That FLG BA/FT Article

[Spagunk]

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

So why did you bring this list? Did you specifically have a match against this Grey Knights guy or was this a random opponent? What is your all comers list like (if it is different)? How would you handle that supposed orc horde list? What would you do to combat three knight titans?

 

I personally don't think you are actually understanding what people are up against. The term "Your mileage may vary" is probably the appropriate thing here since everyone has a different situation.

 

That is to say, anecdotal evidence is fine as long as you don't use that as the bases of a firm opinion. Honestly It seems like you have made this your opinion. It's fine that you feel this way but ultimately using this as the basis for fact is flawed.

 

Welcome to this forum btw. Have a look around and enjoy the collective experience of all the other frater. It is through our collective experiences that we aspire to greater things.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

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

This gets into list tailoring and moves away from PUGs though. If I'm at the FLGS I bring 1-3 list variations and that's it unless I have a pre-planned game/event I'm looking to entertain.

 

You understand why people are salty about Angelus bolt pistols being the price of 2 melta bombs (are melta bombs still the same points as forever?) infernus pistols being 4 as well as hand flamers costing 2 right?

 

That the blokes that take credit for playtesting have back tracked on their initial statements, and that the big picture is melee is still fairly weak?

 

If I'm not playing power levels then infernus pistols and hand flamers aren't worth taking, and I'm very much against breaking my models just to fit a different play style. This doubles over to my campaign play as well as events.

 

I have taken an infernus pistol on Sergeant Galos since 8th started, and he has yet to use it. Hid power sword does wonders, but there is almost never a chance for him to use it. I take it because it's WYSIWYG and has run over from previous editions. making a new sergeant is an easy answer; but with the lack of time I have, playing casually he is an overall burden that I have to live with atm .

 

The same thing goes for the Sanguinary guard that all have bolt guns. They are too expensive, and proxying just doesn't work in my group.

[Palwatch]

I brought this list to try it out. It worked well. It was a pick up game.

 

yes it is fine I feel this way, as my experience in this edition is very much 'im not being screwed, its fun, a codex will make it better'.

 

I dont win every game, I use different lists for fun, and Im winning a lot for the first time ever.

 

I posted that particular list because I was asked for an example.

 

Im sorry if everyone elses meta is suffering, I'm just conveying my own experience. The 'i cant beat three knights' is not a valid argument for the blood angels being weak.

 

My all comers list is similar, theres a storm raven and not so many sang guard.

 

Ive spent a lot of time perusing the forums, which means I have spent a lot of time reading peoples posts about how screwed over weve been again. Ive also seen how badly those people treat others who disagree. Its almost a constant. Its very sad.

[Palwatch]

The formula is so repeatable

 

"BA have been screwed over again"

100 x agreement posts

"Im not sure, Im doing ok"

"Really, show us an example"

"Ok - heres x"

"That cant beat EVERYTHING"

"So?"

[Palwatch]

I would very much like to not be the person who gets pulled assunder because I have a minority opinion.

[Spagunk]

The formula is so repeatable

 

"BA have been screwed over again"

100 x agreement posts

"Im not sure, Im doing ok"

"Really, show us an example"

"Ok - heres x"

"That cant beat EVERYTHING"

"So?"

Yeah, okay I see where you are going with this .

 

By the way, I never said "your list can't beat everything" for what it is worth. I asked for examples of how you would defeat those lists so we can see a bit more on how you strategize using Blood Angels; your thought processes. But I doubt that is going to change anything. Welcome to the forum anyway, hope you enjoy your stay.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

The formula is so repeatable

 

"BA have been screwed over again"

100 x agreement posts

"Im not sure, Im doing ok"

"Really, show us an example"

"Ok - heres x"

"That cant beat EVERYTHING"

"So?"

I was not meaning offense, simply what works in your meta does not in mine. Mortarion makes great points about melee and how it can be conveyed we are "screwed over" fairly well.

 

Here's a simple list of grievances:

 

It has more to do with gear options I've used forever. Increasing in costs while output and performance decrease immensely. Why take a special BA specific pistol when I can take a combi-x now that does the exact same thing for marginally the same points with greater output and use.

