BA aren't competitive

[The Holy Heretic]

And all of these are beaten by The humble GK strike squad.

 

Face it. If you want to be 'competitive' and do the spam thing, then abandon the red and go for silver ;)

 

I dont think anyone wants discussion on a "spam thing" just what the average BA player finds usefull in day to day table top game play, a sharing of ideas so to speak.

Perhaps you could post more on GK superiority in the silver forum, if we wanted to read about GK prowess then we would ...... in the gk section;)

 

I have thrashed and broken GK strike squads with Lemartes easily then gone on to kill GKGM's and rip chunks out of his terminator retinue.

All this with just 6 DC and a humble RAS :D

I dont know many units that re-roll hits and wounds as well as Lemartes and the DC do

There is nothing like varied initiative in your assault to upset GK wound shenanigans and the DC have it in spades when run with Lemartes.

 

I hope there is more to the game than beating just one army like GK. One good thing about GK is BA jump packers are a lot more mobile than GK and feel no pain makes us hard for GK to down. The only real issue is rending 6's with psycannnons which brings us back to the RAS.

RAS and a priest as an extemely resilient, efficient unit.

 

Well, the sad truth is that BA aren't a competitive army. Don't get me wrong, they aren't Tyranids either, but BA aren't up and running with the top dogs - GK, SW and IG. And snubbing me off as an elitist GK player just doesn't change that ;)

 

I'm sure you've managed to kill a strike squad or two - they're just marines after all - but sadly the strike squad is the least of your worries compared to Paladins, Purifiers and Death Cults.

 

My vote goes to the humble assault squad too. Mobility, anti-tank, anti-infantry and scoring too, with the sanguinary priests coming second for being the best force multiplier :)

[JMac]

Well, the sad truth is that BA aren't a competitive army. Don't get me wrong, they aren't Tyranids either, but BA aren't up and running with the top dogs - GK, SW and IG. And snubbing me off as an elitist GK player just doesn't change that :D

 

I'm sure you've managed to kill a strike squad or two - they're just marines after all - but sadly the strike squad is the least of your worries compared to Paladins, Purifiers and Death Cults.

 

My vote goes to the humble assault squad too. Mobility, anti-tank, anti-infantry and scoring too, with the sanguinary priests coming second for being the best force multiplier ;)

Excuse me for harassing, but labeling yourself as an "elitist player" while playing GK is a bit cocky and the fact that you have an army that can play itself does not make that statement necessarily valid. Everyone in the scene knows GKs are, by far, the strongest army to play (and arguably the easiest). I cherish the fact that we have threads like this one conversing about different synergies within our dex. On that topic, I beg to differ on your belief that BA are not top tier. While they are much more difficult to master, it is very easy to write a bad list, but in the right hands can compete with the "top dogs". With a game entirely built of off tactics and a little bit of luck, it is very hard to shrug off a dex and simply say "Play this one if you want to win." In my eyes, that is simply taking the easy way out. My team does very well(One of us almost always wins) in tournaments, and not one of us play GK. In fact, majority of our wins come from Eldar, Chaos, and Daemons. The funny thing is, our daemon player eats GK for breakfast. What I am trying to say, is instead of trolling on the forums, you should leave your negativity where it belongs.

[Morticon]

Well, the sad truth is that BA aren't a competitive army. Don't get me wrong, they aren't Tyranids either, but BA aren't up and running with the top dogs - GK, SW and IG. And snubbing me off as an elitist GK player just doesn't change that :P

 

Holy Heretic- thanks for chipping in.

 

But you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

You're speaking to a forum of gamers that cover a wide spectrum of success - including a lot of competitive BA players that do very well.

 

My record -(batreps in my sig):

 

SA Regionals - Heat 1 2010 - 4th

Icon 2011 - 3rd Place

(2010 1st)

SA Regionals Heat1 2011 - 1st Place.

SA Regionals Heat2 2011 - 2nd Place

SA Nationals 2011 - 4th Place.

Veterans 2500pnt (2011) - 1st (2010 2nd)

SA Regionals - Heat 4 - 2011 - 1st Place

 

The Big 'Un - 2x1500 Doubles Tournament (BA/BA) - 1st Place

Dragonfire - Doubles- (BA/BA) 2011 - 1st (2010 1st)

 

3000 Point "Bring It On" (2012) - BA.

 

 

 

It may be on account of English being your second language that you're not getting the nuance and subtlety of the English language correct.

