Competitive BA list discussion *Post-Codex*

[Zynk Kaladin]

I still can't see buying a drop pod, too many points that don't do anything.

 

 

I agree with you ~99% of the time, but it does have its uses if one builds a specific army.  Having a flexible list providing many strategic options is my philosophy.  Additionally, I always play to the objectives so having the most bashy, shooty, or point-efficient options are not my main priority.  A drop pod simply allows me more options with my specific list (page 11) than I otherwise would.  I could alpha strike the pod with other units, beta strike with other units, objective camping, deploy midfield null zone, deploy backfield support, late deploy turn 3 if necessary, run Mephiston on foot, strike hidden units if necessary, etc.  Some of these options won't happen all the time and won't work on certain opponents and/or lists, but having the ability to do something unconventional or exploit an opening where and when needed it is worth it for me.

[9x19 Parabellum]

Zynk, I was one of those who did not glom onto Drop Pod spam in previous editions, so luckily, I only have 1 :-D

That being said, I've also been trying to come up with a reason to have 1.  83 pts is just a LOT of points to sink into a delivery method.  I'm still thinking a combo devastator squad or two in one would generate some LOLs.

[Aothaine]

The only additions are the reivers, because I feel reivers are better than DC.

 

That is an interesting debate though. I'm not sure about the point difference between Reivers and DC but I honestly feel that DC are better. When they charge they have loads of attacks at the same str or better than Reivers. Reivers can have 5 more wounds but the DC can ignore wounds on a 6+. Both can ignore terrain. Both have decent ranged weapons. Both can deep strike. Really comes down to whether or not you're willing to give up 5 wounds for more attacks and the 6+++ save. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

 

 

The only additions are the reivers, because I feel reivers are better than DC.

That is an interesting debate though. I'm not sure about the point difference between Reivers and DC but I honestly feel that DC are better. When they charge they have loads of attacks at the same str or better than Reivers. Reivers can have 5 more wounds but the DC can ignore wounds on a 6+. Both can ignore terrain. Both have decent ranged weapons. Both can deep strike. Really comes down to whether or not you're willing to give up 5 wounds for more attacks and the 6+++ save.

I think 2 wounds vs FnP is arguably better when looking at both MSU and squads of 10. Also remember that the shock grenades and negative leadership modifier puts them on par with DC.

 

The biggest difference is DC can take bolters and chain swords, or TH and powerfist. But If you're trying to keep them cheap it's a push. Even with a 15 man squad with JPs its 300 points 15 wounds vs 200 points with 20 wounds. and both are rather combat effective. It's personal preference, but having the ability to negate over watch and have a negative modifier to leadership puts them over the hump for me personally. Sticking 6s ain't easy and I feel each wound lost by DC is felt harder than each wound lost for Reivers.

[Panzer]

I honestly don't see Reivers being better than DC at all. They don't have Jump Packs so they don't benefit from some of our very good Stratagems, they are no Deathcompany so they can't use the free move stratagem, they have less attacks with Chainswords and worse attacks with Powerswords/Thunderhammers. Also no 6+++.

As much as I like Reivers, I don't see them being better than DC.

[Zynk Kaladin]

Zynk, I was one of those who did not glom onto Drop Pod spam in previous editions, so luckily, I only have 1 :-D

That being said, I've also been trying to come up with a reason to have 1.  83 pts is just a LOT of points to sink into a delivery method.  I'm still thinking a combo devastator squad or two in one would generate some LOLs.

 

Your painting hand must be extremely grateful, haha! 

 

I still maintain the 83 points is worth it, but in a very specific type of competitive list.  Then again I'm stubbornly holding on to Dante who is objectively overpriced... perhaps I just have Stockholm Syndrome from having overpriced options for so long.  Where would the fun in life be without a touch of insanity?

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I honestly don't see Reivers being better than DC at all. They don't have Jump Packs so they don't benefit from some of our very good Stratagems, they are no Deathcompany so they can't use the free move stratagem, they have less attacks with Chainswords and worse attacks with Powerswords/Thunderhammers. Also no 6+++.

As much as I like Reivers, I don't see them being better than DC.

But that's the problem. You've immediately gravitated to the stratagems. As do most people, so we need CPs to make them work. In my mind, Reivers fill the same MSU roll better than DC when the focus is the SG.

