PDA

View Full Version : Commonality of the Dark Angels?



AlphariusOmegon20
08-02-2012, 23:04
I'm somewhat curious about how common the Dark Angels are in various areas. I rarely see them in my stores now, even though they recently got an update through their FAQ.

So, how often do you see the Dark Angels in your area? (Ravenwing, Deathwing, and GW official successor chapters armies count also.)

Korraz
08-02-2012, 23:09
I see them every now and then.
Though the players made the sensible choice and play them with Vanilla Rules.

Israfael
08-02-2012, 23:26
I see them every now and then.
Though the players made the sensible choice and play them with Vanilla Rules.

Where you see sensibility, I see a "fair weather" player. If you're not willing to use the codex we've been given - you're not a Dark Angel player.

On topic, I'm the only Angel player in my store. Even with the FAQ.

Project2501
08-02-2012, 23:39
Extremely rare. To be fair though, most people have gone the DIY chapter route, so any true/pure chapter is becoming more-so uncommon to begin with.

Droma
08-02-2012, 23:45
I know a bunch that had DA collections or just don't play them anymore. I'm currently the only one who still plays using the codex. To be fair I generally only see multiples of C:SM, GK, BA, and SW. I see other armies but they're generally the hard core fans or someone with one of the previously mentioned armies busting out something else for a change of pace.

Korraz
08-02-2012, 23:56
Where you see sensibility, I see a "fair weather" player. If you're not willing to use the codex we've been given - you're not a Dark Angel player.

On topic, I'm the only Angel player in my store. Even with the FAQ.

Dark Angels are Vanilla. Their book is Vanilla-1 with extra green paint. Seems just sensible to me to play Vanilla.

IcedAnimals
09-02-2012, 00:07
Dark Angels are Vanilla. Their book is Vanilla-1 with extra green paint. Seems just sensible to me to play Vanilla.

I agree with Israfael actually. If you are not using the dark angel codex you are not a dark angel player. Just like I don't view "black templar" players who use the blood angel book black templars. painting your models green does not make you a dark angel player.

Regardless. There is a single dark angel player near me.

Beppo1234
09-02-2012, 00:13
I know my local GW (back home that is) has a lot of DA players. I depends on each store. That store has one of the old SM statues in the window, and the manager is a DA fanatic, so a lot of DAs get sold and played. As a long time DA player, it bothered me a little, because the store was always out of stock on what I wanted!!!!

VendableFall
09-02-2012, 00:22
I agree with Israfael actually. If you are not using the dark angel codex you are not a dark angel player. Just like I don't view "black templar" players who use the blood angel book black templars. painting your models green does not make you a dark angel player.

Regardless. There is a single dark angel player near me.


Where you see sensibility, I see a "fair weather" player. If you're not willing to use the codex we've been given - you're not a Dark Angel player.

On topic, I'm the only Angel player in my store. Even with the FAQ.

i use the dark angels codex but my marines are tecnically a sucessor of the ultramarines, so what does that make me?

i think that as long as YOU yourself think you are a DA player then you are one.

self biased
09-02-2012, 00:24
I see Dark Angels played every time I play.

Israfael
09-02-2012, 00:29
i use the dark angels codex but my marines are tecnically a sucessor of the ultramarines, so what does that make me?

An anomaly?

Out of curiosity, why do you use the Dark Angel codex?

Dominatrix
09-02-2012, 00:38
We have a single Dark Angel player in our group. A real diehard, whereas the rest of us have expanded and tried other armies he sticks to his Dark Angel force. We took pity on him and let him play with the vanilla codex, not his fault his codex was written for blandhammer. Anyway it is a shame they are not more popular since they are visually very distinctive and in my opinion ther monastic style is better than the rest of the loyalists. I have seen countless SW, BA, GK, quite a few smurfs but just this single Dark Angel.

VendableFall
09-02-2012, 00:41
for my lovely terminators and bikers, i have roughly 40 old 2nd ed metal terminators and 15ish old metal/plastic scout bikers, so i use them as a raven wing/death wing force, fluff wise its my scout biker detachment encountering an enemy force and teleporting in reinforcements.

i cant wait to get my hands on the roumoured starter set and start an actual dark angels force, i plan on running them alongside my blood angels in a tribute to the angels of death 2nd edition codex! the best codex ever LOLz!!!

IcedAnimals
09-02-2012, 01:46
i use the dark angels codex but my marines are tecnically a sucessor of the ultramarines, so what does that make me?

You are not using Dark Angels out of any actual love for the dark angels. You are using them because you believe they fit your models the best. If the vanilla dex or the blood angel dex could properly field your terminators and bikers then you wouldn't bat an eyelash at using those instead. That is not what I call a dark angel player.

