Blood angels - poor or underestimated

[Jimm]

Firstly hi,
Been reading these forums for years but just realised I've never joined/posted.

Now to the topic.

So I've seen on a couple of forums and had a few people also say this to me recently but most people currently rate Ba along with csm as the worst least competitive armies.

Now to me I was shocked to hear this, I'm by far the best player and always learning from tactical mistakes but tend to do pretty well with Ba. I usual put up a Good fight vs armies deemed to be much better and even had people say ba are op which is now making me laugh after reading how uncompetitive we are currently.

Interested to hear what other blood angel players think to a lot of the community thinking we currently have the worst least comp codex (still the best fluff though)

Personally makes me feel both good and bad. Good as most of the time I can at least hold my own but equally a bit gutted as when I play codex I see as very strong (sm, sw, cons, eldar) I can't help but think what if I could do that.

[Crimson Devil]

In the general meta we are on the mid to bottom tier. In individual metas it varies. Those who are near the top of their respective metas are playing in a soft meta or are very good players.

[Frater Antodeniel]

Underestimated ? By our ennemies, i don't think. By our own Blood Angels brother, maybe, thinking of the wounds the 7th edition inflicted to us.

 

Poor ? Yes and No.....

 

Yes ----> We lack of 1-2 units that could really bring a lot of possibilities, a flyers like the Stormtalon and the Land Speeder Storm could be interesting. (A shame that the Dark Angels have more Assault/Rapid Attack options than us, i take into account the landspeeder support...)

 

No -----> We have really good Elite Slot, and i can had that the Elite slot is full and locked the way 7th ed put him. (Moving the Dreadnought back to support slot would make the Elite slot choice perfect.)

 

 

Furthermore, i can only say that SADLY, the 7th edition BA : Codex, was more of a Marketing Codex than a Hobby/Game Codex. One notable proof was the detachment, with 6 slots for "only" the new tactical squad and only 3 Rapid Attack slot...while, the Flesh Tearers supplement (Shield of Baal) provide us a more normal Blood Angels detachment with 6 Rapid Attack choice and 4 Troops choice.

 

But the Backstabing came 6 month later with the SM and DA Codexes. It is clear that 6 month earlier the rules team of GW already worked on the SM and DA ones. Knowing this fact, they could have at least harmonised the rules, but no, 6 month later, SM and DA came along altogether with "OP" rules compared to us.

 

More, i contacted their service, proposed a constructed Errata, they didn't dare respond. That's a way to handle the loyal customer....If you didn't bought the 7th Edition codex, i advice you that you can certainly find it for download. More usefull to bought miniatures than to buy the 7th BA codex.

[Silverson]

they way I look at the power rankings people use in a strict 1-?? Rankings it is easy to say we are down in the bottom third or lower. But the realty I see in it that we are in the most balanced area of the game at the moment.

 

You have your codecies like eldar and necrons that are top tier and walk over most other armies, then you have c:sm, dark Angels, daemons flying circus and tau that are strong codecies (or in the daemons codex I guess a strong mono build) but then you have everyone else, some people rate khorne daemonkin and space wolves slightly above blood Angels, grey knights, orks, dark eldar, ad mech, sob,csm and tyranids but they seem quite close in power level to me.

 

So as I see it we are competative against 7 armies, debatably slightly behind 2 and then fall short against 5 armies. Then you have the other 2 factors of our game to consider (player skill and the dice)

[Jimm]

....If you didn't bought the 7th Edition codex, i advice you that you can certainly find it for download. More usefull to bought miniatures than to buy the 7th BA codex.

 

I own multiple armies and have three upto date codex's. BA are my fav but like other BA player I know I don't own the current codex nor do I intend to buy it. 

 

I know someone has to be bottom or nearing it but feel sad people think / or that it is BA currently. 

[Helias_Tancred]

 

....If you didn't bought the 7th Edition codex, i advice you that you can certainly find it for download. More usefull to bought miniatures than to buy the 7th BA codex.

 

I own multiple armies and have three upto date codex's. BA are my fav but like other BA player I know I don't own the current codex nor do I intend to buy it. 

 

I know someone has to be bottom or nearing it but feel sad people think / or that it is BA currently. 

 

 

Are you able to play against most opponents using the 6th edition Blood Angel Codex?