So, maybe you wish to change your writing to say something like:

 

"In my opinion, where I live, and from the limited experiences I've had - I havent seen BA be able to compete with...."

 

Because as it stands, you just make yourself out to look very ill-informed.

[The Holy Heretic]

Well, the sad truth is that BA aren't a competitive army. Don't get me wrong, they aren't Tyranids either, but BA aren't up and running with the top dogs - GK, SW and IG. And snubbing me off as an elitist GK player just doesn't change that ;)

 

I'm sure you've managed to kill a strike squad or two - they're just marines after all - but sadly the strike squad is the least of your worries compared to Paladins, Purifiers and Death Cults.

 

My vote goes to the humble assault squad too. Mobility, anti-tank, anti-infantry and scoring too, with the sanguinary priests coming second for being the best force multiplier ;)

Excuse me for harassing, but labeling yourself as an "elitist player" while playing GK is a bit cocky and the fact that you have an army that can play itself does not make that statement necessarily valid. Everyone in the scene knows GKs are, by far, the strongest army to play (and arguably the easiest). I cherish the fact that we have threads like this one conversing about different synergies within our dex. On that topic, I beg to differ on your belief that BA are not top tier. While they are much more difficult to master, it is very easy to write a bad list, but in the right hands can compete with the "top dogs". With a game entirely built of off tactics and a little bit of luck, it is very hard to shrug off a dex and simply say "Play this one if you want to win." In my eyes, that is simply taking the easy way out. My team does very well(One of us almost always wins) in tournaments, and not one of us play GK. In fact, majority of our wins come from Eldar, Chaos, and Daemons. The funny thing is, our daemon player eats GK for breakfast. What I am trying to say, is instead of trolling on the forums, you should leave your negativity where it belongs.

 

You're excused, but you also misinterpreted me, so please go back and read the post once again, please. :)

 

I do not label myself anything. My army certainly doesn't play itself. I merely state - what you yourself just said - that GK are by far the strongest army As the opening post is looking for, what sets the BA apart from and makes them stronger than other marines in a competitive setting, I merely state that this is a lost cause, as the BA are outclassed by others. No reason to delude yourself that BA are any stronger than they are - even though "Red wunz go fasta!" ;)

 

-

 

That said, my armies are generally regarded as thoroughly gimped. Firewarrior based Tau, 300 point dreadknights with gatling psilensers, and jumping Death Company/Sanguinary Guard etc.. I build them based on looks, play them to win, but for the game - winning is all in all immaterial to me.

 

-

 

@Morticon I do not doubt that you're good at playing BA, and that you get good results with them. Good for you, you certainly deserve a cookie - if only for your condescending demeanor :) But I really do not care for the achievements of one man. I could just as easily name a bunch of tournaments with a GK winner - or a DE for that sake (the last one I went to actually had Tyranids at 2nd after getting gunned down by DE). :)

[Deschenus Maximus]

@Holy Heretic: You are just flat out wrong. Sorry, but you are. BA have the speed, resilience and, when built right, the flexibility to tackle every single army out there. Including GK. In fact, I have not lost a single game to the Knights yet.

 

As JMac said, it is easier to write a bad list with BA than with GK, but once you know what you are doing, the Bloods are very, very strong. I think that the reason why you don't see them doing better is that too many people fall into the "ooh, shiny!" trap and load up on toys instead of the stuff that will actually win them games.

 

In fact, I say with confidence that, in my analysis, the Blood Angels are the strongest codex out there. They are just not as straightforward to master as some of the other armies.

[awfulawful]

Well, the sad truth is that BA aren't a competitive army.

 

 

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll293/awfulawful/benderlaugh.jpg

[knife&fork]

As JMac said, it is easier to write a bad list with BA than with GK, but once you know what you are doing, the Bloods are very, very strong.

 

BA are worse in the sense that we cannot write a good all rounder as well as the other top codexes. Sure, you can tailor against part of the meta and make lists that are strong vs wolves and gk for example. But in the end we will run into more mismatchs were we really struggle.