Toadius80
09-02-2012, 02:03
I agree with iced. I'm a Blood Angel player, they are my main army and have been since first edition and through the principle of that they are BA have stuck with whatever code I've been given as that's the rules for them, even that pogwash WD taff we where issued with after the DA code release. In ny opinion using a different code then the one named is playing for advantage and not playing your army.

On topic in my town there's a guy who regulary fields DA, they look amazing and do quite well. With the correct code to I will ad. I personally haven't seen them for about 10months because I play at a different club but he's still there, still doing well.

Sent from my God Like Device using TapaTalk

darthslowe
09-02-2012, 02:03
I'm the only Dark Angels player in my area, and I still use the Dark Angels Codex. I also don't play straight Ravenwing or Deathwing. I play with green power-armored marines and sometimes a Deathwing squad or Ravenwing Squad. Though one other guy sort of runs a Deathwing, but that is because they got an FAQ update.

Chapters Unwritten
09-02-2012, 02:30
The TRUE Dark Angels players have played them since time immemorial and though their codex means they have faded, DA fans are among the most reverant of their chosen force. There are those who field by the standard SM codex but in truth countless Dark Angel hopefuls sit patiently until the day when they return in force. I am confident that many old armies will see the field when that codex arrives.

Guess Who
09-02-2012, 02:55
They never sell the models in store, but apart from Ultramarines they would have to be the most popular army in my area.

Israfael
09-02-2012, 03:36
They never sell the models in store, but apart from Ultramarines they would have to be the most popular army in my area.

Just goes to show how varied various gaming groups are. I've never seen an Ultramarines army - ever - regardless of how many clubs I've played in, and tournaments I've attended.

VendableFall
09-02-2012, 04:30
You are not using Dark Angels out of any actual love for the dark angels. You are using them because you believe they fit your models the best. If the vanilla dex or the blood angel dex could properly field your terminators and bikers then you wouldn't bat an eyelash at using those instead. That is not what I call a dark angel player.

and i do in fact use both the blood angels and vanilla codex's, regularly, i dont see the big deal, i have 7000 points of eagle warriors and i like running them in different theme's, and those codex's support those themes.

but back to the op, i havnt seen a real DA army in the longest time, probably about 10 years!

DietDolphin
09-02-2012, 06:53
You paint them green, they're Dark Angels.

I see quite a few Dark Angel players around, tend to be people who have played them since at least 3rd though.

TheDoctor
09-02-2012, 07:04
I'm the only dark angel player in my store. I've been playing deathwing since before we got that awesome boost, and occasionally go "old school" (Assault cannons and not a single TH/SS in sight)

Im currently working on building up regular Dark Angels, but since I prefer the robed marine kit, all my tacticals will be in robes.

Radium
09-02-2012, 07:23
There's a couple of Deathwing players around here, so I Dark Angels quite often.

Gorbad Ironclaw
09-02-2012, 07:34
Where you see sensibility, I see a "fair weather" player. If you're not willing to use the codex we've been given - you're not a Dark Angel player.


The only thing the Dark Angel Codex does is give you ways to do Deathwing/Ravenwing lists. If you are not doing that, why use the book? I own no Terminators and only a single Ravenwing squad. If I were still playing them I could run the entire thing completely identically in the vanilla dex, only better/cheaper(at least I seem to remember working that out, I've never actually done it). So I should use the Dark Angel book out of some sense of shared suffering to prove I'm really a DA player? I don't really see the point. But then I'm also a Dark Angel player who think they should just be put in the vanilla dex. There special things are background and higher level organisation. It doesn't need a separate book.

Israfael
09-02-2012, 07:58
So I should use the Dark Angel book out of some sense of shared suffering to prove I'm really a DA player? I don't really see the point.

Play the game however you want; I won't lose any sleep.

I just stated my opinion - you're not a Dark Angel player, if you shy away from the codex when the chips are down. :)

Poncho160
09-02-2012, 07:58
The only thing special about the Blood Angels before thier new codex was the Death Company, a Predator and a few characters. Now look at them.
I suspect that if the DA get a new Codex, they will have several new rules and units introduced to distinguish then further from the vanilla codex. I'd say it was almost a given.

gunmnky
09-02-2012, 08:16
Well, I own a full ravenwing force (42 bikes, 5 landspeeders, original MotRW) and a partially build deathing force (25 terminators including standard bearer, apoth, converted belial). I also play with straight tactical marines and veteran squads (I have one veteran squad with 10 power weapons and storm shields for the hell of it).

