5th edition BA vs SW

[LoneSniperSG]

Blood Angles is sorta a kids army in that fact it is really forgiving. If youhve priests nearby and everything, you just need to bump into melee in a couple of places and you probly won.

 

SpaceWolves have to make sure they use s ton of tactics and soften up the bad guys.

 

You got that exactly backwards, oddly enough.

 

Anyway, OP, Blood Angels are better at CC than Space Wolves. The Wolves have what is arguably the best CC unit in the game in the form of TWC - not the killiest, but the best - while the Blood Angels unquestionably have the best CC Power Armor army. S5 I5 FNP Assault Marines are nothing to scoff at. Nor is an HQ unit that can beat even the most kitted-out Thunderlord to death with his own mount.

 

 

That depends on who gets the charge. I have mowed through 10 BA assault troops with 5 WG with PWs/PFs. FNP didn't help them, Mephiston didn't help them, and even their succubus mamas didn't help them.

 

Totally agree. While my BA buddy was slashing up my army all around my Wolf Lord, I said "screw it all" and charged the TDA Lord and his TDA retinue into the nearest enemy squad, which happened to be a squad of howling mad Death Company.

 

.. Yeah.. Death Co didn't win.. for reals. Not even they can stand against an angry Wolf Lord, his thunder hammer, and his lighting claw buddies.

 

The only thing that still trips me up is the stupid Dreadnought with twin Blood Talons that deep strikes right behind me.

[CainTheHunter]

The only thing that still trips me up is the stupid Dreadnought with twin Blood Talons that deep strikes right behind me.

 

That's why Russ provided TDA Wolf Guards with combi-meltas :tu:

[Skalver]

When I see statements like "builds that can even win tournament on auto pilot" then I am more tempted to call the moderators to reply. You are obviously drifting way into trolling teritory when you make statements like that.

 

You're aware that's not by any means an uncommon opinion, right? I mean, sure, you could ask the Blood Angels if they feel they have a strong 'dex, and I have no doubt they'd say they do, but there'd also be no doubt which 'dex is currently the strongest out of the SM offerings, and competing for - if not outright winning - top spot overall.

 

It is a very, very easy book to play.

 

Except that as near as I can determine not a single large (40 player+) 40k tournament has been won by Space Wolves in 2010. It is quite possible I missed some results but the results of the large tournaments just don't substantiate your claims.

 

Go look at the 2010 tournaments results at http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/...lePageMode=true. It doesn't llist a single Space Wolves player in the top 3 places in a major tournament in 2010.

 

Without tournament results to support the theory, the idea of Space Wolves being overpowered is nothing more than an internet meme. Yes, there are plenty of examples of them winning 6 or 8 player tournaments but pretty much every codex there is has won tournaments at that level this year. Your entire point hinges on a theory that is simply unsupported by the tournament results that are out there.

 

The idea that the (according to you) most powerful, easiest to play codex would be unrepresented in tournament results just makes no sense. If the codex is both insanely powerful and simple to play you would expect a Space Wolf 1-2-3 in every tournament. The reality is that for this years large tournaments Space Wolves are pretty much unplaced. The results just don't bear out your theory.

[Macharim]

It seems like you're talking about two different things. Are SW easier to play than BA? Yeah, if middling results are what you're looking for. A new SW player can easily browse a forum and put together an army that will perform decently because the base of our lists is one of the best, if not the best, unit in the game, Grey Hunters. BA on the other hand is much less forgiving, a poorly played BA list will be slaughtered.

 

On the other hand you have the question of whether SW is just plain better than BA and then it gets a lot more complicated. Personal opinion is that, yes SW is a fraction stronger but anyone expecting to plow over a good BA list run by a competent player will be tabled in 3 turns. BA has exceptionally powerful builds, just need to know how to use them. For tournament play if top spot is all you care about I'd bring BA rather than SW. Not as stable a performer but when it works the results are spectacular.

 

In short: SW, easy to play decently, solid performer that can excel in the hands of a skilled player. Think a finely tuned sports car that you can drive every day like a Porsche.

BA: Unforgiving, not for the beginner but when you get it working and know what you're doing you have a winner on your hands. Think a temperamental sports car thet you send to a tuning firm for more horse power and not care about wear and tear.

[Khavos]

Except that as near as I can determine not a single large (40 player+) 40k tournament has been won by Space Wolves in 2010. It is quite possible I missed some results but the results of the large tournaments just don't substantiate your claims.

