PDA

View Full Version : Making Dark Angels Playable.



cuda1179
12-05-2009, 01:57
Dark Angels were my first Marine army. I rather liked Their 3rd edition list where they were like normal marines, but they had a few more options while loosing a couple others. Now they simply have fewer options.

My circle of friends feel like they are, at best, a third tier army. Almost anything they can do the vanilla marines can do better and cheaper. THe only exception to this is that they may take terminators as troops.

So, for the longest time I have been using my Dark angels with the vanilla rules. It works well, but missing out on the speci9al characters is a little depressing. For friendly games I am thinking of asking if I can simply use the Dark Angel characters with the Vanilla codex. Does anyone forsee any problems here?

Corpse
12-05-2009, 02:01
As long as the rules combine well and you dont use vanilla characters, with opponents consent of course.

No problems if you played me and I've been around a lil' while.

Templar Ben
12-05-2009, 02:04
You mean use their rules as well or just the models?

blameless
12-05-2009, 02:13
No harm in asking...
and probably lots of fun to play...
But loads of problems...

1-Aza's 4+ invulnerable save in tactical terminator squads that score, stern G squads... very tough
2-vanilla terminators scoring... not to different to DA ones but cheaper, bigger sizes and better with combat tactics...

cant think of any biggies off the top of my head but it would be hard to convince people... maybe...

cuda1179
12-05-2009, 02:14
I mean I would like to use the Space marines codex rules in conjunction with the Codex Dark Angels special Character rules (and only those rules). Anyone seeing and over-the-top combinations?

Tourniquet
12-05-2009, 02:15
it could cause some issues.
Like raven wing rules..with the cheap cheap SM codex bikes.

cuda1179
12-05-2009, 02:18
Well, in all honesty Space marines can all ready take bikes as troops. So that isn't really an issue.

TheDarkDuke
12-05-2009, 02:22
Why? You have a new codex and its strong abilities are contained in the FoC created by those characters, putting them in conjunction with SM just because they are cheaper simply does not cut it. I play BT, and I am not looking for cheaper marines and LRC with all the benefits of BT, thats why I have a separate codex.

Dark Angels are so far from unplayable. Come back and sob after SW, DE, Necron, DH, WH, Tau, BT, BA and Nids are redone first as well they all deserve and probably need it more then DA anyways.

Phenski
12-05-2009, 02:46
Im having more success with my Ravenwing in 5th than in 4th when the codex just came out....
Bikes and Attack bikes that can outflank AND count as scoring units! Yes please! (not to mention the scoring land speeder when taken in the same slot). I use Sammael as a sniper with a plasma cannon (BS5) and counter attack unit. Uber hard squad w. 2xPlamaguns, banner, apoth, and sarg w. Fist takes out almost any unit from the flank, mostly charging multiple squads...

My army is just PURE Ravenwing, but im thinking of some tac marines and scouts (and maybe even Deathwing) to be a wholly rounded force.
I actually feel more for the Blood Angel armies... Their dreads are great but pay sooo much for their "free" Death Company

exsulis
12-05-2009, 02:46
Dark Angels are so far from unplayable. Come back and sob after SW, DE, Necron, DH, WH, Tau, BT, BA and Nids are redone first as well they all deserve and probably need it more then DA anyways.

Truthfully, the only army in that list that needs an actual list over DA would be the BA. The rest of them actually work though some of the builds are less fun to play.

Lion El Jason
12-05-2009, 02:58
Why? You have a new codex and its strong abilities are contained in the FoC created by those characters, putting them in conjunction with SM just because they are cheaper simply does not cut it. I play BT, and I am not looking for cheaper marines and LRC with all the benefits of BT, thats why I have a separate codex.

Dark Angels are so far from unplayable. Come back and sob after SW, DE, Necron, DH, WH, Tau, BT, BA and Nids are redone first as well they all deserve and probably need it more then DA anyways.

DA Are probably the least powerful codex in the game... the only discussion is if its DA or Pure GK. Nothing else even comes close. the fact that the codex is new does not stop the army list being massivly underpowered.
That said, you actual point is correct, DA are not unplayable. We're not in 2nd edition any more where one codex (Eldar) is so unbalanced and overpowered that you don't even have to show up to the game to win. The codexes among the least powerful currently in 40k (DA, Deamonhunters, BA...) still have a good close match against the most powerful codex (Space marines)


You play BTs, your codex is different to the marine codex, some good stuff, some bad stuff. Dark Angels codices are and have always been vanilla marine+ disadvantages. There's nothing inherently wrong with using C:SM stuff with DA (Indeed the DA FAQ says its should be expected), my issue with it is that like the Dark Angels themselves, DA players should be stubborn and refuse to use the SM codex even if it is better in every way.

TheDarkDuke
12-05-2009, 03:45
DA Are probably the least powerful codex in the game... the only discussion is if its DA or Pure GK. Nothing else even comes close. the fact that the codex is new does not stop the army list being massivly underpowered.
That said, you actual point is correct, DA are not unplayable. We're not in 2nd edition any more where one codex (Eldar) is so unbalanced and overpowered that you don't even have to show up to the game to win. The codexes among the least powerful currently in 40k (DA, Deamonhunters, BA...) still have a good close match against the most powerful codex (Space marines)


You play BTs, your codex is different to the marine codex, some good stuff, some bad stuff. Dark Angels codices are and have always been vanilla marine+ disadvantages. There's nothing inherently wrong with using C:SM stuff with DA (Indeed the DA FAQ says its should be expected), my issue with it is that like the Dark Angels themselves, DA players should be stubborn and refuse to use the SM codex even if it is better in every way.

I would have to disagree with the notion DA are less competitive then half the armies I listed. The other half are about on par with DA but older, and IMO that warrants a "needed more" which you understood.

Could GW have put the DA characters into the codex with similar altering to that of the characters in it... yes. At the same time they did not, and if you want to use Deathwing or Ravenwing then use C:DA not C:SM. If you want SM bikers as troops you have two options... hardly something to complain about. If you want terminators as scoring then DA are your only choice. If you do not want to do either of these then it comes down to your choice. Mixing and matching because of points costs and fancy new toys is not a good reason to claim unplayable. As mentioned above... would I love cheaper marines and cheaper LRC? Heck ya. Do I use scouts for bulked out squads? Actually no. Do I want to do these things? No because I choose BT and not C:SM.

hush88
12-05-2009, 04:54
DA is not the most aggressive marine codex but as "unplayable" is a bit too much.
Check out the DA thread for ideas of how to use the DA 'dex to the max.

I love my marines and DA above all but i would not say that any of the marine 'dex is unplayable or completely better, just have to find the strengths of each marine 'dex.

BT is freaking awesome now. Yeah no new toys but CCwise not much out there can actually beat them.
BA fast assault, not as good as BT but faster. Expensive points.
DA, gunline, termie army, bike army, probably most balance of all marine 'dex.
Wolves, rules are quite convoluted now but has the advantage of using new toys.
Vanilla, bland in all areas, some nice toys with good options all around but it is meant to the 'dex that gives choices to lots of marine armies, so ideally so have more stuff in it then dedicated marine 'dex. Still there are some junk in the 'dex as well.

Lord Cook
12-05-2009, 05:31
The codexes among the least powerful currently in 40k (DA, Deamonhunters, BA...) still have a good close match against the most powerful codex (Space marines)

The fact that you think Space Marines have the most powerful codex in the game pretty much destroys the credibility of the rest of your argument. The SM book looks very flashy but in terms of actual power it is surprisingly modest. Certainly not up there besides Chaos or Orks.