Anyway, since I started at the tail end of 2nd ed, I've noticed about half of the non-vanilla marines are DA (as in, use the full DA codex). My friend who has been stationed in NC says the majority of "marine" players are DA, especially deathwing.

I've been tempted to use the SW and Vanilla codex in the past, but could never really bring myself to do it.

See, what makes a Dark Angel player stand out (and in my opinion, not count as a "marine" player) is the fact that our codex has always been handicapped and we actually have to work for our victories. Ravenwing and Deathwing armies, though scary on paper, are devilishly hard to play and completely (excuse the pun) unforgiving.

Those with the cunning and resolve can make the current codex work for them, even without the derp-win units.

Battleworthy Arts
09-02-2012, 09:11
we have a local hardcore dark angels fan who has stuck with them through thick and thin. Owns about 10k.

They were, in fact, my first 40k army... of course that was when they were black and red. I've never gotten comfortable with the green troops/bone terminators/black speeders and bikes thing.

insectum7
09-02-2012, 11:09
An anomaly?

Out of curiosity, why do you use the Dark Angel codex?

I'm not a Dark Angels player, but every now and then I look at the Codex and am really tempted by a few things. I miss having Rights of Battle on my SM Captains in 4th Ed. for example, DA Caps still have that. Their Venerable Dreadnoughts and Land speeder Typhoons are considerably cheaper than standard SM versions, and their Scouts still have WS 4 BS 4, which I like. They still have Chaplains with 3 W and 3 A, the DA Librarians have 3 A as well. (I think their Psychic Hoods may have infinite range too, but maybe someone here can correct me in that.)


The most compelling reasons for me, personally, to not use the DA codex, come from really particular things:

A: Their Assault Squads are expensive and they can't get Flamers (That's actually the biggest reason for me)

B: Their Scouts don't have Hellfire Shells for their Heavy Bolter.

C: Terminator Squads are 5 strong, max.

D: No extra Multi-melta option for the standard Land Raider

Bob Hunk
09-02-2012, 11:40
I'm the only Dark Angel player in our group, and I only run a Deathwing list. A friend has recently said he is tempted to start a DA army though, having read their HH novels. :)

Captain Collius
09-02-2012, 13:53
I am the most devout player in our are but there are a couple other who pop up from time to time.

as to the eralier comments aout those who use a vanilla dex to represent da shame on your sirs.
We are the most fanatically devoted (to our cause) legion in fluff and seem to have some of the most devoted fans.

That said our codex is currently weak in many areas but is still has some strengths (deathwing, LS, preds ravenwing(though they are as earlier poster mentioned tricky to use at best)

Korraz
09-02-2012, 14:22
The elitist "You have to make the game worse to be a true Dark Angel player" views in here are really amusing. The "devoutness" to a fictional faction of fictional space knights is almost cute.
If you like the fluff, paint and convert your models accordingly and think of yourself as one, you are a Dark Angels player. Rules have nothing to do with that.
And I myself would rather play against a decent army, and not against either a one-trick-pony with a handicap, or essentially against an army that fields 20% less in points than me. Fair games are a lot more enjoyable to me.
But maybe I'm weird.

Morty
09-02-2012, 14:49
In my local area I don't see alot of DA players what I do see is alot of Deathwing or Ravenwing players, anybody using the main compaines uses SM and any one using one of the assult companyes uses BA or SW as sutes there stile. I am ok whith this and i don't think any one who uses the book best for his company is in anyway being 'disloyal' at the end of the day the all SM commanders are a pratical bunch by lore and would adjust compay doctrine to sute there role. and I think and players who do so should not be punished for doing so.

When you get to the nuts and bolts of the DA spechal rules it becomes realy simple to dicide if you whan use lots of bikes and landspeaders, or terminator's with all the support. the DA codex is the best, but if your not looking for such a speshalist force then it is not for you. and you should look at one of the other SM force books, GW has said there all interchangable, so you could use the rules for any company. and thats how Myself and many other players look at it.

1st Company Army Group - DA
2nd Company Army Group - SM (DA for Ravenwing/Whight Scar formations)
3rd Company Army Group - SM
4th Company Army Group - SM
5th Company Army Group - SM
6th Company Army Group - SM
7th Company Army Group - SW
8th Company Army Group - SW
9th Company Army Group - BA
10th Company Army Group - DA

is the general break down for the 'traditional' legion make up and i have seen many players adopt this aproch.

Btw I play Deathwing myself and it's the only marine army i still play, anything elce marine wise is just boring and easy mode ON.

Captain Collius
09-02-2012, 15:21
i'm not saying that. what i am saying is maany of the Devoted fans (the extremists if you will) don't care that our codex is underpowered we still use it. its a matter of a personal choice of loyalty if someone wants to use a da army with C:SM go ahead.


