BA Tactics article up on GW Webstore blog.

[Omega-soul]

Well - analyzing tactics level from team that think 6 vindicators as ultimate DIRT FILTH...

"There are few things more utterly filthy on the gaming table than a Line Breaker Squadron; a set of three Vindicators able to combine their already powerful weapons into a MASSIVE Apocalyptic Blast. One of the few things better than this is *two* Line Breaker Squadrons – place this on the table, wave your Apocalyptic Blast template in front of your opponent’s face and go to war."

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Webstore-Blog/2016/06/15/Filthy-tank-squadrons

 

So there is nothing wrong with this BA article - there is a plenty people who doesn't involved into gaming much.

Although that idea with 10 man assault squad  and 2 HQ is hillarious)

 

So maybe 6 vindicators in this circumstanses indeed a dirty-filthy-almost-cheating-trick)

But really - why not sanguinary guard? why not death company with astorath? why not vanguards? there is so much "diversity" on how you can loose your deep striking close combat unit.

[Xenith]

As to what this guy got paid to write the article: nothing over his normal GW salary.

 

Also, think about his meta, most likely warhammer world, and WD studio staff. Not the ultra environment some people seem to play in.

 

The fact her is thinking about unit effectiveness and comparing them to similar units (critical analysis, in the case of the force maul) is something we should be praising, not criticising.

 

Remember when they got rid of points values in battle reports, and reasons for including a unit in the army was "it was on the shelf"?

[NTaW]

I've played Dante with a Priest in an Assault squad many times just to mess with my opponent's target priority. Haven't lost a game doing it either.

 

Just tossing it out there.

[Helias_Tancred]

The grav bike suggestion was on-target, the rest of the article I wasn't very impressed with. 

 

However I haven't read previous discussion of strategy, so I don't know if they write for the journeyman player and this article is on par, or this is just a crappy article?

[Xenith]

Seeing as the article begins by mentioning the start collecting BA boxed set...and that it is one person only's opinion of how he would run an army....

 

I don't understand why people are assuming that GW is preaching to them that this is the best and only way to play BA. its an opinion piece, no different to something posted in the army list section.

[Helias_Tancred]

Seeing as the article begins by mentioning the start collecting BA boxed set...and that it is one person only's opinion of how he would run an army....

 

I don't understand why people are assuming that GW is preaching to them that this is the best and only way to play BA. its an opinion piece, no different to something posted in the army list section.

 

After reading it again I think the answer at the core of the issue is that it was intended to b general level strategy for Blood Angels. You make a good point about the Start Collecting set, this was a piece that was intended to go along with it to stir interest in their Blood Angel line and provide some strategic insight for the faction.

[Remtek]

Fun to see GW engaging with the community more. 

[Damon Nightman]

Seeing as the article begins by mentioning the start collecting BA boxed set...and that it is one person only's opinion of how he would run an army....

 

I don't understand why people are assuming that GW is preaching to them that this is the best and only way to play BA. its an opinion piece, no different to something posted in the army list section.

I don't understand why it's wrong to critique it a bit while also admitting it's an overall fun and good write up.

 

Was this thread just made for us to say great job gw, and move on? Not saying it's a bad job, I like it, but what's wrong with pointing stuff out?

 

Sorry I know you are more so wondering how some seem to be super upset over this, which I agree is a bit silly.

[Calistarius]

Fun to see GW engaging with the community more. 

I think this is key.  Like any developer, GW isn't going to be able to win over everyone.  It is just his opinion, and it may work for him.  From the looks of it some people in the community belong to some pretty extreme gaming groups.  I think this is a decent article for the average gamer in a normal meta.

[Charlo]

Honestly I think some people are just edgy over the start collecting box and a few recent developments with BA.

 

But we got Dread and Scout errata!

 

It only took about a year! :P

 

Keep the faith. The article isn't perfect, but it's a fantastic omen of GW's current attitude and things to come.

 

Also Warp Spiders just got nerfed... Flicker jump is now only 2D6 instead of 6+2D6.

 

So today is a good day!

[CaptainHelion]

Plus they can only Flicker Jump away from your shooting once a turn! Which is how I always thought it worked! But no-one I played against agreed! Vindication!

