PDA

View Full Version : Dark Angels Out Of Date?



Tak
14-04-2010, 15:28
Iv'e noticed that the weapon skill of all the characters in the Dark Angel codex are a rather pathetic 5. Seems as all space marine captains and astartes characters of similiar rank now have a weapon skill of 6 wouldn't it be exceptable to use the new value in order to bring the codex upto date or is there another reason why they should be at a disadvantage with others of there kind?

I haven't seen it but im guessing that this discrepency also applies to the Black Templars codex too.

Does anyone else out there see my point because It seems to be a rather tricky subject to me?

Sorry, Iv'e put this in the wrong forum. Could it please be moved to the right one, thank you.

SeaSwift
14-04-2010, 15:38
It's just due to Codex Creep I'm afraid. You'll either have to just put up with it and instead change the subject to your scoring Land Speeders (laugh at your opponent complaining: 'but it's a vehicle!') or ask your opponent if you can increase it to bring it in line.

Personally, I wouldn't have any objections in a friendly game, and I don't suppose many would, but don't try this in a tournament.

grissom2006
14-04-2010, 15:44
Not really a rules question more of a general one the Codices for both are 4th edition so out of date and awaiting rewrites BT shouldn't be that long off. Next point is you need to look where you make your posts as you placed this in WFB not 40K. Warseer changed things about almost a month ago now.

Mannimarco
14-04-2010, 15:51
depending on who you ask theres no such thing as codex creep

Sadly the DA codex is really showing its age, almost everything that made them special can now be done better for cheaper by the newer books

Narf
14-04-2010, 18:32
apart from the deathwing fearless, teleporting assault termis
apart from the ravenwing fearless, scouting, locator beacon spanning termi delivery guys.
apart from the the cheap as chips venerable dreads
apart from the the decent chaplains and librarians

Apart from that basic stuff they are a bit like playing marines on hard mode, but then again none of the other marine armies are auto win now......

self biased
14-04-2010, 18:32
instead change the subject to your scoring Land Speeders (laugh at your opponent complaining: 'but it's a vehicle!')

i still think that's a rather weaselly interpretation of that rule. when the codex was written, vehicles were scoring units, and the passage in question reads more like a reminder of what was the basic rules at the time. now that vehicles are prohibited from being scoring units because the core rules changed, the passage takes a different tone.

i'm not arguing with the ruling, but it seems to have been made out of pity. more to my point is that the scoring speeders is a bug and not a feature.

bigcheese76
14-04-2010, 18:35
It is slightly annoying with the WS variation between the new and old codexes, but to be honest, it doesnt bother me that much as there are still some really cool bits about the DA codex that make up for it, and like has already been mentioned, scoring Land Speeders are win.

The Orange
14-04-2010, 19:01
Really? Of all the things to worry about you pick WS? It's like the most irrelevant stats. The only difference between the 2 is if you face off against another model with WS5. Honestly I'd prob. say no. If WS6 is that big of a deal for you then use another codex. I'm sorry that the DA got the short end of the stick but there's no point in having different SM codices if everyone starts picking out the best stuff of each to use in their own army. It doesn't matter if it looks like theres a trend, each codex is stand alone. I can't take an Avatar's WS and stick it on my Ethereal so why would I let others do the same thing with other books.

Ozendorph
14-04-2010, 19:07
Yeah BT and DA are pretty out of date. Hopefully both will get a rewrite in the next couple years.

Vaktathi
14-04-2010, 19:12
The DA codex isn't that old, it's only about 3 years old, making it one of the newer books, it's just that both the books that year (DA & CSM) were awkward design studio experiments that players really didn't like, but that were templates for subsequent Codexes. Both of these books have been extremely controversial from even before their release.

DA work pretty decently compared with the books from 2007 and earlier, it's just that everything that was special about them was then done by subsequent books.

Ozendorph
14-04-2010, 19:33
The DA codex isn't that old, it's only about 3 years old, making it one of the newer books, it's just that both the books that year (DA & CSM) were awkward design studio experiments that players really didn't like, but that were templates for subsequent Codexes. Both of these books have been extremely controversial from even before their release.

DA work pretty decently compared with the books from 2007 and earlier, it's just that everything that was special about them was then done by subsequent books.

^ That's a pretty good summary of the situation. I'd also submit that the DA were bland and uninspired right from the get-go. It was if the design studio published the Eldar book, then promptly lost any notion of how to make an interesting product for about a year, before regaining their senses and producing Codex:Orks. :)

Kroxigore
14-04-2010, 20:30
EDIT: Sorry, I thought the thread was moved to the WHFB-rules part and not from there. Ignore this post!

