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.

Martel732 wrote:
ITC evidently feels the same. 150 guardsmen still autowin vs BA in CA 2019.

Then YOU are a bad Blood Angel player. That's all there is to it. That doesn't mean BA needs buffs, or the missions must be changed to accommodate you. Improve your own play. There's literally no reason that should be an unwinnable match-up, in fact, if I had to place bets it would be on BA having the advantage in this match up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a related note...

 Ishagu wrote:
Not massive changes, just a few tweaks

Are you ever going to share where you got the statistics for Ultramarines losing vs Tau? where do I find these? Or did you just make that up?

Martel seems to have a grudge against hordes, since his go-to argument is "ITC doesn't let hordes autowin!" but I don't recall seeing that sort of thing dominate non-ITC events.

Most BA lists do not include eliminators. Building against the field, especially IH dominated fields, the tools to handle cheap dum dums usually get sacrificed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
ITC evidently feels the same. 150 guardsmen still autowin vs BA in CA 2019.

Then YOU are a bad Blood Angel player. That's all there is to it. That doesn't mean BA needs buffs, or the missions must be changed to accommodate you. Improve your own play. There's literally no reason that should be an unwinnable match-up, in fact, if I had to place bets it would be on BA having the advantage in this match up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a related note...

 Ishagu wrote:
Not massive changes, just a few tweaks

Are you ever going to share where you got the statistics for Ultramarines losing vs Tau? where do I find these? Or did you just make that up?

It's not just me. I haven't seen a BA player beat a horde in CA missions in a while. BA are power armor melee, which is still pretty bad in 8th ed. There is no scenario outside ITC where BA have any kind of advantage over IG. Turns out there's lots of reasons BA still can't handle that style of play. Adding more attacks just makes before overkill before the gunline murders the melee marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Martel seems to have a grudge against hordes, since his go-to argument is "ITC doesn't let hordes autowin!" but I don't recall seeing that sort of thing dominate non-ITC events.

It's not even autowin. It's that it takes huge resources to remove 80-100 cheap schmoes and in CA, there is no reward for this effort. They sacrifice 20% of their list to kill 60% of a BA list. Plaguebearers present a similar issue. BA lose on deployment phase. They probably don't dominate non-ITC because other gunlines don't give a gak, they just shoot whatever they want in spite of infinite expendable hordes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Its undoubtedly true that units which are good in ITC tend to be good in the base game, because they are mathematically superior at doing damage or taking damage (or often both) to other options, but that doesn't remove the above fact. You shouldn't (IMO anyway) look at a list and go "hmm, not sure I should take X or Y, because its an easy gangbusters (etc) for my opponent". That unit may have problems anyway - but they are different problems. This exacerbates faction imbalance.

This never stopped bullgryns, or large amounts of IS, or many other "vulnerable scoring" units even after they introduced fixes for the "9 man" and so on. The idea that people create these lists that are so impossible to score secondaries against as well as strong as top lists is a bit of a canard.

Now, TJ Lannigan runs Magnus, DPs, PBCs, and PBs. When he faces marines he puts all his troops into deepstrike, because how do you easily score kills against a bunch of T8 5+++ models with S7 or worse shooting? Is that not the sort of intelligent play we would want out of game?

You could make the case that IS are in decline, because marine snipers can remove CCs with ease, but AM have Ogryn Bodyguards, so that's not the whole story there (more that AM players are possibly fleeing to Marines).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

That's not really enough in my experience. ITC evidently feels the same. 150 guardsmen still autowin vs BA in CA 2019.

Do BA not have Eliminators? I literally cannot conceive how BA can't surmount IS spam or how even such a list can survive the very strong horde removal of centurions from other lists.

IS spam takes away all BA options, really. Yes, they are not so great vs other marines. After 2+ years.

Martel732 wrote:

It's not just me. I haven't seen a BA player beat a horde in CA missions in a while. BA are power armor melee, which is still pretty bad in 8th ed. There is no scenario outside ITC where BA have any kind of advantage over IG.

