That FLG BA/FT Article

[Helias_Tancred]

The game itself is much more enjoyable when its not used in a competitive or tournament setting. Warhammer 40k is not a good game for tournament or competitive play if you're seeking a system where every army option has a sense of balance between them. 8th has made leaps towards that goal when compared to 7th, but its still a far cry away as we can see so far.

 

I learned early on that to play 40k and enjoy it meant to avoid tournament and true competitive game play.

[Helias_Tancred]

I'd much rather build/paint/play the army and fluff I love, Blood Angels, versus playing Necrons, or Eldar, or some other army choice that I have zero interest in just so I can be "competitive" or win tournaments.

 

But YMMV?

[Panzer]

You really can't say it like that. Pretty sure the people who go to tournaments regularly do it because they enjoy the game that way as well.

[the jeske]

plus it is not just that BA are bad in the sense of not winning GT or being part of GT winning lists[as most are super friends builds in 8th]. they are just as bad in non tournament games. BA just scale bad, overlaping buff on high cost elite type models do not work in 8th, no matter if your playing a friend or at a high ranking event. You can play BAs like red marines, but that rises the question of why not just marines rules and get the better options.

[Palwatch]

Ive been doing a lot of what that article suggests anyway. Two dev squads with a captain for rerolls (or dante if u have the points) - two las and two missiles in each with full 5 man bolter marines as wound soakers. 2-3 scout squads for the bubble. Then load out with BA stuff like DC or Sang guard. Ive started taking a 15 man DC with a sng priest and a sang ancient. Its pretty great. I dont bother deepstriking, just start them in cover and move up the board turn one. Your opponent has to deal with them, he doesnt want that many S5 attacks raining down on him, and the Sang Ancient stops them taking leaderships tests and allows rerolls of 1 to wound.

 

Sang Guard with plasma pistols are amazing too.

[Helias_Tancred]

You really can't say it like that. Pretty sure the people who go to tournaments regularly do it because they enjoy the game that way as well.

 

I just did .... My point is I don't think 40K is a good game for true competitive play. There X number of army options and its extremely difficult to achieve some sort of balance between them all. If you don't want to gripe, whine, and complain so much, then realize this and cut back on your competitive play and enjoy the game for what it is.

[Panzer]

 

You really can't say it like that. Pretty sure the people who go to tournaments regularly do it because they enjoy the game that way as well.

 

I just did ... lol. My point is I don't think 40K is a good game for true competitive play. There X number of army options and its extremely difficult to achieve some sort of balance between them all. If you don't want to gripe, whine, and complain so much, then realize this and cut back on your competitive play and enjoy the game for what it is.

 

Or...you know...you could accept that there are people having fun playing it competetively, you know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Helias_Tancred]

I wish I could say otherwise, but in the end its not a great game for competitive play where players expect a high level of balance between all the different army choices. 8th was a solid step forward with general balance, but it still misses the mark and that's never going to change.

 

 

You really can't say it like that. Pretty sure the people who go to tournaments regularly do it because they enjoy the game that way as well.

 

I just did ... lol. My point is I don't think 40K is a good game for true competitive play. There X number of army options and its extremely difficult to achieve some sort of balance between them all. If you don't want to gripe, whine, and complain so much, then realize this and cut back on your competitive play and enjoy the game for what it is.

 

Or...you know...you could accept that there are people having fun playing it competetively, you know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

I'm not too sure they're having much fun given the threads that are generated around this topic.

[Panzer]

You are obviously (very) no competetive player. Believe me that one can complain while still having fun playing. I'm no overly competetive player either but I'm also no stranger to it. ;)

[Helias_Tancred]

You are obviously (very) no competetive player. Believe me that one can complain while still having fun playing. I'm no overly competetive player either but I'm also no stranger to it.

 

This is the last reply you are going to get from me on this since from looking at your overall posts you may live under a bridge at times ... the game is not well designed for true competitive play. With so many army choices I'm not sure it ever will be? Most 40k angst is generated from complaints resulting from 40k tournament/competitive play. I realize this has been a pillar of 40k game play since its inception, but its most likely never going to change. Enjoy the game for what it is, and what it does well.