Arbiter7
14-04-2010, 21:09
BT and DA have cheaper venerable dreads, but people have missed that they have one less WS and BS than the ones in C:SM. And I reckon hitting on two's with that asscannon is worth the extra points.

scopedog91
14-04-2010, 21:13
I have to admit, I have been toying around with the Blood Angels, just because tanks with twin ass.cannons are cool.
Fast tanks are great, but I really do miss the Deathwing stuff.
It is just sometimes harder to ignore the new toys, when all your old stuff is gathering dust...

bobafett012
14-04-2010, 22:04
The DA codex was outdated the second it was released. Its more vanilla than the vanilla marines codex. supposedly there was a design change for DA, choas, and eldar, DA got the brunt of this. then they decided that they didn't like this path and went back and made SM, IG, nids, and SW all 10 times more unique and interesting than the DA and chaos codex.

Grand Master Raziel
15-04-2010, 01:31
depending on who you ask theres no such thing as codex creep

I don't see how anyone can possibly read Codex: Dark Angels, then read Codex: Space Marines, and then claim there's no such thing as codex creep. At least not with a straight face.


apart from the deathwing fearless, teleporting assault termis
apart from the ravenwing fearless, scouting, locator beacon spanning termi delivery guys.
apart from the the cheap as chips venerable dreads
apart from the the decent chaplains and librarians


Not sure what point you're trying to make with teleporting assault Termies. with the exception of SWs, all Space Marine armies can do that. Unless you're referring to Deathwing Assault, which got appropriated for Drop Pod Assault, and since the Codex: Ultramarines Termies are cheaper than DW ones, they can afford the pod. As far as Fearless goes, widely regarded as more of a liability than an asset.

Ravenwing Bike Squadrons are, admittedly, probably the best feature of Codex: Dark Angels, but in the current environment that's not setting the bar very high. Plus, you pay for it, in the vicinity of 300pts for 6 Bikers with reasonable upgrades and an Attack Bike. Plus, DA players don't have the option of putting homers anywhere else.

Our Venerables may be cheaper, but as previously observed, don't have the higher stats. Plus, our regular Dreads are overpriced, and lack the options vanilla Dreads get. Plus, for DA players, the best means of delivering them (Drop Pods) is also overpriced.

Decent Chaplains? I'll give you that. Decent Librarians? Don't make me laugh. Their stats may be better than a vanilla Libby, but their psychic powers (all two of them) suck, and they're only Ld9, unless you take the horrendously overpriced Ezekial. Plus, the DA Libbys are significantly more expensive than the vanilla SM equivalents. Vanilla Space Marines have it way better in the Librarian department.

TheDasuri
15-04-2010, 02:45
Oh man are BT really? going to get updated relatively soon? Even if that means next year its still some of the best news I've heard all day. I really want to start them but I may wait for them to get updated and just save up first.


I haven't seen the DA codex but I've played a game against it and it was pretty lacking. I was very under whelmed. At least the robe wearing marines look cool

Lusall
15-04-2010, 03:03
It's an out of date dex. But there are some things good about it.

Here's what I tell most people. If you don't want to play Deathwing...don't play Dark Angels. It's just a headache waiting to happen. But if you like an all Termi army...then Deathwing may be the army for you.

wazatdingder
15-04-2010, 03:25
OOHH!... You mean the codex is out of date.

I was about to say how they have always been a lame chapter with pretty lame fluff. :p

Honestly, I think of all the chapters left in the 40k universe, this one would be good to retire. With their fluff they could very easily self destruct in a final battle with the Fallen.

DDogwood
15-04-2010, 03:57
So how cheesy would it be to use Codex: Space Marines for an army painted in DA colours? Assuming you don't want to play an all-Deathwing army, of course...

shagrath
15-04-2010, 04:09
wonder if sammiel 2.0 will also die to massed bolters

bobafett012
15-04-2010, 04:23
It's an out of date dex. But there are some things good about it.

Here's what I tell most people. If you don't want to play Deathwing...don't play Dark Angels. It's just a headache waiting to happen. But if you like an all Termi army...then Deathwing may be the army for you.

i used to say that too, then the SW codex came out and does DW better and cheaper so now i say play the wolfwing if want all termie army....at least until DA gets redone. Also i disagree with the post that said DA should be retired. They are the oldest chapter and have lots of great fluff. Gw has just been pretty bad about adapting that to the army. Many of the dpecial rules and options since the 2nd edition have been pretty bad. I have been playing pure DW for 13 years and i finally decided to shelve them and restart my BA army for the time being, so here's hoping GW gets our update sooner than later, but i won't be holding my breathe.

kardar233
15-04-2010, 04:31
So how cheesy would it be to use Codex: Space Marines for an army painted in DA colours? Assuming you don't want to play an all-Deathwing army, of course...