As for me, I would not be happy with you using the characters from one codex with the army from another. As blameless and Tourniquet have pointed out, there are some potential issues. Not only that but just the principle of it; if you want to play DA then play DA. Don't cherry pick the stuff you like from one book alongside that from another. I'd really like to have Exorcist tanks for my Guard, but it looks like I'm out of luck.

Dark Angels have some problems. I agree they can't be considered a strong army. But not everyone can be a strong army, because however much you make the weakest force better you will still have a weakest force somewhere. And DA are certainly not "unplayable".

Charistoph
12-05-2009, 07:28
In most tournaments, you have to go by the rules in the specific codex you are fielding.

Against me personally, if you want to use some of the C:SM standard equipment, like the Storm Shield, I would allow it. But, if you wanted Terminator Troops, you have to have the special character and have to follow the other rules of point cost and squad sizes. It's part of who they are, so no getting around that.

If you wanted to run your DAs with C:SM, their organization better reflect only that (i.e. no Terminator Troops and no Land Speeders attached to Bike Squads), that's fine by me, too, as the other Companies follow the codex, so should be able to benefit from it otherwise.

And no running Khan with Sammael! Keep it clean, please. I might even concede the Drop Pod rule, too. Depends on how nice you are. The bigger the *******, the more RAW I get.

Grazzy
12-05-2009, 08:03
They are already playable with deathwing and ravenwing. The normal Dark Angels I will admit are not quite as good as the marine ones but they are certainly not unplayable - just a little worse.

Craz
12-05-2009, 08:33
I actually feel more for the Blood Angel armies... Their dreads are great but pay sooo much for their "free" Death Company

Pay? Whatchoo talkin' about, Willis? Blood Angels have a few...technical discrepancies(Our milennia-old Lord lacks Eternal Warrior, for example), but they can still be a pretty rocking list when they'rere played right. It's not as "user-friendly" as the Space Marine codex, but we still win games.

The_Outsider
12-05-2009, 08:49
It's not as "user-friendly" as the Space Marine codex, but we still win games.

Here is the crux of the argument that BA and DA are weak - requiring more thought that vanilla SM =/= underpowered.

IMO DA/BA are better than vanilla SM, both lists have amazing internal synergy (though this isn't to say they don't have issues with points) and when played upon their strengths both forces are very potent.

Occulto
12-05-2009, 08:58
Here is the crux of the argument that BA and DA are weak - requiring more thought that vanilla SM =/= underpowered.

IMO DA/BA are better than vanilla SM, both lists have amazing internal synergy (though this isn't to say they don't have issues with points) and when played upon their strengths both forces are very potent.

I totally agree with this.

The biggest problem with DA, is that I reckon too many people still try to play them as SM. Not fielding RW or DW is akin to not fielding monstrous creatures in a Nid army.

Sure you can do it, but not utilising the strengths of your codex means you're just handicapping yourself.

mughi3
12-05-2009, 09:14
The biggest problem that the DA FAQ admitted to but would not fix-

Standardized wargear rules unification.

The DA codex would be more playable in the current environment. with a simple added line-

"for all standardized (non-chapter specific) wargear items found in C:DA use the newest rules and points costs found in C:SM"

As it is now it has become a slightly underpowered "codex deathwing" as everything else in the book can be done better and mostly cheaper with C:SM save the special characters.

This isn't like somebody asking for shiny new toys, only unified rules. if cyclones are heavy 2 and cost an extra few points there is no reason my cyclones should perform different or cost different since they are all same made marine weapons.

slasher
12-05-2009, 10:00
If your doing that then can my GKs get a rending ass cannon.....

m_r_parker
12-05-2009, 10:01
I whole-heartedly agree with this. There are some fundamental differences between the current DA and SM codecies, however the vast majority of it can wait until the codex as a whole gets re-done.
The relatively basic stats for weapons and special rules can be put out in an FAQ format quite easily. It's not too hard to use a "Replace current entry for <wargear item x> with <extract from SM codex>", and there aren't too many times this would need to be done - items like Cyclone MLs, Land Raider Machine Spirits, and Storm Shields come to mind immediately.

And once it's been done for one chapter, there's no reason it can't be rolled out identically for the other Power Armour lists out there simialrly affected.

Lion El Jason
12-05-2009, 11:57
The fact that you think Space Marines have the most powerful codex in the game pretty much destroys the credibility of the rest of your argument. The SM book looks very flashy but in terms of actual power it is surprisingly modest. Certainly not up there besides Chaos or Orks.


Orks? You're joking right?
Orks haven't had a top tier army since 2nd edition!

Chaos I'll grant is up there with the new codex:Vanilla marines but Orks are well below par. Without choppers they charge, hit the wall of marines and lose every combat!

Vanilla marines however still make up >50% of almost all tournaments because they will always be the most powerful list in the game... because they sell the best.

Corrode
12-05-2009, 12:06
Orks? You're joking right?
Orks haven't had a top tier army since 2nd edition!

Chaos I'll grant is up there with the new codex:Vanilla marines but Orks are well below par. Without choppers they charge, hit the wall of marines and lose every combat!

Vanilla marines however still make up >50% of almost all tournaments because they will always be the most powerful list in the game... because they sell the best.

You have heard of Nob bikers, right?

Solar_Eclipse
12-05-2009, 12:08
Orks? You're joking right?
Orks haven't had a top tier army since 2nd edition!

Chaos I'll grant is up there with the new codex:Vanilla marines but Orks are well below par. Without choppers they charge, hit the wall of marines and lose every combat!

Vanilla marines however still make up >50% of almost all tournaments because they will always be the most powerful list in the game... because they sell the best.

*collapses in laughter*

I cant believe it. You havent actually played against orks, have you?

Nob Biker, Green tide, Speed Freak.

3 of the most horrendously nasty builds you will ever face.

inquisitor solarris
12-05-2009, 12:19
I wouldn't mind but I find the idea of using the current Dark Angel Codex ahell of alot more challenging as you can try and beat Terminators with Storm Shields with less effective Storm Shields that and you still have the cheapest Crusader (have to buy the multi-melta in the SM Codex)
And why use standard Termies and Bikes when they have more then them?

Lion El Jason
12-05-2009, 13:46
You have heard of Nob bikers, right?


*collapses in laughter*

I cant believe it. You havent actually played against orks, have you?

Nob Biker, Green tide, Speed Freak.

3 of the most horrendously nasty builds you will ever face.

Neither my experiences nor available tournament data seems to support that these are "horrendously nasty"

Orks as a whole are not top tier, they have a few good (Tournament viable) lists as you mention, but are not close to the top codices.

mughi3
12-05-2009, 13:53
If your doing that then can my GKs get a rending ass cannon.....

Heavy 4 with rending(no jamming), thats how our local GK players roll.

Phenski
12-05-2009, 14:24
Pay? Whatchoo talkin' about, Willis? Blood Angels have a few...technical discrepancies(Our milennia-old Lord lacks Eternal Warrior, for example), but they can still be a pretty rocking list when they'rere played right. It's not as "user-friendly" as the Space Marine codex, but we still win games.

I know this is kinda getting off topic... But every "free" Death Company you get is "paid" for in the unit where they originate from, at the same point cost if you want extra DC.
I 100% agree that they DO and CAN win games if played right, i just personally think they are slightly weaker than the DA codex. Thank god we all have opinions and bias! :eek: :angel:

Speaking of which, I cant agree with Lion El Jason about Codex: Space Marines. I still think Nids, Orks and Daemons are the top tier atm. Waiting to play more against new Guard :evilgrin:

Phenski

Corrode
12-05-2009, 14:58
Neither my experiences nor available tournament data seems to support that these are "horrendously nasty"

Orks as a whole are not top tier, they have a few good (Tournament viable) lists as you mention, but are not close to the top codices.