 

Also, they don't have to have the stratagems. Again, if it comes down to survivability. A squad of reivers can dance within the BoS bubble, DC can not. the off chance you stick a 6 is grest, but often times you still take a lot of wounds, and each wound lost on the DC cuts their effectiveness. I'm speaking strictly about D1 weapons and not multi-wound damage weapons.

 

a 6+++ to me isn't worth it. How many Iron Hands have won the day because of their 6up FnP? Not many that I've seen. Even in bat reps stats say youre foinf to save 1 in 6 wounds that go through so 5 guys versus 3 lost.

 

I don't hate DC, I simply prefer the rievers.

[Panzer]

Ignoring Stratagems doesn't make any sense either tho. It's part of the game. You win games by using synergies between units and Stratagems. You can't just ignore them. And even without Stratagems I see DC as better so it doesn't even matter here.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Ignoring Stratagems doesn't make any sense either tho. It's part of the game. You win games by using synergies between units and Stratagems. You can't just ignore them. And even without Stratagems I see DC as better so it doesn't even matter here.

But when you have a finite amount you're going to get 1 maybe 2 turns out of the DC. We've seen it in several Bat Reps already. I would rather have SG, as a focal point and reivers to be the small assaults versus taking both DC and SG. You could just as easily swap the ST for DC, but then you need Lemartes and 2 more squads of DC, that still die like regular marines. SG die like primaris and have the ability to take the better 5++ for free, as do the reivers.

 

All preference, just how I feel about it.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Dont-Be-Haten

[Panzer]

Again I think DC are better than Reivers even without Stratagems. The Stratagems are just the extremely tasty cherry on the top.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

One of the better math hammer guys could do some crunching and tell us base line what's more survivable and what combat effectiveness looks like per wound and per model lost.

[OPTIMVSCHRISTVS]

I'm thinking I'll be running 3 identical DC squads (probably 7 man to keep them affordable) and dropping them in waves- subjecting the enemy to charges by fresh DC units every turn for the first 3 turns should open up a whole lot of options tactically and really mess with their board control. The first turn they might not hit an ideal target, and maybe not even on the second turn, but by that third turn...unless they're Napoleon reincarnated or the scenario/board is heavily stacked in their favor from the get go, something important is going to be out of position or vulnerable. If the first two squads get shot off the board after killing their target (which, assuming a competent opponent, they certainly will), that's really not that much of a problem at the end of the day. They don't even need to make their points back (although it should be theoretically doable, with the right targets)- they just need to suitably disrupt the enemy's plans.

[CrimsonExarch]

 

The only additions are the reivers, because I feel reivers are better than DC.

 

That is an interesting debate though. I'm not sure about the point difference between Reivers and DC but I honestly feel that DC are better. When they charge they have loads of attacks at the same str or better than Reivers. Reivers can have 5 more wounds but the DC can ignore wounds on a 6+. Both can ignore terrain. Both have decent ranged weapons. Both can deep strike. Really comes down to whether or not you're willing to give up 5 wounds for more attacks and the 6+++ save. 

 

And way more synergy with what the BAs are encouraged to do in the codex- take jump packs. Also Lemartes is a very solid HQ as far as points cost and damage output goes and hes greatly improves DCs threat potential. Rievers are a no-no for me. Theres no real synergy in our dex for them outside of the red thirst.

Edited December 11, 2017 by CrimsonExarch

[Pendent]

There's really something to be said for a cost effective skirmish/disruption unit like Reivers. I've had a bunch of success by just forcing my opponent to react to them. You can put them in cover and chip away at anything nearby, you can use them to charge and tie up heavy weapons, you can even coordinate them with ranged firepower to punch a hole in the enemy screening units. It's hard not to get 100 pts of value out of them.

As to if they're better than Death Company at disruption, I'd say they're similar enough that it's worth debating and really comes down to how you want to play them.

[Aothaine]

Don't-Be-Haten makes some very valid points. I can see Reivers being better in some situations and DC being better in other situations. I think it would come down to multiple factors as well. Terrain, how much chaff the opponent has etc.

 

Also the BoS is a huge boon to Reivers over DC. But you need to keep in mind that it will only work until the guys inside the bubble drop and it only works on the guys in the bubble from what I have come to understand. 