Yeah, Marines does Ravenwing better, and Wolves does Deathwing better, so the only real point gameplay-wise of playing DA is having that combo, which admittedly is nice, if only for the Scout move+DW assault.

Lanparth
15-04-2010, 05:08
Dark Angels were out of date a week after they were released >.>

shabbadoo
15-04-2010, 05:24
It would be just as cheesy as somebody painting their Marines some random color, making up a name for them, and using C: SM for them. Many people are already using C: SM in preparation for DA being updated.

The OP(Tak) must be new not to know that this topic has been covered a bazillion times already.

Plastic Rat
15-04-2010, 08:38
i still think that's a rather weaselly interpretation of that rule. when the codex was written, vehicles were scoring units, and the passage in question reads more like a reminder of what was the basic rules at the time. now that vehicles are prohibited from being scoring units because the core rules changed, the passage takes a different tone.

i'm not arguing with the ruling, but it seems to have been made out of pity. more to my point is that the scoring speeders is a bug and not a feature.

Well it's either one or the other. The DA codex specifically states that bikes cannot turbo-boost during the scout phase (which was part of the main rules back in 4th ed) but that has now changed in the 5th ed book.

Unfortunately with GW's 'codex trumps rulebook' approach to everything, our bikes STILL can't turbo-boost during the scout phase.

So, pick one. Either the main rules are superseded buy the codex, in which case our landspeeders aren't scoring, or the codex is superseded by the main rulebook, in which case our bikes CAN turbo boost during scout. One or the other. Either way we gain something and lose something else.


^ That's a pretty good summary of the situation. I'd also submit that the DA were bland and uninspired right from the get-go. It was if the design studio published the Eldar book, then promptly lost any notion of how to make an interesting product for about a year, before regaining their senses and producing Codex:Orks. :)

It was pretty much due to Jervis' pontifications at the time on simplifying the game down. His design philosophy held sway for two codices (DA and CSM) after which everyone said: "Right, this pretty much sucks, we want interesting codices again."

Jervis should honestly not be designing anything anymore. The guy's stuff is as bland as bland blandness on a thick bland base with added bland sauce. He is also apparently obsessed with designing the game for 10 year olds with ADHD.


OOHH!... You mean the codex is out of date.

I was about to say how they have always been a lame chapter with pretty lame fluff. :p

Honestly, I think of all the chapters left in the 40k universe, this one would be good to retire. With their fluff they could very easily self destruct in a final battle with the Fallen.

I dare you to say that out loud at a gaming convention or large 40k meet. Please send photos of the bruises too.


Dark Angels were out of date a week after they were released >.>

This.

ehlijen
15-04-2010, 09:10
Offereing dissenting opinon:

I liked the approach of the dark angels and chaos codices. The back to the basics approach could have let GW finally properly balance things and fill the books with background rather than slapping 10 new things with the word blood/wolf/ultra on every page.
Yes, it is a differing approach to the later books, but I wish they'd stuck with it. Your bland is my well refined. Your interesting is my stuffed with ill thought out, spur of the moment nonsense.

Vaktathi
15-04-2010, 09:31
Offereing dissenting opinon:

I liked the approach of the dark angels and chaos codices. The back to the basics approach could have let GW finally properly balance things and fill the books with background rather than slapping 10 new things with the word blood/wolf/ultra on every page.
Yes, it is a differing approach to the later books, but I wish they'd stuck with it. Your bland is my well refined. Your interesting is my stuffed with ill thought out, spur of the moment nonsense.

There's a difference here. The DA book, by itself, had the rest of the books followed this, would be fine. At it's release it wasn't too bad, with basic marines being much better geared than their equivalents for about the same cost but without the ability to min/max as well. It's not so much what's wrong with DA as what every other army has been getting. I agree that some of the more recent codex's seems like they just tossed a bunch of random, ill thought out crap in so they could cliche the army as fast as possible (Ultramarines are what all other marines wish they could be, 3++ saves handed out like candy, wolves riding wolves with wolf claws and wolf talismans, blood marines wielding blood talons with blood missiles and bloodboil psychic powers, widespread FNP availability etc) The CSM book they just took too much out of, forget the armory, but rather we have a book of the forces of Chaos that's so...unchaotic it's painful, with large inconsistencies between gifts and marks and whatnot, trying to cover both pre-heresy Legions and recent Renegades, doing neither very well, resulting in something that is really just another "Space Marines +" book, rather than something reflective of the mightiest mortal forces of the ruinous powers. They could have "streamlined" Chaos a lot better (generating controversy such that even its author still had to react to it two years after release and he'd left the company), and if Kelly and Ward had had a little more restraint DA wouldn't be in such a bad spot now.

ehlijen
15-04-2010, 09:40
Once again, I actually thought the Chaos codex did reasonably ok. Sure, deamons should have been able to get marks at least, but on the whole, it did enough to allow for most themes while not becoming the byzantine monster of 1 you want for every 3 you don't that was 3.5.

