Point-Efficiency in C: BA

[Morticon]

Maximus;

 

A few points.

 

Firstly We cant "just drop the issue of tactical squads", because that's what the majority of the debate was about.

 

Secondly- I don't think powerfists on 5man razorback squads is a good idea either.

Also - in the list you posted, theres no ways i'd put fists there. I'd def change out the 2 IPs for PWs though. I'd also consider dropping 1 priest for more powerweapons in the other squads.

 

That list is, I’m sorry to say, awful. So not much can be gleaned from analyzing what-if scenarios there. Show me a decent list with fists in it that isn’t jumper-based, and I’ll play.

 

As for the list I posted being "awful" - it doesnt belong to me, it belongs to the person arguing on the same side as you. And irrespective of what you think of it- someone has chosen it. I believe if a player has chosen a certain unit, I think its a bit misguided to say, "your entire idea sucks- scrap it". I feel its much more useful to the player to try help him improve the list/units he has or is using. That again is the point of this article.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Notice that part about the already 1k plus points invested.

 

I don't understand why one would want to keep investing in a losing proposition instead of trying to salvage the situation by taking something else.

[Deschenus Maximus]

@SevenExxes: would you post your list? I have the feeling it might be missing some elements if your Tac marines are ending up in combat against Tyranid MCs.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Then why did you put infernus pistols on 2 of the squads?

In that case, you are just painting a bigger bullseye on two squads in particular. :tu:

 

The difference is that my squads are meant to be as homogenized as possible in their ability to deliver melta - took out one squad? Here, have some more melta anyways! If you have one squad with a fist, well either it will be prioritised first if the opponent is playing a foot list, or it will be saved for last because it doesn't represent as big a threat to armour as the other squads.

 

I'm finding it hard to believe that you, as a general, couldn't find a way to make the "bullseye" an inefficient target to shoot at.

 

I can make all my Razor squads equally inefficient to shoot at, so nothing gained here.

 

I'm finding it even harder to believe that you'd rather your priests and librarian left behind rather than a sergeant with a PF.

 

Those are all ICs; if there ride gets popped, they just jump into the next closest Razor and keep on trucking.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Maximus;

 

A few points.

 

Firstly We cant "just drop the issue of tactical squads", because that's what the majority of the debate was about.

 

Then why aren't we discussing Scouts too? If we're going to waste time talking about our crappier Troops choices, might as well talk about all of them.

 

Secondly- I don't think powerfists on 5man razorback squads is a good idea either.

 

Well at least we agree on that.

 

Also - in the list you posted, theres no ways i'd put fists there. I'd def change out the 2 IPs for PWs though. I'd also consider dropping 1 priest for more powerweapons in the other squads.

 

Definetely makes the list worst. I increase my ability to deal with one type of target (MEQ/TEQ infantry) and worsen my ability to deal with all armour in the game (Marines/CSM, IG, Eldar, Sisters, Tau, Necrons... Orks/DE can be dealt with other means) AND I have to keep my squads bunched up in one spot due to having only one FC/FnP bubble. Not a good tradeoff.

 

As for the list I posted being "awful" - it doesnt belong to me, it belongs to the person arguing on the same side as you. And irrespective of what you think of it- someone has chosen it. I believe if a player has chosen a certain unit, I think its a bit misguided to say, "your entire idea sucks- scrap it". I feel its much more useful to the player to try help him improve the list/units he has or is using. That again is the point of this article.

 

I think it is more helpful to be frank and tell him what's what then trying to salvage a trainwreck. Hopefully said person has not made the money commitment yet and can avoid spending on something that will just leave him disapointed and possibly make him want to quit hobby.

[Morticon]

I think it is more helpful to be frank and tell him what's what then trying to salvage a trainwreck. Hopefully said person has not made the money commitment yet and can avoid spending on something that will just leave him disapointed and possibly make him want to quit hobby.

 

I believe this thinking devalues the hobby aspect of the game and leads to stelek-esque dictations of what units unequivocally should and shouldn't be in a list which ultimately lead to boring gaming.

