Tactica Blood Angels: Defining the Army list - Updated

[Guardian of the Rage]

Hi all,

 

Welcome to the first in a series of tactica articles regarding the Blood Angels. It is not intended to be a discussion on individual tricks or tips, it is more aimed at guiding one's initial understanding and editing one's thought processes. Thus discussion will rarely revolve around individual unit selections or 'what is better than what' style thoughts as much of the rest of this forum is based in this type of knowledge.

 

For all that, it is unlikely that senior experienced players will glean much from these articles, it is likely that it will merely verbalise and formalise their thoughts on the codex. It is really aimed at players new to the army and or the hobby. To this end you will notice that I have provide links to other threads where particularly relevant; this is aimed at increasing knowledge for all. I hope you enjoy it.

 

Tactica Blood Angels: Defining the Army and the List

Episode 1

 

How to define the list:

 

This codex is one of the newer breed of books, from which one can make almost any ‘style’ of list; depending on the selections made by the player. These styles of list can be thought of in terms the elements earth, air, fire and water; this article by Silent Requiem will outline these principles for any who are unfamiliar.

 

Personally, I’m not a great fan of the water style in 5th edition as the game can be very sequential, particularly in the earlier turns of the game, and thus I will not be discussing that directly. That is not to say that I do not recognise the inherent strengths of the codex in the regard to effective reaction to opposing strategies. The essential speed of the list is at the centre of this, though I do feel that it leans dangerously close to surrendering the initiative; which is not the Blood Angel way.

 

The provision of FNP with flexibility and reliability can really help players wishing to adopt and earth style, though again I don’t feel this fits with what I associate with the Blood Angels and thus I have given it only a passing mention.

 

The fast vehicles and Assault Marine troops provide a solid basis for an air army, while the number of highly destructive units (particularly in CC) will make for a very effective fire army. Most lists I have seen and most discussions I have read tend to favour what would be classed as either air or fire lists/tactics; for this reason I will focus on the topic from that viewpoint. This fit best with my interpretations of established fluff as well and so it seems like a sound start point.

 

The Air style:

 

Air lists will aim to win ‘by speed, by manoeuvre and by reach’ - Commander Proteus. This translates to the Blood Angel codex in several ways; most of these are the same as the ways in which it is distinguished from the standard Space Marine codex. All transport vehicles and tanks being ‘fast’ is the best example of one of these differences, though the Assault Marines being troop choices and the Storm Raven are also excellent representations of the potential the codex has along these lines.

 

Interestingly, much of this thinking comes from the previous edition, and as such the differing methods of entering battle which are now readily available (outflanking being the best example) should be considered. This has connotations for the ‘Descent of Angels’ rule and its importance for armies operating within this style; especially for the selections in the army which are focused on CC. The ability to effectively ‘put’ units in position with a greater degree of accuracy earlier on in the game without receiving return fire is a key part of the air style.

 

Much of using an air list revolves around the ability of the player to either counter or mitigate the disadvantages inherent in the style. The player can control the manner in which the game unfolds, which is best achieved through using the manoeuvrability to gain position; ‘position is the greatest lender of control’ – Brother Tual. It can also be done by directly selecting upgrades on unit combinations to counter the central problems with survivability and durability that such lists will inevitably struggle with. This might involve selecting Sanguinary Priests to provide FNP, Librarians to cast ‘Shield of Sanguinius’ and Transport vehicles to protect troops from anti infantry weapon fire. These are by no means the only methods, but should spark enough thought to start you off.

 

The Fire style:

 

A player using a fire list uses a ‘concentrated force in precise areas to achieve his goals’ – Solid Zaku. This might be expanded upon by including the overwhelming of certain opposing units and/or negating them to allow this ‘concentration of force’. This is the basis of the principles surrounding the Mech list; all anti-infantry weapons will essentially be useless earlier on as the only targets will be ones that have armour values. The addition of TLoS really made this principle very important, and makes the use of transport vehicles as mobile cover in ‘Half-mech’ very useful.