[Panzer]

 

You are obviously (very) no competetive player. Believe me that one can complain while still having fun playing. I'm no overly competetive player either but I'm also no stranger to it.

 

This is the last reply you are going to get from me on this since from looking at your overall posts you may live under a bridge at times ... the game is not well designed for true competitive play. With so many army choices I'm not sure it ever will be? Most 40k angst is generated from complaints resulting from 40k tournament/competitive play. I realize this has been a pillar of 40k game play since its inception, but its most likely never going to change. Enjoy the game for what it is, and what it does well.

 

Uhm I'm not saying it's a perfectly balanced game or anything. I'm just heavily disagreeing with you that it's not a good competetive game based on the fact that there's a ton of people having fun playing it competetively for years now. Something you seem to completely ignore and even imply those people don't have fun.

 

Also with your comment about me living under a bridge you lost a good amount of respect from me. Guess it's really not worth my time continuing the discussion with you.

[Palwatch]

Some people enjoy competative play. Some dont. That should cause no disagreement.

 

Whether 40k in its current iterration suits competative play can be argued each way depending on what your definition of 'competative' is. If you mean that all armies have a chance? I dont think anyone can really argue that in the world of tournaments, any army can win. Its simply not the case. There are army structures that are clearly better, you only have to look at the tournaments to see this.

 

But, then, competition has always been like this in any discipline. Some teams have better players and they win all the time. In a discipline where the moving pieces are as varied as soccer or basketball and even down to Warhammer, some bits are better than others. If you want to involve yourself in that scene, you must come to accept that is the case. Get better or change your pieces or both or neither. But when you go into a tournament with pieces you know to be inferior, dont complain about the game when you lose. You lose the right to do so when you make that choice.

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

Some people enjoy competative play. Some dont. That should cause no disagreement.

 

Whether 40k in its current iterration suits competative play can be argued each way depending on what your definition of 'competative' is. If you mean that all armies have a chance? I dont think anyone can really argue that in the world of tournaments, any army can win. Its simply not the case. There are army structures that are clearly better, you only have to look at the tournaments to see this.

 

But, then, competition has always been like this in any discipline. Some teams have better players and they win all the time. In a discipline where the moving pieces are as varied as soccer or basketball and even down to Warhammer, some bits are better than others. If you want to involve yourself in that scene, you must come to accept that is the case. Get better or change your pieces or both or neither. But when you go into a tournament with pieces you know to be inferior, dont complain about the game when you lose. You lose the right to do so when you make that choice.

 

I agree with pretty much all of this - except, this [8th edition] was supposed to be the Holy Grail of "everything is great", where the game was balanced (even if incrementally), and every army had a reasonably equal chance to win. Despite a solid effort from the start - we still have a long way to go.

 

After 3rd edition I started to see a major shift in the competitive scene where previously "WAAC" style gaming was shunned and shamed - it suddenly became expected, and then when sites like BOLS (and FLG) started to defend, and even encourage that sort of play (around 5th edition); and then host events (LVO) where that was the gold standard --- it sadly bled into games everywhere. Certainly any event that uses the label 'tournament' now is expected to be a gross WAACfest (sadly), but outside of so-called "competitive" play the codex balance is still an issue.

 

I'm not personally comfortable with the FLG guys having anything to do with our Codex to be honest, but I don't think that article was particularly offensive, because we are just killing time at this point until the Codex is released.  Reece turning around and calling BA players complainers in the comments though - when his group playtested our index, when his tactical advice was bogus, and when the 'waac' scene he helped create leaves BA in the dust - that kinda pissed me off.

[Panzer]

 

Some people enjoy competative play. Some dont. That should cause no disagreement.

 

Whether 40k in its current iterration suits competative play can be argued each way depending on what your definition of 'competative' is. If you mean that all armies have a chance? I dont think anyone can really argue that in the world of tournaments, any army can win. Its simply not the case. There are army structures that are clearly better, you only have to look at the tournaments to see this.

 

But, then, competition has always been like this in any discipline. Some teams have better players and they win all the time. In a discipline where the moving pieces are as varied as soccer or basketball and even down to Warhammer, some bits are better than others. If you want to involve yourself in that scene, you must come to accept that is the case. Get better or change your pieces or both or neither. But when you go into a tournament with pieces you know to be inferior, dont complain about the game when you lose. You lose the right to do so when you make that choice.