I honestly think the less is more approach should have been given more time and could have worked great. Sure, some themes might have been reduced in effectivness, but I'd rather have a few that all work well than 10 out of which 1 kicks all the others butts.

Ronin_eX
15-04-2010, 09:47
Offereing dissenting opinon:

I liked the approach of the dark angels and chaos codices. The back to the basics approach could have let GW finally properly balance things and fill the books with background rather than slapping 10 new things with the word blood/wolf/ultra on every page.
Yes, it is a differing approach to the later books, but I wish they'd stuck with it. Your bland is my well refined. Your interesting is my stuffed with ill thought out, spur of the moment nonsense.

I'll agree with you here. I thought going back to basics was a great idea but when GW pulled the same old switcharoo in mid-stream it certainly made the lite codices quite a bit less appealing, especially as the later ones were only more rules, options and units but also more efficient than the codices before them. Had they stuck to the KISS principle found in C: DA and C: CSM then things would have been okay when they went through the whole cycle and re-did everything but using those two as a springboard to make much more efficient and effective codices just a little while later was a pretty bad bait and switch.

So at this point I will just be happy if GW sticks to one development philosophy (and this goes double for WFB :p) for an entire bloody edition so that they can stop randomly tweaking things each edition and make progressive improvements toward some kind of overarching goal. Without a solid foundation any improvements made to the game will just sink into the bloody swamp they created for themselves (but it's okay, they'll build another).

shilfa
15-04-2010, 11:31
Offereing dissenting opinon:

I liked the approach of the dark angels and chaos codices. The back to the basics approach could have let GW finally properly balance things and fill the books with background rather than slapping 10 new things with the word blood/wolf/ultra on every page.
Yes, it is a differing approach to the later books, but I wish they'd stuck with it. Your bland is my well refined. Your interesting is my stuffed with ill thought out, spur of the moment nonsense.

^ Totally agree. Back then i thought DA book was actually HELLA bland... but nowadays, i thought it's pretty well thought. Admittedly DA book now compared to others don't age well. But JJ actually put forth alot of interesting ideas. Combat Squad, nades on infantries, cheaper tanks in general, etc etc. Now it's standard in all codex astartes marine books. The pricing too was quite well thought for the most of it. Of course it's not all sunshine and rainbows, we still got our more expensive drop pods, ezekiel (ooo how i laughed at you, Deliverer), librarians Ld, psychic power in general, Assault Marines pricing etc etc. If only they kept to the design philosophy....

bobafett012
15-04-2010, 11:43
I personally don't like the blandness at all. If they would have re-done all the codex's in the same light as DA then there would be almost no need for any other chapters, 1 would do, and while that might make some happy, i like marines and i really like the variances between the chapters. I could do without some of the names as has been said(blood this, blood that, wolf this, wolf that) but using it sparingly would have went a long way. however i quite enjoy each chapter being its own entity and pretty clear differences between them.

byteboy
15-04-2010, 12:11
Let us not forget that our Librarians have a board wide Psychic Hood, not this 24inch lameness other chapters have :D

All in all, yes, I feel my DA army is pretty pathetic compared to SW,BA and even regular Space Marines.

I even made up a "WolfWing" army and for 2k, I only had to toss out my 2 Whirl Winds and I had a 32 Termie army with more hardiness than my DA version. Being Fearless is a waste since this Edition clearly favors Melee combat. I would rather be Stubborn with a LD10 instead.

I will still play them as best as I can, but it really is tough to play.

The Phazer
15-04-2010, 13:17
So how cheesy would it be to use Codex: Space Marines for an army painted in DA colours? Assuming you don't want to play an all-Deathwing army, of course...

I think you'd be daft not to at this point. The DA 'dex was weak when it came out. 5th ed made it worse. The SM Codex might not have any units that are particuarily more powerful, but it has a lot, lot more tactical flexibility.