 

Reivers have a place in any competitive army but I honestly feel that Death Company edge out slightly in most situations. The shear amount of attacks they can unleash is just silly. The question then becomes is that extra 100 points needed somewhere else for a slightly less effective assault unit?

[Crimson Ghost IX]

I'm thinking I'll be running 3 identical DC squads (probably 7 man to keep them affordable) and dropping them in waves- subjecting the enemy to charges by fresh DC units every turn for the first 3 turns should open up a whole lot of options tactically and really mess with their board control. The first turn they might not hit an ideal target, and maybe not even on the second turn, but by that third turn...unless they're Napoleon reincarnated or the scenario/board is heavily stacked in their favor from the get go, something important is going to be out of position or vulnerable. If the first two squads get shot off the board after killing their target (which, assuming a competent opponent, they certainly will), that's really not that much of a problem at the end of the day. They don't even need to make their points back (although it should be theoretically doable, with the right targets)- they just need to suitably disrupt the enemy's plans.

 

Thanks for the planned wave assault idea.

Although it seems rather obvious after reading it, I had not considered planning it in quite that light until now.

 

6 cp for just the 3d6 charges Desending Angels on em tho.

Hmmmm. A great idea to riff off of and tinker with anyhow.

 

I think sustained assault is going to be a good way forward.

I am not sure that going all DC is what I will do...

How it is implemented exactly is part of the fun =)

 

Thanks again for the thought.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

 

 

 

 

The only additions are the reivers, because I feel reivers are better than DC.

That is an interesting debate though. I'm not sure about the point difference between Reivers and DC but I honestly feel that DC are better. When they charge they have loads of attacks at the same str or better than Reivers. Reivers can have 5 more wounds but the DC can ignore wounds on a 6+. Both can ignore terrain. Both have decent ranged weapons. Both can deep strike. Really comes down to whether or not you're willing to give up 5 wounds for more attacks and the 6+++ save.

And way more synergy with what the BAs are encouraged to do in the codex- take jump packs. Also Lemartes is a very solid HQ as far as points cost and damage output goes and hes greatly improves DCs threat potential. Rievers are a no-no for me. Theres no real synergy in our dex for them outside of the red thirst.

The counter to this though is what happens when you run out of CPs turn 2? what happens when Lamartes gets left in the open because he fails his charge? By the time you add in the power fist and or thunder hammer as seems pretty popular amongst the frater, you have a bigger target and every loss of a wound affects the unit more. Reivers seem to gel well. Giving them +1 strength from a priest, extra attacks from the Sanguinor, and a 5++ if they stay within the 6" bubble all seem to be comfortable in the above BA list.

 

To say they don't have synergies outside of red thirst seems to be a disservice to the unit for a humble 100-200 point investment of them.

[GeneralSava]

Sorry if this has been answered before but i have been looking at lists and i don't see any missile launchers. Why is that? Yes it's worse against vehicles and monsters, and potentially worse than heavy bolter vs infantry. But it gives you a lot of versatility especially on a tac squad.

[Charlo]

Okay this is what I've got, still tweaking and not fully happy with it (no dreads!?!) but it's infantry focused:

 

Battallion, Outrider & Vanguard Detachments, 2000pts, 8CP

 

Hidden Content

Battallion

Mephiston

Lemartes

 

5 Tactical Marines: Combi-Plas, Lascannon

6 Scouts: CCW & Pistols

5 Intercessors: Aux Grenade, Chainsword

 

8 Hellblasters: Heavy Plasma Incinerators

 

Outrider

Captain: Jump Pack, Combi-Plasma, TBC Combat Weapon

 

5 Assault Marines: 2 Melta Gun, Plasma Pistol

5 Assault Marines: 2 Melta Gun, Plasma Pistol

5 Assault Marines: 2 Plasma Gun, Plasma Pistol

 

Vanguard

Sanguinor

 

12 Death Company: 2 Power Sword, 1 Power Fist, 1 Thunder Hammer

Primaris Ancient (Relic Banner)

9 Sternguard: All Special Bolters

 

Forlorn will get the DC up the table early and give me some more board Presence/ allow me to hide them turn 1 if I don't go first.

