Do we really suck this much? Options

[koeker]

I haven't played enough 5th to comment

http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/2009/0...ran-armies.html

9) Blood Angels - Blood Angels can concentrate their forces to be better than Black Templars in one small area of the board. The problem is, you really have to pack the Blood Angels in to make the most of Dante’s Aura of Win, and that makes them very vulnerable to Battle Cannons and other very bad things. It also means that the enemy only has to avoid one knot of destruction until it is pounded to dust.

At least we're the best of the 9 worst...

[JamesI]

No, we don't suck.

[Parcival]

No, we don't suck.

Well, Jwolf himself says that the armies in 40K are much more balanced than their WHFB counterparts. In other words, Blood Angels don't suck at all, our Codex just isn't - let's say - optimized. Playing Blood Angels is fun and in any standard friendly game it hardly matters what Codex you pick. Thoughts like those by Jwolf apply for people who want to play competitively at a very high level.

[Brother_Dan'l]

It's also ridiculous. The guy must not have an actual experience with 5e Blood Angels. All we need is one model in the unit to be within 12" of Dante for Preferred Enemy to work. Doesn't sound like we need to cluster up to me.

[Julius Firefocht]

Well, we are the IX Legion after all.

I am not too worried about people saying that the Blood Angels suck. It just makes the moment of victory all the sweeter.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

It's also ridiculous. The guy must not have an actual experience with 5e Blood Angels. All we need is one model in the unit to be within 12" of Dante for Preferred Enemy to work. Doesn't sound like we need to cluster up to me.

If anything he should have said Orks suck cause they have to cluster up around the 6" KFF

[JamesI]

My experience is Space Wolves are pretty good currently. And he ranked them lower than us.

[Brother Mathias]

If you read his comments closely, a lot of his basis for whether a codex "sucks" or not seems tied to how often he sees others playing that army or whether he's played that army himself. He rated Dark Eldar #10 simply on the basis that he's never played them. SW are #12 because he doesn't see local players using them. There appears to be little more than this "JWOLFE"'s own fuzzily explained distaste for various armies as the basis for this list rather than a well thought-out, empirical explanation of how codeci stack up in 5th ed.

[Maijin]

A buddy of mine runs a 5 rhino "U Formation" rush with chaplain and jump pack unit hidden in the middle that dominates a lot of other armies in 5th edition. By second turn he is usually dividing your army in half and wrecking which ever side he chose to focus on.

[rocketrollrebel]

Nah we don't suck at all, we're just more of as other people have said "the thinking mans army". But he does make valid points. Needing to keep the army in a pair overlapping 12" bubbles does tend to make us vulnerable to pie plates (orbital bombardment always makes me hold my breath for a turn) and other shooting. I think that "JWolf" is simply looking at how these armies perform at a large scale competitive level and how "user friendly(?)" the codex is in general. I started playing BA with the release of 5th edition and I immediately found them to be much more tactically involved and challenging than my IG who can win the game regardless of mission by simply wiping the enemy off the board with big guns.

In my experience BA rely more on speed, maneuverability and making a hard precision strike at the right time in order to win which can present much more of a tactical challenge. So with that we don't suck per se, we just don't have a win button codex and require a bit of tactical thinking and faith in our beloved Primarch and the Emperor.

This post has been edited by rocketrollrebel: Mar 23 2009, 06:42 PM

[I am Legion]

I spoke to BOBMAKENZIE about the recent tournie he was in and he said they allowed BA to have the 3+ storm shields. That got me thinking on how powerful a VAS squad would become. I mean nigh on invincible. Imagine also having 10 assault terminators deep striking on a locator beacon. Cheap drop pods anyone? Means more dreads, and maybe even DC. Oh DC deep striking on a beacon. Who needs a chaplain even. Our army would become unstoppable as it always was.

But I'm sure GW looked at these rules and said BA are strong enough as it is, albiet they are a thinking mans army unlike vanilla marines.

We don't suck, and anyone who says we do has not faced me

No, but seriously, compared to the other non updated codexs we are still near the top in my opinion. Even Tau can't stop us. But a dirty tyranid army could.....

[Hellfury]

No, we don't suck.

Says the Space Vampire.

[FerociousBeast]

Nah we don't suck at all, we're just more of as other people have said "the thinking mans army".