 

Death Company moving down to a 6+ FnP from 5 etc. Dreadnoughts being overcosted when variants we do not have access to are better even before the points decreases in codex marine's new book.

 

Having a melee centric army, when melee is worse than in previous editions. Especially with how easy it is to leave combat and still be extremely combat effective. These are real issues that can be conveyed as BA and other armies of the like can be viewed as "screwed over"

 

FLG's response from Reece in the comments, as well as their changing message has only increased the friction with a secular of the player base.

[Damon Nightman]

I think a lot of the confusion stems from new people seeing us complaining a bunch and thinking we are those awful people who are never happy, when in reality we have some legitimate concerns (I'm personally not on either side, I've barely played 8th so far).

 

So, new guy comes in hoping for a nice experience and sees a bunch of complaining and tries to offer insight and combat the overwhelming negativity. The negative people explain why they are so negative, but it's too late. The new people have already seen the ugliness and made up their minds that we are whiners that just can't be happy. Nothing gets resolved...

 

Not sure what the solution is, BA seem to be pretty okay and plenty of fun in the more casual metas, but can suffer in more competetive areas. Depending on how you play the game and who

You play with will determine your experience with BA, but as an outsider looking in, it does seem like BA aren't great compared to other indexes currently...

 

New people! Please understand we aren't always so negative and a lot of great discussion happens here! Please stay!

[Palwatch]

lol - Ill be staying. Ive had a very pleasant experience so far, the passive aggressive nature of some of the responses to my posts here wont make me leave :)

 

Re the DC 6 up - theres very little FNp like saves any more, beyond the DG, I know it isnt ideal but its better than nothing.

 

Again my point isnt that there are no issues. There are. My problem is that I dont believe we have been in any way screwed over, and the reaction to it when I say it.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

lol - Ill be staying. Ive had a very pleasant experience so far, the passive aggressive nature of some of the responses to my posts here wont make me leave :)

 

Re the DC 6 up - theres very little FNp like saves any more, beyond the DG, I know it isnt ideal but its better than nothing.

 

Again my point isnt that there are no issues. There are. My problem is that I dont believe we have been in any way screwed over, and the reaction to it when I say it.

It is much more common and available than you might initially think. there are several armies that can enjoy the 5+ FnP. and if you aren't playing matched play it's even greater. Army wide 5+++ on bugs is real scary.

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

lol - Ill be staying. Ive had a very pleasant experience so far, the passive aggressive nature of some of the responses to my posts here wont make me leave

 

Re the DC 6 up - theres very little FNp like saves any more, beyond the DG, I know it isnt ideal but its better than nothing.

 

Again my point isnt that there are no issues. There are. My problem is that I dont believe we have been in any way screwed over, and the reaction to it when I say it.

 

That just like, your opinion man...

 

BA are placing at the bottom of every competitive event, whatever happens in your group is irrelevant to the bigger picture and the overall balance.

 

My group doesn't play 'WAAC' style lists but they're all great players. Against Elite-ish armies, like GK or Deathwing I can usually smash them... against big numbers though, like Chaos soup, Imperial soup or IG soup especially, or hoards that is a different game. We have an Iron Hands player too btw (army wide FnP).

 

Whether you are winning or not, there are some units that are grossly over-costed in comparison to other like units (dreads for example, and even DC, angelus pistols etc).

 

Playing with some other armies (IG and bugs) I really got to feel what it's like having so many massive threats on the table that your opponent has to deal with - in your list the scouts can do some work but not really a threat, 15 death company are maybe scary but everyone can deal with them, 5SG, some buff guys and 2 devs... that's very little on the table, not being passive aggressive, I think your group/meta is just not that good.

 

Take your list to a big tournament and report back...

[Palwatch]

No?

 

Why would I do that. Im just playing for fun. I feel like no one is reading my posts.

lol at my groups meta not being that good. If you knew these guys

[Karhedron]

lol - Ill be staying. Ive had a very pleasant experience so far, the passive aggressive nature of some of the responses to my posts here wont make me leave

 

Glad to hear it.

 

There is a significant proportion of BA players who feel bitter at the perceived under-poweredness (is that a real word?) of BAs for several years. There is some justification to this as our Codices have been late in the release cycles for the last couple of editions. This means that we tend to miss out on the next "big thing" that happens when the new SM Codex is released 6-9 months later.