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192880&highlight=perception

There's the data. Admittedly it only covers Australasia, but 'available tournament results' are right there.

toonboy78
12-05-2009, 15:01
would the DA players:

a) be dropping the range of their psychic hoods to 24"
b) not mixing their weapons (CC or ranged) in their terminator squads?
c) scouts being WS/BS 3?

yabbadabba
12-05-2009, 15:04
Just deal with it or use the Marine Codex if winning is that important.

Phenski
12-05-2009, 15:14
Exactly as yabbadabba said!

Choose a codex to play with, inform me before we play, and get on with it!

Lion El Jason
12-05-2009, 15:42
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192880&highlight=perception

There's the data. Admittedly it only covers Australasia, but 'available tournament results' are right there.

Fair enough, I can't say I've looked at non-uk tournament results, I'll have a look and see what all the fuss is about.

The point still stands: Orks are almost the definition of a second tier list: They are taken to tournaments because they are good against one or more common first tier lists.

TheDarkDuke
12-05-2009, 15:50
Fair enough, I can't say I've looked at non-uk tournament results, I'll have a look and see what all the fuss is about.

The point still stands: Orks are almost the definition of a second tier list: They are taken to tournaments because they are good against one or more common first tier lists.

Ugh i don't mind orks at all (my brother plays them) but to consider them anywhere below being in the top if not the best of the top tier you have some problems. especially if you think c:sm are better then them. and orks hitting a wall of marines always lose? What? the fact that they are dirt cheap(you can pretty much get 3 for the cost of 1 marine) and are just as good in close combat (besides armor) and can have so many power claws in a regular list kind of makes your arguments make no sense at all.

Lion El Jason
12-05-2009, 16:04
Obviously that's just my experience. I've never had issues with orks in assaults because the boys are basically just nob-delivery squads. If you can handle the nob you can handle the mob.
It is the saves that make all the difference of course, and Orks are generally good against marines with nob bikes and trukk mounted assaulty mobs but ork boyz are not.

Generally orks come high in tourneys, they are able to make a list that beats marines (And CSM). Since marines and CSM are top tier lists and account for huge percentages of players at tournaments Orks are viable because they will likely beat most opponents. However, orks are not top tier because they are designing lists to beat these top tier opponents, against some other armies that may only be mid level, those same ork lists generally fail. The thing that would beat those other lists are lots of boyz, but they don't do well vs marines so the armies are overloaded on nobz and bikers etc...

Look at the raw data posted above, its easy to see this from the results (Don't look at the thread, the presentation looks biased in that though I haven't looked at those numbers yet).
For example, look at where daemon hunters come.

Darkangeldentist
12-05-2009, 16:09
Lion El Jason what data are you basing your opinions about Orks on?

Here's the results from the latest UK GT (Throne of skulls) final. Orks place 5th, 8th and 10th-13th. The heats had fairly similar results. No-one argues (at least they shouldn't) that Chaos and Eldar still seem to rule the roost but Orks are making a pretty damned good show.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2450114_2009_Warhammer_40K_Throne_of_Skulls_Winne rs.pdf

The heats weren't that disimilar. Orks have been making serious indents into the top ranks.

Getting back on topic.

Whilst I personally don't see the need to use the new Space marine codex or any of it's toys I also don't mind people giving it a try. It's interesting to see how much of an affect it has on the codex. Just pasting the special characters into the book doesn't sit quite as well with me but I'd be willing to play against it. (Maybe not all the time but certainly for a couple of games.) I think seeing how Dark angels do with some of the changes applied is useful and interesting.

However I do not feel it's necessary. I have had a lot of fun with my Dark angels and know they are not underpowered. Regular lists are fine, balanced and no more or less fun to play with than almost any other armies. Tournament styled lists maximising the benefits of the book can be very powerful and competitive.

I've seen the marine codex struggle more than either DA or BA at the GT.

Dark angels are a playable and a good list as they stand. If you want to meddle with it do so under the guise of play-testing and post your findings. I like to hear how people get on with their Dark angels.

Lion El Jason
12-05-2009, 17:26
Lion El Jason what data are you basing your opinions about Orks on?

Here's the results from the latest UK GT (Throne of skulls) final. Orks place 5th, 8th and 10th-13th. The heats had fairly similar results. No-one argues (at least they shouldn't) that Chaos and Eldar still seem to rule the roost but Orks are making a pretty damned good show.


Indeed, that is the data I was looking at. However, what you just described is exactly the definition of a second tier army.

Note it has little to do with opinions about how good orks are, mearly that they are taken to tournaments because they beat some of the more common top tier lists.


Anything more would be threadjacking I think, if anyone wants to discuss what "First tier", "Second Tier" and "The Rest" mean, start a new thread ;)

The_Outsider
12-05-2009, 17:29
b) not mixing their weapons (CC or ranged) in their terminator squads?


The ability to mix weapons in terminator squads makes DW terminators better than all other terminators with the exception of GK ones.

Bloodknight
12-05-2009, 18:17
A few German tournament results:

Number of armies played:

1. Space Marines 2305
2. Chaos Space Marines 1650
3. Eldar 1096
4. Tyraniden 930
5. Tau 687
6. Imperiale Armee 682
7. Orks 652
8. Necrons 627
9. Dark Eldar 371
10. Hexenjäger 265 (Witch Hunters)
11. Dämonenjäger 192 (Daemon Hunters)
12. Black Templars 144
13. Dark Angels 113
14. Chaosdämonen 102
15. Space Wolves 76
16. Blood Angels 67


Army ranking, tournament victories:

1. Eldar 68
2. Tyraniden 66
3. Tau 54
4. Necrons 52
5. Dark Eldar 49
5. Orks 49
6. Chaos Space Marines 43
7. Space Marines 37
8. Imperiale Armee 27
9. Hexenjäger 17
10. Dämonenjäger 10
11. Chaosdämonen 9
11. Black Templars 9
12. Space Wolves 8
13. Dark Angels 6
14. Blood Angels 3

Necs are just that high up because this is data that was collected over a few years,so there's also 4th edition info in there, when they were still good. Orks and Daemons are on the rise, Tau and Dark Eldar falling. I edited a few no longer legal lists out, else there would be Kroot Mercs before Blood Angels...

I was too lazy to do the math, but it seems that Space Marines and CSM have utterly disgraceful armies played/victories ratios.

The leading army in the tournament circuit by that ratio are the Dark Eldar, roughly every 5th DE army that enters a tournament wins it. (They are also on 1 on the army ranking over all placements).

Lion El Jason
12-05-2009, 19:00
Thats why trying to say "This army is best, this other army is worst" fails and we refer to tiers.

Space marines, CSM, eldar and tyranids are generally considered top tier because people bring general lists which can beat everything.
Orks are second tier because they bring lists designed to beat some top tier lists (Usually marines) but that specialisation will punish them in other matchups.

Bloodknight
12-05-2009, 19:05
Nob Bikers and Green Tide stomp Nids and Eldar just as well as SM and CSM.

(And Green Tide kills DE because DE can't kill that many Orks).

Ubermensch Commander
12-05-2009, 19:11
The fact that you think Space Marines have the most powerful codex in the game pretty much destroys the credibility of the rest of your argument. The SM book looks very flashy but in terms of actual power it is surprisingly modest. Certainly not up there besides Chaos or Orks.

As for me, I would not be happy with you using the characters from one codex with the army from another. As blameless and Tourniquet have pointed out, there are some potential issues. Not only that but just the principle of it; if you want to play DA then play DA. Don't cherry pick the stuff you like from one book alongside that from another. I'd really like to have Exorcist tanks for my Guard, but it looks like I'm out of luck.

Dark Angels have some problems. I agree they can't be considered a strong army. But not everyone can be a strong army, because however much you make the weakest force better you will still have a weakest force somewhere. And DA are certainly not "unplayable".