Phazer

DDogwood
15-04-2010, 13:49
Jervis should honestly not be designing anything anymore. The guy's stuff is as bland as bland blandness on a thick bland base with added bland sauce. He is also apparently obsessed with designing the game for 10 year olds with ADHD.

Minor point of disagreement - the "simplify simplify simplify" philosophy, in my experience, is meant to appeal to older gamers, not younger ones. All of the gamers I know who are over 30-ish seem to prefer simpler, more elegant rules. I think that our memories are starting to go, or our brains are just too full of real-life stuff, and it becomes too hard to learn a bazillion special rules and exceptions.

Young gamers ("tweens" and early teens) LOVE having long, complex games with overcomplicated rules, as a general rule.

Sir_Turalyon
15-04-2010, 15:12
Offereing dissenting opinon:

I liked the approach of the dark angels and chaos codices. The back to the basics approach could have let GW finally properly balance things and fill the books with background rather than slapping 10 new things with the word blood/wolf/ultra on every page.
Yes, it is a differing approach to the later books, but I wish they'd stuck with it. Your bland is my well refined. Your interesting is my stuffed with ill thought out, spur of the moment nonsense.

Agreed. The *four* codices produced using this approach (DA, CSM, Orks and Eldar) were nicely ballanced against each other; too bad design team broke nerve and overpowered SM codex; even worse that rather then leaving Ultramarines as single paragons of unbalance they restarted codex creep.


As for Dark Angels, two reasons I can think of to play them is doublewing (using ravenwing scouts and deathwing assault to superbly deploy your terminators, rather than rely on sheer number of terminators as SW do it better) and small tactical squads keeping special weapons which makes them cheap and still useful.



Minor point of disagreement - the "simplify simplify simplify" philosophy, in my experience, is meant to appeal to older gamers, not younger ones. All of the gamers I know who are over 30-ish seem to prefer simpler, more elegant rules. I think that our memories are starting to go, or our brains are just too full of real-life stuff, and it becomes too hard to learn a bazillion special rules and exceptions.

Personaly I feel we find it harder to excite over bazzilions of possibilities rules give as we already know most of them are never used; or we are harder to excite in general. Fact that pleasure from mastering something so complex is long past and games are just fact of life doesn't help. Once you see enough rulesets they become a tool to play a game rather than work of art to gape at; fortunately well painted minis and smoothly played games get old much slower.

Kasr
15-04-2010, 15:25
I would agree with the balance issues in "some" not all the new codices. But I have noticed when i read the codex some of the units stand out from the rest and you think to yourself holy crap this unit kicks ass. where as with the DA codex nothing really stood out as a game winning unit. Just my opinion here.

borithan
15-04-2010, 17:48
So how cheesy would it be to use Codex: Space Marines for an army painted in DA colours? Assuming you don't want to play an all-Deathwing army, of course...Answer: Not at all. But then I am of the opinion that pretty much all Chapters should be covered by one codex which has a section for the various minor changes that distinguish them. Dark Angels and Blood Angels are (or were) meant to basically be Codex Chapters in the first place, with some minor differences (Blood Angels having the unfortunate tendency to devolve into frothing lunatics, and Dark Angels being all secretive and stuff, plus some armoury differences), and while Black Templars and Space Wolves are more different, much of the silly stuff added in Codex: Space Wolves seems partly to justify them having a separate Codex. If you allowed more variety in the basic units then only the truly different would need separate entries (is there any real reason that you couldn't include Baal predators in the standard Codex? Why can't Vanguard Veterans represent most of the various Chapter close combat specialists?).

Ozendorph
15-04-2010, 18:14
I'm not against "Back to Basics" but there are degrees. DA was pretty extreme. When compared to Orks and Eldar the DA has few options or characterful units. I find when making a DA list that I'm presented with a few basic choices, and the list kind of builds itself. Do I want to play Deathwing, Ravenwing, or both? Here are the characters I must use. Here are the two units I must use in order to take any advantage of the rules. Should I take a librarian? lol.

And while "number of special characters" isn't a great standard of measurement for codices, it is telling as to how much interest the designers had in their subject. How many new characters did the Orks pick up? I guess you could call Belial a special character (was previously Gabriel, right?), but we lost Bethor, Asmodi, Namaan, and Sapphon. Three of those guys even had models, lol.

Plastic Rat
15-04-2010, 19:10
<snip>, but we lost Bethor, Asmodi, Namaan, and Sapphon. Three of those guys even had models, lol.

Wait, I know the Bethor model and I have Asmodai... which one of the other two had a model?

EDIT: Oops, never mind. Found Naaman. Dang.. that's not the prettiest DA model I've seen. I think I know why we don't see the model around much.