so you can pee in the hole and do a happy dance is poor form.

Okay then. Casual play. I'll take a random allotment of Eldar units and you take a random allotment of BA units. The BA MIGHT be a little better off, but the bad units in C:BA are WAY worse than the bad units in C:Eldar.

These other lists are substantially better than C:BA from top to bottom. So much in C:BA simply doesn't even come CLOSE to being able to accomplish what it's supposed to do.

A lot of this game is list building. I play against random opponents 90% of the time, just like in a tournament. Without list tailoring, the BA are really bad. Really, really bad. In a TAC situation, BA can't even begin to cover their bases. This is true for "casual" play as well.

My basic Tyranid list Would decimate your BA. You can DS your 30 guys and have 90% of them evaporated by my Exocrines who will have nothing better to shoot at on turn one. Then in turn 2 if any are still alive you can assault my scoring units! Yay! Your choice of a Tervigon that will pummel the remaining few DC over the next 2 turns or a blob of 30 fearless tarpitting Gants and hey that's what I bought them for. Or is a non Sky-blight Tyranid list too WAAC for you as well?

You can't just denounce anything that trumps DC as an WAAC unit or you will be denouncing 90% of the stuff in 40k.

I didn't want to go there, but there is plenty of non-WAAC stuff that give BA a hard time. Because BA are bad.

Not anting to hijack this thread but if there are any blood angel fans in here then please add me as friend if your not already - thanks

Oh and gooooo blood angels all the way. Hopefully with the new codex coming they should finally be given some fair costs and strengths to keep up with everyone else's updated codex.

I did an artickle on blood angels that seems to have been very popular.

http://40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-do-i-make-blood-angels-work-again.html

The Blood Angels are no lost cause but they certainly need to recognize the need for change in their lists.