 

Inevitably, the Blood Angel army list and the fluff in the classical sense will favour assault oriented units. There is actually no requirement for lists in the fire style to focus on CC potential, but it will certainly be easier to create units along these lines. The easy addition of the FC rule (via the Sanguinary Priest) will significantly enhance the Assault phase for the Blood Angel army; especially when compared to the Space Marine codex.

 

The standard disadvantages of the Fire style are centred on the focus that such unit selections will inevitably require. This is particularly important if you are unable to manoeuvre the units to hit the targets to which they are best suited. The idea methods of ensuring that this does not happen revolve around either the provision of mobility and/or using specialist board entry methods (such as outflank or deep strike). Obviously, the Blood Angel codex is well suited to solving the problems associated with this style; the ‘Descent of Angels’ rule, fast transports/vehicles and the proliferation of Jump pack troops.

 

The combination:

 

A combination of the 2 styles is likely to occur by default in almost any list for this codex and it is well suited to dealing with each of the disadvantages inherent in the styles. You will also notice that the way to deal with the problems associated with the fire style is actually to adopt elements from the air style. This synergy is at the heart of the definition of this codex and underpins the inherently aggressive style of the Blood Angels.

 

Next Week:

Episode 2: Aggression and taking the initiative. - post 3

[Demoulius]

a fine way to look at the new codex brother :) i see a great deal of points you make that i also found out on my own with my own experiences and army list building

 

for example my army lists thus far have resolved around armoured support vehicles and assault squads, with a tactical squad holding ground/objectives whilst taking pod shots at enemy armour.ive also tried a dreadnought but aside from that everything can move 12 inches (though the vehicles perform better at 6 inches with regards to firing) ive learned to be more agressive and sieze the iniative. i can no longer rely on my sledgehammer DC (because i cannot control their actions ive decided not to use them anymore, theyre a loose cannon...a thing i dont particulary like) but instead need to outsmart and/or outplay my opponent.

 

not to say the DC isent an option anymore but a good player will know how to counter them.

 

the blood angels have many ways in which they can now play, but aside from the LR list they all require planning. this planning starts at army building off course and the great deal of options open to us dont really help there...

 

think of what you want your army to do, how do you want it to play... then build your army accordingly

 

in the pdf days for example i used to run tactical squads mounted in rhinos but havent used them yet. i plan to give them a go and accompany them with a 5 man ASM squad in a razorback with SP who supplies a FNP/FC bubble (should i wish to charge ) the reason for this is that i liked the mobility and the lethality that can be thrown from 2 tactical squads, and the options open to me. my baal ands vindis make sure the transports survive long enough to serve their purpose (most of the times anyway)

 

like you said combi lists work suprisingly well and since some of our best support vehicles (baals and land speeders) are in the fast attack slots the heavy support slots are uncontested for vindicators, devastators or whatever you might wish. the only place where you really have to choose are the elite slots.

[Guardian of the Rage]

Tactica Blood Angels: Episode 2 - Aggression is the Key.

 

Hello and welcome to the second instalment of this Blood Angel Tactica. This week I will be expanding their unique ability to take control of the proceeding early on, and use this to dictate the battle onto their own terms.

 

 

What do I mean?

 

I’m talking about taking control and seizing the initiative, not just going forward gung-ho into the enemy guns. This can be done via methods other than simply advancing on the enemy, though this is often the default method of gaining control of the game early on. Taking up commanding positions on the field by using units with powerful abilities in the shooting phase or infiltrating into areas which will force the enemy back and will help you take command early on. It is really about gaining the upper hand, forcing the opponent to spend more time reacting to your decisions than the other way round and the best ‘way’ to use the BA list to bring this about.

 

 

All about the mindset, the state of mind

 

The Blood Angel ethos, depending who you ask and what you chose to believe, involves a fast strike with power, precision and ferocity right into the enemy. That it is not to say that caution need be thrown to the wind though, most certainly not. Regardless of what is being used, you can expose yourself and your army to manageable risk whilst maximising its potential within an overall plan or strategy. This is prime reason why I don’t wish to discuss individual units as such discussion promotes discussion of a more devolved level of tactical tricks. It is about increasing your level of risk taking in ALL decisions to a level which is right on the knife edge of being overly confident but still retaining a kind of strategic discipline.

