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.

Which are better? I know there are a lot of people complaining that Blood Angels are awful now, but I'm under the impression that they're still better than Codex Marines, and they're a fairly good Codex still. Have BA actually slipped just above Black Templar on the competitive Marine hierarchy, or are they still Codex Marines +1? Any reasoning would be welcome as well.

haha and here comes the moping crowd

I'd prefer people to say "oh well C:SM are better because they have Vulkan, more shooting, etc" than "BA suck because everything they have got nerfed" since BA were long considered identical to C:SM, but with additional units that made them better.

C:SM advantages:

1) Combat tactics
2) Tactical squads got much better, ASM got worse, espeicially BA ASM
3) Much better HQs/special characters (my lord the BA special characters suck)
4) Riflemen dreads in the elite slot
5) Thunderfire cannons
6) 12 man drop pods
7) Cheaper TH/SS terminators

BA advantages:
1) ASM as troops (but see #2 above)
2) Stormraven (for now)
3) Fast vehicles
4) Can select divination powers on libbies
5) Access to FNP and furious charge
6) LRs as dedicated transports (does this count? I guess)

Am I missing something? I know both of these codicies very well. #6 for the BA is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I mean these two codicies are probably the two most similar in the game now. The DA have more non-trivial differences I think.

I might add that most of the BA 'additional units' are just point sinks that don't perform well in 6th edition.

Also if you like dreadnoughts BA has the biggest and best selection. Currently that's about the only reason I am keeping my book at this point, that and DC have always been a fav of mine.

Not really. The ranged dreadnought is under the heavily contested heavy support slot. Libby dreads can't join units, and therefore fail as psykers for the same reason as Mephiston. HTH DC dreads and furiosos have delivery issues. The rifleman dread is simply better than all these choices.

I said if you like them, not that they're total game winners, which the BA army list really lacks.

Ah, okay, I thought you were adding to the BA advantage list. Sorry about that. They are fun and look cool.

Yes, C:SM got better this edition, and BA got worse. I'm basically going to repeat what Martel said, and go a little more in depth.

Combat tactics is completely amazing this edition, and really makes vanilla SM a competitive choice when choosing between Space Marine Chapters -- the versatility and defense against assault that it gives makes C:SM uniquely advantaged. Being able to just say 'I don't want to be in this combat anymore' is really damn good when you can't be escorted off the board like last edition. Now you just retreat from combat, and then shoot the unit that just charged you. Rinse and repeat. Comparing to another chapter, the Dark Angels' Grim Resolve is actually a hindrance to them, as they will often stay in a combat that they don't really want to be in, and ironically makes normal SM potentially better at shooting than the shooty DA. SW Grey Hunters are still probably better than C:SM tacs, but that's just because they're probably the best troops in the game. C:SM tacs aren't as flexible as DA tacs, as they haven't been updated to a 6th edition codex, but with the buffs to ATSKNF and Combat Tactics, they're quite good.

The Red Thirst is pretty bad now. It was still pretty marginal last edition unless you decided to take Astorath, and with FC only being +1S now instead of +1S and +1I, it's too marginal a benefit. Fearless did get buffed, but ATSKNF is still potentially better. Descent of Angels is again a nice little thing, but Combat Tactics is such a huge thing now that it's not really worth it, and you can no longer do null deployment awesomeness.

Assault Marines are worse because assault is worse this edition. Overwatch and random charge lengths made an already marginal unit just slip over the curb of not really usable. C:SM never uses them anyway, and their uses for BA aren't as good. They're still fast scoring troops with meltas, but meltas aren't quite as necessary anymore, and the improvements to shooting mean that it's generally tough to get them across the table. Furthermore you can't really give them a PF sergeant anymore due to your inability to hide him from being killed in a challenge.

Mephiston is now AP3 in CC, and more people are bringing plasma. I don't remember, but Dante may still have the unwieldy axe. Sanguinary guard got better because of the buff to 2+ saves, but are expensive units that can get shot up easily. They look awesome, and I really want somebody to make them viable, but even with 2+ armor, the nerfs to assault mean they won't often get their point's worth.

Whereas, both Pedro Kantor and Vulkan He'stan are crazy good now. Pedro drop-pods and Sternguard give you lots of close-range shooty where you want it, without any of the perils of Deep Striking Mishaps. Vulkan still gives you stupid good meltas, flamers (which got buffed with overwatch) and TH, which are all great.

Blood Angels still have DC, which while hilariously expensive, are hilariously destructive; now that Rage is only a plus, DC are generally good for BA.