CA missions haven't even been OUT a while, its not even been a month and a half yet, and most people are still on ITC. Assuming you have been playing CA missions from the absolute jump, how many times could you have possibly seen this exact match-up of hordes vs BA play out, and you've still seen BA win at least one of those times?

I'm sorry but I have to say this is a factor of you not playing enough or playing poorly.

Martel732 wrote:
BA lose on deployment phase.

Just so you know, the term "lost in the deployment phase" is a term that sees use almost exclusively to suggest that someone deployed awfully, not that the armies were unbalanced. You might want to be aware of the terminology because while I do believe that is likely what happened, I'm guessing you probably meant to say that the BA player lost before the game began.

No, BA players are losing because the expendable dum dums get deployed in such a manner to deny meaningful charges till turn 3 or 4, after the BA list is hamburger.

In ITC, BA have a chance b/c they might be able to get points off butcher's bill or kiling more units before they are pounded to dust.

I'm taking 2018 as well. They aren't that different in practice to CA 2019.

Sorry Martel, the BA have been brought to supplement marine level, if you still can't beat the IG it's on you.

 Crimson wrote:
Sorry Martel, the BA have been brought to supplement marine level, if you still can't beat the IG it's on you.

They might not be the _best_ SM chapter in the meta right now but they certainly were brought in line with the majority.

 Crimson wrote:
Sorry Martel, the BA have been brought to supplement marine level, if you still can't beat the IG it's on you.

Hardly. Gunline marines are far superior to BA. BA might be even with codex marines now, but most of their psychic awakening benefits are useless in practice. They are certainly complete gak compared to IH or IF.

And once again, it's NOT JUST ME. I actually have one of the better records vs IS spam, but outside ITC, its much worse.

No matter how many swings they give BA, power armor melee is still bad in 8th ed.

Martel732 wrote:

Hardly. Gunline marines are far superior to BA. BA might be even with codex marines now, but most of their psychic awakening benefits are useless in practice. They are certainly complete gak compared to IH or IF.

Yes, most things are worse than IH or IF. That was not the point.

Well, that's MY point. The "buffs" they gave BA don't really address the fundamental problems that come with 8th for power armor melee. The +1 to charge is nice, but I'm finding it encourages poor play.

The BA player pool doesn't seem real deep, though. So maybe the greatest minds aren't working on it. I'm building some autobolter dudes, and the BA community is laughing at me.

I think the point was that the BA stuff is too complex to actually pull off in majority of games against opponents that have seen the army played.

That's a problem too. Spacing units 9"+4" shuts down nearly all BA shenangians.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, that's MY point. The "buffs" they gave BA don't really address the fundamental problems that come with 8th for power armor melee. The +1 to charge is nice, but I'm finding it encourages poor play.

Have you ever considered that you just don't like the BA play style? Play them as 'Blood Fists' or something, you'll be happier.

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, that's MY point. The "buffs" they gave BA don't really address the fundamental problems that come with 8th for power armor melee. The +1 to charge is nice, but I'm finding it encourages poor play.

Have you ever considered that you just don't like the BA play style? Play them as 'Blood Fists' or something, you'll be happier.

I used to love it. But GW has made the style worse and worse and worse. They are almost unrecognizable now that morale and sweeping advance are gone. People can easily neuter BA power units and strats with their deployment.

Martel732 wrote:
BA are power armor melee, which is still pretty bad in 8th ed.

It’s stronger than you think. People have been using Vet Intercessors against hordes -- that’s something like 45 attacks in a 10-man squad. That’s not something any unit wants to get hit with. Weight of dice will hurt bad saves, the Sarge can take a TH for anything tougher.

Why wouldn’t this work with BA?

Because those vet intercessors crush a 40 pt squad and then get erased. BA on paper look scary, until you realize you must charge what your opponent lets you charge.

Those players aren’t suiciding them into 40pt squads, they have 36” range D2 rifles that can target more dangerous units. You also have TFCs for cleaning up small fry.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board man. You’re taking good units and only seeing ways to make them perform badly. SM have never been stronger or more flexible.

BA don't get TFCs. And yes i know about stalker rifles. Other chapters do it way better than BA.