This. I would not mind you using the SM codex OR the DA codex to run Dark Angels, its mixing from different codecies that is irksome. Balance issues alone are one thing, the fact that it just seems off. Another example would be asking "Can I take stuff from the Daemon Codex with my Chaos Marines and recreate the hated Daemon bomb from 3.5?". I would have issues with both as both break the rules of sticking to one codex, in addition to the aforementioned complaints.

In short: Use ONE codex, do not break the rules, and I would have no issue playing a Dark Angels army.

*Caveat: Inquisition or Space Wolf armies are exceptions simply because they have not yet been brought up to date with the new "One codex" line of thought. They do not enter into this scenario because using them is not breaking the rules per se. It's just clunky and outdated and leads to scenarios which were never intended when originally written for different rules sets.


EDIT: @ Lion El Johnson

Orks second Tier? Have to VEHEMENTLY disagree. You are speaking poppy cock and madness. Cthulu approves!

Earthbeard
12-05-2009, 20:25
Why? You have a new codex and its strong abilities are contained in the FoC created by those characters, putting them in conjunction with SM just because they are cheaper simply does not cut it. I play BT, and I am not looking for cheaper marines and LRC with all the benefits of BT, thats why I have a separate codex.

Dark Angels are so far from unplayable. Come back and sob after SW, DE, Necron, DH, WH, Tau, BT, BA and Nids are redone first as well they all deserve and probably need it more then DA anyways.

Couldn't agree more...Dark Angel players whine everywhere, often just becuase they don't like the "new" codex....oh well, play vanilla angels then.

Lord Cook
12-05-2009, 20:35
Without choppers they charge, hit the wall of marines and lose every combat!

:wtf: You realise they have furious charge and four attacks when charging, right? Your claim is nonsense.


Vanilla marines however still make up >50% of almost all tournaments because they will always be the most powerful list in the game...

Except they don't. The results from the UK GT show that the highest ranked loyalist SM army was 20th. There isn't another one until 36th, and the next one after that is 56th. That's just two SM armies in the top 50 finishers. Clearly they are not the most powerful army, nor are they anyway near such a position.

exsulis
12-05-2009, 21:51
Earthbeard: He isn't talking about the having a new dex, and wanting a new one. The DA was a incomplete beta build for the Space marine codex. Its got one poorly thought out gimic that may work on someone who hasn't seen it before. Kinda F'd up that GW sold it in the first place when it had issues out of the door.

lord C: MEQ do terrible in tournaments due to the glutton of anti-MEQ lists out there. Ard boys tournements typically is a better representation due to the fact that they are maxing out on the toughest hard hitting list, and you tend to see less MEQ armies there so there are less anti-MEQ lists.

Lord Cook
12-05-2009, 22:16
I don't think 'Ard Boyz is a particularly good measuring stick for army power. The very point of 'Ard Boyz is to be as wantonly powerful as you can possibly be, leading many to just use the most extreme builds and best units. It isn't representative of the overall power of a list in the same way that talking about the quality of special forces units isn't representative of the quality of a regular army.

self biased
12-05-2009, 23:07
Couldn't agree more...Dark Angel players whine everywhere, often just becuase they don't like the "new" codex....oh well, play vanilla angels then.

i actually have been speaking out against the Dark Angels book since i read it a few weeks before it was released. i find it shameful that the ravenwing has essentially become a deathwing delivery system. fearless is more a hindrance than a help for terminators, which kicks DW termies when they're down. a distressing lack of attack bikes (unless one takes ravewing attack squads), and wonky rules reminders from previous editions make for an army list with a singular purpose and clarity. largely the only reason to play dark angles is to get deathwing terminators as troops.

that being said, deathwing is pretty snazzy. i've been playing smaller games (one thousand to fifteen hundred points) with a deathwing squad taken as troops and a land raider selected from the FW update, and i do okay. not spectacularly, but okay. i do resent the fact that i had a tactic basically jammed down my throat, and that belial is largely a generic character to boot (and why does he leave his iron halo aboard the battle barge?).

i think where feelings were hurt was when it had been intimated that the power level was going to be brought down, only for the design paradigm to shift to a polar opposite.

edit: i have a half written updated DA codex based off the Space Marine codex. i may want to give it another whirl, later.

Occulto
12-05-2009, 23:31
:wtf: You realise they have furious charge and four attacks when charging, right? Your claim is nonsense.

I wish Orks would just "bounce" off my Tac squads. :p

So far, it hasn't happened all that often.

self biased
12-05-2009, 23:55
:wtf: You realise they have furious charge and four attacks when charging, right? Your claim is nonsense.


i think the term "balderdash" has a better ring to it than "nonsense."

Merreck
13-05-2009, 00:13
What does everyone think about giving non-DW/RW Dark Angels Stubborn? It fits thematically, but I'm not experienced enough with the non-Double Wing approach to know if it'd really help. It'd be more fun to play in my opinion and against friends I'd have no problem letting them use that and the different wargear options from SM.

Also: Lion el Jonson I mean I don't intend to be cruel but you are entirely ignorant of what constitutes a top tier list. Your opinion on Orks solidifies that.

Ronin_eX
13-05-2009, 00:25
If your doing that then can my GKs get a rending ass cannon.....

Most DA/BA players I know are on board with that. As well BT players should have the same treatment (especially getting the LRC that carries 16 troops). But really I think GW should have abolished separate lists a while ago. Due to their rather boneheaded handling of codex cycles and their attempt to make things backward compatible they've ended up with a mess on their hands that has angered many players.

They need to come up with a more sensible codex distribution method because I simply have no time for a company that only caters to me a couple of months every five years. I'll stick with Infinity and Heavy Gear where each book is packed with background, force lists and new stuff for everyone while releases each month tend to give everyone a little something.

I wasn't impressed with their handling of the DA/BA codices or any of the legacy codices that had to wait two editions for an update and because I likely wont be getting a new codex for another 4 years or so I see no reason to stick around and wait for them to cater to me again when other companies already spread releases and supplements in such a way as to keep the majority of their players interested. The codex bundle idea everyone keeps tossing around is likely the best thing GW could do to fix the layers of oddities, discrepancies and creep issues (whether they be power creep or idea refinement creep). They also need a halfway decent design outline as well so everyone is on the same page.

But I'm not holding my breath, until GW learn how to make a good product I have plenty of other places to spend my money and GW aren't going to come and take my RT and 2nd Edition stuff.

self biased
13-05-2009, 00:51
it's a fault of the 'pump and dump' method of distribution i've long been criticized that we could get away with four armybooks updated through .pdfs. hell. you could offer just the crunchy bits online for free, and pack the printed books full of fluff and modeling ideas. it would also be a good way to hard-wire some rules for allies in the system.

AngryAngel
13-05-2009, 03:33
DA are a perfectly playble list. We aren't the strongest or close to it, however if your good you'll be able to win with them. They do have their benefits. Though I do think its in poor taste for people to call DA players whiners, when they themselves complain about the diffrent equipment in other instances. Let he without sin cast the first stone and all.

yabbadabba
13-05-2009, 09:09
Though I do think its in poor taste for people to call DA players whiners, when they themselves complain about the diffrent equipment in other instances. Let he without sin cast the first stone and all.
Welcome to the world of the tournament gamer my friend. While everyone likes Cameroon's football strip, they all want them to play like Brazil.

I have a simple solution. Next edition of 40K has a tournament army list for every army, in the core rule book. Tournaments are like beginners - simple is best. This gets updated once a year, a little after the end of the UKGT season. For all of us who like to live on the wild side, can handle unbalanced games and crazy units, we get campaign books with experimental units and rules.

mughi3
13-05-2009, 09:09
would the DA players:

a) be dropping the range of their psychic hoods to 24"
b) not mixing their weapons (CC or ranged) in their terminator squads?
c) scouts being WS/BS 3?