 

I agree with pretty much all of this - except, this [8th edition] was supposed to be the Holy Grail of "everything is great", where the game was balanced (even if incrementally), and every army had a reasonably equal chance to win. Despite a solid effort from the start - we still have a long way to go.

 

Well not everyone has their Codex yet so not everyone is on the same level obviously and 8th is supposed to be what you said not because it's perfect from the get go but because they can continually adjust things with the Chapter Approved books every year.

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

Right, which is why I said "incrementally"... but as far as the tournament scene being 'fun' for some, I guess - not for me. 8th certainly recharged the game overall, whatever your flavor may be.

 

But I just came back from the Nova and the general theme in the GT, where soo many players dropped out of the latter games - 'I wasn't gonna win anyway, so why subject myself to another totally unfun game'. I'm sure some folks loved it though.

 

Anyway, yeah we are hurting mostly because we don't have a codex yet, and I'd agree with many that we were hurting prior to any codex releases - but I still don't like FLG being anywhere near our codex and I've never liked the style of game they encourange.

[TheHarrower]

 

You really can't say it like that. Pretty sure the people who go to tournaments regularly do it because they enjoy the game that way as well.

 

I just did .... My point is I don't think 40K is a good game for true competitive play. There X number of army options and its extremely difficult to achieve some sort of balance between them all. If you don't want to gripe, whine, and complain so much, then realize this and cut back on your competitive play and enjoy the game for what it is.

 

 

You can say that about almost any game with units on each side that are different. True balance doesn't exist and getting something close to balanced takes a long time. They did a good job out of the gate with 8th, but there is still a looong way to go. Hopefully the right the ship when the Codex drops.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

For some perspectives. I love BA and I Love Bugs.

 

Both are index armies right now, One has dominated all facets of the game, while one has really struggled for me.

 

I don't play crazy in your face Genestealers spam, although it looks really fun I play a balanced 50+ horde squads of termagaunts either 5 10+ squads or 3 10+ 1 20+ blob. They only have fleshborers because they respawn for free with tee tervigons.

 

They are inferior to tacticals in every way except for the fact they respawn so damned easily.

 

The last local event saw 7 entries, several Death guard, imperials, and two Xenos. Bugs won.

 

When I played FoK I struggled playing BA, but did great with my bugs.

 

The point I'm trying to make is, traditionally over the past 5+ years, both armies have struggled.

 

Now however, 1 has seen a huge boost to enjoyment, playability, and feels to have a real puncher's chance. The other feels overbloated and costed. I have several tactical sergeants with hand flamers, and inferno pistols, because I love those pistols. They are just about worthless right now, and their cost to output ratio is abysmal. We all know it.

 

But that aside, I feel lied. While I understand people make mistakes and get things wrong occassionally, these "experts" have devoted hours upon hours to game testing (allegedly) and to back track and say, "We were concerned with index vs index" is very troublesome. Especially giving us the list he did. Granted it does very well in maelstrom missions, but it is designed to. Not to mention the narrative they pushed was BA being so good, but now we are in a tough spot.

 

Let me try to get back on track I didn't mean to diverge into a tangent. Bugs and BA play similar by way of needing character buffs to function properly. One's characters are at a major disadvantage to the other in they can be sniped out and are majority T6 vs T4, which isn't great in hindsight, but still out perform on the table by comparison of the other. Those are fundamental issues that I feel need to be addressed.

 

I don't know how they are going to fix BA, and constantly being told the new codex is kick ass, when the majority of dialogue feels like propaganda hasn't really helped my confidence yet, so I'm skeptical.

[Palwatch]

Im winning 70% of my BA games, agaisnt players that I used to lose against in 7th. I really dont see the problem with them outside of a tournament setting.

 

I refuse to subscribe to the 'weve been shafted, again' narrative. I just wont, because it isnt true

[Spagunk]

Im winning 70% of my BA games, agaisnt players that I used to lose against in 7th. I really dont see the problem with them outside of a tournament setting.

 

I refuse to subscribe to the 'weve been shafted, again' narrative. I just wont, because it isnt true

 

That's cool. Good to know you are having success with it.