Yaay martel is back to moaning about how poor his marines are!

All is right in the universe once more.

 Argive wrote:
Yaay martel is back to moaning about how poor his marines are!

All is right in the universe once more.

They are compared to the real chapters.

 Argive wrote:
Yaay martel is back to moaning about how poor his marines are!

All is right in the universe once more.

I was just thinking the same thing as I was reading through, who says you can't come home again ? I'm glad the Guard are back to being the boogeymen once more.

Martel732 wrote:
BA don't get TFCs

Whirlwinds then. The point isn’t you need TFCs. The point is develop a plan that isn’t deliberately throwing away 200pt units for zero advantage.

I don't do that. Other BA players do that. But I have to plan against Aeldari flyers and IH bs in addition to this horde gak. ITC format helps a TAC list have success vs said hordes. My plan is autobolters, which has nothing to do with any BA advantage.

I would just claim it's victory to crush IS units. Complete domination in fact. Kill enough, and they will accept their shame and offer terms for surrender. Huzzah ! Gotta think outside the box, big brain plans.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I would just claim it's victory to crush IS units. Complete domination in fact. Kill enough, and they will accept their shame and offer terms for surrender. Huzzah ! Gotta think outside the box, big brain plans.

That kinda works in ITC. CA 2018/2019 not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Yaay martel is back to moaning about how poor his marines are!

All is right in the universe once more.

I was just thinking the same thing as I was reading through, who says you can't come home again ? I'm glad the Guard are back to being the boogeymen once more.

Only against elite melee armies. I can't imagine trying to fight IH with the IG.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm taking 2018 as well. They aren't that different in practice to CA 2019.

You are literally the only person I've seen who has said that. Regardless, if you want to participate in this conversation, you cannot use missions from before CA 2019 as your data, as it's what everyone here is talking about being better, same with the new rules for BA and SM. Nobody is disagreeing that 2018 GW missions, any 2018 power armor mono-army let alone BA, would struggle vs Guard. The statements we are making, that BA beats Guard in 2020 by the current set of new GW missions, are not at all disproved by pointing towards data from 2018, it's literally irrelevant to the topic.

You are blinded by your shortcomings as a player. That's all this is.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't do that. Other BA players do that. But I have to plan against Aeldari flyers and IH bs in addition to this horde gak. ITC format helps a TAC list have success vs said hordes. My plan is autobolters, which has nothing to do with any BA advantage.

Your army is probably the best Power Armor faction vs Aeldari flyers, you are not a shooty army, they cannot screen out flyers, and you have the best jump melee units for dealing with them.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I'm glad the Guard are back to being the boogeymen once more.

Guard aren't back to being the boogeyman, it's really just this one guy whining. And by all accounts, he's not a great indicator of what is actually good or isn't.

So you think that CA 2019 is magically going to fix this issue?

"you are not a shooty army" You sure about that?

Aeldari don't screen well in general, to be fair. But they are still a VERY different thing than IS to prepare for.

I don't see how the BA vs IG matchup has changed at all, really. Plz elaborate. Yes,the matchup vs other marines is completely different, but BA are still built do the same failing crap as before. We get these expensive guys and then pray we can get even more expensive stuff into melee.

Martel732 wrote:
We get these expensive guys and then pray we can get even more expensive stuff into melee.

What is the issue, exactly -- you can’t kill Guardsmen fast enough, so you’re getting hung up on screening units?

I dunno....

- Invictors
- Impulsors and ABRs.
- The SI Grenade on an AGL in a squad of SBRs would be a beast at shredding Intercessors and give you backup sniping ability.
- DCI are no joke and an ABR/power sword squad comes in under 200
- Tons of charge buffs, a 6" pile-in -- can FF be used on DCI? Seems possible. gak even regular DC are only 15 points now.

I don't play them so i'll shut up, but I feel like there are adequate tools to deal with IS and other marines even if you're not going 4-1.

Again, it's not just me. But typically what happens is a combination of too many targets, said targets dictating movement, even with fly, and just facing withering fire. And, getting nothing in return for killing dozens of models.