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 have been back into 40k and playing for a few months now and doing ok with my eldar who I know can be very good with the right builds. I'd say my lists tend to be on the lower end of competitive where I am happy but I do like to know that I can make my list more competitive if it need to be or I can make it more fun for regular games. I like this flexibility.

I have now started collected blood angels and using them as allies in fun games and I am considering investing in a full army of them. My worry however is that I often hear people say that they are one of the worst armies in the game at the moment and certainly not competitive (and not due a new codex any time soon). Usually this isnt a problem but its kind of a negative to know that the army wouldn't cut it at tournament level.

However, I also see blood angels units and tactics being praised; Furiosos, Death company, Dante, Storm ravers, sternguard all get praise and I've seen pod lists being called cheesy.

So which is it, cheese or crap?

They used to be crap and anyone that says they still are is either abhorrently pessimistic, hasn't found the right way to play them or is judging them on a very skewed scale alongside TOP competitive and spam builds. The first is just a bad way of looking at it, the second is completely the issue of the player and the third is simply a different game than others do/might play.

There is a chance that you are blending the time before the new codex and now, after the new codex and Shield of Baal. Because I haven't heard anyone say they are terrible outside of talking about major competitive events.

Blood Angels are very good. Far better than they used to be and can bring so many great things to the table in a 'local tournament' environment. Armor Spam, Drop Pod Spam, even Jump Pack Spam are all valid methods of playing. I've had a lot of fun playing games with like minded players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Second post because my fat fingers hit the tiny button... Friggin touchscreens

I wouldn't call them cheesy though unless you're running paired Razorbacks, twin Fast Vindicators, two FNP Bike Squads with Priests and Grav, a Stormraven with Dante and Sanguinary Guard and two squads of Death Company with hidden Powerfists. That's a bit cheesy, but even that isn't tournament winning I don't think.

Even the six Assault Squads with three Melta shots per pod is just a cheesy counter, not a cheesy army. Smears enemy cheese very well,

So, if you intend on playing them like you describe you're playing Eldar, I think you'll get the most out of them. They should be a solid choice for that level of gaming. It's not a 'Power army' but it is a lot of fun and can win games.

I converted all of my regular Space Marines to Blood Angels when the codex came out. My only disappointment with the army is the Baal Predator. However, I feel like the army has all the tools to take on most army compositions. I feel like they can be competitive but not Hyper-competitive. Most of all, they are super fun to play and have a distinct style that really helps you get more out of your games.

BA are a bottom 25% codex. Whether you think that is crap is up to you. If you go by the tourney win rate from the Riptide thread, BA are dead last.

" I've had a lot of fun playing games with like minded players."

For an army to be good, it has to be good independent of cooperation from your opponents. Otherwise, it's a false data point.

There is nothing remotely cheesy in the BA codex. Even our Lord of War is pedestrian. He great compared to what he used to be, but still meh for a LoW. The BA can more models on the table than with the previous codex, but pretty much everything in the codex is massacred by Riptides or Gravcents in a cost-effectiveness comparison.

Consequently, the BA have a hard time dealing with cheese. The six ASM with melta is only good against AV-based cheese, not Riptides, for example. The Eldar are VERY difficult to deal with using BA. I won't say impossible, but you'll probably lose abut 70% of the time.

BA are good and competitive when allied with SM, and that is a fact.

It's up to ones self to play Stormraven spam if they feel like maximizing their chances of not having a shot at winning a tournament, but there are builds for BA that win you game after game.

Next to that, there are few armies that are played without allies these days in the most competitive circuits. So why even bother judging an army in a tournament scene as a monocodex army, when you don't see those anywhere anyway aside from the few exceptions.

The Fleshtearers Strikeforce Detachment is one of the better things out there, Mephiston and the Furioso still have their uses, and BA Assault Squads are some of the cheapest triple melta drop pods in the game. As evidenced by Nick Rose, even the Command Squad has it's uses. They also have access to the strong FW things like Sicaran, or even the whirlwind Scorpius. There is also a formation that gets 400 points of free wargear, altough it's not very competitive even with that I'm afraid.

Until someone combos it with something else and breaks it, ofcourse. Which is what the best tournament players do constantly, with stuff the average joe didn't even think of.

There is nothing cheesy in the BA dex. That doesn't make them poor though.
I would rate them above:
-Dark Angels
-CSM (without allies or IA:13)
-Orks
-Astra Militarum
-Militatum Tempestus
-Dark Eldar (although tbf I've not played them since their new dex)

The old BA dex was terrible. They are a lot better now. Especially if you buy both exterminatus and IA:2. Even without these though they are still decent. Not top tier at all, but not bottom tier either.

I like them. They are pretty good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
must...resist...urge...to...buy...more...blood...angels.

The BA codex has poor internal balance and is almost a monobuild.
You'll me mostly be running the Baal Strike Force and maxing the elites and fast slots in every list you make. The troops slot is terrible, with the heavy slot not being much better. The HQ slot is average at best.

It's not a BA specific thing though, it's more a general Marine malaise. Marine mech, Dreads and Terminators are long in need of an adjustment as they're over costed/under powered.

The other marine dexes are similar to the BA dex because of this. Max out on the good stuff (SM - Bikes, Cents; SW - Cav; DA - Bikes) and use other dexes to plug the holes.