 

That's not what the B&C is about.

 

Maximus;

 

A few points.

 

Firstly We cant "just drop the issue of tactical squads", because that's what the majority of the debate was about.

 

Then why aren't we discussing Scouts too? If we're going to waste time talking about our crappier Troops choices, might as well talk about all of them.

 

 

 

We could. We were just busy with something else.

Namely fists on 10man tactical squads.

[SevenExxes]

@SevenExxes: would you post your list? I have the feeling it might be missing some elements if your Tac marines are ending up in combat against Tyranid MCs.

 

I can't remember what the list was, I tried re-writing it but I'm 16 points over 1500.

 

It's basically this with a couple of downgrades to fit everything in.

 

^_^

 

Librarian

(Psychic powers: Shield of Sanguinius/Unleash rage)

*No upgrades

100

 

Reclusiarch

*Combi-melta

140

 

:Elites:

 

Sanguinary Priest x2

*No upgrades

100

 

Furioso Dreadnought x2

*Blood Talons

250

 

:tu:

 

Tactical Team

*10 men

*Plasmagun

*Plasma cannon

*Sgt power fist/storm bolter

213

 

Tactical Team

*10 men

*Meltagun

*Multimelta

*Sgt. Power fist/storm bolter

203

 

:Heavy Support:

 

Stormraven

*Twin linked Plasma cannon

*Typhoon rockets

*Hurrican bolter sponsons

255

 

Stormraven

*Twin linked Plasma cannon

*Typhoon rockets

*Hurrican bolter sponsons

255

 

Total: 1516

Maybe I didn't have the stormbolters and combi-melta at the time but the list has been expanded to fit 1750 points now.

The point is the MC my tac squad ended up in CC with has an initiative of 1 and something like 4 attacks. It also spawns on average 11 little tyranids so it had to be stopped. The fact is the power fist took it down as it was on 3 wounds when I assaulted it. If I didn't have a power fist I don't think I wouldn have killed it (9 s5 attacks with re-rolls to hit, 4 s5 power weapon attacks with re-rolls to hit did 1 wound on a target with something like 7 toughness)

[Morticon]

Also - in the list you posted, theres no ways i'd put fists there. I'd def change out the 2 IPs for PWs though. I'd also consider dropping 1 priest for more powerweapons in the other squads.

 

Definetely makes the list worst. I increase my ability to deal with one type of target (MEQ/TEQ infantry) and worsen my ability to deal with all armour in the game (Marines/CSM, IG, Eldar, Sisters, Tau, Necrons... Orks/DE can be dealt with other means) AND I have to keep my squads bunched up in one spot due to having only one FC/FnP bubble. Not a good tradeoff.

 

 

Well, I'll have to disagree that its as definitive as you suggest. I think you have plenty in your list to deal with armour, and not enough to deal with any large amounts of infantry that get into your lines after targeting your razors or units that engage your RAS squads. Having a squad that can mop up the remnants of an enemy after its been shot up is much better than being charged and losing a squad or two. Again, that may be down to play style. So, cant really argue about matters of taste there suffice to say I'm in disagreement that it makes the list worse.

 

Notice that part about the already 1k plus points invested.

 

I don't understand why one would want to keep investing in a losing proposition instead of trying to salvage the situation by taking something else.

 

Because not all of us want to only play using uninspired net-list razor spam. Some of us would like to use other units for a variety of other reasons and see how they can work within the framework given.

Others still may not have the funds to buy that many vehicles and assault squads and have to make do with what they have.

 

Again- this is why the B&C is different from places like YTTH and 3++ etc.

 

We're not here to create legions of undefeatable BA players- we're here to help develop the hobby and help players with what they have and what they want to use.