[Xenith]

 

Are you able to play against most opponents using the 6th edition Blood Angel Codex?

 

 

I think he means that he has stopped playing BA because of the codex.

[Arkangilos]

Furthermore, i can only say that SADLY, the 7th edition BA : Codex, was more of a Marketing Codex than a Hobby/Game Codex. One notable proof was the detachment, with 6 slots for "only" the new tactical squad and only 3 Rapid Attack slot

 

 

Are you sure that it isn't that we are a codex chapter, and so our army composition reflects that of a codex chapter? Since tactical marines are the majority of space marines in the chapter, it makes sense that the "typical Blood Angel Formation dispatched to fight any of the Emperor's wars" would have more tactical marines than anything else.

[redshadow]

We are definitely competitive and can hold our own against most army's, but most army's are not singular in dimension anymore the most competitive and nasty army's are full of allies and formations and extra dataslates, something we can do as well. 

 

I saw an Ork player take a 3 Titan formation, tigurus and a scout squad, the Titans were awesomely kit bashed same as the scouts and tigurus, and he won with not a real Ork on the table lol

 

the possibilities are endless

[redshadow]

If you want to take  a space marine formation then our blood Angels fill in well, if you want imperial guard formations just paint the guard the same way you'd paint your scouts, there's nothing wrong with painting blood angel knights,  there's that korne  formation. Just paint them up as death company lol raven wing and death wing paint them death company lol  necrons could be servitors you can really do anything you want, just have some fluff to back it up.

 

plus we still have the best looking models in the game......

[Jorre]

Our codex isnt the best st the moment, but we are a long way off being as bad as csm!!!

 

The BA codex has certain niches that it is highly competative in. We can be built to be very anti mech or horde. Or even tooled up to take on death star lists! The problem i think is in making a widely competative list. If you know what your facing Ba can be great but in the current meta its hard to make a good all comers list using only the ba dex

Oh and welcome to the forums!! You should post more ;)

[Red-beard]

While technically a 7E release, from a power perspective, the BA codex is really the last of the 6E vintage codexes. Every full codex release since BA has been more powerful (Necrons, Eldar, Khorne Daemonkin, Skitari/Ad Mech, SM, DA, and soon to be Tau). The BA codex is competitive with most of the codexes released prior (CSM, old Tau, Nids, AM, Orks, GK, DE) with the exception of maybe summoning Chaos Daemons.

However, from an enjoyment standpoint, I find the BA codex to be a ton of fun. I field my BA more often than my vanilla marines, even though the SM codex is stronger. I just like the uniqueness of the BA models and playstyle.

[Captain Caine 24th]

There are a few ways to look at it. I find I do really well in 1500 point games as extreme ally combinations are limited. Additionally units like death company are very points efficient for their damage output--this is highlighted even more in smaller point games.  At 1850 the big kids come out and it can get messy. Flesh tearers strike force is still nasty with the right allies. Usually I win maybe half my games and have some good games with some bad matchups (generally do to my list construction and not a criticism of the codex). 

 

Very rarely do I play games over 2500-3000, but I'm telling you BA's formations would get very good. Angel's fury with 3 stormravens for instance (and let's just assume adepticon/ITC faq); it costs a lot of points and is hard to fit into 1850 while still getting what you want. It probably won't fare well against 2+ rerollable cover saves, but it'll still catch people off guard--3 stormravens is plain mean.  But, at a higher point level you could bring absolute craziness in from deepstrike and immediately charge. A criticism of BA might be that they sacrifice a durability for speed, in a meta where durability is paramount due to high volume of fire guns. But, I'm telling you if ratlings could charge out of deep strike they'd be an amazing unit, let alone Lord Commander Dante and a golden host of archangels. Not getting shot at is better than an invulnerable save. And, this isn't even the only formation that could get really crazy. A lot of folks really lament the BA, but it really depends on point level, allowance of allies, and number of detachments. And, I'll admit tourneys don't usually run 3000 points. Maybe the real issue is that some codexes appear to be good at any point level and even without allies.