[Morticon]

@Morticon[/b] I do not doubt that you're good at playing BA, and that you get good results with them. Good for you, you certainly deserve a cookie - if only for your condescending demeanor :) But I really do not care for the achievements of one man. I could just as easily name a bunch of tournaments with a GK winner - or a DE for that sake (the last one I went to actually had Tyranids at 2nd after getting gunned down by DE). :)

 

 

Well allow me then to educate you in the use of language and logic and show you why you should care.

You made a sweeping statement that BA are not competitive.

The language you used is definitive and therefore implies that in ALL cases BA are NEVER competitive. ( The use of the "be"verb 'are' is what does that )

 

If you don't believe that- change what you've said and/or the language you've used.

 

I've proved your statement wrong simply by showing one case where it is not so (and I showed a few more than one).

 

You have said the gaming equivalent of: "all Swans are white". If a person is able to show you a black swan -you are wrong.

(See: Falsifiability )

 

If I had said "BA are the best because I win a lot" THEN you can talk about not caring for the achievements of one person.

 

Your argument regarding easily naming a bunch of GK winners makes zero logical sense because no one is arguing GK aren't competitive. Which is why I previously gave you the benefit of the doubt with it being a second language thing- rather than a failure to understand a logical argument thing.

[Morticon]

Quick note to all.

 

I'm happy to have this thread open if people can keep it civil.

People start flaming and it'll have to be locked.

 

Thanks.

[Deschenus Maximus]

BA are worse in the sense that we cannot write a good all rounder as well as the other top codexes. Sure, you can tailor against part of the meta and make lists that are strong vs wolves and gk for example. But in the end we will run into more mismatchs were we really struggle.

 

I don't it see like that myself. Some BA list do have bad matchups, but not all of them. I don't remember any game where I've felt like saying "well, that's going to be a tough one" from the get go with my tourney list.

[The Holy Heretic]

Quick note to all.

 

I'm happy to have this thread open if people can keep it civil.

People start flaming and it'll have to be locked.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Well, as the 'topic starter', I'll have no part of it.

 

I find the relative power level of the BA a moot point. The truely competitive players can make better choices IMO, while I'll play BA regardless :)

[Deschenus Maximus]

I consider myself fairly competitive, and I would not pick any other army than BA to compete.

[Myxx]

I giggled a bit as I read this. When BA were released a while back, there were so many people jumping on the bandwagon that the suspension needed replacing.

 

"BA are so amazing, look we have jets... BA are sooooo overpowered... No one can stand before the sheer awesomeness of the BA... Mat Ward is awesome..."

 

White Dwarf and all the red paint were sold out in a day, and now they aren't competitive... Hogwash...

[breng77]

Well a lot of that has to do with gks. Halberds really hurt BA due to essentially negating sanguinary priests. I think that the topic would be better stated that BA are not a top tier competitive army. They still compete perfectly well in most cases, but are not quite so powerful as some other books.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Well a lot of that has to do with gks. Halberds really hurt BA due to essentially negating sanguinary priests.

 

Not all GK armies pack a ton of halberds, and assault isn't the only thing that BA are good at. My BA tourney list cares about halberds about as much as stuff care for the wellbeing of stuff.

[Leonaides]

Halberds are irrelevant. I have yet to see a GK player with a threatening army that I dont think I can table (or near as damnit) with one of my tournament lists, who has mass halberds. They cost too much.

 

I have, on the other hand, outshot, outfought and outmanouvred GK armies with a mixed army list with Tactical Squads, RAS, Sang Guard, Predators and Vindicators. And not even missed having a unit of DC around...

 

A competant general with a well-crafted BA list will beat the majority of GK players - if only because the majority of GK players are probably bandwaggoning in search of an "I winz" army instead of learning how their armies work, what works with each combination and what it will do well against.

 

And Holy Heretic - you really ought to define competative before you start speaking for truely competative players. A DA player who runs a mixed/Ironwing army might be more competative than a guy who chages codex every time there's a new one cos he cant figure out how to use the previous one.

[Imperial Deceit]

Halberds are irrelevant. I have yet to see a GK player with a threatening army that I dont think I can table (or near as damnit) with one of my tournament lists, who has mass halberds. They cost too much.

 

I have seen that too. At the last two tournaments I competed in (and placed) my Angels had the GK tabled by turn 4 both times, the halberd spam did nothing to help them in the shooting phase, and by the time CC rolled around they where just too diminished to survive. Plus you know, Death Company... :D

[Taz]

So, Heretic, from what I've seen, the underlying message of the thread is "I'm going to make generalist statements and call the army of the forum that I'm posting in underpowered, then disregard any possible dissent or evidence against my opinion by basically repeating my same generalist statements."

