That FLG BA/FT Article

[brother_b]

Outside primaris, which they will probably try and push in our dex, are there any chances of new unit types?

 

We already have DC, SG, Sang Priests, and the Librarian Dread. Anything else from the books or fluff we might see?

[Panzer]

Any chances? Yeah sure. Are they likely? Not very.

At least not for now. Maybe in the next Codex after this one.

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

I get adding primarus but I'd rather they just fix our existing stuff, rather than add new units personally...

[Blindhamster]

Tbh, I think i might add some imperial guard as screening units longer term... once there are new models

[The Unseen]

Tbh, I think i might add some imperial guard as screening units longer term... once there are new models

I recommend Krieg. If you can afford them, or find 3rd party ones you like. They have Vet squads, called Grenadiers, as troops. You get Carapace armor, BS AND WS at a 3+, hot-shot lasgun, morale immunity to shooting casualties for 9 points. I've had some decent success with them running 4 squads of 10 and 2 marshals for around 500 pts.

[Panzer]

Tbh, I think i might add some imperial guard as screening units longer term... once there are new models

I'm still waiting for people to actually trying to play a mixed army now that we have faction keywords to play around. So far even the ones who don't have a Codex with neat bonuses yet keep playing an army restricted to the most restrictive faction keyword while they could just as well play a mixed heretic astartes army or a mixed imperial army.

 

Would make for some great armies I imagine.

[Blindhamster]

Ones with a codex lose a lot if they mix factions in a single battalion but no reason not to take multiple detachments.

 

Honestly rather than spend 500 points on it I was thinking to keep stuff as cheap as possible. It's intended as sacrificial chaff afterall.

[Panzer]

Yeah of course. I didn't mean to say to mix it in the same detachment lol

And what counts is how it looks on the table. Even for just 150p you can get a ton of Guardsmen to sacrifice and it would look like a whole different army on the table as one with just Marines. ;)

[Blindhamster]

Yeah, and technically more fluffy for moat theatres of war.

 

I also have a single unit of custodes to use from time to time. And want to add some admech stuff.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

No offense but considering how often they jumped the gun with tactic recommendations and went back on it later on ... I can't really take frontlinegaming seriously about such things anymore.

Better to make your own experiences and read up on what actually worked and what not on forums.

 

This is how it is for every competitive game. Even the minds that pioneer the top strategies can sometimes be wrong when they share them before they've been put through an actual competition despite lots of testing, and many of them are loathe to share their strategy at all until after the fact. Why would they reveal their winning hand before the tournament even begins?

 

It's always better to see what really went down, and then perhaps plan ahead on how people will react to that, or how it will shape future trends. Nobody could have predicted things like that wonky 10 Assassin list.

[Silas7]

I think the write up on FLG isn't any less a BA list because it doesn't include enough (for some) BA specific units. These levels of salt are childish. I'd love to see more Primaris kits and I'm still patiently waiting for codex info.

[Spagunk]

One could argue that the guy simply add a patrol detachment and use "red marines" for everything else. Only really need the Libby and Seth from.what I see.

[Ceril]

For a BA list it seems quite okay. And using scouts is important. They have been very valuable to me in the exact same role, every single game. I could very well see myself bring that many scouts and be happy.

I don't understand even half the hate it's generating, obviously an index list will be weaker than a codex one. Why are people even trying to ask for a list that can fight on the same level? Changing to red marines gives access to all the stratagem, relics, rebalance points and an army that, in my opinion, fits better this edition.

 

FLG have been feeling lately as a paid lobbyist, I don't like to judge so I try not to. Their NDA is probably very difficult. Additionally biting the hand that feeds you is a bad idea. But one got to wonder, is it the money from customers and integrity in being just critiques of a game we love OR inside GW info that is more important.

Back to the list itself, I'd happily swap out the DC for a stormraven and call it a day. The librarian would probably go too without a dedicated unit to buff. To be honest, I've not even tried my DC properly yet so might give them a spin.