BUt as a DA player i feel a certain pride in using my outdated codex and awaiting the day when ward will destroy our fluff make cypher a agent of the lion awaitng to awaken him so that the unforgiven can crusade across the imperiunm. i look forward to Slaaanesh being bested by Azrael breaking wind, and i look forward to when we have deathwing terminators with the stats of mephiston for 225 pts (for 5) with i 6 thunderhammers and wrist mounted plasma guns. (see i told you i was a DA extremist.)

if all that doesn't happen and we get a nice competitive codex i'll be happy.

Netfreakk
09-02-2012, 15:40
The elitism is a bit much, but I will agree with them. The color that you slap on your toy models doesn't make the army what it is, it's the rules. And the rules are from a codex. If you disagree then you would find that there's no difference if I used space marine models and used an eldar codex. In the "game" aspect, whatever rule set you use dictates which army you're fielding.

Well.. that's what I think.

Konovalev
09-02-2012, 15:49
The elitist "You have to make the game worse to be a true Dark Angel player" views in here are really amusing. The "devoutness" to a fictional faction of fictional space knights is almost cute.
If you like the fluff, paint and convert your models accordingly and think of yourself as one, you are a Dark Angels player. Rules have nothing to do with that.
And I myself would rather play against a decent army, and not against either a one-trick-pony with a handicap, or essentially against an army that fields 20% less in points than me. Fair games are a lot more enjoyable to me.
But maybe I'm weird.

My thoughts exactly. A win is a win and a loss is a loss, people can gimp themselves all they like the bottom line doesn't change only the amount of self-delusion. And no one likes to play someone who is sandbagging, that's like playing a first game newbie except the newbie has potential.

Spider-pope
09-02-2012, 16:07
The elitist "You have to make the game worse to be a true Dark Angel player" views in here are really amusing. The "devoutness" to a fictional faction of fictional space knights is almost cute.
If you like the fluff, paint and convert your models accordingly and think of yourself as one, you are a Dark Angels player. Rules have nothing to do with that.
And I myself would rather play against a decent army, and not against either a one-trick-pony with a handicap, or essentially against an army that fields 20% less in points than me. Fair games are a lot more enjoyable to me.
But maybe I'm weird.

It's no more elitist than expecting an Eldar player to use Codex: Eldar, a Necron player to use Codex: Necrons. If a player uses the Blood Angels codex to represent his Necrons, he is by definition not a Necron player, he's a Blood Angel player who just happens to be using different models.

Saying you are not playing Dark Angels if you don't use the Codex is not elitist at all, its a factual statement.

Szalik
09-02-2012, 16:42
I'd say You're a DA player when you DECLARE that you play DA. Both using "correct" miniatures and "correct" rulebook does not make You a DA player in my opinion.

For example I use DA miniatures in my SM army just because I love those robed marines (for example a bit modified Azrael as a honor guard with relic blade). I even used DA codex to field my army both before and after FAQ but I do not declare myself as a DA player.

I think there is no need to categorize people as "true" DA players on the basis of the codex they use to represent their armies, it is what they feel they play is what really matters. It really makes me sick how some people have a need to judge others on the basis of what colour their miniatures are or what codex do they use...what's the point of this kind of behaviour ? What is the point of this stupid "honour" based behaviour copy pasted from other aspects of life to a beer and pretzel game ? ? ?

I guess it is to make someone feel better by showing that others are worse. In this case because they used diffrent book, colour, whatever else.

Spider-pope
09-02-2012, 16:50
I'd say You're a DA player when you DECLARE that you play DA. Both using "correct" miniatures and "correct" rulebook does not make You a DA player in my opinion.

For example I use DA miniatures in my SM army just because I love those robed marines (for example a bit modified Azrael as a honor guard with relic blade). I even used DA codex to field my army both before and after FAQ but I do not declare myself as a DA player.

I think there is no need to categorize people as "true" DA players on the basis of the codex they use to represent their armies, it is what they feel they play is what really matters. It really makes me sick how some people have a need to judge others on the basis of what colour their miniatures are or what codex do they use...what's the point of this kind of behaviour ? What is the point of this stupid "honour" based behaviour copy pasted from other aspects of life to a beer and pretzel game ? ? ?

I guess it is to make someone feel better by showing that others are worse. In this case because they used diffrent book, colour, whatever else.

I really think you are reading far too much into it. If you use Codex Space Marines with Dark Angels models you are playing Space Marines representing Dark Angels. If you use Chaos models with Codex Space Wolves, you are playing Space Wolves representing Chaos.

