Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 424 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 29  Next

Blood Angels List Development Thread

 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
pati wrote:
First Strike should be caused something more seriuos reason -like Howling Banshee secial masks, or appearing-from-nowhere Warp Spiders. A SP can be a booster, but the reason of First Strike should be something more seriuos, than his presence :)


Um, well, he actually grants furious charge, which is a big deal. In 5th edition, that not only granted +1 Strength, but also +1 initiative, which, in effect, was first strike against the vast majority of opponents. And on top of that he granted Feel No Pain, which is like an invulnerable save. The Sanguinary Priest was a HUGE deal when it was first introduced in the 5th ed codex.

_________________
Former Blood Angels Army Champion
Epic Gamers Los Angeles Chapter
Armies Played:
Blood Angels
Black Legion
Codex Marines
Imperial Fists


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 9:53 pm
Posts: 374
Right, but it's hard to translate it to EA -First strike is a true advantage here -just think about first striking temrinators (or 2 formations with a captain also).. A unit of termies with SP can kill a whole IG mechanized company!!

They need some drawbacks/limitations, like first strike for once in the game, or only 0-1 SP/army, etc.

btw, the 5th edition 40k was not the best edition.. :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
pati wrote:
Right, but it's hard to translate it to EA -First strike is a true advantage here -just think about first striking temrinators (or 2 formations with a captain also).. A unit of termies with SP can kill a whole IG mechanized company!!

They need some drawbacks/limitations, like first strike for once in the game, or only 0-1 SP/army, etc.

btw, the 5th edition 40k was not the best edition.. :D


That's why I am only suggesting it for the assault formations, and not others. Anyway, it's not an idea that I am married to, and I would like to hear feedback from others on it.

I strongly disagree with you regarding 5th edition. It's pretty much the only edition of 40k that GW got right. But that's another discussion.

_________________
Former Blood Angels Army Champion
Epic Gamers Los Angeles Chapter
Armies Played:
Blood Angels
Black Legion
Codex Marines
Imperial Fists


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9655
Location: Manalapan, FL
I don't know. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig I'm not going to want to make out with it ;)
I'm not sure if they need to be fixed honestly. They're not broken, just situational. CC based units are just not as flexible as FF ones and that's ok. The same thing is true of Howling Banshees in Eldar land and Khorne Beserkers for Chaos.

I keep getting the feeling Pati that somehow you're equating the BA with assault Marines. That's never been the fluff nor the case with them. They have just as many devastator formations as the avg codex chapter. They're highly experienced "shock assault" force but that's about rapid high intensity warfare which EA nice for.

Back to something important: Earlier there's some comment about Storm Raven gunships being the primary anti tank weapon, which is true in 40k. That's really not what we have now in EA however. There's simply no great way to model that without sending the cart of road. They're not worthless, we've both showed that in some play tests, just that they are a mono-dimensional unit. That's ok too. :)

Oh and for the record, anything not Rogue Trader or 2nd wasn't the best ;)

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 995
jimmyzimms wrote:
Oh and for the record, anything not Rogue Trader or 2nd wasn't the best ;)


Game, set and match, Zimms.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
pati wrote:
I think we should keep them 6 strong -as tacticals, a mainstay unit in a BA army, not something like a support formation (as in other SM armies, or like Devastators)! But next to Raptors (as I previously mentioned many times before) they are expensive! Just try to keep them 6 unit strong! :)

Just to be clear, I didn't say drop 6-unit formations. I said start with a 4-unit formation and give them upgrade options. :) People can do what they want then, instead of being forced to take large formations unless they want to. Everyone wins that way.

pati wrote:
Well, the change of the Assault Marines, and the Stormraven will lead a full new concept -this one is almost balanced ,and not a bad one.

Well introducing a points drop to help the list buy more larger formations doesn't really feel fair as there is no 25 point premium so you'd only be making it up to gain more toys. Adding in a Sanguinary Priest for First Strike is worse. So which do you feel to be the more fair road...?

Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
My overwhelming preference and priority is to get an approved BA list. I think we're very close to having something fun and functional. May not be perfect, but will be good. We can work on more serious tweaks later.

So you know, I'm not keen on rushing lists because people want a list "Now!" :) It'll be ready when it's ready and it's not a race to the finish. Get it right first time, saves headaches in the future. That said, it really isn't that far off. The list has weaknesses and strengths and there really is only so far you can go with a Marine list that lacks Titans, but some things still need testing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
I don't think I agree that a 25 point discount on the larger assault formations would be unfair. For its utility, I think the Astartes assault formation is a 150 point formation if I ever saw one. There's really not much you can do with it other than activation burn or maybe throw it in a THawk with a Dev formation.