See my original post-like wargear stats not chapter specific stuff

a) not a problem all of it should work the same
b)this is a chapter specific organization, not wargear rules
c) i would have no problem with this if our scouts became troops as well as it should be. as it is because they are in the elite slot it becomes a chapter specific rule. not a wargear rule.

Hypaspist
14-05-2009, 09:47
Couldn't agree more...Dark Angel players whine everywhere, often just becuase they don't like the "new" codex....oh well, play vanilla angels then.

I would have to disagree with this. We don't whine everywhere. I am perfectly happy to use my Dark Angel codex just as it is, warts and all.
That's probably coupled with the fact that I couldn't give a fig about how competetive they are at tournaments as I dont go to them that often (read once). I am more concerned about beating the snot out of my friends for bragging rights (something I have mixed luck with, see below ;-) )

Dark Angels are unplayable = false.
Dark Angels have different advantages/disadvantages to C : SM = true
Dark Angels are under powered compared to C : SM = true

Overall they are probably below normal Marines, but thats a difference that can easily be made up for in the heat of battle with tactical advantage.
to make a sporting analogy, Dark Angels aren't in danger of getting relegated from their division, but they similarly the bookmakers going to be putting short odds on the DA consistently challenging for top honours.
But thats OK.

Personally I would say play 'Green Marines' and use C : SM or play Dark Angels and use C : DA, mixing and matching (for me) doesn't work.

We all (probably) want our armies to be the First amongst all Codices at some point, however there are many more codices that require some love before the DA get their turn again.
Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tyranids, Inquisition, I am looking at you.

On the topic of Orks being a second Tier army, I would suggest that Ork armies currently *are* geared towards MEQ, because thats the majority of what is being seen at tournaments, we may see the metagame swing back towards GEQ with Guard coming out, but here I think the Orks are well placed to still do well as their codex should be the envy of most armies, due to the strength in depth they can take. to quote a friend
"I open the codex and really struggle to make an army as there is competetion for all the slots, it makes it very diffcult"

Thats a problem that is nice to have.

inquisitor solarris
14-05-2009, 10:17
There is no need-the Dark Angels Codex is brilliant as it is
and tbh in the past few games I been Playing I won more games with my DA then I have with Marines (even beated the "Almighty" Marines codex) and as far as I know the Dark Angels have all the advantages which the Marine Codex doesn't-Psyhic hood has no limits, Cheaper Crusaders, Cheaper Troops (well when they have no weapons upgrades.

There's loads and it is quite pathetic to try and copy the marines codex-you can win with the DA Codex

librerian_samae
14-05-2009, 10:34
Heres how we roll with things when my group plays (I use DA):

All war gear has same cost and effect as codex: spacemarines-

-so hoods and force weapons get nerfed (this comes into play as I seem to always use a librerian, this change needed to hapen anyway)

-storm sheilds get buffed, combat sheilds nerfed (swings and round abouts as i use death wing and company vets, now the vets I either leave retarded or spend more points on as they are moddeled with sheilds)

-typhoon launcher changed, (have yet to try this out)

-apothercarys updated (always good, no draw backs)

- scouts stay in elites but retain the extra bs and ws, (a pain as I would rather have lower stats and in troops to free up my lovely lovely elites choices)

-techmarine remains as in codex:da (a pain as the options in codex sm are well worth slot precious as it is but codex DA and bolster defences rocks but we do have better servitors)

-smoke launchers as codex:sm (a bit of a bullet to bite)

-Chaplins remain unchanged (huzzah! but i never have enough hq slots left to field them)

Da_Killa
14-05-2009, 12:38
im a dark angles player and i keep geting smashed by 5th ed dex marine armys
they need to be brought up to speed with the 5th ed marine dex
they just lack options

shandy
14-05-2009, 12:49
The key for me is that every codex needs to be competitivie so that when you put your army together you aren't resigned to the fact that you are going to do well if you get a draw.
I play DA and have yet to have an uncompetitive game- whether I play Ravenwing and "Green DA", Pure Green or Deathwing or Doublewing. Interestingly enough my first two wins against the new SM codex came (only played 3 games against it) when I did not field Ravenwing or Deathwing- it was against a tournment players list that did pretty well at the GT. The 3rd game saw me get a win due to the opponent needing to leave at the end of turn 5- chances are he would have got a draw on 6.
Lots of options and choice and difficult to get bored with the army because of this.
At somepoint GW will no doubt update the codex but I'm not in any rush to them do this.

m_r_parker
14-05-2009, 13:12
I think we need to make a distinction between bringing what should be "standardised" rules and wargear across the Power Armour lists, and changing certain specific Chapter traits and organisations.

Wargear items - as far as I'm concerned a Cyclone Launcher is a Cyclone Launcher, regardless of who's wielding it. The same with a Storm Shield, A Deathwing Terminator with a Storm Shield isn't going to stand there and get shot in the head with a Lascannon when a Salamanders Termintors will put his Shield up to block it. Is there any reason why "vanilla" Techmarines are more effective that "non-vanilla"? Blessings of the Omnissiah (sp?) should be the same across the board, they've all had the same training after all.
Should DA Libbies get a short-ranged Hood - yep, no problem with that, as it should be a standardised piece of wargear. Should profiles of units be brought into alignment, yep again no problem with that. No reason why Apothecaries can't act in the same way either.

Now, the whole Deathwing mixing weapons falls more under Chapter organisation than wargear alignment. In the same way that Deathwing units only come in 5 models, rather than the 5-10 with Combat squads as per the current SM Codex. Deathwing have 5 man squads, it's a part of the fluff and has been there since 2nd Edition Angels of Death. We also wouldn't get Vanguard or Sternguard, as the DA 1st Company is TDA only, again a Chapter Organisation rule rather than standardisation.

Are DA unplayable, certainly not, regardless of whether you're playing pure Deathwing, or going down a Battle Company path. Are they underpowered, not really no - there's still a lot of benefits to playing with some of the older rules of recently updated items. Does it make sense that a specific item in one codex is different in another codex, not really. At one point there was ~3 different sets of rules for the Assault Cannon, illogical at best and confusing as hell at worst.

Let's get the basics the same across the board, and then define chapter differences in other ways.

samiens
14-05-2009, 13:13
This is just nonsense, DA is perfectly playable. I think the best bit, however, is when people state that the new codex marines are the best codex- reading the metagame this is obviously not the case. DA are fine, though if you choose to overly theme the army (say just 3rd company) like every other themed army you risk losing certain edges.

fritsk
14-05-2009, 13:15
DA/BT/BA/SW are just space marines. In other words they should be the same as vanilla marines with a few extra advantages/disadvantages and extra/different toys.
All these differences can probably be described on one page, so their codex can just be a book full of fluff and cool pictures with a loose insert with these rules and references to C:SM and the web for the latest updates.
But we all know this isn't going to happen.

mughi3
14-05-2009, 13:27
I see a pattern of people who get few games in that think everything is fine.

As somebody who plays multiple games every weekend i can say a few things on the matter with authority.

.yes the DAs got to keep a few nifty things like table wide hoods but what they have given up as a disadvantage far outweighs anything a battle company force can put on the table.

.the designers have finally openly admited the DA dex was a test dex for C: SM so we are getting an incomplete product with C:DA, that was designed for a previous edition, and a streamlined power curve that has since been abandoned by GW.


.The reason people opt for "green marines" is beause aside from deathwing, and to some degree ravenwing. C:SM can dso everything that a battle company force can do with more options for less points, so why handicap yourself right out the door. you can paint them any way you like for "fluff" value, however this is a wargame and the intent is to perform.