 

Lots of people aren't. You should post your list and the list of your opponents sometime so we can see what works and what doesn't. Battle report would be great too.

[Palwatch]

I beat a Grey Knights list in an EW game last week with the following list

 

Dev Squad x 2 - 2 Las, 2 Mis, 5 bolters

 

Dante, Sanguinor, Sang Priest, Sang Ancient

 

Sang Guard x 4 - 2 Enc Axe, 2 Enc Sword, 1 Pow Fist, 5 Plasma Pistols

 

Death Company - 1 TH 1 PF 13 Chainswords

 

3 x Scout Squads - bolters

 

 

They used a Stormhawk, Voldus, 2 squads of infiltrators, 2 squads of paladins, a dreadknight, 2 Ven Dreads, The termy special character guy, 3 assault razorbacks

[Thoridon]

I don't think the article itself is so bad, and in a way I've done the same.

 

Most of us when 8th launched saw all the aura characters and had visions of units being buffed everywhere - Lemartes with these DC, a Captain here, Priest there etc. and in my first games I did that. Then I realised by taking too many characters I was simply too limited elsewhere. While we do have many great auras it's just not cost effective to try to take too many, at least in smaller games.

 

The FLG articles did the same, highlighting how many auras we can combine in the early preview and now seemingly realising that after a few months of real play it doesn't quite work as well as it seemed. I wouldn't say that new list is too Codex - sure, it uses various basic units (Scouts, Devastators) but they're as much a part of BA as any Marine chapter. It still feels BA-ish to me, with jump pack characters, assault squads using the specials only we can give them, a large squad of DC and a Flesh Tearers character. It doesn't include a combination of Dante, Mephiston, Corbulo or Sanguinary Guard but it's unrealistic to expect all the special stuff to be in the same list in a non-Apocalypse scale game and this one went with DC and Seth.

 

I do understand the complaint that these guys were involved with playtesting and now seem to have gone "oops, we were wrong" while trying to dress it up as just a new approach. It can come across as looking like our testing was limited, rushed and not thorough enough.

 

Hopefully our Codex will adjust a few things, as I agree with others who've said our elite units are too expensive when they rely on having expensive characters providing buffs. It wouldn't take too much to make them more cost effective, and seeing the changes other factions are getting it does seem they're identifying issues now rather than just ignoring them. Even with some cost drops we're still going to have to take a good portion of not-so-shiny units for balance though - any list with just shiny things is going to have a cost effectiveness issue.

[Spagunk]

I beat a Grey Knights list in an EW game last week with the following list

 

Dev Squad x 2 - 2 Las, 2 Mis, 5 bolters

 

Dante, Sanguinor, Sang Priest, Sang Ancient

 

Sang Guard x 4 - 2 Enc Axe, 2 Enc Sword, 1 Pow Fist, 5 Plasma Pistols

 

Death Company - 1 TH 1 PF 13 Chainswords

 

3 x Scout Squads - bolters

 

 

They used a Stormhawk, Voldus, 2 squads of infiltrators, 2 squads of paladins, a dreadknight, 2 Ven Dreads, The termy special character guy, 3 assault razorbacks

Are you playing points or power levels?

[Palwatch]

Points, was 2500

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Im winning 70% of my BA games, agaisnt players that I used to lose against in 7th. I really dont see the problem with them outside of a tournament setting.

 

I refuse to subscribe to the 'weve been shafted, again' narrative. I just wont, because it isnt true

Not to sound coy, but there is a lot of strong general's in my meta. It isn't just about min/max lists, or playing in competitive events. Having to look across the board at primarchs or knights/big hordes every weekend is really troublesome when your strongest units ate The Sanguinor or Mephiston.

 

The list you have here wouldn't do much against a 3(5) knight house or the greenskin bloke that drops almost 200 boots on the table. And these lads don't necessarily play cut throat either.

[Palwatch]

Not being able to beat a 3 knight list isnt the  issue here. 3 knights a strong list against any other list, and not at all proof of the "weve been screwed over again" argument. If thats the basis of peoples problems then were all in trouble.

 

Someone asked me to post a list that i have won with recently. I did. I wouldnt play that against 300 ork boys obviously, and I wouldnt bother playing the guy who brings 3 knights. If I was, Id just bring the same