 

So what was the point of the thread? You obviously don't want to discuss the matter, so seems to me that you just feel like touting your favorite army in a different forum so you can feel superior that your army has shinier toys.

 

Watch, I bet in six months someone's going to be making this same thread about Dark Angels, going on and on about how the Ravenwing's new bikes with demolisher cannons and Deathwing Terminators with feel no pain, furious charge and the last ed. Necrons' get back up rule makes them vastly superior to everything, despite the fact that on a roll of 1 they all wander off the board to go hunt for a Fallen.

[breng77]

Not all GK armies pack a ton of halberds, and assault isn't the only thing that BA are good at. My BA tourney list cares about halberds about as much as stuff care for the wellbeing of stuff.

 

No but it is something that pre-gk many BA players built around and it hurt when that went away. All the people that. Liam they can table any army are talking nonsense or playing against bad players. BA are a strong dex but to say that they are on a level with the top books is just not correct. This does not mean that good players cannot win with them or that it is an auto loss simply that thy have fewer competitive builds and those builds are more difficult to play well.

[The Crimson Cartel]

So what was the point of the thread? Also please note that adding smiley faces to your posts doesn't make YOU any less condescending, either.

 

Agreed...

[the jeske]

I think I know what THH means . BA are not compative on any level as IG/SW/GK , that is true . all those 3 can offten go auto pilot BAs can never go auto pilot . all the 3 armies are able to meta [offten hard] all the top builds/armies with a single list . BA cant do that . Or to be more precise [what THH forgot to mention] BA have two ways of playing [well 3 if someone counts DoA as a viable list] . they can either go full razor mecha , but then they have some realy horrible match ups [a lot worse to GK or SW razor builds] or they go hybrid . now the Hybrid being BA top list has its many bad sides . First of all it is hard to play . and again to be even more precise it is hard to play because it both requires skill from the playing opponent [your playing eldar in power armor more or less]. singles offten have to cover for the whole army which brings in the randomness [and why corbs is awesome] problems . a GK or SW army doesnt do random . it works ok even if it rolls under the avarge [+they have stuff like totems for SW . GK being offten immune to rolls effects because of the rules/stats they have] . That is why sometimes hybrid lists just fall apart . you dont take corbs , you need 2 important rolls and fail both and BAs are in real trouble . A cortez build , when it is proper build is never in trouble [unless I dont know you roll like 20x1 , but even then they do better then a BA list would rolling the same 20x1] because of rolls .

 

 

For BA lists it gets even "worse" at the non GT tournament winner level of player/list . SW/IG/GK build simpler and better lists for non top ranked player and even top ranked BA players will have problems with lets say draigo lists , but not because those are OP . no they will have problems , because if its kill points they are kind of a screwed.

simple design with efficient rules always comes out on top , simple design breaking the rules of an army genera . gunline armies cant go full gunline they need counter units and they can be stun locked if based around troops or have problems with claiming objectives if footslogging for example . GK break all the 3 basic balancing elements of a gunline list.

 

That of course doesnt mean that BAs are unplayable . Of course not . But if one sees the SW/IG/GK tier as the one normaly used in compatative gameplay , then BA armies are not there with those 3 dex .

[Deschenus Maximus]

all the 3 armies are able to meta [offten hard] all the top builds/armies with a single list . BA cant do that .

 

Maybe in your experience they can't. Mine says otherwise.

[the jeske]

give an example if you claim something like that . I have not yet seen a BA build which did not have problems with some of the popular builds at 1500-1850[which is what main land europe plays] . And If people didnt make such lists since the codex BA went legal then the chance of them existing is slim . That or we would have to assume that europe does not play w40k .

[Deschenus Maximus]

Sure. Libby with shield, at least 2 priests with combimeltas, between 4 and 6 5-man ASM squads with meltas (depending on points level) in assbacks, 2-3 typhoon speeders and 2-3 autolas preds. Hasn't failed me yet.

[Demoulius]

uh, whats going on here? :) i cant understand from the OP's starting post what the entire topic is about... well, rather i see someone flaming a codex because in his experience they arent competitive....

 

then disregard any proof to the contrary because it doesent fit your vieuw of the subject...