There is no judgement of others involved at all. You need to separate the fluff from the rules. You can absolutely use Codex Necrons or whatever to represent your Dark Angels, but you are still playing Necrons. I've used Codex Dark Angels in the past to represent my Blood Drinkers 1st company, but when i did so the army i was playing was absolutely Dark Angels because that was the list i was using. Likewise if i use Codex Space Marines to represent my Ravenwing, i would be playing Space Marines.

darthslowe
09-02-2012, 16:58
I love how the argument against having to use the DA codex to be a DA player is "It's how you feel that matters". That is the biggest load of crap I have heard in ages! Well, I feel like it's okay to shoot someone in the streets, so it must be okay. I feel like the government is stealing from me, so I don't have to pay my taxes. I feel like vegetables are evil, so proper nutrition doesn't apply to me. I feel like my minis are DA, so they are. It's an absurd statement! Just because you feel a way doesn't make it so. As many have said, it is the ruleset you use that defines which army you are playing at the time.

gunmnky
09-02-2012, 17:09
These people either A) Only run armies with 30 vanguard or B) codex hop to flavor of the month.

Seriously guys, it's elitism to give yourself a challenge because your opponent couldn't beat you with twice the points and the newest codex? Yeah, I'm glad I decided to stick with a codex that doesn't hand me victories if I pay stupid amounts of money to GW. And guess what, if you're playing codex space marines, then you're fielding a space marine army, not a dark angel army. By your logic, if I paint dark angel models like blood angels and use the C:SM codex, I'm playing all three chapters at once. As already pointed out, it doesn't matter what your models look like or what you say they are. Whatever codex you are using is what the army is, unless you're going to try to argue that you can use multiple codeces at once.

It's a GAME. One that I take more pleasure playing than winning.

And really, sandbagging makes me worse than a newbie? I guess fielding armies that aren't rank and file marines is something you loathe to do. Some people like variety beyond cookie cutter "I got the win-list off the internet" armies.

I think, before you cry elitism, you need to examine your own statements.

Then again, maybe the fact that I run multiple Dark Angel lists where all the non "one-trick-pony" races seem to run a single list and follow each other's build strategy like lemmings makes me weird.

Konovalev
09-02-2012, 17:41
These people either A) Only run armies with 30 vanguard or B) codex hop to flavor of the month.

Seriously guys, it's elitism to give yourself a challenge because your opponent couldn't beat you with twice the points and the newest codex? Yeah, I'm glad I decided to stick with a codex that doesn't hand me victories if I pay stupid amounts of money to GW. And guess what, if you're playing codex space marines, then you're fielding a space marine army, not a dark angel army. By your logic, if I paint dark angel models like blood angels and use the C:SM codex, I'm playing all three chapters at once. As already pointed out, it doesn't matter what your models look like or what you say they are. Whatever codex you are using is what the army is, unless you're going to try to argue that you can use multiple codeces at once.

It's a GAME. One that I take more pleasure playing than winning.

And really, sandbagging makes me worse than a newbie? I guess fielding armies that aren't rank and file marines is something you loathe to do. Some people like variety beyond cookie cutter "I got the win-list off the internet" armies.

I think, before you cry elitism, you need to examine your own statements.

Then again, maybe the fact that I run multiple Dark Angel lists where all the non "one-trick-pony" races seem to run a single list and follow each other's build strategy like lemmings makes me weird.

Sandbagging is one-way gaming. It's unsportsmanlike. You take what you want from your opponents and deprive them of a proper game.


I guess fielding armies that aren't rank and file marines is something you loathe to do. Some people like variety beyond cookie cutter "I got the win-list off the internet" armies.

A quick trip to the armylist forum produces the army lists that I run.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/search.php?searchid=30126
The amount of I got the win-list off the internet armies is staggering is it not? You might be surprised to learn that when someone points out a deficiency in a list, theyre not saying to run a net-list instead.

dean
09-02-2012, 18:09
I am one of three players in my store. Yes we are all purists.

Szalik
09-02-2012, 18:09
@Spider-pope: I just felt that there is unneeded elitist behaviour in a hobby "We are the ones that use DA codex for DA armies and because our codex is so old and weak we have a right to judge who is a DA player and who is not".
Well pardon me but someone using DA models, painted just like it is indicated in the DA fluff, using SM book for WHATEVER reason and saying that they play DA is still a DA player...it is a declaration here that really matters, codex is just to emphasise gamestyle commonly refered in a fluff to a special SM chapter but not exclusive for them. As it was shown by this Khornate Wolves army shown on GW page models from diffrent armies still may represent armies they were not advertised for, it's just a matter of skill in converting, painting and having a fine story behind it.