"Thinking man's army" of course being an optimistic way of saying "I have to think really, really hard to have a chance at winning"

He rated Dark Eldar #10 simply on the basis that he's never played them.

Actually, he rated Dark Eldar #10 on the basis that he'd never had difficulty beating them. Might want to read it again

It's a decent article, and even if his reasoning isn't always great, it seems to reflect most players' thinking/consensus on the subject.

[I am Legion]

Well sure, With Tau or nids you don't need to think much, but BA and daemonhunters are very small forces, and if you want to really crush the opponent then yeah, you need to plan your moves a little.

[Brother Perun]

and if you want to really crush the opponent then yeah, you need to plan your moves a little.

agree. i think BA is one powerful army with plenty options and correct me if I´m wrong but arent we only SM army whose assault marines are troop choice?
i dont think we suck.

[jeffersonian000]

I think people are missing this statement by Jwolf:

I would not recommend that a new player start a bottom half army, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with any army in 40K that skill and practice can’t at least partially mitigate.

Meaning that the top 8 armies are more user-friendly and easier to make competitive, while the bottom 8 require skill and experience to be successful. At least, that's my read.

SJ

[Abaddonshand]

I disagree with most of his decisions, particularly about DA, BA and Sisters, also, his high ratings of nids and current codex IG.

First off, I played nids for all of fourth, and love the army (never played nidzilla). In 5th, the only unit they have that can score without expensive synapse babysitters are genestealers (in MEQ speak, this leaves nids in the same position as pure ravenwing or white scars biker forces (minus the speed), as stealers and bikes aren't designed to sit on objectives). As such, I would rate nids far lower than he has (indeed, I started DA to have an army I can win with without using a no brainer nidzilla list unit nids get a new codex). Also, vulnerable to TLOS.

Now, sorry for the minor divergence, moving to Sisters, when played well, they are damn good, and nigh unbeatable without the right tools, so basically the author seems to have never played against a decent sister player.

BA and DA; thanks to the efforts of DA (my death/raven included, I seem to have a bit of reputation even though I'm barely in nowadays) and BA players in my local GW, most players I know fear BA and DA more than most other space marine variants. Both armies are extremely effective when played to their strengths, (i.e. the way the authors of the codex intended them to be played), played as normal battle companies however, I have to cede that DA effectiveness drops (although not as much thanks to the FAQ on company vets) slightly compared to Codex; SM, and BA drops significantly when Death Company are not taken due to the pre-factored points cost.

In sum, as long as BA are played as they should be (in the codex authors' opinion), with DC and nasty characters, they can still excell.

[Warforger]

Ha ha, I saw it and it did remind me of the times I had trouble with Battle Cannons.

Now, the amazing thing was not that I was clustered up, it was that smart players deployed first so they decided to make so I can't hide.

Now that I've had more experience, I want to play against Guard, its pretty fun against the local guard players.

I rarely use Dante, Mephiston amazes me more. I don't need that 12" bubble much and his ability isn't the most amazing thing ever its pretty good, but not amazing.

[Black Orange]

I can't respect JWolf as a knowledgable player after reading that tripe. It made no sense and he rarely bothered to provide any good support of his rankings.

0b

[Arschbombe]

He didn't really do any serious analysis. What he did make some guesstimates based on two things:

- how many people in his area use an army
- how relatively successful they are with that army

His assessment of those two things is backed up by assuming that the success of the army is attributable to the strength of the codex not the player and that unused armies must therefore be weak.

[Droofus]

My main beef was how high the IG were vs. how low Witch Hunters were. IMO, he should have done a tier system with, say, 4 tiers. That way nobody (read: necron players) get hurt feelings from being listed last. Something like the following:

Tier 1 Armies (current "power armies", usually in top contention for tournies):
Orks, Chaos, Eldar, Black Templar

Tier 2 (mid-range armies, can contend but with a bit of a disadvantage against the power armies):
Witch Hunters, Tyranids, Blood Angels, Tau, Space Wolves, Space Marines

Tier 3 (armies that need an excellent commander to have a chance at finishing top in a tourney):
Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, Daemonhunters, Necrons, Dark Angels

This post has been edited by Droofus: Mar 24 2009, 06:27 PM

[OwlandMoonGuy]

- how many people in his area use an army
- how relatively successful they are with that army

He also mentioned Internet banter as a criterion, i.e. what people are talking about. He then specifically mentions the popularity of nob bikers & assault terminators with hammer & storm shield. In context, BA were once ascendant, back in the Rhino Rush days & beyond as a strong competitive army and are now descendent compared to others that are more popular.