 

I think the 7th ed codex design choice was a nod to the older BA players with reasonable but not over powered access to +1S and +1i (just like the old days). Man, older editions were crazy. If memory serves correct you could charge out of deep strike and consolidate combat into a new combat. BA were really good, but the main rule book also favored them. GW has now given BA a lot of awesome tools, but the rules don't necessarily match up like they used to. That, and things have dramatically changed with a lot of monstrous creatures, titans, grav, etc. It's hard as an player across a few editions to conceptualize that my army should fight in a completely different way. So sometimes I think something is comparatively worse than it used to be, but in reality I'm using the unit/thinking about it in an obsolete way. The depth and complexity of this game is what makes it great (and frustrating at times).

 

What is "good" overall continues to change.  As an example I remember space marine bikes being not good for a long time. I don't know, I suppose I look at codexes as a scale more between easy and difficult than good or bad. As a codex ages it allows less mistakes, and requires more planning & practice. 

[Jimm]

 

 

 

Are you able to play against most opponents using the 6th edition Blood Angel Codex?

 

I think he means that he has stopped playing BA because of the codex.

No I still play using the 7th codex but I refuse to buy it. Prob had about 25-30 games using my ba since Dec and always intended to buy it but since sm and da I just dont want to throw anymore money at 40k ba.

To make things worse my other armies are guard and gk which were also a huge disappointment. I think gw just hates me, sorry guys it's my fault!!!

[Frater Antodeniel]

That's not your fault^^, keep playing BA and enjoying the hobby the way you like. Things may be a little harder by those time, but, i think that many things will change in the future for BA. Also, i will take great pleasure to answer some post and remind many about some fluff reality.... =)

 

 - First, about the Codex compliant chapter....well....in 5th edition we had Assault Squad as a troop choice, why ? Because, Blood Angels unlike many other chapters don't do the Scouts => Devastator => Tactical/Assault => Elite path, but Scouts => Assault => Tactical => Devastator/Elite path. Also, to add, the Codex compliant part have start to fall apart years ago. It is simple logic to recognize that the Blood Angels cannot have/maintain a Codex structure, and i think that this fact have took its toil on the codex writers minds....

 

- Second, Must i remind to all how the imperium see us ? apart from the Golden Host of Dante, all the Blood Angels chapters are shun, if not suspected, by all the others imperial forces....

 

- Third, "i had a dream".....in witch i saw Blood Angels Assault from the Sky with Drop pod, Stormraven, (Thunderhawk^^), Stormtalon/Nephilim !, and supported by Dreadnought (5th ed), and Land Speeder Vengeance !

 

- Edit : Fourth : Oh and i forget, that being with the White Scars, one of the rare legion that possessed a lot of Grav-Bikes, why ? why ? cannot we have a HQ with Grav-Bike ? Hello Sammael, did your chapter/legion stole your bike(s) to the Blood Angels or the White scars ?....no seriously....thinking of this made me raging.

 

About the Third point, i defy anyone to show me in WHAT the Dark Angels was an Assault Legion to have so many Assault/Fast unit that we clearly lack (Nephilim/Land Speeder Vengeance).....Personnally, i saw write clearly that "The Blood Angels never let the sky domination to any foes".....yes...(And i won't even speak about the Awfull treatment that our Assault Terminators box received compared to the Well worked Dark Angels one.....just compare, you will understand how GW really disdain us...)

 

For me, 5th edition made far more sense by putting Assault Squad in Troops choice, Sanguinary Guard in Elite choice, and Vanguard in Fast Attack choice. (But the Flesh Tearers detachment offered an alternative to bring more sense to the Blood Angels Forces.)

 

I rage a lot those days^^; But, i still have fun playing Blood Angels, even if it isn't often, but even if victory is sometime mathematicaly impossible, i still have fun.....but GW cleary hate us !

[Arkangilos]

Scouts => Devastator => Tactical/Assault => Elite path, but Scouts => Assault => Tactical => Devastator/Elite path.

no we don't. It's scouts > assault > devastator > tactical > elite.

 

The only thing we changed was the order of assault and devastator. Even still, we have two companies of tactical a, and the battle companies still have 6 squads of tacticals.

 

Also, to add, the Codex compliant part have start to fall apart years ago. It is simple logic to recognize that the Blood Angels cannot have/maintain a Codex structure, and i think that this fact have took its toil on the codex writers minds....