@darthslowe: Do You see the diffrence between shooting someone in the street and playing a board game ? Well I hope You do, there is no need to make reference to real life situations as extreme as You stated in a matter of who is and who is and who is not a DA player. Sure there are situations where it is clearly needed to state what is right and what is wrong but being / not being a DA player is not one of them for me at least.

samiens
09-02-2012, 18:11
Deathwing with predator and speeder support is considerably stronger than codex marines. That said, and contrary to an old signature of mine, codex swapping is so common now judging people for it seems so 2009!

Im painting DA again, they were my main army when I started (about 16 years ago) and only the stupidly large amount of time I take to paint Deathwing deterred me till now.

Maybe I should start a plog...
Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

dean
09-02-2012, 18:19
Maybe I should start a plog...


Start a PLog man!

gunmnky
09-02-2012, 20:07
Sandbagging is one-way gaming. It's unsportsmanlike. You take what you want from your opponents and deprive them of a proper game.

Wait, let me get this straight. I'm crushing all my opponents, they don't have a chance to beat me, and the game is generally over by round 2, and they surrender by round 3. So I mix up my list, reduce the list so it has fewer models that require more skill to play with.

The game lasts longer, my opponents have a chance to win, and there is a wider variety of actions during the game...

And you're saying that's unsportsmanlike?

WTF?

Captain Collius
09-02-2012, 20:23
Look, if you have a c:sm list and codex it does nopt matter how you paint them they ain't DA just like they ain't BA or SW. Its not elitism its facts. i don't care that your marines are green just use the rules from the SM dex don't mix and match. if you have a chaos army you don't get ATSKNF. because i'm da my librarian has 2 psychic powers and both are not great i deal with it. my tacs and assult squad are hideously expensive i deal with it.

But don't tell me its Elitism its a choice to be loyal and i'm not saying you can't use da models go ahead i don't care. The models with robes are cool ansd its just a marine body who cares.

AngryAngel
09-02-2012, 20:24
Lets see, in my local area. I'm the only Dark Angel player. It really is not mystery why, their book is bland, dull and lack luster when compared with many others. That doesn't stop me from collecting for them, a term box here a ravenwing battleforce there. Ever growing forward with my collection. In hopes, one day, the next leap in codex design, will be the leap home, to a good Dark Angel codex.

Edit: Yeah, I stick with my DA book, because its the right one. Now does that make me elistest ? Maybe, but then if I used GK rules for um, or BA or Vanilla marine rules, guess what ? It really isn't DA then. Don't kid yourself, if you think the DA book is weak, your right, it is. If you think its bland, right again, it is bland.

Just don't come up to someone using DA painted models, and C:SM rules, and claim their sons of the Lion, because they aren't. You wanna codex swap and claim to be whatever, thats well and good. If you try and make yourself believe something hard enough and long enough, guess what you can make your own reality, doesn't make it truth.

If I get tired of the blah nature of my DA, I play one of my other armies. Simple as that. No need to codex swap to keep up with the neighbors. When DA get a new book, good or bad, ( probably it will be bad, as trends for them continue ). I'll use that one too, because those marines are DA, not DA plus other codex rules.

Now that all said, if your happy codex jumping thats fine too, just know some people will think diffrently on it and move on, end of story.

RandomThoughts
09-02-2012, 20:48
Back in 2004-ish, when I first ventured inside my current games story, I saw someone playing Dark Angels. That was the last time I ever saw any, outside of my own 2-3 dark Green Marine models...

Israfael
09-02-2012, 21:01
The elitist "You have to make the game worse to be a true Dark Angel player" views in here are really amusing. The "devoutness" to a fictional faction of fictional space knights is almost cute.

Yeah, faction loyalty is just goofy - isn't it? We're a community of bandwagon gamers; leaping from one army to the next, always looking for the bigger, better deal. We should mock people who actually feel an attachment to their army, right? :eyebrows:


If you like the fluff, paint and convert your models accordingly and think of yourself as one, you are a Dark Angels player. Rules have nothing to do with that.

Haha, oh boy. You seem to be struggling significantly to catch onto my point, so I'll try again: If you field C:SM - you're a C:SM player. I don't care what models you field, or who you're painted as. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Now for the opinion portion of the show: I personally feel that if you jumped ship to get a stronger codex, you're not a real Dark Angel fan. I feel the same of any "counts as" codex hopping. If your faction has a codex, use it.


And I myself would rather play against a decent army, and not against either a one-trick-pony with a handicap, or essentially against an army that fields 20% less in points than me. Fair games are a lot more enjoyable to me.
But maybe I'm weird.