 

Go look at the 2010 tournaments results at http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/...lePageMode=true. It doesn't llist a single Space Wolves player in the top 3 places in a major tournament in 2010.

 

Without tournament results to support the theory, the idea of Space Wolves being overpowered is nothing more than an internet meme. Yes, there are plenty of examples of them winning 6 or 8 player tournaments but pretty much every codex there is has won tournaments at that level this year. Your entire point hinges on a theory that is simply unsupported by the tournament results that are out there.

 

The idea that the (according to you) most powerful, easiest to play codex would be unrepresented in tournament results just makes no sense. If the codex is both insanely powerful and simple to play you would expect a Space Wolf 1-2-3 in every tournament. The reality is that for this years large tournaments Space Wolves are pretty much unplaced. The results just don't bear out your theory.

 

Going by that logic, because BA didn't place either, and Black Templars and Daemonhunters did, we can clearly and without question conclude that Daemonhunters and Black Templars are both far better codices than Blood Angels and Space Wolves.

 

You have no problem with that, I presume?

[Grimtooth]

I also thought that Space Wolves took overall at Adepticon this year.

[breng77]

SW also took the Nova Open (96 player tourney I believe.) Finished Second at Battle for Salvation (48 Players) (2 SW players went 4-0 on day 1 at BFS, and I think 3 Went 4-0 at Nova open on the first day). Also, looking at those results any non-chaos space marine army is listed as Space marines (Tony Kopach who is listed as second at NOVA (he won best general and went undefeated) is listed as Space marines but he played wolves.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Space Wolves also lost out to Sallies at BoLScon which is widely regarded as the most competitive event this year.

 

0b :huh:

[breng77]

Space Wolves also lost out to Sallies at BoLScon which is widely regarded as the most competitive event this year.

 

Depends on who you ask. many would disagree. Never the less, another showing of a high placement by SW.

[DumbleDoo]

Space Wolves also lost out to Sallies at BoLScon which is widely regarded as the most competitive event this year.

 

0b :lol:

 

BOLScon is not a competitive event. The only big events that can make that claim are the NOVA Open and the Battle for Salvation. These events have true-winners rather than using battle points. Look at the day 1 winners in these events and you will Wolves more than any other marine army.

[breng77]

Doing some more research

 

GTs where space wolves placed in the top

Adepticon (1st in one of the 2 tourneys)

Bolter Beach (2nd)

Patriot Games (2nd)

ConQuest Invasion (1st)

40k 'Ard Boyz Finals Los Angeles, CA (2nd)

40k 'Ard Boyz Finals Media City, PA (2nd)

SpoCon (2nd)

Nova Open (1st)

Socal Smack Down (2nd)

Battle for Salvation (2nd and 3rd or 4th, 4 players in the top 8)

 

 

Tourneys Where BA placed in the top

Conquest GT (2nd)

Mechanicon (1st)

Battle for Salvation (3rd or 4th)

 

Also of note is that the COnquest GT and Mechanicon were the same player. In addition Conquest GT was Prior to the new BA codex release. So BA have only had 1 or 2 top 3 (or 4) finishes in GTs in 2010. On top of which the BA list that was in the top for BFS was interestingly enough not what would typically be considered a competitive build for BA (tri land raiders, Mephiston, 2 Termi squads with Sang Priests, and 3 5 amn assault squads with 2 Razorbacks)

 

So I think it is pretty safe to say that SW are doing ok for themselves, and a bit better than BA in 2010.

[Grimtooth]

Just for historical reference; Back in 3rd edition, one of the chapter approved books had a table with the most successful armies at that time. BA were first with SW as second. So time for SW to be at the top. Hahahahaha!

[ORKILL]

Space Wolves also lost out to Sallies at BoLScon which is widely regarded as the most competitive event this year.

 

0b ;)

 

BOLScon is not a competitive event.

 

 

 

Really? Have you attended BoLScon? Do you have any first hand knowledge or are you just regurgitating opinions that you have read? Several so called "competitive" players got demolished at BoLSCon.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

BoLScon was in my opinion a very competitive GT. I believe they had around 170 players with seven rounds to determine who had the best record. To say it was not competitive is silly. Ill definitely be attending again next year.

 

Certainly SW have more big wins but your codex has also been out longer. I think it will even out over the course of the 2011 season.

 

0b ^_^