 

I have played since 1st edition and have learned to ride the wave to some extent. Having a couple of different armies helps as it means if BAs are not performing well in a particular edition, I can dust off my Eldar or Space Wolves.

 

Everybody wants to have fun but fun means different things to different people. For some it is the chance to field a highly characterful army which makes BAs perfect. For others, it means pitting yourself against the best your opponent can bring for a challenging game. In such circumstances, having an army that is consistently at the low of the power curve is frustrating if they cannot play the way they want.

 

Here's to having fun (whatever shape that takes)!

[Palwatch]

Again, Im not saying there isnt issues. Im just saying we havent been screwed over, by any deffinition of the term.

 

Unless you define screwed over as 'not the best army in the game'

 

And, once again, someone asked me for a list I have won with. I provided it. it is not a be all/end all list. I just said what I did.

 

Im starting to think you cant have an opinion here.

@Karhedronuk - I fully agree

[Pendent]

My own feeling about our index balance is that while we have some issues right now- potentially major ones, don't get me wrong- we're still a lot stronger relative to the other armies out there than we were in 7th edition. I only picked 40k up around the time our 7th ed codex hit and my record all through 7th was pretty poor, to the point where I was only able to win a small handful of games. Playing against the exact same people I'm winning like half of my matches lately and it's been a really nice change. I've been 50% against an pretty nasty ork horde list, 50% against another nasty mechanized necron list (when did they get so fast...?) 50% against a World Eaters list with roughly a billion Beserkers. Essentially I feel like while my army is not optimal at least my choices actually make a difference in game.

[Damon Nightman]

He isn't saying we are great in tournaments. It seems like from his perspective, this isn't a crazy competitive game, so he doesn't see the problem. Sure he admits BA has issues, but in just regular games (for him at least) he never got the feeling that BA were specifically screwed over. Like he doesn't get the feeling that GW is personally attacking us like some people make it sound like (at least from the outside looking in).

 

I'm doing my best here to help everyone see eye to eye...

 

The vet board members don't mean to be so dismissive sometimes, they just are playing in competitive environments and getting very frustrated with the lack of power BA have had for an incredibly long time (in the tournament/competive scene at least).

 

It especially upsets them when these FLG guys tell us how amazing we are and then back track months later and still are very dismissive to all criticism when they were wrong in the first place...

[Palwatch]

Hey, if you want to talk about being done in, talk to Tau players. I havnt lost to a Tau list yet this ed

[Palwatch]

Ive been keeping an eye on the lists that are winning tournaments. To go back to the comment I originally posted, its like any competative environment with a lot of moving pieces. Some peices are just naturally better. No doubt GW will attempt to balance things out, but super smart WH players will always find a way to jerk the system

[Thoridon]

BA certainly seems to be at the lower end of current competitive play and I can understand why competitive players would be feeling let down by this. There's always going to be a faction that's ranked lowest but it's natural for people to be disgruntled after spending 7th near the bottom too, statistically. That's not to say BA can't do well in a tournament, it might just be harder or need better luck with matchups compared to some factions that have stronger overall options.

 

For me I'm enjoying 8th, it's just little things that I'm eager to be changed in the codex. As has been mentioned, inferno pistols being so expensive and angelus bolters costing more than plasma pistol 'upgrades' feels like an oversight that should be adjusted.

 

The main gripe I see from many people is that DC and SG feel underwhelming for their points cost, given they're supposed to be our premium units. For all we know they could've been balanced around our chapter tactic in advance, and when that arrives they could see a big jump - whether it's something like extra strength, extra attacks or some form of hit and run charging, anything we get that enhances assault is going to make them stronger. It could also remove a 'need' for certain character support for them, or amplify other character auras.

 

With something like this there will always be different viewpoints, and there is never a right and wrong side. Every viewpoint is valid to some extent, but a lot of it comes down to context. What one person enjoys and has success with can be horrible or terrible to someone else.

[Palwatch]

The Plasma costing less than the angelus is very confusing. Why would I take an Angelus when I can fit the entire squad with plasmas for less.