Respectable. Certainly not the worst Codex in the game with CSM and DA still walking the fields; solid, plenty of options, probably midrange competitively. Not silly-tier, not useless-tier.

blood angels tacticals are the best tacticals available. heavy flamer comboflamer and flamer in a pod.. merci beaucoupe.
only because a standard choice is not resilent to grav spam or whatever its not bad.
60 oint giving fnp to sanguinary guard? great!
good race specific psi powers ? ok check..

BA definitely doesn't have poor internal balance. Hence the debates over: SG and DC, Priests and libbys, Bikes and AMs, AMs and attack bikes, attack bikes and melta speeders, preds and vindis, preds and ravens, tacs and scouts, fragiosos and sternies. Yeh there are some units you wouldn't touch with a barge pole competitively, but there are soany options which are balanced against each other.
The formations make the balance even better, some are taking the 3 raven formatiom for the deepstrike assault, some are taking the formation with 400pts of free wargear to make the vanguard vets as viable as DC or SG (plus making sternies with combis cheaper), some are taking the Baal strike force for +1I whilst others are taking the flesh tearers strike force for 6FA.
There wouldn't be such debate and varied lists if there was little internal balance. I would go so far to argue that it has one of the best internal balances in the game.

Pretty sure they are not optimal.

Optimal is
Ultras or sents of terra.

In another thread I wondered if they had anything going on, as they didn't play like I liked to do them (AV13 + assault marines).

I managed to turn around my group to allow formations, so I'm wondering if this legal (fun, not competitive):

1750pts, Angel's Fury Spearhead (with assorted stuff), and Archangel's Strike Force (3 Fragnoughts + pods and a librarian warlord).

Put Fragnoughts in the Stormravens, along with the squads, where the librarian also goes. 2 pods turn 1 to objectives and hope for a successful reserves roll, otherwise pray that the pods survive.

Should be fun?

 winterwind85 wrote:
blood angels tacticals are the best tacticals available. heavy flamer comboflamer and flamer in a pod.. merci beaucoupe.
only because a standard choice is not resilent to grav spam or whatever its not bad.
60 oint giving fnp to sanguinary guard? great!
good race specific psi powers ? ok check..

Having the best tactical squad is like having the most awesome biplane in modern aerial combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:
BA definitely doesn't have poor internal balance. Hence the debates over: SG and DC, Priests and libbys, Bikes and AMs, AMs and attack bikes, attack bikes and melta speeders, preds and vindis, preds and ravens, tacs and scouts, fragiosos and sternies. Yeh there are some units you wouldn't touch with a barge pole competitively, but there are soany options which are balanced against each other.
The formations make the balance even better, some are taking the 3 raven formatiom for the deepstrike assault, some are taking the formation with 400pts of free wargear to make the vanguard vets as viable as DC or SG (plus making sternies with combis cheaper), some are taking the Baal strike force for +1I whilst others are taking the flesh tearers strike force for 6FA.
There wouldn't be such debate and varied lists if there was little internal balance. I would go so far to argue that it has one of the best internal balances in the game.

I think you both have valid points. I don't think the internal balance is very good in the BA codex myself, especially between the slots, but also within slots. The heavy slot is practically the predator/Stormraven slot. And, yes the troops are awful. The lack of debate could be from all builds being equally uncompetitive, which is I suppose is sign of internal balance. But having average units and poor units to choose from is not very much fun.

The BAs are pretty BA if you ask me. Every game I've had against them has been fun (though I've lost three times and been tabled once). Superheavy tank companies cannot handle the deep strike!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The BAs are pretty BA if you ask me. Every game I've had against them has been fun (though I've lost three times and been tabled once). Superheavy tank companies cannot handle the deep strike!

They can if you deploy the bubblewrapping. Then the DS list just dies.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The BAs are pretty BA if you ask me. Every game I've had against them has been fun (though I've lost three times and been tabled once). Superheavy tank companies cannot handle the deep strike!

They can if you deploy the bubblewrapping. Then the DS list just dies.

Bubble wrapping is hard for the Leviathan detachment, since the only detachment slots are 1-3 Lords of War.

Is there some massive infantry squad LoW I don't know about?

Isn't the Leviathan detachment 30k only?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Isn't the Leviathan detachment 30k only?

Only if your group has such intense blinders on that they are unwilling to houserule the two together, like every group I've played in has across two countries and three states.

We don't allow anything from 30K into 40K; must be why I've never heard of it. I don't consider that intense blinders, I consider it trying to keep things sane.

I gotta agree with Martel on this one. 30k is its own game with its own scale and its own ideas. I also wouldn't allow Fantasy or Necromunda in my games of 40k. 30k models with 40k rules, sure, I've seen that, but not a list of Sons of Horus playing against my Tyranids.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
I gotta agree with Martel on this one. 30k is its own game with its own scale and its own ideas. I also wouldn't allow Fantasy or Necromunda in my games of 40k. 30k models with 40k rules, sure, I've seen that, but not a list of Sons of Horus playing against my Tyranids.

I agree as well, but mainly because the more we end up mixing and matching game units, the bigger mess you end up with. People complain about the game being unbalanced as is, adding ever more units to the mix seems like a terrible idea.

To be fair, I'm not actually even a fan of the allies matrix in its current form as it ignores fluff reasoning completely, but I think laying out ground rules would actually force GW to focus more on balancing armies better in the first place, and they certainly aren't interested in that.