Source and quote? The codices specifically say that we are codex compliant, with the exception of the death company and priests. Fifth was the first where we could get assault marines as troops (unless the white dwarf dex allowed it). However, even fifth (and the newest one) said that we are codex compliant, we just have more people ready to fill in for the assault squads. We don't have more of them.

 

Prior to that, we were the only chapter to have veteran assault squads. That was how we got the "assault" vibe. And you can still take more vanguard than the typical detachment.

 

The fact is, it makes more sense to have a codex styled detachment. I have every codex from 2nd forward, and we have always been a codex chapter.

 

What's your source about us and the white scars having the most jet bikes?

[Frater Antodeniel]

To condensate thinks, i would rather say that by picking the 7th edition codex structure, the Flesh Tearers Detachment make more sense to me for a Blood Angels army than the Blood Angels Detachment. (Nothing complicated^^).

 

About the bike, i simply refer to the wikia => http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Jetbike take it for what it is, personnaly, i think quite true.

 

And remember, we have an Assault vibe and an Aerial/antigrav vibe, after all, of all the primarchs, Sanguinius was the only one who can raise up to the sky with is unique wings. Each Legion reflect its Primarch and his "Native World Culture". We are noble Angels who comes from the sky to enact divine judgment. =)

[Crimson Devil]

 

Source and quote? The codices specifically say that we are codex compliant, with the exception of the death company and priests. Fifth was the first where we could get assault marines as troops (unless the white dwarf dex allowed it). However, even fifth (and the newest one) said that we are codex compliant, we just have more people ready to fill in for the assault squads. We don't have more of them.

 

Blood Angels could take Assault Squads as troops in 3rd (Rulebook list, prior to codex), 4th (WD), & 5th codex. We could also do that in 2nd, but 2nd had different list building rules.

[Arkangilos]

Yeah, well they changed that prior to third thing when the third edition codex came out (as you noted). Because the third edition codex has them as Fast Attack. 

 

However, that does not change the fact that the codices all still say they are CODEX COMPLIANT, meaning 6 tactical squads, 2 devastators, and 2 assault for the battle companies. 

 

Then they have 2 Tactical Companies, 1 Devastator Company, and 1 Assault Company. By that logic, with them being a codex complaint chapter, they would still have more tactical marines than assault marines.

 

Also, I wanted a source and quote for all of his statements (which most of were false).

 

the Flesh Tearers Detachment make more sense to me for a Blood Angels army

 

How so? The Flesh Tearers are a wildly different beast than the Blood Angels. If you think the Flesh Tearers fit better, why not play them? The Blood Angels have ALWAYS been codex compliant. The Baal Strike Force represents a codex compliant strike force with a bit more of an assault viable list (with the elites and three fast attack). It just seems like you are ignoring one of their character traits... that being that they embraced the codex, with their deviation being the death company.

 

About the bike, i simply refer to the wikia => http://warhammer40k....om/wiki/Jetbike take it for what it is, personnaly, i think quite true.

 

You will have to quote a specific line, because I did not see where it said the Blood Angels had the most. 

 

 

And you STILL haven't provided any sources to back up your other claims, either. Like you didn't provide an actual quote saying that the Imperium hates/fears/dislikes all Blood Angel Successors. You haven't provided a source explaining how they can't/won't keep within codex compliance, etc.

[evildrcheese]

The reason we're seen as a low tier is because our buffs are situational and easily denied.

 

Eg. FC can be denied by us getting charged.

 

+1I is only really useful against other SM

 

Our formations are super pointy and don't offer anything especially useful

 

The most 'competitive' detachment is probably still FTSF due to drop pod taxi service, but even this is less useful as others have droppods in Fast Slots.

 

We also lack any decent T multiwound units to build a death star around (see TWC)

 

Now let's compare to Eldar who are considered to be top tier. They have access to mass S6, jet bike troops, high rof weapons with good S that never miss, and stuff like the always running 6" in the multi detachment formation. Or white scars who have built in 3+ cover saves, army wide hnr and improved HoW.

 

That's the difference, we have no automatic bonus Tha can't be denied and in a competitive environment players are looking for reliable buffs.

 

BA can still win games but even if you do well in your local meta, I reckon that if you went to a hardcore tournament against top players with top lists we'd be pulling our teeth out from our tonsils for days after.