So he is very correct in the assertion that there is little (if any) Internet commentary being made about BA rules (outside of this very forum). Likewise, there aren’t a whole lot of BA players showing up at competitive events which certainly wasn’t always the case. So from within his sphere of gaming & his review of what’s being talked about (primarily on BoLS) he’s quite correct.

Game play wise, he notes that BT’s get a vow that allows all infantry to enjoy Preferred Enemy and BA need to rely on proximity to a specific HQ choice to get the same thing. Given that limitation, BA’s are forced to bunch up and therefore become more vulnerable to template weapons. With that as his only premise for comparison, he is also correct, myopic as that may be.

It’s easy to disagree with his ranking but I would expect that if anyone else wrote a similar article most of us would disagree with their rankings also. It’s far to subjective to address solely in subjective terms. Who wouldn't put their fav army near the top?

I would agree that Orks/Nob Bikers & Lash Princes are extremely popular builds. Not too long ago, Fish of Fury, Flying Circuses & Nidzilla were equally feared. Not so much now. Where are BA on the list? Droofus puts them at tier 2 which may be easier to agree with than 9th place (though 9/16 is very close to the middle by my reckoning).

-OMG

[JamesI]

I think the bigger deal is #8 was the last of the good armies, while we're the best of the bad armies by his ranking. 8-9 isn't a big deal, but the shift from the good army page to the bad army page is.

[Droofus]

I would agree that Orks/Nob Bikers & Lash Princes are extremely popular builds. Not too long ago, Fish of Fury, Flying Circuses & Nidzilla were equally feared. Not so much now. Where are BA on the list? Droofus puts them at tier 2 which may be easier to agree with than 9th place (though 9/16 is very close to the middle by my reckoning).

Yes, that's the point. A strict ranking 1-17 is less likely to be accurate since it doesn't allow any terms of wiggle room. A more generalized tier system seems to suit the huge number of variables that exist to get one army more "powerful" than another.

I would affirm that we're tier two. Not a bad place to be, actually. We get some decent rules while at the same time we're not disrespected for playing a "easy" army like orks or chaos.

[Warforger]

- how many people in his area use an army
- how relatively successful they are with that army

He also mentioned Internet banter as a criterion, i.e. what people are talking about. He then specifically mentions the popularity of nob bikers & assault terminators with hammer & storm shield. In context, BA were once ascendant, back in the Rhino Rush days & beyond as a strong competitive army and are now descendent compared to others that are more popular.

So he is very correct in the assertion that there is little (if any) Internet commentary being made about BA rules (outside of this very forum). Likewise, there aren’t a whole lot of BA players showing up at competitive events which certainly wasn’t always the case. So from within his sphere of gaming & his review of what’s being talked about (primarily on BoLS) he’s quite correct.

Game play wise, he notes that BT’s get a vow that allows all infantry to enjoy Preferred Enemy and BA need to rely on proximity to a specific HQ choice to get the same thing. Given that limitation, BA’s are forced to bunch up and therefore become more vulnerable to template weapons. With that as his only premise for comparison, he is also correct, myopic as that may be.

It’s easy to disagree with his ranking but I would expect that if anyone else wrote a similar article most of us would disagree with their rankings also. It’s far to subjective to address solely in subjective terms. Who wouldn't put their fav army near the top?

I would agree that Orks/Nob Bikers & Lash Princes are extremely popular builds. Not too long ago, Fish of Fury, Flying Circuses & Nidzilla were equally feared. Not so much now. Where are BA on the list? Droofus puts them at tier 2 which may be easier to agree with than 9th place (though 9/16 is very close to the middle by my reckoning).

-OMG

They aren't in the Rhino rush days, with Jump Packs and good strategy, if Battle Cannons are shooting you, either the board is against you or you did something wrong. Sure BT can get it army wide, but there stuck with expensive transports and still don't end up as fast as BA. Not to mention our Rhino's are faster, so its slightly justified.