 

 

Understanding what to be aggressive about

 

What one should be aggressive about varies tremendously according to the situation; the terrain, your units, the opponents units, the mission, the possibility of reserves arriving. All of those and many more things besides dictate what one should be aggressive about and as such I can’t tell you a exactly what this will be in an abstract situation. This is the main driver behind it being a ‘State-of-Mind’ that should permeate though all of your decisions and provide an overall impact on all situations, rather than just in specific tactical circumstances. That is not to say that certain types of circumstances can’t be categorised and planned for to a degree, though I feel that this is dangerous as it narrows your focus and will narrow your strategic thinking by default.

 

There will be times when knowing what to be 'aggressive' about will not be particularly obvious, particularly if the early exchanges have not gone well. In such situations it is key to regain the initiative as quickly as possible. It is difficult to give any single piece of advice is such scenarios as the strategic and tactical developments are vast in number. What I have always done is to follow a piece of advice from Michael Atherton (unless you are British or Australian on this forum it is very unlikely his name will mean anything); cast yourself into the mind of your opponent, imagine that you had his army. What is that you would least like you as the opponent to do? 99 times out of 100 you have your answer. I have found this approach very effective at times as often your strategic will have gone almost completely out of the window by this point.

 

 

The Alpha Strike

 

By now, one should very much be getting the impression that this method is anything other than reactive; especially in the early stages. This is precisely what is intended and simultaneously what much of the codex is designed to help players achieve. No discussion on such a subject would be complete without a discussion of the importance of Alpha Strike. This will obviously chime well with has been discussed already, especially if you have ever played against armies built around this principle. By default they force you to react to them if you are unaware of this potential prior to the start of the battle. However, 'fore warned is fore armed' and most of these 'tactical gimmicks' have counter moves which a knowledgeable player will use without hesitation.

 

It is worth an example here (in very simplistic terms) of what I mean by this particularly as it demonstrates the principle well and provides the reason why I want to stay away from discussions around which unit is better than another.

 

The example is the Space marine Drop pod army (probably Hest'an or Space wolves, aren't they always). The standard methods of dealing with this army to either reserve your army, ensuring that you get the 'first attack' (or indeed the alpha strike) or to concentrate your forces into a small area and overwhelm the initial pods using DPA before the rest arrive. On closer inspection, both of these methods exemplify what I am trying to say; they are about an ethos. True you are in some senses reacting to how they will deploy, but you not going to let the Pods dictate how the battle is fought and you are certainly ensuring that the game will be fought in a manner which suits what you are trying to achieve. In effect it is you that is engineering the situation and not your opponent and this is at the heart of the Blood Angel ethos.

 

Further, this outlines why I don't wish to discuss individual units. Unit discussion be gets tricks and a focus on tricks is an end and not the means. The means by which a trick or tactic is selected for use should come from an earlier stage of thinking, and it is this stage that promotes 'pro-activity'.

 

 

Conclusion

 

This is really about developing a way of thinking, a focus on forcing the enemy to react to your actions rather than the other way around. It is a stoic acceptance that risks must be taken and that they must be calculated. It is an understanding that being the player who dictates the battle provides you with the greatest chance of setting up situations in which the odds are stacked in your favour more often than not. More than all of this though, it is about buying in to an ethos that one's army can win more than its fair share through one's thought processes and decisions from the very first to the very last.

 

Next Week:

Episode 3: List balance and reserves

[antique_nova]

You also need to write about balance of all;). It's the most important elemant in any army.

[Guardian of the Rage]

indeed sir, next weeks episode...

 

GotR

[Rhodric]

As a new Blood Anegls player, this is some wicked good info. Thanks!

[Citizen _Of_BAAL]

Its refreshing to read posts about overall generalship and not just the latest and 'greatest' tricks.

I agree that is is hard to give specific examples of what to do in each situation because there are hundreds of ways to react to each situation. The real goal is to not react at all. Make your opponent react to you! The game is half won if you can do that.

 

I am very intrigued to see what you have to say about balance. I have always (since the end of 2nd edition) thought that BA are one of the few marine chapters that can shoot and fight in cc as well as any other army. Now in 5th we are one of if not the fastest moving army in the 40K Universe.

 

Keep up the great Tactica!