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.

Eldar platforms are obnoxiously undercosted, especially when you're stacking free special rules on top of that. Scatterlasers used to have Laser Lock, they've already been toned down quite a bit.

BA really is overdue for the usual 7.5 special rules treatment.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Eldar platforms are obnoxiously undercosted, especially when you're stacking free special rules on top of that. Scatterlasers used to have Laser Lock, they've already been toned down quite a bit.

BA really is overdue for the usual 7.5 special rules treatment.

The ONLY things BA readily needs are;
1. Their basic options & rules brought into line with the newer Marine books... hence, A4 Dreadnoughts, WS/BS4 Scouts, Grav Cannon (though the amp needs to go and die in a fire!), access to Telepathy, updated formations, 'Bloodcurion', etc...

2. Some of their unique wargear to become a bit more relevant...
The Glaive Encarmine for example, is currently a worse Power Sword. For something that's supposed to be a unique BA relic blade, it's laughably unplayable, hence, why not give it +1S to help compensate for the fact it's still a two-handed (and thus no +1A bonus) ap3 ccw?
Master-crafted alone is not enough of a reason to give-up the +1A bonus for 2ccw's - especially when abilities like Prescience exist.

Likewise, if a single-handed axe is +1S, then a double-handed axe should ideally be +2S!?

Their psychic lore could likewise do with a significant boost, (though it's still nowhere near the levels of steaming poop that the CSM god lores are...)

Make 'Descent of Angels' part of their basic Chapter Tactics alongside Furious Charge.



It doesn't need a lot of added work overall, the big issue is simply that BA's are part of the 7.0 designs, while 'Crons/Vanillas/DA's/Eldar/Tau/Wolves are now all of the much stronger 7.5 designs.

It's not like BA's are CSM levels of suckage and massive overhauling.

BA are arguably worse than csm atm.

Your suggested "fixes" do very little to address the fundamental problems.

You don't understand how miserably useless sg are in 7th ed.

I mean, you can argue BA are worse than CSMs.

You'd be wrong though.

Can you make a BA list people will roll their eyes at? I cant. 15 years behind BA, but nope. I certainly can with CSM and I've been running them less than 2.

What's next, give necrons 2+ FNP? This gak is ridiculous

AutomatedMiner wrote:
What's next, give necrons 2+ FNP? This gak is ridiculous

Well, this entire sub forum at least proves that while GW aren't exactly anything close to geniuses at game balance, they're still about 1000x better than your average 40k player!

Experiment 626 wrote:

AutomatedMiner wrote:
What's next, give necrons 2+ FNP? This gak is ridiculous

Well, this entire sub forum at least proves that while GW aren't exactly anything close to geniuses at game balance, they're still about 1000x better than your average 40k player!

No, they really aren't. Nothing in this subforum is scatterbike good.

Martel732 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

AutomatedMiner wrote:
What's next, give necrons 2+ FNP? This gak is ridiculous

Well, this entire sub forum at least proves that while GW aren't exactly anything close to geniuses at game balance, they're still about 1000x better than your average 40k player!

No, they really aren't. Nothing in this subforum is scatterbike good.

Which is a good thing.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

AutomatedMiner wrote:
What's next, give necrons 2+ FNP? This gak is ridiculous

Well, this entire sub forum at least proves that while GW aren't exactly anything close to geniuses at game balance, they're still about 1000x better than your average 40k player!

No, they really aren't. Nothing in this subforum is scatterbike good.

Which is a good thing.

Not exactly. It's the prisoner's dilemma. Until something is as good as a scatterbike, the Eldar will trample all over everyone. The Wolfstar works, because it is basically immune to everything in the game, which isn't good either. BA have no Wolfstar and no scatterbike, so any proposal that people deem "reasonable" just makes them a victim again.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

AutomatedMiner wrote:
What's next, give necrons 2+ FNP? This gak is ridiculous

Well, this entire sub forum at least proves that while GW aren't exactly anything close to geniuses at game balance, they're still about 1000x better than your average 40k player!

No, they really aren't. Nothing in this subforum is scatterbike good.

Which is a good thing.

Not exactly. It's the prisoner's dilemma. Until something is as good as a scatterbike, the Eldar will trample all over everyone. The Wolfstar works, because it is basically immune to everything in the game, which isn't good either. BA have no Wolfstar and no scatterbike, so any proposal that people deem "reasonable" just makes them a victim again.

