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.

Overwatch never bothered me, it has never done any significant damage. Except for tau.

NexAddo wrote:
Blood Angel player going 5 - 0

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2019/07/02/pure-blood-angels-go-5-0-at-the-boise-cup-major/

Almost pure Blood Angels. Sadly he has brought an assassin but apart from that.

Awesome effort Sanguinius would be proud

Any idea what relics and Warlord trait he used? I got a BA army piling dust that would love to kick some ass. I've been playing the xenos for more than year and would like to unleash my DC

We read this, and its hard to believe that he made it work, the list isnt even optimized. There are ways to improve it. I think he got lucky, and he wont be able to repeat that at more tournaments.

Really? I think it looks pretty optimised to me. What improvements would you suggest? I would run Lemartes instead of the normal Chaplain but that is just personal preference.

He definitely got lucky, but he beat the old sub 40% win rate handily. I think the real lesson is sanguinor and unleash rage are a thing. Its the best we can do to buff like csm.

 Karhedron wrote:
Really? I think it looks pretty optimised to me. What improvements would you suggest? I would run Lemartes instead of the normal Chaplain but that is just personal preference.

I would run lemartes as well, lemmy is a must when you run DC. And i would remove the sanguinor, and replace him with more DC or SG, or a second slam captain. I also wouldnt use swords and boltguns on the SG, all PF and PG. Sword is 12 and PF is 9. The sword should be 6-7, 12 is ridiculous. One S8 overcharging plasma shot with ancient re-rolls is better than two boltgun shots at S4.

Really good point on the weapons. But on the lemartes/sanguinor situation I have some doubts. Lemartes would boost the DC , but a normal chaplain give you more flexibility in helping the SG or even the backline as well. Sanguinor is +1A and a killing machine, why would you loose him and get even more bodies? Do you think the body count is too low?

Lemartes is far from a must with DC. You are still vulnerable to battleshock. He doesn't buff other marines. If the DC die, he's basically useless. Sanguinor is more valuable than Lemartes.

I never use plasma on SG, either. The way 8th rolls, the only units that get plasma are ASM, and sometimes VV. I don't want units as expensive as SG killing themselves ever.

In my experience, the second slam captain has diminishing returns since you can't red rampage both and one of them can't ignore OW.

What if the sanguinor fails its 9" charge after deepstriking ? You only get one 3D6 charge per turn. Lemartes can re-roll his own charge roll, DC with lemmy can too. Sanguinor cant re-roll his own charge roll, and he doesnt provide a re-roll buff. I am not taking that risk for 150 pts. I also wouldnt run a 15 model DC unit, because of morale. If 10 die, the rest will run away, unless spending 2CP, but 5 DC models arent worth it. You dont have to deepstrike both slam captains in one turn.

The way I saw him playing the list is that he DS at Max one unit, than the rest of the army uses terrains for cover and the infiltrators to defend vs DS. It is definitely an hard list to play with little margins of errors. But in his list, with a full buffed DC or SG destroy anything it touches..

 p5freak wrote:
What if the sanguinor fails its 9" charge after deepstriking ? You only get one 3D6 charge per turn. Lemartes can re-roll his own charge roll, DC with lemmy can too. Sanguinor cant re-roll his own charge roll, and he doesnt provide a re-roll buff. I am not taking that risk for 150 pts. I also wouldnt run a 15 model DC unit, because of morale. If 10 die, the rest will run away, unless spending 2CP, but 5 DC models arent worth it. You dont have to deepstrike both slam captains in one turn.

You don't deep strike sanguinor? I'm not deep striking either slam captain. They just aren't that good w/o ignore overwatch, imo. I'd rather have other HQs. Like Sanguinor. What is it with the deep striking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Emicrania wrote:
The way I saw him playing the list is that he DS at Max one unit, than the rest of the army uses terrains for cover and the infiltrators to defend vs DS. It is definitely an hard list to play with little margins of errors. But in his list, with a full buffed DC or SG destroy anything it touches..

Not PB. Not grotesques. Not bulls. You still have to be careful. And yes, the only unit I deepstrike regularly are DC. And yes, you want 15 DC so you can maximize buffs and tricorner at max efficiency. So you need ignore morale, not LD 9.

Mathammer says that full DC squad with all the bonuses results in:
28 dead PB
7 dead T6 6FNP grotesque
3.8 dead T7 6FNP Talos
17 dead 4++ bulls

+1A Sanguinor
+1A BR
+1A Unleash Rage
+1 to Wound RT
+1S Priest
Reroll failed Hit chaplain
Reroll 1 to W Standard

6DC TH + 9DC chainsword= 30TH Attacks+ 54 Chainsword A

I still would never count on this. Those units are all terrifying and more importantly more efficient. I still have more lists with sg than dc.

Why? Are SG more durable? Or for the LD?

SG, particularly with the fnp banner, are far more durable. They are basically immune to ap 0 which has a lot of uses. They also get rerolls from any warlord and dont need a special babysitter.

 Emicrania wrote:
Why? Are SG more durable? Or for the LD?

SG are way, way better. They are T4 W2 2+ sv, PF and PP for 34 pts. SG can re-roll all failed hit rolls for shooting and melee with a warlord (sang ancient) nearby. If the sang ancient has the standard of sacrifice they also get a 5+ FNP.

JP DC has T4 W1 3+ sv, PF and PP for 31 pts. With lemartes they can re-roll failed charges and failed attacks in melee, thats it. No FNP from the standard of sacrifice. Only their own 6+ FNP.

Mhhhh, you guys making a lot of sense , still I d love to field both.
How comes you wanna have the Sang ancient as warlord anf not the Smash Cap?