[Deschenus Maximus]

The point is the MC my tac squad ended up in CC with has an initiative of 1 and something like 4 attacks. It also spawns on average 11 little tyranids so it had to be stopped. The fact is the power fist took it down as it was on 3 wounds when I assaulted it. If I didn't have a power fist I don't think I wouldn have killed it (9 s5 attacks with re-rolls to hit, 4 s5 power weapon attacks with re-rolls to hit did 1 wound on a target with something like 7 toughness)

 

The monster you are talking about is a Tervigon. I am wonderhing: why did your Furioso not take care of that MC? Was it dead? If so, how did it die?

 

I am not going to start a debate on your list but will simply state that you are sort of putting yourself in this sort of situation due to not having other options, really. For example, if you had more ranged firepower, you could take out Tervigons from a distance, where they are basically harmless, instead of punching them to death, where they will take some toll on your force in the process.

 

Well, I'll have to disagree that its as definitive as you suggest. I think you have plenty in your list to deal with armour, and not enough to deal with any large amounts of infantry that get into your lines after targeting your razors or units that engage your RAS squads. Having a squad that can mop up the remnants of an enemy after its been shot up is much better than being charged and losing a squad or two.

 

“Large amounts of infantry” refers to what exactly? Orks? Power weapons not really helpful here. Big squads of Grey Hunters? Either they will not have many, in which case they can multi-assaulted once they come close enough, or they will have many but little firesupport, in which case they can be avoided altogether. A jump BA army? The 2 power weapons aren’t going to make much of an impact there: the difference between your way (power weapon) and mine (infernus) comes down to not even a full extra dead marine (0.89 marine) per squad when you take into account pre-charge shooting. And that’s assuming the enemy is in cover; if it is not, the difference is even more marginal (0.33 more dead marine per squad). What this boils down to is that either my shooting + countercharge will be sufficient, or it will not. The power weapons will not make much of an impact because there aren’t enough of them. Which leads back to my question: if you want enough of them to be significant, what do you cut?

 

Because not all of us want to only play using uninspired net-list razor spam. Some of us would like to use other units for a variety of other reasons and see how they can work within the framework given.

Others still may not have the funds to buy that many vehicles and assault squads and have to make do with what they have.

 

Again- this is why the B&C is different from places like YTTH and 3++ etc.

 

We're not here to create legions of undefeatable BA players- we're here to help develop the hobby and help players with what they have and what they want to use.

 

That’s fine – just please don’t try to pass off decisions based on fluff or personnal preference as being efficiency-driven. It is disingenuous and unhelpful to those that don’t know any better. Perhaps not everyone wants to play “uninspired netlist razorspam”, but those that DO don’t benefit by being misled into thinking such and such is the “right way” to go about it. I know I am being harsh here, but it feels like we've been arguing and arguing along to reach the same goal when clearly it is not, as you are stating here... feels like I've been wasting my breath (or fingers, rather) for nothing.

[SevenExxes]

The point is the MC my tac squad ended up in CC with has an initiative of 1 and something like 4 attacks. It also spawns on average 11 little tyranids so it had to be stopped. The fact is the power fist took it down as it was on 3 wounds when I assaulted it. If I didn't have a power fist I don't think I wouldn have killed it (9 s5 attacks with re-rolls to hit, 4 s5 power weapon attacks with re-rolls to hit did 1 wound on a target with something like 7 toughness)

 

The monster you are talking about is a Tervigon. I am wonderhing: why did your Furioso not take care of that MC? Was it dead? If so, how did it die?

 

I am not going to start a debate on your list but will simply state that you are sort of putting yourself in this sort of situation due to not having other options, really. For example, if you had more ranged firepower, you could take out Tervigons from a distance, where they are basically harmless, instead of punching them to death, where they will take some toll on your force in the process.

 

Both my furiosos were locked in combat, one with a unit of shrikes and the other with some small unit that was destroyed in one round, leaving the furioso on the other side of the table miles from anything. My Stormraven that was supporting the tactical squad in question shot to bits another MC, a hive tyrant or a harpy, I can't remember what it was but it died to 2 blood strike rockets, 2 krak rockets and a hellofalot of bolter fire. The other Stormraven was holding an objective with the second tactical squad inside. It was turn four and I knew/felt that if the tervigon survived it may spawn enough guys to overrun my squad with the help of some flying thing (maybe that was the harpy), take the objective turn five and if the game went any further, focus all his attention on one Stormraven that would be holding one objective with the last of my troops.