Because if we're not adding activation premiums to units, then let's knock the Astartes Warhound singles down to 250 points apiece instead of 275. And, while we're at it, let's knock the Stormraven formation back down to 200 points. The whole reason I cranked it up to 250 was to prevent spam. I certainly don't think the formation is worth 250 from a utility standpoint.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but low-point formations have a value all their own, for which it is demonstrably standard practice to attach a point premium to. I can name even more formations throughout various lists if you like.

For that reason, I'm not taking a 25 point reduction to larger assault marine formations off the table just yet. As I said, I think it's very telling that no one is including them in their playtest lists. But, I do really like your idea of allowing 4-stand formations in addition to the 6 and 8 stand formations. Let's try your idea first and see how it goes. I have the feeling it will work quite nicely and we'll see more assault marines in Blood Angel lists. Those that want to take the larger formations may.

Putting that aside for the moment, I got a playtest game in with the Sanguinary Guard in against Volrath's Iron Warriors! They performed admirably and as predicted!!! Very pleased with the results. They planetfell in their Stormravens, and along with the Death Company, assaulted the Iron Warrior Reaver Titan and smashed it to little tiny bits! Then they promptly got shot up, the SC, being right on the front lines, promptly died and I had to flee to a corner of the table to keep the unit from being wiped. Ultimate glass cannon!

All told, it was 600 points for the 6 stands, the SC, and 3 Stormravens. Only 2 SRs and 1 stand of SG remained at the end of the game. 3+ armor really isn't all that resilient! But I think the unit did exactly what I envisioned - it's a glass cannon that you have to play very carefully with, and having the SC in harm's way like that is a big liability. Further, not wanting to sacrifice my BTS or wanting each friendly unit within line of sight to take a blast marker, I had to play very carefully with it. And that was the whole point of the "Honor of the Chapter" rule - to force people to play the formation with the reverence it deserves.

Volrath, my opponent, felt the unit was "in the right zone" - not too powerful for its cost.

I'm pleased as punch with the unit and think it's a great addition to the list. I hope others will give it a spin and let me know their thoughts.

The Storm Ravens, once again, utterly failed to impress!!!! Between the five of them I think I killed a single Predator.

Edit: Oh, and the Blood Angels won the match 3-2. I had Blitz, Take and Hold, and Break Their Spirit while the Iron Warriors had Blitz and Take and Hold. Very hotly contested match, both sides utterly devastated by the end of the game. As I said, I think the list is very close to being well balanced, if not there already!! :)

_________________
Former Blood Angels Army Champion
Epic Gamers Los Angeles Chapter
Armies Played:
Blood Angels
Black Legion
Codex Marines
Imperial Fists


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:49 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:59 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Los Angeles
Oh! If we're now able to take 4-stand Assault Formations at 175 points, why would we ever take 8-stand formations at 350 points? I'd far rather have two activations for the exact same points. You put two 4-stand formations in a THawk and assault with them, it's exactly the same as it was with a single 8-stand formation, but now you can split them up, capture, contest objectives, and activation burn with two formations rather than just one.

See what I mean? I think given the choice, nearly anyone would take two 4-stand formations over a single 8-stand formation at the same points cost. Just as almost everyone will take a two separate Warhounds over a 2-Warhound formation at the same cost.

_________________
Former Blood Angels Army Champion
Epic Gamers Los Angeles Chapter
Armies Played:
Blood Angels
Black Legion
Codex Marines
Imperial Fists


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:26 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
Quick point I like the option of 6 stands and 3 Stormravens. They feel right to me. Whilst I note that you don't want to do this, I would urge you to consider restricting the Stormraven to just the Assault formation. The feel that I get with the SR acting as transport for other units is a bit like Eldar Max (without the second retain).

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
I'm not actually sure about all this activations talk. Assaults in the codex list aren't very useful because a) there are only four of them and four attacks can't do much, and b) there are other better assault formations in the list. They are useful as a cheaper partner to devs in a thawk, where they are guaranteed to get to CC. As activation burners, scouts and land speeders are more useful and worth including for Scout too.

Personally I think 6 and 8 are far more useful, I suspect the reason you are not seeing them is, again, due to what else is in the list. Death company, terminators, sanguinary guard... How many CC only troops are you really going to want to take in your army?