Because the sang ancient has the blood angels chapter banner rule, which allows him to get the standard of sacrifice, giving SG a 5+ FNP. He lets SG re-roll wound rolls of 1 in the fight phase, and all failed hit rolls in the shoot and fight phase.

So no gift of foresight to Cap? Which WT would you use on the Sang ancient?

I like the 5-0 list. He even played the other 5-0 player from the Tournament after and won against him for 6-0 in total.

But 2 wins were from the opponent timing out. 1 win from his opponent crushing him but taking worthless secondaries and scoring like 0 points on them. I have been crushed 39-4 but still managed to score recon once. Looked like his nid opponent rolled really bad too and almost killed himself in the psychic phase. And kinda good terrain for his list too from what I could gather.


Not saying he or his list is bad but from reading his battle reports it wasnt the strength of BA that made him go 5-0. He could probably have done the same with any army since it looks like he out played his opponent most of the time. And surrounding factors gave him some of the wins. Recon on the orks and 15min extra time in 2 matches and it would have been 3-3.

Taking some inspiration from it since it looks awesome but get a bit irritated that some use his results as a dismissal to all the complaints that BA are in a bad spot. "It cant be bad since someone went 5-0 with it"

It takes 5 seconds at looking the ITC results to understand how bad the BA are atm. At the same time is refreshing and makes me hopefull to see a pure BA list winning a major.
But I really don't agree about the "if" and "could". He won a Major because who plays it is good and the list is good. End of discussion.
Every game out there, from magic to 40k, you have people copying the "winners" deck or list and getting crushed regularly. It is a dice game and skills are involved. A lot can go wrong and a lot can go good, but any good player will inevitably reduce the randomness and bend the luck to his will.

 Emicrania wrote:
It takes 5 seconds at looking the ITC results to understand how bad the BA are atm. At the same time is refreshing and makes me hopefull to see a pure BA list winning a major.
But I really don't agree about the "if" and "could". He won a Major because who plays it is good and the list is good. End of discussion.
Every game out there, from magic to 40k, you have people copying the "winners" deck or list and getting crushed regularly. It is a dice game and skills are involved. A lot can go wrong and a lot can go good, but any good player will inevitably reduce the randomness and bend the luck to his will.

I don't think that is end of discussion. If it were then BA would be in a good spot since someone won with it. I am not downplaying the player or his list since both is great but Blood Angels as a Codex. Sometimes the "if" and "could" do matter though. Had the ork player taken any board control secondaries as he should have he would have won that match and he doing that is a huge oversight since he would have won the match under any other rules probably since from what I gather he had control of the game from turn 1. That game the BA army won on a technicality. Same with the 2 time outs. I kinda expect a top finish to have one game like that during the early matches during the tournament but since it wasn't a one off I think it should be taken into consideration when discussing how good his list is and the state of BA today.

His battle reports showed what is needed for BA to go that well in a tournament. It also shows that BA doesn't have to be a roll over if played by a competent player and can fight back but you really need the stars to align to actually win it all with them. I even liked his list and reports enough to put a JP on Chief Librarian Ezekiel and spend a whole day painting him red for my own army and try to play my list more like he did.

All I want to say is that it's an outlier and it can be good to take a second glance and see how and why it happened so people don't jump to conclusions.

I never thought for a second that BA are a top tier army, which is why they are collecting dust and I'm playing my freebooterz orks every tournaments with good results.

My point is that that list is better than people belive because is a "horde" based army, where all the hard shots are wasted on infantry (yeah I know is only 60 models, I play 80 with orks, so

My battles are NEVER rolling over. I just have a horrible tendency to run out of marines at bad times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Emicrania wrote:
Mhhhh, you guys making a lot of sense , still I d love to field both.
How comes you wanna have the Sang ancient as warlord anf not the Smash Cap?

DC get one extra attack, provide a better target for unit buffs, and are better at tricornering because of reroll access and 15 unit size. But they die easily if your opponent gets to shoot them.

 Emicrania wrote:
Mhhhh, you guys making a lot of sense , still I d love to field both.
How comes you wanna have the Sang ancient as warlord anf not the Smash Cap?

One trick I have played with a fair degree of success is making a regular Sanguinary Guard model my Warlord. Yes you do lose out on the WL trait but it also means you are guaranteed full rerolls on the SG all the time. No embarassment if the SG make their charge roll and your WL fails. Losing a WL trait does hurt a little but if you are investing 350+ points in a big SG squad, guaranteeing full rerolls is really good.

I feel like space Marines in general are an entry army but require a lot of skills to be played right. Every mistake is very, very costly.
Playing then competitively requires a lot of training and planning.
I feel like other army are more forgiving and easier to play good and learn less steeply.

 Emicrania wrote:
I feel like space Marines in general are an entry army but require a lot of skills to be played right. Every mistake is very, very costly.
Playing then competitively requires a lot of training and planning.
I feel like other army are more forgiving and easier to play good and learn less steeply.

BA should be well playable at a higher level since they have a large variety of units, more than any other chapter.

Another question: How about the inclusion of Armiger Helverins or a Knight to bolster a BA army?

Variety in and of itself isn't useful. Also, SW have more variety, especially with index still legal.

Krast crusader makes most armies better atm.

Krast crusader makes most armies better atm.

I can imagine this.
How about the inclusion of two Armiger Helverins.
I played 3 ven Dreads with twin autocannons led by 2 Techmarines and this worked pretty well for me.
The Dreads are really hard to kill.

BA don't get ven dreads. We get the mortis contemptor though I think.