[Atlantic]

Notice that part about the already 1k plus points invested.

 

I don't understand why one would want to keep investing in a losing proposition instead of trying to salvage the situation by taking something else.

 

 

Maybe we should be using assault squads as the example as the same principal applies as to tactical squads.

 

 

However, 6 tactical squads, with 6 special weapons, 6 heavy weapons, 6 power fists, 6 rhinos, and 3 sanguinary priests is extremely effective. (add 6 combi meltas and it gets even sillier) I'm not a fan of tactical squads either, but with that unit there is a crazy amount of strength in redundancy and making them all as utilitarian as possible.

 

That set up can take anything, and I really do mean anything.

[appiah4]

As for the list I posted being "awful" - it doesnt belong to me, it belongs to the person arguing on the same side as you. And irrespective of what you think of it- someone has chosen it. I believe if a player has chosen a certain unit, I think its a bit misguided to say, "your entire idea sucks- scrap it". I feel its much more useful to the player to try help him improve the list/units he has or is using. That again is the point of this article.

 

The list is mine and in my defense I did not make the list trying to achieve efficiencey. It was meant as the test of a concept, a fun effort, and a way to use what I already have.

 

Would I have ditched the 2 Power Fists if I had something better I could field? Probably not. But that's not because Power Fists are great, it's because this is a fairly immobile army that can not assume to position itself favorably once the battle starts. I thought this army NEEDED the versatility, but that doesn't mean I thought it was more efficient that way. It was more EFFECTIVE that way.

 

To be honest, I feel your post is a great guide to making EFFECTIVE Blood Angels armies, not efficient..

 

But to each their own. ;)

 

P.S. To the guy who said this army sucks.. Well.. Have you tried it? And if you thin it sucks so bad, why don't you try to explain it to me in my army list thread? I would have loved to discuss this army but nobody showed any interest.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Both my furiosos were locked in combat, one with a unit of shrikes and the other with some small unit that was destroyed in one round, leaving the furioso on the other side of the table miles from anything. My Stormraven that was supporting the tactical squad in question shot to bits another MC, a hive tyrant or a harpy, I can't remember what it was but it died to 2 blood strike rockets, 2 krak rockets and a hellofalot of bolter fire. The other Stormraven was holding an objective with the second tactical squad inside. It was turn four and I knew/felt that if the tervigon survived it may spawn enough guys to overrun my squad with the help of some flying thing (maybe that was the harpy), take the objective turn five and if the game went any further, focus all his attention on one Stormraven that would be holding one objective with the last of my troops.

 

Roger.

 

However, 6 tactical squads, with 6 special weapons, 6 heavy weapons, 6 power fists, 6 rhinos, and 3 sanguinary priests is extremely effective. (add 6 combi meltas and it gets even sillier) I'm not a fan of tactical squads either, but with that unit there is a crazy amount of strength in redundancy and making them all as utilitarian as possible.

 

That set up can take anything, and I really do mean anything.

 

Going to have to disagree that this is effective. What you describe costs at minimum 1720 pts (no combies, only free upgrade weapons, naked priests, libby as HQ). An equivalent force made up of more specialised squads would pick it apart without too much trouble; just as overspecialisation is bad (see: Eldar), so is overgeneralisation.

 

P.S. To the guy who said this army sucks.. Well.. Have you tried it?

 

Don't need to try it to see where its problems lie - you don't need to set yourself on fire to know that it would hurt like a bitch, do ya? :lol:

 

And if you thin it sucks so bad, why don't you try to explain it to me in my army list thread? I would have loved to discuss this army but nobody showed any interest.

 

I just didn't see it. I will make some comments now.