In the end, most of the hate could have been solved by starting the article with something like: "BA are in a rough spot and their special units needs some love, but I'll try to make a list that works while keeping BA flavour." At least I think it would have calmed comments down.

 

Without knowing the GW process it's hard to know what most tested edition means. Maybe 1 BA game was all it took to make it the most tested. Without numbers we just don't know.

[brother_b]

I don't know if it's hate but our special units are expensive and not that much bang for our buck. I play BA partly for the lore of the chapter, obviously. I also play because I enjoy the slight nuances and differences, especially the special units like DC and SG. 

 

That list has DC and some JP heroes so it's cool to me. I'd love to see a list incorporate SG and do well.

[Arkhanist]

3 squads of special weapon assault marines is also a BA-only option; plus DC, Seth, a BA-powers JP libby and JP captain makes a pretty fluffy flesh tearer list - just over half of the points is stuff you can't take in a red marines army. I'd probably spend the 225 points of sniper scouts on something else (and give up the 2nd battalion) but it's hardly dante+6 stormraven 

[Spagunk]

Most of our "gripe" it isn't about index vs non-index. The FLG list is a codex list with a couple of BA units. And since these guys are speaking from a place of power over GW, that is what hurts the most.  Many of us were struggling even when it was just index versus index because we had the unfortunate idea that playing BA means using many of the fancy units thrust into our eager maws over the past decade. Are you telling us that we made a mistake in buying cool, BA kits?

 

Furthermore, just because someone else thinks that BA should be a codex based list doesn't mean that is how people have been playing BA. Think about someone who still runs JP ba? Are you honestly telling them they are playing wrong by using mostly jump packs? How about a DC army, are you telling them they play wrong? The answer is yes because you are saying a good BA list should not do this. THAT is the problem.

So the list he recommended has zero tactical marines for screening units. What does that say about what BA offer basic troops? It says to me that BA brings nothing worthwhile to tacticals. I've used screening units before and when you have a proper turtled marine list (Index specifically, not codex), you're still not cracking that nut. Toss however many DC you want to break that wall, it doesn't work. Throw Assault marines, Sanguinary Guard or any other fast line breaker squads and they will bounce off of that fence.

 

So at the end of the day, the grievances some of us have is: What do we offer that other marines don't? Why is our biggest hitters so expensive versus units of similar abilities? Why would we play BA for any reason other than fluff/favoritism?

[TheHarrower]

So at the end of the day, the grievances some of us have is: What do we offer that other marines don't? Why is our biggest hitters so expensive versus units of similar abilities? Why would we play BA for any reason other than fluff/favoritism?

 

Right now nothing. You can't compare an army with an Index to an army with a Codex. It just doesn't work. The article was meant to provide units we can take within our Codex to be competitive in the larger meta right now. Is the army kinda boring? Sure. Is it representative of what we think a Blood Angels army is? That's debatable. I appreciate what Reece is trying to do and this list could work, but it hasn't changed my opinion that FLG doesn't understand the Blood Angels.

[Arkhanist]

Spagunk - assuming that was addressed at me; I have two large trunks of BA. One of the main reasons I haven't played a game since early 6th edition is because my army, BA, sucks, and has sucked a long time. I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think FLG is solely, or even largely responsible for why BA still sucks.

 

For what we are right now, it's quite a fluffy list. Is it GOOD list? No. Because BA haven't been able to do good lists for fricking forever, and FLG doesn't even like BA, I think. And tacticals? Tacs haven't been a good unit for a looog time either. The only time you ever saw them used competitively was that brief period of the broken demi-company. Seriously, look at some of the other marine forums or tournaments and see how many tacs they put in their list.

 

"Why would we play BA for any reason other than fluff/favoritism?"