 

For what its worth, I think Sang Guard are in no way underwhelming, even for the price. 2+, 2 wounds and power weapons built in. Yes please

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

Again, Im not saying there isnt issues. Im just saying we havent been screwed over, by any deffinition of the term.

 

Unless you define screwed over as 'not the best army in the game'

 

And, once again, someone asked me for a list I have won with. I provided it. it is not a be all/end all list. I just said what I did.

 

Im starting to think you cant have an opinion here.

@Karhedronuk - I fully agree

 

I would define screwed as 'one of the weakest armies currently in the game -- at the competitive level'. If you're not concerned with so-called "competitive" 40K then I'm right there with you. I actually run a list incredibly similar to yours with more SG and less DC.

 

And seriously, I'd say you're being at least as 'dismissive' or passive aggressive as anyone here. Regardless of what you prefer, you must know that lots of folks prefer to play 'competitively' or play in those metas, and more importantly - that is exactly where GW promised to balance the game. I would agree that in narrative games, which I personally prefer, a lot of this crap doesn't matter.

 

Even in fun games though... when your 2 major threat units (DC and SG) can get so easily tarpitted by cheap garbage, or a 115pt character can kill 6 Terminators and a termie Chaplain in a round, then 'fun' becomes very subjective.

 

FLG specifically focuses on Competitive / Tournament 40k... that is what this thread is about.

[Palwatch]

Thats fair

[the jeske]

I think a lot of the confusion stems from new people seeing us complaining a bunch and thinking we are those awful people who are never happy, when in reality we have some legitimate concerns (I'm personally not on either side, I've barely played 8th so far).

 

So, new guy comes in hoping for a nice experience and sees a bunch of complaining and tries to offer insight and combat the overwhelming negativity. The negative people explain why they are so negative, but it's too late. The new people have already seen the ugliness and made up their minds that we are whiners that just can't be happy. Nothing gets resolved...

 

Not sure what the solution is, BA seem to be pretty okay and plenty of fun in the more casual metas, but can suffer in more competetive areas. Depending on how you play the game and who

You play with will determine your experience with BA, but as an outsider looking in, it does seem like BA aren't great compared to other indexes currently...

 

New people! Please understand we aren't always so negative and a lot of great discussion happens here! Please stay!

dude but what is a more casual meta that the BA works, the examples given when BAs work are either people some god dice rolling, their opponents playing if they want to lose[not objectives, not optimised, doing stuff to do "cool" stuff] or the armies being mind blowing bad. BA are "bad" [when good is an army with multiple options, and ease of play, where you don't have play vs your own army too] since 3ed? That is a long time. Sure people did make BAs work, but since end of 3ed, but it required very good gaming skills and luck. no army that requires luck to win is a good one. Am not a BA player, but always had great respect for people that played BA in a serious matter[aka not as something that would end up as red marines in a few months], so I technicly should be happy about BA being bad, and have 0 negative feelings about the state of BAs. this isn't the case, but even if it was, if someone who worked on the new edition [and new BAs] says condradicting things about the same army and his end advice is to play red marines, it seems clear that something is wrong here.

 

Ah and the argument that army X is only bad in a tournament setting is a bogus one. if anything w40k is most balanced at its top tier. It scales horrible in to lower tiers. You take a non tournament BA list and a non tournament SM list [or any other good army right now] and you will see.

[Palwatch]

I have, and so every week. And Im not seeing an issue

Again, its just personal experience, not trying to be dismissive of peoples pain

[Panzer]

 

lol - Ill be staying. Ive had a very pleasant experience so far, the passive aggressive nature of some of the responses to my posts here wont make me leave

 

Glad to hear it.

 

There is a significant proportion of BA players who feel bitter at the perceived under-poweredness (is that a real word?) of BAs for several years. There is some justification to this as our Codices have been late in the release cycles for the last couple of editions. This means that we tend to miss out on the next "big thing" that happens when the new SM Codex is released 6-9 months later.

 

 

Actually our last Codex was the first of the new edition iirc. It was an attempt by GW to tone things down which resulted in a rather bland and boring codex for the most part (imo) and then they screwed up with the Necron Codex and everything else followed that one. That's why it was never good to be the first or the last to get a Codex in an edition. ^^