[the jeske]

An errate means that a rule was changed. This means that GW wanted WS to do infinite number of jumps per turn.

 

 I think this is a decent article for the average gamer in a normal meta.

 

 

But what does normal have to mean for this article to be a tactia one? An enviroment without marines, eldar/tau[the 10man RAS won't reach melee], necron[not enough fire power and melee power to deal enough dmg to counter RP] etc ? One would have to play only orcs, IG or maybe csm then. Possible, but considering this is suppose to  be a more general thing, how can one expect to not face any marine armies?

 

 

It only took about a year!

 

 

 

Weren't BA scouts weaker then SM ones since they got their WD codex[first being elite, and then having weaker rules and fewer options, and then weaker stats]?

[Xenith]

An errate means that a rule was changed. This means that GW wanted WS to do infinite number of jumps per turn.

 

Not necessarily. It might be just that the RAW was not the RAI so they had to clear up the language.

[the jeske]

Nope, errate were always a change. If wording was a problem GW always faqed it. And by the way this does not stop them from changing stuff multiple times. When drakes came out they had hull mounted guns[which sucked], then were changed to turret mounts[no one even asked about that] and then in 7th changed back to hull mounted.

 

And to use the WS example, there was absolutly 0 problems with how their rule was writen. Plus how would you explain the change to the range of their jump, that the DT didnt intend for it to be 2d6+6 infinite times, but wanted it to be 2d6 one time per being shot, but still somehow wrote it that it is 2d6+6 infinite times per turn?

[RedemptionNL]

Flickerjump has always been 2d6" instead of 2d6+6". They only added the 'Once per turn' and 'not while Charging' conditions. And it's not like GW is very consistent when they use a FAQ and they use an Errata to clarify something or change a rule. The recent 'only one grenade in assault' FAQ comes to mind, or the Heldrake turret/hull mounted weapon debacle you mentioned.

[Nicodemus Doloroso]

Fun to see GW engaging with the community more.

This is my thought. It's good to see. The GW staff have never been great strategists but I do like seeing the engagement and a bit of a return to they way things were when I first took up the hobby in the late 90s. I remember always reading White Dwarf cover-to-cover for all the articles.

[evildrcheese]

Cool article.

 

I don't get all the venom about it though, it's basically just a random person on the internet telling us how they like to play with their toy soldiers.

 

If you were expecting a fantastic breakdown of stratagem or how BA would be best utilised in the vacuum of the hyper competitive scene, then yes you'd be disappointed.

 

The Priest /Libby and RAS reminds me of the days of 5th Ed...happy days.

 

EDC

[LutherMax]

I don't get all the venom about it though, it's basically just a random person on the internet telling us how they like to play with their toy soldiers.

Agreed – especially as strategy and tactics are pretty subjective in 40k, due to the complexity, flexibility and depth of the game.

[Calistarius]

 

I don't get all the venom about it though, it's basically just a random person on the internet telling us how they like to play with their toy soldiers.

Agreed – especially as strategy and tactics are pretty subjective in 40k, due to the complexity, flexibility and depth of the game.

Not to mention no one's gaming group is exactly the same, so strategy will vary. I think the article does as intended, and stirs conversation about the Blood Angels.

[Damon Nightman]

Yeah I think some of us were hoping for some type of revelation in this article (unrealistic) and due to other recent things people aren't the happiest with like the start collecting rules. Not trying to start a debate or even agreeing about the start collecting box, just what I think is the reason...

 

My only complaint which is incredibly minor was just that I would have liked to hear his uses for more BA specific stuff instead of sternguard. Very nit picky, and the article is very good and fun overall. Not bashing it, just a minor point. I can come here if I want more specific advice about our units though.

 

Very nice to see we are getting some attention though!

 

Also some people have competitive metas where BA aren't doing well and probably saw this article thinking "hey gw is gonna tell me how I compete with eldar (for example) cheese" which this article wouldn't help with.

 

Again I like the article, just trying to help everyone understand other's points of view regardless if it's right or not!

[appiah4]

The only things that made sense to me in the whole thing were th Drop Pod Tacticals and BA Bikers.