.for purposes of gameplay unified wargear rules also make the game easier and better to play.

The real mark of how far off we are hit me at the last GT i was at less tha 6 months back. one of my opponants plays wolves and he gets all the updates thanks to his mini dex. he kept asking me why i wasn't doing X or Y because space marines can do that. it was a bit disconcerting when the other marines perform and your stuck there going, "nope we didn't get that either".

Taekada
14-05-2009, 13:28
I have had this same debate with myself for quite some time.

I play All Bikers, and have been hard pressed whether to feild the army with the new Marine Dex or as Ravenwing.

It all came down to two things that the Ravenwing do better than the new Marine dex. That's Right Better.

First, Veteran Sgts.

Space Marine ones can take a Power Swoord, but it replaces their bolt pistol so they dont get their extra attack from two close Combat Weapons.

Raven Wing Vets add a Power Sword, so they get +1 attack for two close combat Weapons. Nifty. Makes no difference with a fist... but with bikers every attack/point counts.

Second, Scout.

The ability to redpploy your WHOLE army before the game starts is fantastic. Outflanking I played to death and splitting up your bikers is no way to go. Deploy them all in one spot, then move the whole lot of them somewhere else to avoid or engage your opponent ... priceless.

Third, All the Bikers have Teleport Homers. You cant even take this option in the new Marine Dex with the Bikers. Only Scouts and Drop Pods get them.

This is important because with Death Wing Assault and Scout, you can deploy your squad of Termies ( even without Belial ) Right in the face of an enemy flank on turn one.

So the ability to re-manuever your whole list, then drop Termies on turn one in a position to cause ideal damage makes Dark Angels different from C:SM.

Now for Wargear, there is a reason Dark Angels would not Have the best gear... mistrust.

Dark Angels have always been noted for their mistrust of others. This extends to their supply lines as well. Im sure that advances in technology have come along and been offered to the Dark Angels.. and they have prolly refused.

Why ? Not wanting to rely on others, seeing the offer of "new stuff" as a ploy to try and learn DA secrets etc.

Here is a quote from Battlefleet gothic to sum up this statement of mine :

"The Hunter Class destroyer, although largely based on a design long available to almost all space marines, was pioneered primarily by the Dark Angels, whose deep mistrust of other factions within the imperial heirarchy made acquisition of vessels from shipyards far more problematic than for most other chapters...." - BFG Armada - Pg 24, Text from Hunter Class Destroyer.

This to me perfectly justifies why the Dark Angels have Different, sometimes worse, sometimes better equipment options. If they can't make it themselves they are not likely to use it.

Im playing Dark Angels this saturday at a premiere even there in Nova Scotia. I'll let y'all know how I do. Put my Mini's where my mouth is so to speak.

~G~

Fenrir
14-05-2009, 13:38
Gotta take the rough with the smooth. I'd stick to using the DA codex personally, as the rules aren't that important to me.

JagdWehrwolf
14-05-2009, 14:45
Gentlemen. If I may.
As Mughi3 mentioned GW designers finally openly confirmed the status of DA codex in relation to SM codex: it was a test run. If I remember correctly in the same discussion the designer was asked whether anything is going to be done about the differences between the two codexes. The reply was that no, nothing is going to be done. Why? Because form a customers standing point buying a product that at the moment of purchase is incomplete/outdated would indicate a bad design. It has nothing to do with fluff concernes or rule balance. Fair enough. I can see that point of view. But only if we`re talking here about new customer. Because if we`re gonna take a step back it points to a much bigger problem. Bad overall system design/update policy.

Fenrir
14-05-2009, 14:50
Thats GW for you - some of their actions don't make a lot of sense.

Corrode
14-05-2009, 15:14
.The reason people opt for "green marines" is beause aside from deathwing, and to some degree ravenwing. C:SM can dso everything that a battle company force can do with more options for less points, so why handicap yourself right out the door. you can paint them any way you like for "fluff" value, however this is a wargame and the intent is to perform.

So what exactly is the problem? If you want to run Raven/Deathwing, use C: DA. If you want to run a standard, for-all-intents-and-purposes Codex-obeying Battle Company, use C:SM. Yes, the equipment disparities are annoying. No, there's no reason you can't work around it.

yabbadabba
14-05-2009, 15:44
So what exactly is the problem?

The same problem that always comes up in these cases. People can't accept that some armies need more work and are more tactically challenging and are just generally different than others :rolleyes:

d0dgeuk
14-05-2009, 15:49
Gentlemen. If I may.
As Mughi3 mentioned GW designers finally openly confirmed the status of DA codex in relation to SM codex: it was a test run.

Aren't all 1st codecies tests for the next one? We could say that because the 5th ed C: SM is the 1st 5th edition codex it is a test for C: IG.

LonelyPath
14-05-2009, 15:53
I tend to use C: DA all the time and have no real problems with it. Granted that some battles ca be a uphill struggle, but I play to enjoy the game and not win every time. I'm quite happy that a put a large dent in a Nob Biker list though it eventually mopped the floor with me, but hey, I made a dent so I'm happy. I've played against quite a few armies from the latest C: SM and I've beaten them almost as often as I've lost so I hav no complaints about that. Nids though I ted to squish unless they get their composition right, or if they get bad dice rolls. Then again, the Gods of Dice are fickle indeed and have abandoned me from time to time.

I like the challenge C: DA presents, so I'm very happy to use it no matter the composition of my DA army. Next week I'm taking a standard DA force up against CSM, I'm expecting a bit of a beating but I'll take as many of them with me as I can. After that it's a Fallen DA force later in the week and those games are always fun :)

JagdWehrwolf
14-05-2009, 16:04
@d0dgeuk: I don`t get Your point.

AngryAngel
14-05-2009, 16:15
Alright, I'd like to know how many people in this thread even play DA. For if you don't, you don't really have much of an informed idea of how big or small the diffrences are, or how they happen on the board. Thats just an aside to the issue.

DA are viable, they suffer more as a straight up battle company yes. The DW and RW are still good however. We do have some benefits over vanilla marines though they would be few.

As well I say again, no one I saw was asking for new marine units. We just wanted updated wargear that should be the same for everyone. Like just for sake of madness, I find it very difficult to fathom that DA smoke operates diffrently from smoke in any other corner of the galaxy.

As for DA misturst and crappy wargear, there really isn't that much invovation fluffwise, SS and cyclones have been around for awhile without change because they all use the same STC to make them. Other xeno factions I might buy, imperial tech by its very nature should all be the same regardless.

As well most all of the ancient and old stuff is usually supposed to be better, not worse then the new stuff. At least in GW games.

Now bear in mind this isn't a whine. I'm just saying how I see it.

d0dgeuk
14-05-2009, 16:40
@d0dgeuk: I don`t get Your point.

I was just saying that the first version of anything could be seen as a test. Probably not made my point very well.

With regards to all the topic. I play Dark Angels. I have about 5,000 points of them and have played them probably for 9 months. I by no means consider myself an expert on them but these are just my observations. Equality of wargear would be nice, but I don't find myself missing anything inparticular. I think I would only really want the 3++ storm shield so my assault termies have a bit more survivability. However as said above we get a table wide forcehood and against the new IG Pysker squads that seems to me to be more important (Disclaimer:This is only a theory, I have let to play such a squad). With regards to the greenwing list being more expensive point for point over generic marines I can see the argument but my view is you have to take the ups with the downs although I think trying to justify the differences through fluff is a bit silly given STC's haven't changed in millennia.