 

You really flipping wouldn't. And I blame GW for that. I've had a BA army since 2nd edition - it was my first, and has always been my main. For most of that time, it's sucked and I eventually gave up. My other two small armies are dark eldar and chaos. I clearly suck at picking armies that don't struggle all the damn time.

 

Right now, I'm painting up the Death Guard that came in the DI box because it looks like, for ONCE, an army with models I like might not be the suckiest of the suck, and hey - I might even get a game in! Cos 8th looks like it might be quite fun.

 

There's a possibility that the codex will finally redeem BA. I'm still hoping so, even after all my years of disappointment. I guess we'll see.

[TheHarrower]

Spagunk - assuming that was addressed at me; I have two large trunks of BA. One of the main reasons I haven't played a game since early 6th edition is because my army, BA, sucks, and has sucked a long time. I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think FLG is solely, or even largely responsible for why BA still sucks.

 

How can you call Blood Angels your main if you haven't played them since early 6th? And how can you complain so bad that they suck right now? Theory hammer only goes so far. Play the army. Don't listen to all the crap you read online. A lot of it is pretty inaccurate.

[Are Verlo]

Truth be told I dont think that army or build is all that bad. For some players it might not be enough unique BA units (DC and Seth), but the playstyle is probably fun.

It is fast enough and has enough bodies to score some early points in maelstrom.

 

I can see some bad matchups and what he said about Index vs Codex armies is true. Some of the new stratagems are real gems, the slaanesh "shoot twice" is golden and the hellbrute fire frenzy can be deadly for 1 CP and chaos marines got quite a few of their units recosted or "rebalanced". Same goes for warlord traits. Last weekend I played in a tournament and most of the time my WL trait was +1 LD......

 

I can live with playing with the Index for a few months (GW´s release schedule is fast and furious it seems)

[Spagunk]

 

Right now nothing. You can't compare an army with an Index to an army with a Codex. It just doesn't work.

 

I not just comparing codex to index. We had a hard time before when it was just index to index. The units we have was just too expensive compared to other army indexes. So we were, as an "elite" army, still at a disadvantage from the start.

[Spagunk]

Spagunk - assuming that was addressed at me; I have two large trunks of BA. One of the main reasons I haven't played a game since early 6th edition is because my army, BA, sucks, and has sucked a long time. I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think FLG is solely, or even largely responsible for why BA still sucks.

 

Except that FLG has a huge stake in that they play test armies for GW. They had the opportunity to call out weird issues and they didn't and so we got our index with stuff too expensive to use. It's political now in that if FLG thinks something is "too good", they can steer GW into a different direction. I have no confidence they are actually seeing the problem with our index and that means we aren't going to like what ends up the final product.

 

What bothers me is the dismissive tone they have in their responses. Frankly, they mirror many people are saying in that we should be happy for what we got. It isn't a matter of being happy, it's a matter of setting it right BEFORE it's a problem later.

 

I don't want a OP :cuss: index/codex that everyone flocks to because they are straight up better. I want even keel. But if the only people who actually know what is going on are saying "you guys are fine, quit complaining", I have no confidence in that group because they aren't listening to people who live and breathe the army.

[TheHarrower]

 

 

Right now nothing. You can't compare an army with an Index to an army with a Codex. It just doesn't work.

 

I not just comparing codex to index. We had a hard time before when it was just index to index. The units we have was just too expensive compared to other army indexes. So we were, as an "elite" army, still at a disadvantage from the start.

 

 

I don't know man. I'm not saying we didn't get the short end of the stick, because we certainly did, but I don't think it's as bad as many people are making it out to be (speaking strictly Index to Index).

[the jeske]

comparing to which index, because if you compare BAs to armies that are good with an index it does not look well for the BAs.

Now I understand the core mind set of the article, but with the list actually taken, how is it better then just taking the same unit and replacing the BA HQs with a superior G-man?

[Aothaine]

Would be nice to have a BA dedicated unit for that purpose in our Codex tho.

 

Blood Bags (Blood Angel Cultists)