I'd probably call BA the worst of the Marine Codices right now, although BT might be lower, simply because of its age (I also don't know BT that well). SW are great, C:SM are great, DA are at least okay, GK are at least good. Blood Angels are a Marine Codex with none of the good advantages that other chapters give to you. You don't get cheap and awesome troops and long range versatility of SW, you don't get Combat Tactics, you don't get the new toys of the DA, you don't get the henchmen, psykers, and mid-range shooting domination of GK. The things that C:SM did that were different from the BA got better, while the things that made BA not a carbon copy of C:SM got worse. They're still a Space Marine Codex, but that's about it. They still look awesome, and in the hands of a good general can do great things, but vanilla space marines are currently superior IMO.

Can't argue with a thing Thariinye said. Finally, some rational back up on the BA being the worst marine codex right now.

I'm just curious, you really rank the C:SM book above even DA? That's just surprising to me. I don't know the DA codex like I do C:SM and BA.

ASM can use jetpacks ..

Jump infantry get Hammer of Wrath - e.g. S4 autohits at I10 per model.

Plasma guns and Power Swords can no longer strip Feel No Pain.

 TedNugent wrote:
ASM can use jetpacks ..

Jump infantry get Hammer of Wrath - e.g. S4 autohits at I10 per model.

Plasma guns and Power Swords can no longer strip Feel No Pain.

Experience has shown that you almost NEVER get to use hammer of wrath. With variable charge distances you don't want to risk any charge over 5 inches, so you will be using the jetpacks to move as close as possible, losing that HoW attack.

Sure, you get FnP against power swords and plasma...but FnP is less useful against EVERYTHING ELSE.

The problem with BA is the troops choices. Our tacticals are pretty much the worst of them all. ASM can't, and shouldn't be, holding objectives. With the nerf melee has taken it makes even offensive use for the ASM dubious. Not really sure what to do about it either. Jumping ship to the other marine codexes is my current plan.

I still think there is some viability to mech BA i.e. Razors and MSU assault marines with plama guns (drop the packs off them), where they will have a slight advantage over C:SM.

Not arguing that they took a decent nerf though. My DoA + Pod army was pretty much ruined by the 50% reserves rule. Just made it no fun anymore. I still feel the FNP was a buff in the meta I play with, but there is lots of tailoring in my group so if I'm v'sing someone they knew to pack weapons to ignore FNP. As mentioned before, every one of their special characters took a beating by 6th edition. Our ability to deploy melta early to take out key targets has been dimished by fliers taking to the field in their stead. The change to Furious charge has taken the slight edge that ASM's needed to get the advantage over other Marine units, further compounded by random charge range and overwatch.

C:SM, out plays them in almost every way in my opinion.

I only have the one army. I'll just suffer until the next codex drops, I suppose. Although I'm getting myself some C:SM allies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho got better. All the rest of the special characters are now just supports for cobwebs.

I'm just curious, you really rank the C:SM book above even DA? That's just surprising to me. I don't know the DA codex like I do C:SM and BA.

I'm undecided. DA isn't as similar as BA to C:SM. It's a 6th codex, so you get neat things like your own Warlord Trait Table, abominably cheap Librarians and efficient generic HQ choices, more versatile Tacs, Devs that don't break the bank, Flakk. Then you have the DA specific stuff. However, it's debatable as to whether their stuff is really better or worse than the things that C:SM can do.

Sure, you get FnP against power swords and plasma...but FnP is less useful against EVERYTHING ELSE.

This is true -- I'd say that FnP isn't really any worse than last edition, but neither is it really any better. It's better against certain edge cases, but it isn't the superman thing that it used to be against small arms fire. Last edition you'd see people pour fire into them, and none would die because they'd have to fail a 3+ and a 4+. Now it's nice when it happens, but it's not something to rely on to protect your dudes.

ASM can't, and shouldn't be, holding objectives.

Which is why DC can actually work for the BA. You have a few MSU non-JP ASM with razorbacks. The ASM are just to hold backfield objectives, while the razorbacks give fire support. Then you have DC mobs either Deep Striking in or in Stormravens to destroy stuff.

FNP has gotten much better in this edition for T5 models, and less effective for T3 models. Its about constant for T4 models.
FNP has lowered its durability boost to bolters.
Previous FNP..: 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 1/2 = 1/18 (5.5%)
Current FNP....: 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 2/3 = 2/27 (7.4%)
No FNP.......... : 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 * = 1/9 (11.1%)

However the ability to take FNP vs power weapons or weapons that deny saves is a huge advantage. I was playing a BA player the other day and I hit his squad with my helldrake. I caused 8 wounds and he FNP'ed 5 of them. Its not common, but when it happens its a real PITA for the other guy.