That's only if your in a weird meta where people only play the most OP thing they can and don't have the basic decency to tone things down for weaker armies.

They don't know they are playing a weaker army.

If people are toning down, then codex strength doesn't matter.

I think a lot of 40k's issues also stem from its format.

If you have an experienced organizer creating lists for both players that suit the mission and dictating houserules, game quality improves. Did we really need an official ruling to fix the Dread attacks? It's just common sense.

I'd almost favor tournament play that revolves around pre-selected units and only leaving upgrades to the players. Narrow formats make sense for competition -- too much freedom requires a lot of active management or it devolves into a mess.

Martel732 wrote:
They don't know they are playing a weaker army.

If people are toning down, then codex strength doesn't matter.

So you don't talk to people in any way before games.

GW added Scatter bikes to the game once.

This forum has many suggestions that would break the game worse than Scatter bikes, throughout different threads.

GW is bad at rules. The average Proposed Rule is worse.

That's one of the points of the discussion. By hammering out and iterating on the ideas, we see the problems or tone down the out-there ideas.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't know they are playing a weaker army.

If people are toning down, then codex strength doesn't matter.

So you don't talk to people in any way before games.

Lists are constructed and THEN opponents assigned. You can talk all you want, but you can't change your list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
GW added Scatter bikes to the game once.

This forum has many suggestions that would break the game worse than Scatter bikes, throughout different threads.

GW is bad at rules. The average Proposed Rule is worse.

That's one of the points of the discussion. By hammering out and iterating on the ideas, we see the problems or tone down the out-there ideas.

And Riptides.
And Stormsurge.
And TWC.
And Wulfen.
And Gladius.
And Warp Spiders.

I see nothing in here that even touches these units/rules.

Martel732 wrote:

And Riptides.
And Stormsurge.
And TWC.
And Wulfen.
And Gladius.
And Warp Spiders.

I see nothing in here that even touches these units/rules.

What stops the TO from restricting these units, if it makes a better game for all sides?

In defense of GW rules writers, I'm fairly sure it was Marketing, not them, who wrote Gladius.

GW could certainly do better.

It's a business. But there's nothing wrong with making your own choices as a player.. We're in "Proposed Rules" after all!

Bharring wrote:
In defense of GW rules writers, I'm fairly sure it was Marketing, not them, who wrote Gladius.

GW could certainly do better.

Gladius is more fun to fight than the rest of the lot, because I don't die by turn 3.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't know they are playing a weaker army.

If people are toning down, then codex strength doesn't matter.

So you don't talk to people in any way before games.

Lists are constructed and THEN opponents assigned. You can talk all you want, but you can't change your list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
GW added Scatter bikes to the game once.

This forum has many suggestions that would break the game worse than Scatter bikes, throughout different threads.

GW is bad at rules. The average Proposed Rule is worse.

That's one of the points of the discussion. By hammering out and iterating on the ideas, we see the problems or tone down the out-there ideas.

And Riptides.
And Stormsurge.
And TWC.
And Wulfen.
And Gladius.
And Warp Spiders.

I see nothing in here that even touches these units/rules.

Sounds like it's your specially made hell meta again really.

Not really. Allowing list tailoring doesn't help BA at all, since BA have no effective options to begin with. Secret list, tailored list, it doesn't really matter.

If you play with people that will play down to a codex, then codex strength is no longer a relevant issue at all.

Okay..... then start from basic principles.

What makes Blood Angels Blood Angels - rather than just marines painted red?

I've no particular issue with them having access to a Gladius Strike Force, Grav-cannons, etc, etc - they are, broadly speaking, a codex chapter (certainly closer than the Wolves) - but if the answer was just to turn them into a subset of codex marines, it's a bad answer.

The thing that's become their signature is jump pack assault infantry - the angelic (sanguinary guard) and the bezerk (death company) and everything in between.

At the moment, jump pack infantry is basically target practice, because as noted the firepower of a Windrider host, or War Convocation, or similar, will cut you to shreds before you get close - it'll be at least one shooting phase, probably two, plus overwatch, which is enough to decimate a marine squad. Add to the fact that you don't get jink or a toughness boost (like bikes) and you end up hurting badly.

So what would be needed to let assault squads actually make it into contact without losing too many models?