 

D

[Jolemai]

We are underestimated. We still have some powerful builds and a variety of toys and techniques to use. Granted we aren't a "point and click" force; we require skill to use to surpass the super books but that doesn't mean we're poor.

 

I have put a great deal of time into summarising various styles and using all the alternative ways of war for the Blood Angels (link in signature). This is something I do to prove that all hope is not lost and that those with the patience to bother reading up will gain some inkling on how to win on a regular basis.

 

Yes an "amazeballs" Codex helps, but at the end of the day it is knowledge that wins games. Inherent knowledge of your force and that of your opponent's.

[Remtek]

When discussing if a book is competitive now i feel you really need to include allies as it changes everything. When playing in a tournament, most of the top finishes either use allies or the new 'decurion style' detachments (War Convocation, Battle Company, Necron Decruion). Just like CSM is very weak as a mono book, it's stronger than BA when mixed with Daemons. Our book has good internal balance, but we do not offer many unique units that fit well in the ally matrix. Thats not to say we are horrible, but currently some books are slightly more appealing, while others are much more. Dark Eldar are in a horrible spot as well, but they are good as allies.

 

But like Jolemai said, skill > book, but in tournaments you will see most of the good players gravitating towards the stronger books.

[Quixus]

However, that does not change the fact that the codices all still say they are CODEX COMPLIANT, meaning 6 tactical squads, 2 devastators, and 2 assault for the battle companies. 

 

Then they have 2 Tactical Companies, 1 Devastator Company, and 1 Assault Company. By that logic, with them being a codex complaint chapter, they would still have more tactical marines than assault marines.

Sure, the BA have 44 tactical squads and only 18 assault or devastator squads, but should that ratio be enforced to gain detachment benefits? I don't think so. Space marines are not forced to fight as a company and rarely does the fluff show such formations. On top of that it is perfectly legal to pay the troop tax with 10th Co. elements and/or Cassor and Raphen's DC. It's just that pure JP armies are discouraged even thought that play style was one thing that made BA unique. Gunline and car park marine armies can be done way better with CAA-SM. High mobility marines (even after arriving via DS) should be something for BA, and not just with fast vehicles

[LutherMax]

Assault marines don't have to be troops for it to work either. The same thing could be achieved if a BSF had the same force org structure as the FTSF (i.e. just one troop choice and one compulsory plus many optional fast attack choices)...

[Arkangilos]

 

However, that does not change the fact that the codices all still say they are CODEX COMPLIANT, meaning 6 tactical squads, 2 devastators, and 2 assault for the battle companies. 

 

Then they have 2 Tactical Companies, 1 Devastator Company, and 1 Assault Company. By that logic, with them being a codex complaint chapter, they would still have more tactical marines than assault marines.

Sure, the BA have 44 tactical squads and only 18 assault or devastator squads, but should that ratio be enforced to gain detachment benefits? I don't think so. Space marines are not forced to fight as a company and rarely does the fluff show such formations. On top of that it is perfectly legal to pay the troop tax with 10th Co. elements and/or Cassor and Raphen's DC. It's just that pure JP armies are discouraged even thought that play style was one thing that made BA unique. Gunline and car park marine armies can be done way better with CAA-SM. High mobility marines (even after arriving via DS) should be something for BA, and not just with fast vehicles

 

That wasn't the point.

 

The point is that the Baal Strike Force is the *typical* (it says that specifically) strike force sent out. Typical means it would be the most common, meaning that troops (Tactical Marines being the standard) would outnumber the assault marines. 

 

I have no doubt that the Blood Angels should have a full Assault Marine strike force. 

 

However, people on here keep comparing the Blood Angel detachments to the Flesh Tearer detachment. That is faulty because the Blood Angels are the far more level headed of the two, and tend to fight far more pragmatically than the Flesh Tearers. Of course the Flesh Tearers have complete assault formations, they are far crazier and far bloodier than the Blood Angels.

 

The flavor of the Blood Angels are they  are codex that favor mobility, have a blood lust, and go crazy once in a while. Sometimes the blood lust gets to them and they charge with their devastators, or they abandon good positions in favor of close combat. *But they are still codex*. They are still pragmatic. The Flesh Tearers ARE NOT.