Corrode
14-05-2009, 17:01
The same problem that always comes up in these cases. People can't accept that some armies need more work and are more tactically challenging and are just generally different than others :rolleyes:

See, I don't buy that either. There's nothing 'tactically challenging' about having worse gear than an equivalent army, nor is there anything 'different' or 'for variety's sake' about it. People always trot this out and it's patently untrue - Dark Angels aren't, by and large, very unique as a Chapter. There are two elements to them which are unique and provided variety and tactical challenge, and those are the Ravenwing and Deathwing. If you don't intend to use either of those, why are you ******** the bed about not having an identical codex to C:SM when you can legitimately use that 'dex instead?

yabbadabba
14-05-2009, 17:12
See, I don't buy that either. There's nothing 'tactically challenging' about having worse gear than an equivalent army, nor is there anything 'different' or 'for variety's sake' about it. People always trot this out and it's patently untrue - Dark Angels aren't, by and large, very unique as a Chapter. There are two elements to them which are unique and provided variety and tactical challenge, and those are the Ravenwing and Deathwing. If you don't intend to use either of those, why are you ******** the bed about not having an identical codex to C:SM when you can legitimately use that 'dex instead?

Sorry mate, you have just countered your own statement. If you want to use a standard Marine force the use codex marines. What you paint and call them is your decision.
If you want to use Dark Angels you have a codex Dark Angels. It's different. And the difference between Dark Angels and Space Marines is in that codex. They also have 2 unique units, RW and DW.
Saying that its not fair and DA don't have the same wargear as Marines - well they are not the same army! They are different. Just get on with it!

Oh, and there is option 3. Use GW as a guide, but make your own rules with your mates. Thats the best one for me.

Gorbad Ironclaw
14-05-2009, 17:25
I totally agree with this.

The biggest problem with DA, is that I reckon too many people still try to play them as SM. Not fielding RW or DW is akin to not fielding monstrous creatures in a Nid army.

Sure you can do it, but not utilising the strengths of your codex means you're just handicapping yourself.

But the thing is unless you are playing either a Deathwing or a Ravenwing army (two subsections of the DA chapter) Codex Space Marine does everything Codex Dark Angels does cheaper and better.

I have no intention of playing either of those two. I do have some Ravenwing stuff but it was being phased out slowly. Hell, for what I want them for Codex Space Marine even does that part better too.

It's very annoying when you could take the exact same army, not change a single model but use a different book and it would come out as cheaper and better.

I guess if you consider it a speciality Codex for letting you play an all Bike or an all Terminator army it works. If you want to play Dark Angels it's hugely annoying. And why my DA army have stayed in it's box (actually it's in a completely different country to me) since the release of the Marine book.


would the DA players:

a) be dropping the range of their psychic hoods to 24"
b) not mixing their weapons (CC or ranged) in their terminator squads?
c) scouts being WS/BS 3?


Sure would. Those things affect me not at all. I don't like the DA Librarian and I don't use Terminators or Scouts at all.

Ubermensch Commander
14-05-2009, 19:49
@ Gorbad Ironclaw
Why should the DA get all the perks of Codex SM and then some? As Occulto points out, if you do not want to use something from the codex, that is fine... but that does not mean you should get some form of compensation.

If we approach this from a gameplay standpoint and accept that DA codex is different with its RW and DW,a nd should keep these, then why is it so hard to accept that Codex SM will get some things the DA do not have?

As for what it means to play "Dark Angels", considering the DW and the RW are their differences, wouldnt you want to use them to play DA? After all...you are playing Green Space Marines in Robes.

Lono
14-05-2009, 19:53
I've been playing DA for 10 years now. Done numerous tournaments and won a few. I think people here are mixing up "playable" and "competitive"

The Dark angels are playable.

They are not competitive.

If you want to make a list able to take on all comers you are better served in every case by doing the same list with C:SM. For the same amount of points you will get more troops and/or better wargear.

The deathwing list is the closest thing we have to a competitive list and even then a lot of builds you will encounter in tournaments will eat it alive.

So yes, if you are tactical mastermind and come across the right oponents you can win a tournament with DA, however if you don't want to start with a handicap your better with C:SM.

GW managed to make me start a Salamanders army, I would never have tought before that I would give up my DA. And to all those who say every DA player complains... well if we all complains maybe we have a good reason to do so.

Shrapnel
14-05-2009, 20:35
I'm an unashamed guard player myself, I love my little uniformed statistics each and every one, but in the last few tourneys I've played (pre -new codex) I was just scraping the middle rankings.

I entered an intervarsity tournament a few weeks back, and decided, to hell with it, I'll use my Dark Angels - they've been gathering dust since i got them.

As I'm completely new to them, I slapped together a vanilla list.

I came third out of twenty.

Two weeks ago I entered another tournament and came second.

That was my second time ever playing Dark Angels.

Let no-one tell you that they are either unplayable or uncompetitive.

yabbadabba
14-05-2009, 20:42
Let no-one tell you that they are either unplayable or uncompetitive.
Thank you. Bad workmen blame their tools, no matter what "mathammer" tells you.

Lono
14-05-2009, 20:42
@shrapnel

Either your oponents are complete jokes / your are luck incarnate / your a tactical genius.

Love also how you just brush aside the whole issue by saying you had good standings. After all it's a well known fact that all dark angels players who says something is wrong are themselves all wrong.

Take your list, make the same one with C:SM. You will end up first.

Shrapnel
14-05-2009, 21:32
@shrapnel

Either your oponents are complete jokes / your are luck incarnate / your a tactical genius.

Love also how you just brush aside the whole issue by saying you had good standings. After all it's a well known fact that all dark angels players who says something is wrong are themselves all wrong.

Take your list, make the same one with C:SM. You will end up first.

Ok, admittedly this is an anecdotal example, so i hold up my hands at the brush-aside accusation - guilty as charged ;)

I was merely trying to point out that I was completely unfamiliar with the DA codex and managed to outdo my previous performances with an army I've played for years. Surely they have something to redeem them when that can happen?

As to the suggestion that I'm either a) a tactical genius or b) luck incarnate, I laughed at a) and can assure you that while I am not unlucky especially, neither do I have huge good fortune either.

I'm just wondering if the problem is as the OP stated.
Are we worried that DA are unplayable? Or are we upset that C:SM does the job better? They are different codices after all.

cuda1179
14-05-2009, 21:58
Okay, I think I need to clarify myself a little. First, I am annoyed by the wargear changes, but I could have lived with it. I don't "demand" all the new goodies that came with Space Marines. I don't care that I don't have Sternguard, vanguard, or Ironclad Dreanoughts.


Here are my biggest gripes. People are saying "if you don't want to play RW or DW, just use the vanilla codex". Well, if they had intended that to be the case they should have just called it "Codex Ravenwing and Deathwing" and left the tactical marines out of it. I know that a few times I have played games where I had a VERY similar list to my opponent using both vanilla and Ravenwing lists. The difference was, he always had more "extras" and an extra unit.

Playing a game should be fun. Every time I use my Dark Angels I tend to have two options: Relax and go in knowing that I will probably loose, or play hard and try to win while not really relaxing. Both options leave me feeling like I didn't really have much fun. If you can't have fun in this hobby, what's the point?

I guess I just want the Dark Angels to be a little more balanced, just like I would like all the books to be balanced. I just feel that the Space Marines codex is a little funner, while not over the top. I would gladly use it for almost any game, I just find that I want to use my Special character models too. Though, somehow when I try to recreate them from the standard marine options they just don't seem right. Not to mention that the Samiel on jetbike model is Sweet and using him as a khan stand it just looks silly. ( I guess that plasma cannon is just for show).

Over all I would have prefered that they simply kill off the Dark angles codex and just include the special chacters in Codex: Space Marines.

BrainFireBob
14-05-2009, 22:20
Let me summarize.