[Morticon]

That’s fine – just please don’t try to pass off decisions based on fluff or personnal preference as being efficiency-driven. It is disingenuous and unhelpful to those that don’t know any better. Perhaps not everyone wants to play “uninspired netlist razorspam”, but those that DO don’t benefit by being misled into thinking such and such is the “right way” to go about it. I know I am being harsh here, but it feels like we've been arguing and arguing along to reach the same goal when clearly it is not, as you are stating here... feels like I've been wasting my breath (or fingers, rather) for nothing.

 

 

I've made no reference to fluff based decisions. I've made reference to players choices and working within that framework - something I stand by.

 

Furthermore I don't think it's disingenuous or unhelpful as this theory has helped novice players in our local clubs climb the ranks in local ranked tournaments, improve their game and their list design and become much more competitive than they were.

Additionally, by personal application of this theory I've managed to wangle myself into the the 2nd ranked spot in the country. Now, while that may seem completely inconsequential to you in the greater scheme of things and have absolutely zero impact on your gaming life, I believe my list design philosophy is a very large part of what has made me successful in my environment.

 

Saying this is de facto "unhelpful" is also just your opinion .

Me saying this is helpful may be "just" my opinion- but this is additionally supported by my experience, my record, the experience of people I have helped and their record.

 

 

I will however agree with you as far as the issue of what is the "right way" ..in fact...i may have written that somewhere...like..in the intro:

 

I'd like to add all relevant disclaimers ahead of time by saying that this isn't my proposal of what is "strongest", "best" or "unbeatable" in the BA codex. I think the external factors are way too complicated to make over-arching statements like that. Issues of local meta, player/opponent skill and list build are all factors that can greatly influence the competitiveness of a list.

 

What this theory aims to highlight is how certain units can be made more efficient in terms of the points they cost in relation to their potential battlefield role.

 

I will also take all the info you and Appiah have given and work it into the rewrite of this.

So, I do thank you for the discourse!

[Leksington]

I'm finding it hard to believe that you, as a general, couldn't find a way to make the "bullseye" an inefficient target to shoot at.

 

I can make all my Razor squads equally inefficient to shoot at, so nothing gained here.

If you find it impossible to make 1 particular razorback a less efficient shooting target for your enemy than 4 speeders, 3 predators, and 5 other razorbacks, then I don't think this conversation can go any further.

[Deschenus Maximus]

@Mort: I would like to remind you that generally speaking, I am in agreement with your list-building philosophy (use your squads to the fullest, give them the tools to be versatile, etc). In a sense, you could say we travel along the same path for 80% of the way; it's in that last 20% where our views diverge. You say "once you reach a certain point of optimization, personnal taste will dictate the finetuning of a list" whereas I say "to get the most out of your list, more often than not you have to sacrifice personnal preferences to include the most optimal choices". Is my way better? Well I think that if winning is all you care about, and are ready to get out of your comfort zone to adapt to the list rather than adapt the list to you, it probably is. That said, not everyone is willing or able to do that, so your way certainly has value - probably more than mine when you take into consideration the gamer population at large.

 

If you find it impossible to make 1 particular razorback a less efficient shooting target for your enemy than 4 speeders, 3 predators, and 5 other razorbacks, then I don't think this conversation can go any further.

 

Leks, I can, but since that entails making my other squads more vulnerable than they need to be, I probably shouldn't.

[Zealadin]

The problem I see (to chime in late) is the fact you end up with the netlists, which are considered the 'best the codex has to offer' while often in reality they are just the EASIEST competitive army the codex holds. (Often the I go first I win concept)

There is a reason people with less than optimal lists still win stuff, they are good players, they know how things work, and they understand how to apply their army.

 

The difference between that last 20% being cut throat 'I want to have the best army at the tournament' and 'I'll take these things instead because that's how I feel the army would be built' is often not really that big of a gap. Then you add in player skill (or lack thereof) and the gap can be even smaller when people don't really know how to use their list optimally.

 

Then add in the people who put the theme and feel of their army in front of being purely competitive and you have people who want to win, but will try to do so with their own style rather than what the mathhammer suggests is the best.

 

There isn't really a wrong/right, its just different perspectives on gaming.