I can say, ego aside, that my "pony" would table you by turn three. ;)

Korraz
10-02-2012, 00:30
Raving faction loyalty is amusing. Rules loyalty is goofy.
I don't care if you table me turn one or three. I care about
-The Miniatures
-Then Nothing
-Then an enjoyable game
And if you feel that it'll make for a more enjoyable game if you use Codex: BA for your Necrons, go ahead, I don't care. Rules are just rules. They are probably the worst and least important part of the whole thing. It should be fun to play, and that's it.

DietDolphin
10-02-2012, 01:17
And guess what, if you're playing codex space marines, then you're fielding a space marine army, not a dark angel army.
But Dark Angels ARE Space Marines!

People talking about playing space marines with Codex: necron/eldar/Oompa Loompas are just being difficult for the sake of being difficult, none of those codexes are Space Marines.

At the end of the day they are all T4 Sv3+ and all die to plasma just the same. DA and BA never really needed their own codex in the first place, they are both CODEX chapters! Telling people that they can't play a Codex chapter with Codex Rules is Codex insanity!

gunmnky
10-02-2012, 01:53
But Dark Angels ARE Space Marines!

People talking about playing space marines with Codex: necron/eldar/Oompa Loompas are just being difficult for the sake of being difficult, none of those codexes are Space Marines.

At the end of the day they are all T4 Sv3+ and all die to plasma just the same. DA and BA never really needed their own codex in the first place, they are both CODEX chapters! Telling people that they can't play a Codex chapter with Codex Rules is Codex insanity!

Yeah, they're codex marines in the same way eldar are codex marines. Am I being intentionally difficult? No more than you're being intentionally inept. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Black Templar all deviate substantially from the Codex Astartes. Hell, SW put their veterans in scout armor and their initiates in full power armor. That's a massive violation of the codex.

When did we say you can't play a codex chapter with codex rules? I think we've been arguing that you SHOULD play a codex chapter with codex rules. BA use BA Codex, SW use Space Wolf codex ETC.

What we take offense at is when people play C:SM and say "I'm playing Dark Angels." You are not playing DA if you aren't using their rules. I could put 40 blood thirsters on the table, use the necron codex, and say I'm playing Dark Angels. So what would that mean to you as my opponent?

...

Yeah, that I'm playing Necrons, because in the end, that's what you are shooting at and assaulting. Not space marines, not dark angels, not blood thirsters, but necrons.

SaintTom
10-02-2012, 03:32
So what about the chapters that dont have a codex or specific rules? Are they somehow now lesser than those who aren't just Space Marines?

I don't see there being a Salamander's codex anytime soon, nor a Iron Hands one. Are they just Space Marines instead of being actual IH or Sallie members?

DietDolphin
10-02-2012, 04:39
Yeah, they're codex marines in the same way eldar are codex marines. Am I being intentionally difficult? No more than you're being intentionally inept. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Black Templar all deviate substantially from the Codex Astartes. Hell, SW put their veterans in scout armor and their initiates in full power armor. That's a massive violation of the codex.
There is so much wrong with this i don't know where to begin...
-Eldar are not marines, Dark Angels are marines and they're codex chapter. Their differences are minor (they are said to appear no different to outsiders than anyother codex chapter, unlike SW and BT) and not really anymore than the salamanders or Iron Hands.
-Trying to suggest that comparing Eldar to codex marines and Dark Angels to Codex Marines is the same thing IS being Intentionally difficult.
-I never mentioned Space Wolves or Black Tempers as they are not codex chapters. So far you haven't shown how I have been "intentionally inept" without putting words in my mouth.
-Blood Angels originally only really had the death company, Baal Pred and a few characters. It wasn't until this new codex where they ham-fisted Sang Guard and other stuff just to make them seem more "edgy".


When did we say you can't play a codex chapter with codex rules? I think we've been arguing that you SHOULD play a codex chapter with codex rules. BA use BA Codex, SW use Space Wolf codex ETC.
DA are a codex chapter, and unless you are playing a a lot of Deathwing/Ravenwing, it would be probably be a good idea to use Codex Space Marines. Not for POWER!! but because they are more up-to-date rules and more balanced for the SAME MODELS.


What we take offense at is when people play C:SM and say "I'm playing Dark Angels." You are not playing DA if you aren't using their rules.
I didn't really think anyone actually took "offense" to this but anyway... If you paint your marines as Dark Angels they are Dark Angels, as long as its marine rules then whatever because DARK ANGELS ARE SPACE MARINES.

I could put 40 blood thirsters on the table, use the necron codex, and say I'm playing Dark Angels. So what would that mean to you as my opponent?
Read sentence above this, use brain and put 1 and 1 together...
-BloodThirsters are not marines.
-Nercon Codex is not the Space Marine codex
-Not Dark Angels.
So whats your point here, stop trying to generalize the arguement.