Dark Angel wargear is somewhat screwed by not being in-line with SM wargear (Librarians aside, LR capacity and storm shields are the big ones)- everyone agrees

Dark Angels aren't terrible, but they're not quite as good as C:SM with the same builds- everyone agrees

Dark Angels do have unique builds, but very expensive ones- everyone agrees

Yet everyone disagrees?

Charistoph
14-05-2009, 22:50
Let me summarize.

Dark Angel wargear is somewhat screwed by not being in-line with SM wargear (Librarians aside, LR capacity and storm shields are the big ones)- everyone agrees

Dark Angels aren't terrible, but they're not quite as good as C:SM with the same builds- everyone agrees

Dark Angels do have unique builds, but very expensive ones- everyone agrees

Yet everyone disagrees?

Disagrees on how to handle it. Some want pitchforks and torches, while others want to sit in a corner gibbering, while others just would like someone over the Pond to plan things a little better and fix it already.

cuda1179
15-05-2009, 00:07
Disagrees on how to handle it. Some want pitchforks and torches, while others want to sit in a corner gibbering, while others just would like someone over the Pond to plan things a little better and fix it already.


Thanks man, just what I was getting at.

Ozendorph
15-05-2009, 00:25
I think they're plenty playable, I just wish GW had taken the opportunity to really differentiate the DA and make them "Separate Codex Worthy." The Codex feels very conservative and bland...and that was before C:SM came out, lol.

I'd love to see them standardize the wargear rules (For DA, DH, etc) with a FAQ just to cut down on confusion.

Grand Master Raziel
15-05-2009, 02:27
The biggest problem with DA, is that I reckon too many people still try to play them as SM. Not fielding RW or DW is akin to not fielding monstrous creatures in a Nid army.

That's true, as far as it goes, and I tend to do reasonably well when I play a mix of (successor chapter equivalents to) DW, RW, and Battle Company. That said, there's no reason why DA Battle Company lists ought to be at a disadvantage vs SM Battle Company lists with the exact same units. SM players pay less for their squads and upgrades and get Combat Tactics to boot.

I think what really gets me is that, an edition ago, this would be a non-issue, as at that time, variant SM armies were still using Codex: Space Marines and mini-dexes. Now, some chapters are different enough to rate their own dexes (Space Wolves and Black Templars), but DAs and BAs got their own dexes largely to act as beta-tests for the new Codex: Space Marines. This would still be a non-issue if GW weren't so damn allergic to fixing problems through FAQs, but the company acts like the Internet is some rare and mysterious thing that only a priveleged elite has access to. They don't seem to get that, in this day and age, having a PC and Internet access is considered less of a luxury than having a collection of little plastic men and vehicles that you can use to play elaborate tabletop wargames with.


would the DA players:

a) be dropping the range of their psychic hoods to 24"
b) not mixing their weapons (CC or ranged) in their terminator squads?
c) scouts being WS/BS 3?

a) I'd rather have Ld 10 24" range psy-hoods than Ld 9 psy-hoods with unlimited range.
b) Can't say that I've ever found mixing weapons in Termie Squads to be as decisive as, say, 3+ save storm shields or Heavy 2 Cyclones.
c) Shift Scouts back to Troops and throw in the camo cloaks, and I'll gladly take the nerf. A unit of Scouts with sniper rifles can sit on home objectives and still be able to reach out and influence a considerable chunk of the table, supporting the rest of your army as it crashes the other guy's objectives. Take a 10-Scout Squad, and it can combat squad and sit on two objectives. That's pretty damn cool. If we're expected to continue having Scouts be an Elite choice, however, we should keep the higher WS/BS.


I'd love to see them standardize the wargear rules (For DA, DH, etc) with a FAQ just to cut down on confusion.

That, I think, gets to the heart of the real problem. In using Codex: Dark Angels as a beta-test for Codex: Space Marines, they've created inconsistencies where none should exist. Their refusal to fix this through FAQs are based on two bunk reasons:

1: Not everyone has internet access.
2: They don't want people to have to use more than one book for their army.

Why Reason 1 is bunk I've already covered. Reason 2 is bunk because any DA player who's been playing for longer than 2 years is already accustomed to using 2 books. Alternately, GW could simply declare the army list section of Codex: Dark Angels obsolete and release an updated version via PDF to bring it in line with Codex: Space Marines. I'd rather have a sheaf of loose paper in my Codex: Dark Angels that contains the most up-to-date army list than pay 10-20 points more per unit than a Codex: Space Marines list with exactly the same units in it.

mughi3
15-05-2009, 08:33
Well said Raziel.


As a long time DA player i think ther e a couple of repeated eronious comments made by new players or non-DA players about the problem.


.is the dex playable-yes
.can it be competative-under the right circumstances, yes

Now we come to the other issues-


Codex or not?

The entire reason why sub-dex's were made was based on certain chapters divergency from the codex astartes in fluff, in game terms it added variety to the game.

This was very true in 3rd and much of 4th edition. taking the DAs speficially they were the only marine list that had

.troops that were intractable,
.a very specific psyker power (weaken resolve) that fit their fluff and was only used by them.
.plasma cannons in tac squads
.very specialised dedicated army builds for DW/RW and a battle company force and never shall the 3 meet as they all had very different rolls to fill.
.army wide hunt the fallen special rule
.stubborn terminators that were also troops
.ravenwing jink, skilled rider and all-seeing-eye rules.

With the release of C: DA for 4th edition nearly all that fluff was removed, some of it was retconned in the case of DW/RW, but when the divergence issue came up JJ was very firm in informing us that DA are a codex adherant chapter with slight divergence in the 1st and 2nd companies.

So the idea that since we are not "codex adherant, we have different rules" went out the window a while ago.


Editions?
Yes the codex was written for 4th edition which causes all sorts of issues-scoring land speeders in troop slots, war gear rules updates, points costs updates etc....
Easily fixed by an FAQ that GW refused to write giving us a "it really should be, but we won't fix it" response.

It also doesn't help that the GW design philosophy changed after they used C: DA as a test bed to streamline the system then abandoned it as themodel they were going to follow.


Shiny toys?
Those who accuse DA players of whining or tell us to suck it up seem to be under the impression we are after all the new toys. this simply isn't true. wargear parity for the sake of a game system is paramount without giving us access to sternguard vets, land raider redeemers or storms.

In fact the vetrans in the current C: DA should not even be in there since all vetrans are members of the DW by fluff and only go into battle in terminator suits.

Older dex?
some say our dex isn't that old so we shouldn't complain.
Incidently some of the older codexes are actually better off in some ways. for example the space wolves currently get to keep all their 3rd edition fluff based rules, but because they are a "mini-dex" many of their entries simply refer to the rules in C: SM as such they are one of the most powerful sub dex lists at the moment for marines.

At the same time GKs took a serious hit since many of the things that made them work no longer really exhist in the new edition of the game.

The age of the codex is also not the primary issue, it's rules parity. once again a simple FAQ fix that GW could but will not make.


Its more of a challenge?

This is one of the most ill thought out replys. so if i stack the odds in my favor you will have a better game? we run a foot race but i have to run less distance than you do over the same terrain it is somehow fair because it is more "challenging"?

This isn't about how good or bad your list building strategy or table top tactics are. you should not be handicapped using the same exact items simply because you are using a (not so) divergent marine force.
It's a game and game balance has to spread across the game.

A mistake?

Did GW make a mistake-absolutely! a very easy one to fix but because of eronious reasoning they choose not to fix it, leaving it up to the rest of us to house rule a way around it.


I still have a DW force myself, an admech themed force to be exact, because i have gotten to the point that i know they will never again be my serious tourney list and that with in our gaming group we use unified wargear rules so they do perform the way they should in 5th edition. so i can still have fun with them without feeling like i have a hand tied behind my back.

I also have a C: SM force which is the one i take when i want to be more competative.