[knife&fork]

@Mort: I would like to remind you that generally speaking, I am in agreement with your list-building philosophy (use your squads to the fullest, give them the tools to be versatile, etc). In a sense, you could say we travel along the same path for 80% of the way; it's in that last 20% where our views diverge. You say "once you reach a certain point of optimization, personnal taste will dictate the finetuning of a list" whereas I say "to get the most out of your list, more often than not you have to sacrifice personnal preferences to include the most optimal choices". Is my way better? Well I think that if winning is all you care about, and are ready to get out of your comfort zone to adapt to the list rather than adapt the list to you, it probably is. That said, not everyone is willing or able to do that, so your way certainly has value - probably more than mine when you take into consideration the gamer population at large.

 

Wow, talk about missing the entire point of the thread.

 

If you are willing to step out of your comfort zone, at least stop advocating over investment in crappy 5 man assault squads while criticizing people for wanting to take 25 pt upgrade in a generalist squad like tacticals.

 

 

 

There is a reason people with less than optimal lists still win stuff, they are good players, they know how things work, and they understand how to apply their army.

 

Then add in the people who put the theme and feel of their army in front of being purely competitive and you have people who want to win, but will try to do so with their own style rather than what the mathhammer suggests is the best.

 

Another reason not to take the 'best possible list' is if you want to game the local meta. Instead of building a good all comers list you build something tuned to the majority of your opposition. You'll get more bad match ups in this way but at least you'll get some variety and do well against the most common lists.

 

My top heavy jump list with tactical terminators do very well against IG, necrons, marines, space wolves and GK. On the other hand I struggle vs chaos marines which is a pretty weak codex atm.

[Deschenus Maximus]

The problem I see (to chime in late) is the fact you end up with the netlists, which are considered the 'best the codex has to offer' while often in reality they are just the EASIEST competitive army the codex holds. (Often the I go first I win concept)

There is a reason people with less than optimal lists still win stuff, they are good players, they know how things work, and they understand how to apply their army.

 

The difference between that last 20% being cut throat 'I want to have the best army at the tournament' and 'I'll take these things instead because that's how I feel the army would be built' is often not really that big of a gap. Then you add in player skill (or lack thereof) and the gap can be even smaller when people don't really know how to use their list optimally.

 

Then add in the people who put the theme and feel of their army in front of being purely competitive and you have people who want to win, but will try to do so with their own style rather than what the mathhammer suggests is the best.

 

There isn't really a wrong/right, its just different perspectives on gaming.

 

I'm not disagreeing. That's what I was trying to get across when I said "That said, not everyone is willing or able to do that, so your way certainly has value - probably more than mine when you take into consideration the gamer population at large."

 

If you are willing to step out of your comfort zone, at least stop advocating over investment in crappy 5 man assault squads while criticizing people for wanting to take 25 pt upgrade in a generalist squad like tacticals.

 

Overinstment? Infernus Pistol, meltagun. On 2 squads. The rest get 1 upgrade. Where the hell do you get overinvestment from?

[knife&fork]

Overinstment? Infernus Pistol, meltagun. On 2 squads. The rest get 1 upgrade. Where the hell do you get overinvestment from?

 

That's still too much if you really want to make the most of the MSU spam.

 

Then there's this;

 

2 Priests w/ combimeltas

 

That's a total of 205 pts in upgrades trying to make weak units like razor squads into something they aren't. Those points could have been spent much better elsewhere, like improving you FA slots, taking a second lib or trying to work at least one scary unit into that list.

[Deschenus Maximus]

I disagree. Having the double meltas and the Priests turns my ASM from deadweight into reliable melta hunters and mop-up squads. A second Libby would be nowhere near as useful, I'm not sure what kind of "scary unit" I could include for 200 pts, and "improving my Fast Attack slots" won't make up for my sudden inability to reliably kill heavy armour.