It is true though that 8 units should probably be at a small discount to 2 formations of 4, though for me this is only true for thawk deployments. This is because, unlike FF formations, 2 formations of assault don't work as well together (1 to support and 1 to engage) and as I mentioned, 4 attacks ain't gonna kill much. Whereas with eldar Rangers for example, there is literally no reason to take 8.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:42 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
So after playing on Friday I think that I should try and get some thoughts down on the list before I forget everything. Consol Avenging Angel took a (EUK) IW armour heavy list, already posted above, and I took the list that I had proposed earlier in this thread with the swopping of a dreadnought for a Stormraven. I went for the Vulcan Dread to try and have a more balance feel to my Death Company. I think that I should have gone all out with the Furioso Dreads, but if I was playing against skimmers then they would have been wasted.

I recon I made several mistakes, firstly we played sides rather than corners. This would have force the IW to bunch up more. Then I placed the spacecraft template too far away from my main drop (only 20cm, but too much with where the IW garrisoned). Finally on the initial errors, I dropped two formations forward, the Death Company & an Assault formation.

The list played aggressively and if my initial engagement against the Stormsword BTS had gone differently (9 out of 10 normal saves and two out of 3 MW wounds) I would have made a big dent in CAA’s army. Unfortunately the Assault formation was then left exposed, scattering from their drop and was shot to pieces by the IW Havocs and Land Raiders.

The rest of the game was the general cat and mouse of my pushing and sacrificing units to try and keep the IW back whilst CAA killed units, tried to secure his DtF and take the BTS. The testament to the list is that it kept the game close and although early on was down on points, we played five turns and it could have gone either way on objectives.

The next time I try the list I would garrison more and drop less units, the 60cm range from the Stormraven’s was fine and I could even have set up normally playing across the table without many worries on being able to shot enemy units.

Frenzied rule helped when I needed it to and when I wanted to do something else which took the negative modifier I was lucky enough to pass everytime.

I’d probably try
Assault & 3 Stormraven
Assault & 3 Stormraven
Death Company (Assault Marines + Chaplain) & 1 Dreadnoughts + 2 Stormraven (BTS)
Scouts & Rhinos
Scouts & Rhinos
Stormraven or Devastators
Stormraven or Devastators
Land Speeder
Land Speeder
Strike Cruiser
Thunderbolts
Thunderbolts

As my next list

Final thoughts, I asked if a Stormraven heavy list was broken or not. From this lone test I would say no, but would need to play against it to get a firmer view.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:00 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
Some photographs from the start of my last game.


Attachments:
File comment: Iron Warriors Set Up
IMG_0049.JPG
IMG_0049.JPG [ 30.8 KiB | Viewed 2862 times ]
File comment: Blood Angel garrisons
IMG_0050.JPG
IMG_0050.JPG [ 74.24 KiB | Viewed 2862 times ]
File comment: Iron Warrior Set Up
IMG_0054.JPG
IMG_0054.JPG [ 31.82 KiB | Viewed 2862 times ]
File comment: Scouts Drop In
IMG_0058.JPG
IMG_0058.JPG [ 28.32 KiB | Viewed 2862 times ]
File comment: Stormravens Drop In
IMG_0059.JPG
IMG_0059.JPG [ 32.98 KiB | Viewed 2862 times ]

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:06 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
Further Photographs


Attachments:
File comment: Assault Formation scatters out from behind the hill.
IMG_0060.JPG
IMG_0060.JPG [ 27.76 KiB | Viewed 2856 times ]
File comment: Death Company Assault Options - Dreads had activated from Overwatch and placed a BM. Defilers behind the wood and BTS Stormswords in the corner
IMG_0061.JPG
IMG_0061.JPG [ 27.5 KiB | Viewed 2856 times ]
File comment: Death Company Engage
IMG_0062.JPG
IMG_0062.JPG [ 28.81 KiB | Viewed 2856 times ]
File comment: Death Company Breaks and falls back
IMG_0063.JPG
IMG_0063.JPG [ 28.87 KiB | Viewed 2856 times ]

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 9:53 pm
Posts: 374
The assault marines were less popular in the playtest lists, because the Stormravens/ SG were in the focus! :D

I think everyone, who ever played with BA tried them once/twice.. :) So, what's the AC'S decision about them?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Please consider the knock-on effect on other lists before replying. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 424 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 29  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net