Well, the signature ability of jump pack troops (compared to bikes) is Deep Strike.

There are three options you can add - either

a) improve your durability when landing from interceptor, the following shooting phase and/or overwatch. This increases the number of models who make it in.

b) improve the effectiveness of deep strike by reducing scatter and/or allowing assault directly from deep strike

c) improve the 'shock damage' on the charge - improving hammer of wrath, the charge bonus, or both.

Taking example cases, imagine a formation which resulted in an assault squad being able to deep strike in automatically turn 1 without scatter, only being allowed to be shot at by snap shots until their following player turn, gaining a 2+ cover save until their following player turn, and being able to charge immediately and rerolling to hit and to wound.

I think that's probably a bit too good. Because that's essentially "I pass a reserve roll and remove one of your units" but that was a deliberately over-the-top idea. So some sort of toned down version must at some point pass the 'acceptably good but not excessive' band.


At the same time.....it is (depressingly) not a million miles from the 'assault marine' half of the skyhammer formation.

Would the problem be more Wind riders and War Convocation than ASMS not being good?

That and bikes mostly being ASM+1 right now.

If BA were brought closer to UM SM - grav, cents, BS4 scouts, etc - they would probably need less love.

As a starting point, their CT is effectively:
+Sang Guard, Priests
+Baall vehicles
+DC
+Infurnus/HF
+FC

Now, that's a lot of "plusses" as in differences. Much of that seems to suck, though.

Perhaps Baall vehicles cost too much for too little.

Perhaps Infurnus and HF aren't worth much.

Their ASM, however, seem to be better than anyone but RG (another ASM focused chapter) due to FC. And RGS benefit fits better for them, FC fits better for BA.

So their ASMS are arguably better. They can do ASMS job better. The problem is that ASMS are in such a bad place that that even ASM+1s are useless.

Make ASMS useful again by balancing the game, and BAs would be a good CT.

Also, give them the Codex Astartes stuff. Both fluff and balance says they should have it.

BA's don't need Cents - those guys are slow as mud and don't fit into a 'fast angelic' themed army at all...

WS/BS4 Scouts + Land Speeder Storms's, Grav cannons & the Stormtalon? Absolutely BA's deserve those.

But Centurions need to go burn in a car fire, especially since they're really just 'Obliterators x100' in every way. (God damned thieving Imperials - we can't have any unique toys anymore, can we?!)

Even centurions aren't THAT great. It's invisible centurions that are great. Grav cannons aren't THAT great, skyhammer grav cannons and grav cannons riding in free Rhinos are.

" Much of that seems to suck, though."

And that is why it's almost impossible to "fix" BA under the current system. Will it get better in 8th ed? I'm not holding my breath. I'm not even looking for "great". I'm looking for "one unit of TWC doesn't kill my entire list".

Experiment 626 wrote:
BA's don't need Cents - those guys are slow as mud and don't fit into a 'fast angelic' themed army at all...

WS/BS4 Scouts + Land Speeder Storms's, Grav cannons & the Stormtalon? Absolutely BA's deserve those.

But Centurions need to go burn in a car fire, especially since they're really just 'Obliterators x100' in every way. (God damned thieving Imperials - we can't have any unique toys anymore, can we?!)

Devastators of either type as well as any type of Scouts do not fit the Templar scheme that was developed in Codex: Armageddon and their 4th Edition codex, yet, they are there for them now. That leaves that as a poor excuse.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

AutomatedMiner wrote:
What's next, give necrons 2+ FNP? This gak is ridiculous

Well, this entire sub forum at least proves that while GW aren't exactly anything close to geniuses at game balance, they're still about 1000x better than your average 40k player!

No, they really aren't. Nothing in this subforum is scatterbike good.

Which is a good thing.

Not exactly. It's the prisoner's dilemma. Until something is as good as a scatterbike, the Eldar will trample all over everyone. The Wolfstar works, because it is basically immune to everything in the game, which isn't good either. BA have no Wolfstar and no scatterbike, so any proposal that people deem "reasonable" just makes them a victim again.

That's only if your in a weird meta where people only play the most OP thing they can and don't have the basic decency to tone things down for weaker armies.

So people should not run good lists because GW can't balance properly?

"So people should not run good lists because GW can't balance properly?"

Yes, that's always the apologists' position.

Why don't you see a difference between the absolute best thing possible and good?