[knife&fork]

I disagree. Having the double meltas and the Priests turns my ASM from deadweight into reliable melta hunters and mop-up squads. A second Libby would be nowhere near as useful, I'm not sure what kind of "scary unit" I could include for 200 pts, and "improving my Fast Attack slots" won't make up for my sudden inability to reliably kill heavy armour.

 

Reliable? De-mech the razor squds and they are sitting ducks. Slow moving with a very short threat range for AV and they can't really threaten anything but small IG and tau squads in CC, provided they even make it across the board on foot. What are going to "mop up" when you don't have any hard hitters to begin with? If I were to take any upgrades to a razor squad I'd rather spend the 10 pts on a flamer+dozerblade or even a HK missile.

 

2 libs with 'shield' and 'fear' at least gives you a lot more coverage and the ability to chase squads off the table or objectives.

 

Three baal preds would be a much better use of points in a razor list than the speeders. Then you'll have more than 3 units on the board that are somewhat hard to take out.

 

Mephiston or a squad of death company are the most obvious picks in a mechanized lists.

 

 

The list you posted is a prime example of not catering to a units strength within the context of the list. The reason we take the razor squads to begin with is saturation of fast, scoring, heavy weapon platforms. Not to dominate the assault phase.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Reliable? De-mech the razor squds and they are sitting ducks.

 

Easier said then done when you have 5 of them, which will all have at the minimum a 5+ cover save.

 

they can't really threaten anything but small IG and tau squads in CC

 

Completely and utterly false. 5 FCing, FnP ASM are plenty able to take on any other MSU squad outside of Halberd Purifiers, as well larger squads when you throw 2+ units at them together.

 

What are going to "mop up" when you don't have any hard hitters to begin with?

 

Have you forgotten that this thing called the shooting phase exists?

 

If I were to take any upgrades to a razor squad I'd rather spend the 10 pts on a flamer+dozerblade or even a HK missile.

 

Then you are seriously handicapping yourself in situations where your opponent decides to bring a bunch of hard to destroy tanks (or just a f-ton of armour, period). Ghost-Ark necrons and Imperial Guard, in particular, thank you for your ill-advised decision.

 

2 libs with 'shield' and 'fear' at least gives you a lot more coverage and the ability to chase squads off the table or objectives.

 

Fear is not that great tbh. Squads in transports are completely immune, and even when on foot, the rather ridiculously high Ld values in the game make it not so reliable, even with the -2 modifier.

 

Having a second Shield is nice, but nice enough to sacrifice a whole bunch of other advantages in my list? No thank you.

 

Three baal preds would be a much better use of points in a razor list than the speeders. Then you'll have more than 3 units on the board that are somewhat hard to take out.

 

Resilience isn't the only factor at play when you make a list, you know. In this instance, what would the Baals bring that I don't already have?

 

Mephiston or a squad of death company are the most obvious picks in a mechanized lists.

 

Mephiston unsupported will just die, same thing for the DC. And since you need to cut out the bits that would allow the ASM to support them...

 

The list you posted is a prime example of not catering to a units strength within the context of the list. The reason we take the razor squads to begin with is saturation of fast, scoring, heavy weapon platforms. Not to dominate the assault phase.

 

"Mop up" isn't the same thing as "dominating the assault phase".

 

To the rest: bollocks. Naked razor squads are entirely wasted as they have NOTHING they can do except score. You are taking a great deal of potential and throwing it in the gutter.

[Atlantic]

I've been thinking alot about this thread the last couple of days and it is giving me list schizophrenia.

 

Would you guys mind looking this over and making suggestions?

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=249615

 

 

I play the captain for fluff reasons as I have built an entire battle company.

 

I'm considering doing the following:

 

1. Adding an infernus pistol to the captain

2. Giving each priest a power weapon

 

 

If I do that, I'm not sure how I should finish out the rest of the list. I would have to drop at least one attack bike. I could drop all 4 of them and add my Librarian Dreadnaught or throw in a 3rd Dev squad.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Easy fix: drop the power weapons from the Razor ASM and give your Captain a pistol and one of the Priests a sword. If you really want both Priests to have power weapons, don't give the Captain the Infernus.