Morticon Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Dem, the topic was split from the "Competitive units in BA" thread. The "OP" stated the above in that thread and it escalated from there. I just split it so people could unpack their thinking here. But, what you saw you did in fact see :P Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075599 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 uh, whats going on here? :P i cant understand from the OP's starting post what the entire topic is about... Well, you summed up below pretty much what is going on here : 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... Blood Angels are a competative army, full stop. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075659 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoulius Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 oh! its split from a different topic ^_^ makes sense i guess (not the discussion but the odd layout of the thread :P) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075706 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezkh Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Before I opened this thread I knew it would be about GK. I laughed. OP doesn't understand what he is talking about and based on response I won't expend the effort to educate otherwise. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075760 Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMac Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Ok, first of all... 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 . Auto-pilot? C'mon, this is most definitely a myth. I do not agree when people say "Armies play themselves." No way in hell! No matter the list, the player is what makes it good or great. The list simply changes the odds of its success. Every army has their strengths, and every army has their weaknesses. Let's face it, against Leafblower, DoA has my money every time. Go ahead and make the argument that competitive players don't play DoA. I will again disagree. DoA is diluted with trying to include a variety of units while overspending for those wrong units. Desh has claimed his success with his list because it most likely fits his play style. I find it boring to take lists that are so called competitive (and I should know after building Missile Wolves and Hydra Spam Guard then selling them both), because they play the same way every time! You can find competitive lists that suit your play style, it just takes some play testing and a bit of creativity. For example, a buddy of mine coined the term Footdar and has had huge success with it (including Top 8 at Adepticon this year) while every forum on the net told him his list was ridiculously noncompetitive. Moral of the story, any list/army can be competitive. Every list/army also has bad match ups. Every list/army will need tactics and a little bit of luck to beat those bad match ups. Spend more time on perfecting your game rather than ranting about lists/armies and success will follow. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075814 Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Before I opened this thread I knew it would be about GK. It's also about IG and SW. BA wasn't exactly dominating tournaments before the GK dex hit either, even if the amount of new dex bandwagoners made them a more common sight. If anything the slight shift in meta resulting from the GK dex have made things a little bit better for those of us still sticking with it. 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 By that definition the OP is correct. Play another army than IG/SW/GK and you have made things a little more difficult than need to be. (If all you care about is winning) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075816 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezkh Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Before I opened this thread I knew it would be about GK. It's also about IG and SW. BA wasn't exactly dominating tournaments before the GK dex hit either, even if the amount of new dex bandwagoners made them a more common sight. If anything the slight shift in meta resulting from the GK dex have made things a little bit better for those of us still sticking with it. 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 By that definition the OP is correct. Play another army than IG/SW/GK and you have made things a little more difficult than need to be. (If all you care about is winning) Doesn't matter if the OP is correct by his own definition, if that definition is laughable, it being 'codexes are tiered'. Even Stelek, of competitive-play-is-everything-and-the-only-thing blog YTTH, disagrees that codex tiers have a place in comp 40k discussion. There are simply competitive and non-competitive armies. BA can make a competitive army(s) from their codex. Fin. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075822 Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 There are simply competitive and non-competitive armies. BA can make a competitive army(s) from their codex. Fin. Context, context, context. Competitive in the context of a single game with a known player and opponent isn't the same as competitive in the context of a large number of games with an unknown spread of opponents and players. I don't care what you call them, the big three have proven themselves to currently make the best all comers lists. A few outliers here and there doesn't change the overall results we see from all over the world. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075828 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagingChainsword Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Wow, I really don't understand this... I've played 5 games, 3 aginst GK once against Ultras, once against Chaos. I have only ever lost to the Chaos Player and Ultramarines (forgot to pack my MM Attack Bikes). The GK were :P. I don't doubt thta GK are a strong, competetive army,after all my brother plays them and I've seen what they can do. But there is no way that anyone can just walk into this forum, and start slating the chapter it's about?!? What the heck is wrong with you, man. You can expect to get hate. Saying GK are better than BA... So, here's a list of all the statements you've made regarding BA. BA aren't competetive... WRONG! GK are better than BA... WRONG! There are more but frankly it's not worth the effort typing those about something rally quite stupid... So you see now, and to quote a very wise man who posted eralier on this forum *cough* dswanick, Blood Angels are competetive, full stop. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075832 Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Auto-pilot? C'mon, this is most definitely a myth have you play a cortez build against nids . Or draigo wing in any kill points mission . Or SW in any mission . It is not a myth , when an army has superior fire power or doesnt have to worry [unless something like i roll 20x1 in one turn on paldins saves happens] abou the rules of a scenario or when a match up is so in favor of you that tactics stop being important you can go auto pilot. It doesnt mean you have or should , but if you can do this at highest level of game play [or when your opponents only chance of win is"my opponent rolls under avarge , I roll above"] then at the casual or new player level this turns in to a true auto pilot[dudes dont even have to learn how to play against friends because lists play themselfs]. No matter the list, the player is what makes it good or great. what makes a list great is rules and the state of tournament meta game . second factor is tables/scenarios/match ups . personal skill in tournaments dont matter , when the goal is to win a tournament because it is expected of you that everyone who tries to do that is "great" . So great becomes normal . Let's face it, against Leafblower, DoA has my money every time. awesome . only tournaments/causal games are not always IG mecha at 2.5k vs BAs DoA. cortez builds or SW or IG are good at all important point levels[dominating 650pts doesnt matter much] . A list that has bad match ups at 1500 pts [where bad means losing faster because of army mechanics used] is not a good list . A list that has a bad match up at 2000-2250 against a build that is played by less then 1% of all tournament players is a good one. because they play the same way every time! I just like to point out that A they do it because it is effective B you said there is no auto pilot :P C DoA is the same and no random reserv rolls do not make the game play different , just like a sgt suddenly killing 3 dudes with a fist instead of around 1-2 . You can find competitive lists that suit your play style, it just takes some play testing and a bit of creativity. only when "creative" means having better match ups agains the top players armies/builds and/or being better for the scenarios played [no man would take unit X , but because scenario says Y I take two. or because X all armies wont be using Y this means its time for 3xZ which would normaly never be taken] Moral of the story, any list/army can be competitive you thinking of wining here , not about being competitive . those are two different things and as I said before no one said that the BA are bad , it is just that the list out of their dex are not as good[flexible, immune to random etc] as GK/IG/SW. It is simple If BA were actualy on the same game play/mechanic level as those 3 then there would be just as many tournament wins around the world done by BAs . Every list/army also has bad match ups. well actualy a GK cortez build at more then 1850 doesnt . but anyway having a bad match up against lets say nid MC builds or sob melta spam doesnt matter as much as I am at a disadventage against all IG lists [because of stun lock] GK razors[i can be stunlocked they dont] and draigo wings in KP . because the chance of actualy facing a nid army vs seeing IG or some sort of GK is higher . off topic wise It is also why nids suck so hard . they are bad against all the top playing armies on top of having bad mechanics for a mecha edition and no frags for a melee army. For example, a buddy of mine coined the term Footdar and has had huge success with it (including Top 8 at Adepticon this year) while every forum on the net told him his list was ridiculously noncompetitive. then those people were bad players. Footdar are not a good list [will lose to GK for example , specialy cortez builds would be hard ] but they have two things . First of all they arent mecha [which means more models , more fire power ,type of game play people playing under 4 years maybe not used to] , second of all because of the how the army is strucutured [it isnt actualy a pure foot list , because they spam guided war walkers] it does better then mecha it can conga , it doesnt have to worry about meltas , good late scoring units in the form of jet bikes . It has a great HQ combo avatar+seer/The Man . In many ways its just like IG [only with less utility , but considering the age of the dex its nothing special] foot gunlines , the only difference being the fact that IG has both a viable mecha and foot army and eldar dont having a good foot one . Every list/army will need tactics and a little bit of luck to beat those bad match ups. Spend more time on perfecting your game rather than ranting about lists/armies and success will follow. no one is ranting about anything . and you cant beat bad match ups without luck factor[a BA razor spam beats an IG list or GK razor build how ? by rolling nothing but pens and passing all covers ?] . If you need luck to beat something then your list is not a good enough one. If your army ignores the random effect of rolling mostly [the big 3 does just that] then your army is a good one . Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075834 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezkh Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 BA built for competitive play are competitive in the context of a large number of games against an unknown spread of opponents and players. I wouldn't mind being shown the proof/results you're refering to. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075837 Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 BA built for competitive play are competitive in the context of a large number of games against an unknown spread of opponents and players. I wouldn't mind being shown the proof/results you're refering to. Not more so than IG/SW/GK, with emphasis on GK. Are you saying that the above aren't the ones dominating tournaments atm? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075844 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezkh Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 BA built for competitive play are competitive in the context of a large number of games against an unknown spread of opponents and players. I wouldn't mind being shown the proof/results you're refering to. Not more so than IG/SW/GK, with emphasis on GK. Are you saying that the above aren't the ones dominating tournaments atm? I'm saying that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. Show me the money. Etc. I'm pretty sure in this Imperial-mechanized dominated tournament scene, the army with unhindered access to Melta and fast metal boxes can be competitive in the context of a large number of games against an unknown spread of opponents and players. What is more, is that BA are one of the factions that can build lists that can compete at the highest level that contain no vehicles. I wouldn't call it DoA, because more often than not it's played without deepstriking, and contains models without Jump Packs like SS/TH Terminators. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075855 Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I'm saying that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. Show me the money. Etc. The one making extra-ordinary claims is you. Calling IG, SW and GK the top three armies is hardly controversial. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075871 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I'm saying that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. Show me the money. Etc. The one making extra-ordinary claims is you. Calling IG, SW and GK the top three armies is hardly controversial. It's also subjective, and anectodotal. The "top three" armies in my local gaming circles (of which there are five in the CNY region), are Blood Angels, Dark Eldar, and Tyranid (in no particular order). Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075875 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 So what was the point of the thread? Taz, just so there's no overt confusion - i split his comment from another thread (he didnt start the topic per se) but the topic had veered off course- so instead of closing that thread I chose to take all the comments relating to BA not being competitive to its own thread. And lets keep it cool guys. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075884 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Ok, first of all... 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 . Auto-pilot? C'mon, this is most definitely a myth. I think im with Jeske on this one Jmac. There is are a few decidedly average players this side that have VERY insane lists that are doing very, very well. There was a guy who came bottom 3 in his previous tourney outing and considerably poor before that too, and switched to a Pally list and was in the top 3 in the next tourney and then the following one too. My last game in the 3k tournament was vs. GK and the guy was (all things considered) not a "great" player. Maybe not even a "good" player. He was exceptionally intermediate. But, he had made it to that point on account of the list that others just couldnt deal with. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075886 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deschenus Maximus Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 There's no denying that a bad player using a good list will do better than he did when he played a bad list out of a bad army. But auto-pilot? Bull*censored*. Why don't BA win more tournaments? For one, bandwaggoners have long since moved on to GK or other things, so that's less people playing them. Say what you like about bandwaggonners, some are really good. On top of that, making a good BA army takes a lot more thought than say IG. The number of times I've seen crap like double Ravens with mephiston, a big DC and DC dreads... I mean, yeah, no kidding those players don't do good. "a BA razor spam beats an IG list or GK razor build how ? by rolling nothing but pens and passing all covers ?" Erm, no? You build your list properly - have melta and sang priests. Once your razors go pop, keep up the advance on foot. If you don't use most/all of the BA advantages (by say, trying to make a purely shooty razorspam list), then yeah, you'll lose to those armies that do what you are trying to do better. That's YOUR fault for not building right, not the Codex's fault for not providing you with the tools to win. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075928 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zynk Kaladin Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 BA is less competitive than IG? I don't know much about the tournament scene, but can someone explain why GK/SW/IG are considered top tier. So far I know: GK: Paladins? SW: Missile Spam? IG: Tanks? I'm just curious. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075936 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 There's no denying that a bad player using a good list will do better than he did when he played a bad list out of a bad army. But auto-pilot? Bull*censored*. Maybe its down to semantics/definitions then? For me a bad/average/intermediate player using a strong list and doing well is what "auto-pilot"/"plays itself" means. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075938 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 BA is less competitive than IG? I don't know much about the tournament scene, but can someone explain why GK/SW/IG are considered top tier. So far I know: GK: Paladins? SW: Missile Spam? IG: Tanks? I'm just curious. GK and SW have a few different builds that do very, very well. Their strength comes from being able to score highly in 3 of 4 categories that (I believe) make up a solid tourney army. 1. Shooting 2. Assault 3. Movement 4. Resiliency. They can outshoot and out assault most armies out there. If meched out, can out-maneuver a lot of armies too (BA excluded). They're marines/mech so again very resilient. Guard on the other hand can score so highly on the shooty aspect that they can alpha strike the living befudge out you before you can do anything if you deploy on board, and can mess with your reserves to deal with you piece meal if you dont deploy on board. I have very few probs with guard, but largely because my lists are tailored to take guard on. That being said, if i'm on a tabel without a lot of high terrain and i'm going 2nd- im in a LOT of trouble. But, its the fact that the guard list (and SW/GK) can handle so many other lists that make it impressive. I've said this in a few places before, but its my belief that at top competitive level, player ability is usually on a par. As a result, it will be up to dice to some degree, but more important the match up. The top level play (again imho) is about Rock-Paper-Scissors. It's about making your list the rock to as many scissors out there as possible. BA do this alright. But, the problem is that GK and SW can do this much, much better. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075941 Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think guard players deserve a little more credit than that. Good IG play isn't as straightforward as people think (at least not on normal point levels) since they are so completely useless in assault. Why don't BA win more tournaments? For one, bandwaggoners have long since moved on to GK or other things, so that's less people playing them. Yeah, and why is that? And how come SW is doing so much better than BA despite being a much older codex? Those kind of players will go after the dex that gives them the greatest advantage, and that codex isn't BA. Simple as that. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075949 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Those kind of players will go after the dex that gives them the greatest advantage, and that codex isn't BA. Simple as that. See, i'm not even concerned about arguing which codex is "strongest" or "most competitive". I have no issues with that. I think GK is potentially stronger than ours. And SW potentially more rounded (therefore more competitive). But, this thread and the starting comment was never about what was stronger, but rather that BA weren't competitive (fullstop). That's where I call shenanigans. (as for guard- its why i dont include them in the "plug and play" type). Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075952 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deschenus Maximus Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Yeah, and why is that? Because they're bandwagonners? That's just what they do. And how come SW is doing so much better than BA despite being a much older codex? Because SW is easier to make good lists with. Simple as that. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075955 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deschenus Maximus Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Their strength comes from being able to score highly in 3 of 4 categories that (I believe) make up a solid tourney army. 1. Shooting 2. Assault 3. Movement 4. Resiliency. See, now I agree with you, and this is why I find it mindboggling that someone could find BA noncompetitive: 1. We have pretty good shooting. Not as good as GK, SW and IG, but this is where... 2. Assault comes. Short of a T-wolves or Purifier/Pally/DCA heavy list, we got those 3 books flat out beaten in that area. Then add... 3. Movement, and things are looking pretty. But that's not all, folks! 4. Resiliency - Fnp, hi? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/253440-ba-arent-competitive/page/2/#findComment-3075961 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.