As I mentioned FNP gets better with T5 units, like bikes. This is because you still get FNP to thunder hammers, LCs, and other STR 8 weapons. Nothing pisses off a TH/SS terminator squad than making 5-7 FNP saves.

FNP also got worse for T3 tools, like DE. FNP on wytches is not as hot when they are denied FNP from STR 6 shooting.

The ability to get FNP is one of the best things of the BA codex. It gives a flat 33.3% durability boost from most shooting. While the BA are hurting in some other ways, the ability to get FNP for thier army is a huge boost.

Yeah some of you may say the codex it's bad but wait till we get the new BA codex this year and dont give me the 5 year crap and gw is too lazy to do it I bet my social life on it! (nothing lol jk)
If not well... I'll be looking at what nids get

 Thariinye wrote:
SW Grey Hunters are still probably better than C:SM tacs, but that's just because they're probably the best troops in the game.

This is no comparison between C:SM/BA TAC marines and GHs. There is no 'probably' about it.

* GHs have an additional CCW
* GHs have a cheaper first special weapon
* GHs have a free second special weapon if there are 10
* GHs can be joined by a wolf guard in terminator armor. This combines wonderfully with the wolf banner
* GHs have the wolf banner, ranking as one of the best wargear items in the game
* GHs have MotW they can add to squads, giving them rending attacks
* GHs can be joined by ICs like wolf priests which give them outflanking and stealth.
* GHs have counter-attack

Grey hunters are argueably the best troop in the game.
C:SM TAC marines are one of the worst troops in the game.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Thariinye wrote:
SW Grey Hunters are still probably better than C:SM tacs, but that's just because they're probably the best troops in the game.

This is no comparison between C:SM/BA TAC marines and GHs. There is no 'probably' about it.

* GHs have an additional CCW
* GHs have a cheaper first special weapon
* GHs have a free second special weapon if there are 10
* GHs can be joined by a wolf guard in terminator armor. This combines wonderfully with the wolf banner
* GHs have the wolf banner, ranking as one of the best wargear items in the game
* GHs have MotW they can add to squads, giving them rending attacks
* GHs can be joined by ICs like wolf priests which give them outflanking and stealth.
* GHs have counter-attack

Grey hunters are argueably the best troop in the game.
C:SM TAC marines are one of the worst troops in the game.

I wouldn't say that C:SM tacs are bad at all, potentially a little bit overpriced, but with combat tactics being buffed, they're perfectly servicable troops. There are, imo, worse troops than C:SM tacticals, like say, Guardians, or wyches in any other capacity than suicide vehicle destroyers. Yes, tacticals are not as good as GH, I was equivocating there, but I don't see how they're a 'bad' unit, let alone one of the worst troops in the game. BA tacticals are lower on the scale and could be called bad, but C:SM tacticals I cannot see as terrible.

What about av 13 spam?
I know tanks got easier to kill, but they also got harder to shut down?
So:
3 baal preds
2 fast vindis
Stormraven
2+ blender dreads
plasma/las razorbacks with troops in
quad gun
a cheap libby hq

It seems to me that this is still quite a good army. You've got lots of armor which is all very fast and quite hard to stop moving. Sure you're light on troops, but they're mainly for scoring objectives.

 Thariinye wrote:
I wouldn't say that C:SM tacs are bad at all, potentially a little bit overpriced, but with combat tactics being buffed, they're perfectly servicable troops. There are, imo, worse troops than C:SM tacticals, like say, Guardians, or wyches in any other capacity than suicide vehicle destroyers. Yes, tacticals are not as good as GH, I was equivocating there, but I don't see how they're a 'bad' unit, let alone one of the worst troops in the game. BA tacticals are lower on the scale and could be called bad, but C:SM tacticals I cannot see as terrible.

Lets talk a walk through the armies, and see what their standard troop choices are, and how they compare to TACs.
Comparing them to guardians is not valid, as noone brings them in 6th. Using that as our measuring stick is akin to saying "Well, since BA assualt marines are better than swooping hawks, I should take them!" Lets compare them to troops people actually take in 6th.