 

Firebase will be Tacticals, Primaris Ancient (FNP Banner), Intercessors & Hellblasters. FNP banner and getting a free shooting attack when things die mean i'll hopefully get some mileage out.

 

Scouts are a distraction + alpha defence.

 

Assault Squads will drop with the captain to provide mobile harassment and cover fire. Re-rolls and red thirst should see them deal more damage than they are worth. Captain can always re-locate to the firebase if they need re-rolls for a turn (overcharging Hellblasters etc)

 

Mephiston and Sternguard pod in to clear up something with the marksman strat (again can hold their own in combat with 2A and RT) while Mephy does his thing.

 

Sanguinor is to fight the big things (wounds up to T12 on a 4+...!) and buff wherever will get stuck in combat and need that extra attack.

 

Thoughts, brothers?

[Morticon]

Sorry if this has been answered before but i have been looking at lists and i don't see any missile launchers. Why is that? Yes it's worse against vehicles and monsters, and potentially worse than heavy bolter vs infantry. But it gives you a lot of versatility especially on a tac squad.

Probably just personal preference.  MLs are really solid.  Great in Devs en masse.  Lascannons are generally go to for the -3 and the wounding T8 on 3+, though.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

 

 

Sorry if this has been answered before but i have been looking at lists and i don't see any missile launchers. Why is that? Yes it's worse against vehicles and monsters, and potentially worse than heavy bolter vs infantry. But it gives you a lot of versatility especially on a tac squad.

Probably just personal preference. MLs are really solid. Great in Devs en masse. Lascannons are generally go to for the -3 and the wounding T8 on 3+, though.

Seconded this. It also deals with your meta. ML still have a place, if you have to face a lot of T8 Spam, Lascannons are better however.

[Pendent]

As someone who has tried to make typhoon missile launchers work repeatedly I disagree- MLs are overpriced for what they bring and 90% of the time I'd rather have another lascannon. The frag missile is basically worthless, netting about 1 wound per launcher against MEQ (who then get their save) making it incredibly inefficient, while at the same time the loss of strength and AP on the krak means that TEQ are still going to get 4+ saves and you're going to struggle a lot more than you'd expect against T8, particularly when they're still getting a decent save.

I was really hoping for a cost adjustment with CA but evidently GW still overvalues d6 bolter shots.

[Morticon]

FWIW, and just a different perspective to the one above, i found the massed MLs to have great flexibility and versatility in tourney environment. WIll be meta dependent though - because the concerns above are valid

[Panzer]

Definitely personal preference. Missile Launcher never impressed me in any game and you can always only shoot at one target with a weapon anyway so I prefer having a dedicated anti-tank weapon and a dedicated anti-infantry weapon elsewhere. 

[OPTIMVSCHRISTVS]

 

I'm thinking I'll be running 3 identical DC squads (probably 7 man to keep them affordable) and dropping them in waves- subjecting the enemy to charges by fresh DC units every turn for the first 3 turns should open up a whole lot of options tactically and really mess with their board control. The first turn they might not hit an ideal target, and maybe not even on the second turn, but by that third turn...unless they're Napoleon reincarnated or the scenario/board is heavily stacked in their favor from the get go, something important is going to be out of position or vulnerable. If the first two squads get shot off the board after killing their target (which, assuming a competent opponent, they certainly will), that's really not that much of a problem at the end of the day. They don't even need to make their points back (although it should be theoretically doable, with the right targets)- they just need to suitably disrupt the enemy's plans.

 

Thanks for the planned wave assault idea.

Although it seems rather obvious after reading it, I had not considered planning it in quite that light until now.

 

6 cp for just the 3d6 charges Desending Angels on em tho.

Hmmmm. A great idea to riff off of and tinker with anyhow.

 

I think sustained assault is going to be a good way forward.

I am not sure that going all DC is what I will do...

How it is implemented exactly is part of the fun =)

 

Thanks again for the thought.

 

No problem, that's what the thread is for!

 

As far as Death Company vs. other things, I guess it's personal preference at the end of the day. I might mix in Vanguard Vets in a couple of the squads- looking back, 3 identical squads might not be ideal. Considering we'll be able to pick our target at our leisure, it may be smarter to tool one squad for anti-monster tank, another one for clearing out chaff, another for killing MEQ/or maybe just an in between squad. This will take some play testing I suspect.