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.

 War Kitten wrote:
Really? Guardians and Howling Banshees are better than the entire Blood Angels codex? I find that hard to believe. But whatever, you're not going to give up your stance that Blood Angels suck, so why should I bother?

It's not a stance, it's a fact. The entire concept fails in 7th ed. There are both tournament results, mathematics, and personal experiences to corroborate this. Let me turn this around. I can beat BA with guardians and banshees. BA units are that overcosted and ineffective.

Don't underestimate the awesome gakiness of BA until you actually try do something with them.

" The rest of the codex is relatively balanced. "

Not compared to the BA codex. BA struggle against aspect warriors for sure. They have zero chance against the other stuff you listed.

I'll admit that BA don't have all that great of a codex. A good friend of mine plays BA, and I play him often with all my armies. Yes, you have overcosted units. But BA can still go against Eldar and win. I've seen it happen before. I use to play BA myself when I first got into 40k. The point I'm trying to get across is that I can't help that GW gave Eldar a strong book anymore than BA players can that GW gave them a weaker book. Handicapping one player or another won't do much to change that. Sorry if I came across as rude, but it doesn't make sense to me

 War Kitten wrote:
I'll admit that BA don't have all that great of a codex. A good friend of mine plays BA, and I play him often with all my armies. Yes, you have overcosted units. But BA can still go against Eldar and win. I've seen it happen before. I use to play BA myself when I first got into 40k. The point I'm trying to get across is that I can't help that GW gave Eldar a strong book anymore than BA players can that GW gave them a weaker book. Handicapping one player or another won't do much to change that. Sorry if I came across as rude, but it doesn't make sense to me

The thread is more theoretical than anything else. At what point ratio is BA vs Eldar a far match? I'm not proposing handicaps as a practical solution.

I haven't won against Eldar since their codex dropped. Every model I have is usually dead by turn 4. That shouldn't be consistently possible, but it is with Eldar.

Everyone says get allies, but I don't see how any allies can make BA fieldable. Unless you turn BA into a taxi service, in which case it is no longer a BA list.

I honestly don't know what to tell you then. My experience with them has been different, but that could just be because of my local meta. Good luck with Eldar in the future! Maybe someday GW will pull their heads out of the sand and give BA some time in the sun.

 War Kitten wrote:
I honestly don't know what to tell you then. My experience with them has been different, but that could just be because of my local meta. Good luck with Eldar in the future! Maybe someday GW will pull their heads out of the sand and give BA some time in the sun.

Local meta doesn't change what Eldar are mathematically capable of. That's the problem. They have forced over 80 armor saves in one turn against me before. How long do you expect anyone to stand against that?

Luck can't save me because the Eldar roll so many dice, they are mathematically incapable of rolling poorly. The Law of Large Numbers of Dice is a bitch.

Martel732 wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
I'll admit that BA don't have all that great of a codex. A good friend of mine plays BA, and I play him often with all my armies. Yes, you have overcosted units. But BA can still go against Eldar and win. I've seen it happen before. I use to play BA myself when I first got into 40k. The point I'm trying to get across is that I can't help that GW gave Eldar a strong book anymore than BA players can that GW gave them a weaker book. Handicapping one player or another won't do much to change that. Sorry if I came across as rude, but it doesn't make sense to me

The thread is more theoretical than anything else. At what point ratio is BA vs Eldar a far match? I'm not proposing handicaps as a practical solution.

I haven't won against Eldar since their codex dropped. Every model I have is usually dead by turn 4. That shouldn't be consistently possible, but it is with Eldar.

Everyone says get allies, but I don't see how any allies can make BA fieldable. Unless you turn BA into a taxi service, in which case it is no longer a BA list.

Ally in Tiggy + Gravcent unit and a token squad of Scouts for the Troops tax.

Have the main BA army utilise their own unique FOC formation for the 4 Elites, and bring 2-3 podded Fragiosos.
Fill out remaining pts with a Sang Priest, (to give FnP to the Cents), an empty pod (again for the Cents+Tiggy), MSU Tacs in Razorbacks, and if possible, some min-sized biker units kitted out with whatever specials + matching combi that fits your local scene.

Voila. BA's capable of bringing it against non-cheesed out top level Tourney lists. (and in some cases, capable of running over other low tier army's best lists)

Or else ally in the minimum requirements to take a small Thunderwolf cav unit...
Or ally in a single Imperial Knight
Or ally in a Librarius Conclave formation
Etc, etc...

It doesn't take that much to tip BA's into at least a respectable compete level, simply because you get the best ally pool in the game. On the other hand, Chaos Marines only get better when you actively ignore pretty much our entire codex and just play either Daemons or IA:13.

But if his army base is suppose to be a centstar, why play BA. He can take the same centurions and tiggurius, and superior sm units. And if he realy wants FnP on his centurions he can ally in BA, but why bother when under invisbility they will be resilient enough.

Ally fix stuff only if your opponent plays a bad army too. If he takes a good army with good ally, or even no ally, because his army is so good. The it will always be superior to an army made out of a bad core and good ally.

I handicap myself by playing chaos space marines!