BA : TACs ( or Assault Marines)
CD : TACs are better than Plague Bearers or Horrors.
CSM : Plague Marines/Noise Marines/Fearless cultists are better than TACs.
DA : TACs
DE : Warriors are better troops than TACs. In today's infantry heavy meta, massive poisoned weapons are supriour.
Eldar : Guaridan Jet Bikes are better than TACs. The ability to move 36" a turn, ignore terrain, and score is huge.
GK : Strike squads are better
IG : PG Vets are better
Necrons : Warriors are better. They are cheaper, have a better gun, and get a 5+/4+ reanimation protocols roll. Immortals are better.
Orks : Shoota boys are better
SoB : TACs are better than battle sisters
C:SM : TACs
SW : GHs are better
Tau : TACs are better than fire warriors
Tyranids : Termigons are better than TACs. Unit spawning FTW. Heck, even cheap fearless units are better than TACs.

So out of the armies, we have the following breakdowns.
Better than TACS : CSM, DE, Eldar, GK, IG, Necrons, Orks, SW, Tyrnaids
Armies using TACS : BA, DA, C:SM
Worse than TACS : CD, SoB, Tau

So, TACs score 10th out of 13 for 'best troop'. That seems to me like their pretty bad.
I'm not saying C:SM/BA/DA are bad. They have excellent units, but they have crappy troop choices.

I'd put BA above normal SM's and DA. The ability to have jump packs on scoring units is better for objective taking.
They can also randomly get FNP/Furious charge (can't remember which it is, maybe both) due to the blood rolls at the start of the game.
If you put in a sanguinary priest they definitely get a bonus. (although that is adding non-troops)

I agree with everything else though.

They get Furious Charge, which is worth a lot less than it used to be with the loss of the point of Initiative. Being Fearless is also worse than ATSKNF, since it prevents you from going to ground, which is very important for a unit sitting on an objective. It also means that in a combat where you're getting your butt kicked, you stay and die rather than back out and gun down your attackers.

I'd put BA as tied with Templars for the weakest of SM Codex because of the Accept Any Challenge nerf.

What's the accept any challenge nerf?

Also with jump pack assualt marines - why would you be using them for holding an objective?Not just taking someone elses?
Where do they get fearless from?

And on the flipside, Fearless would also mean that you don't run off your objective in the last turn due to a break test etc.

Accept Any Challenge now gives Rage rather than Preferred Enemy in close combat, so it's only useful if you get to assault, and only helps the first round of combat.

Once you've pushed something off an objective (which 10 BA ASM aren't going to reliably do anyway), you have to deal with getting counterattacked. Either they'll shoot you off of it, or they'll assault you back and BA ASM are bad for dealing with that. Fearless is the second side effect of The Red Thirst and while you don't have to worry about getting shot away at the end of the game, you're less likely to be alive since you can't just Go to Ground in Area terrain for a 3+ cover to stop someone from plasma-spamming you to death.

I really think you only play Blood Angels if you like their fluff and their unique models, not their capability in the game. I think players are saying they are so bad because of the stark difference in play styles between 5th and 6th editions. My Blood Angel list went from 1 loss total in my play group in 5th to never winning at all in 6th. It's a shock that some people won't ever get over so they label them as bad. It is possible that you can start BA now with no prior experience with them and be fine, though it won't be as easy as the more shooty marine options.

Not winning at all is pretty bad. If that result does not make the BA bad, what does? I mean I'm rocking about 45% wins and I'm pretty unhappy with them.

I'm at about 65% win with my BA. I have definitely felt hamstrung by the changes to them in 6th. I now run a foot army list with lots of shooty. Not really optimal for BA but better than running a 5th Ed style list. Next time I play I am going to use a vehical heavy list to test out the limitations of our fast vehicals. I don't have high expectations. As soon as I have more paint on my IG and DA they will be what I mostly run. BA are really more of a labor of love now for me. I also experienced the BA getting nerfed to all hell in 4th so I don't take the hit from 6th so hard. At least my guys don't run out of cover to charge a unit 3 feet away now.

I sat out 4th edition purely by coincidence. Sounds like odd numbered editions are where its at for BA!

 lunarman wrote:
What about av 13 spam?
I know tanks got easier to kill, but they also got harder to shut down?
So:
3 baal preds
2 fast vindis
Stormraven
2+ blender dreads
plasma/las razorbacks with troops in
quad gun
a cheap libby hq

It seems to me that this is still quite a good army. You've got lots of armor which is all very fast and quite hard to stop moving. Sure you're light on troops, but they're mainly for scoring objectives.

That's a good list. Armour is still good and BA fast vindicators are down right burtal. BA razor spam still is viable but it's not top tier like it was in 5th.