Yeah, that I'm playing Necrons, because in the end, that's what you are shooting at and assaulting. Not space marines, not dark angels, not blood thirsters, but necrons.
Honestly, if you tried passing off BloodThirsters as Dark Angels or Marines, I wouldn't play you regardless of what rules you tried using. Again, I don't see the point in arguing this, no one else is, so why are you?

akiasura
10-02-2012, 04:57
If your not using Deathwing or Ravenwing, why use Codex Dark Angels? The codex is weak and is identical to codex SM in every way except for those two things (which could easily be included in C:SM with two SC's...). Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Black Templars all deviate dramatically from the codex astrates (although Blood angels doing so outside of Death Company and Baal Preds is new...), and should have their own codex. Space wolves don't use termies at all on table top (as far as I've seen anyway), have long fangs, and superior scouts, and Black templars lack psykers, have vows, and mix "scouts" with basic marines.

Frankly, I have no problem with Chaos Marines using Blood Angels for World Eaters. Thousand sons using a GK codex. Alpha Legion and Night lords using C:SM. These legions, staple armies in the 3.5 codex in some cases, have been practically phased out in their current codex. Honestly, I think it's MORE fluffy and true to the army to deviate from the Codex given by GW if GW fails to represent your army with the rules as written. An all bike nightlords army using C:SM looks much better on the table top then what the Chaos Codex currently produces. Hell, I even let the local Chaos players use the 3.5 dex, since the one they are given is such a joke for 1/2 of the legions (the half that isn't nurgle and slaanesh).

If your models are green and have those sexy robes, your a Dark Angel player to me. Models on the table top are the first thing I notice when I see someone's army, not the codex they have.

Next your going to say Craftworld Biel-tan, Ulthwe, Saim-hann, and Iyanden don't exist anymore because their codex was phased out. After all, you can't do the Court of the Young King, Black Guardians, and the Wild Host anymore, so obviously that amazingly painted blue and yellow eldar army is "ENTER GENERIC CRAFTWORLD HERE". Or are they Space Marines? :wtf:

And my Alpha Legions marines can't be alpha legion, despite the chaos models, hydra shoulder pads (which I paid extra for), and lack of demons, demon prince, oblits (all very unfluffy for alpha legion) and tanks.

the gribbly
10-02-2012, 05:16
I'm the only dark angels player in my group and they are my primary army that I always return. That being said it if true that deathwing and ravenwing really are the only reasons to play with c: da. Still termies, land raiders, bikes, dreads and landspeeders are my favorite models so my only real complaint is how restrictive the lists quickly become which if why I have several armies.

GrandmasterWang
10-02-2012, 05:34
Salamanders don't have their own book... Dark Angels do.. that's the difference. If GW came out with Codex: Salamanders but you used Codex: Space Marines then i'd say you were playing Space Marines.

Anyway, it's really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I mean if a mate had a 'imperial super ork' army and had converted a whole bunch of them or used the old mega armored nobz models for his whole force and wanted to use the Codex: Space Marines book for them i wouldn't have a problem. I would however argue that he wasn't playing 'proper' orks, just like some would argue those using Codex: Space Marines with their Dark Angels models aren't playing a 'proper' Dark Angels army

Project2501
10-02-2012, 06:08
This thread is a shining example of why I created my own chapter, and most everyone else does nowadays as well.

SaintTom
10-02-2012, 06:11
Salamanders don't have their own book... Dark Angels do.. that's the difference. If GW came out with Codex: Salamanders but you used Codex: Space Marines then i'd say you were playing Space Marines.

Anyway, it's really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I mean if a mate had a 'imperial super ork' army and had converted a whole bunch of them or used the old mega armored nobz models for his whole force and wanted to use the Codex: Space Marines book for them i wouldn't have a problem. I would however argue that he wasn't playing 'proper' orks, just like some would argue those using Codex: Space Marines with their Dark Angels models aren't playing a 'proper' Dark Angels army

The difference is that one is a legal book but the other isn't created?

I don't see the difference from the before having the codex or afterwards other than they people want to put themselves into the limitations that the chapter would have, which they should be able to do anyways with a good codex for all space marines. It's not called Space Marines: At least til you get your own codex made.

And for the orks, we aren't talking orks, this is about space marines with all the same stats, and almost all similar weapons. (At least til they can make up new junk to add in for the special snowflake feel.)

Gillyfish
10-02-2012, 09:21
I'm a DA player and have been since I started 40k at the beginning of 2nd. As far as I'm aware, I'm the only one in my local area, but then there are a number of other armies I've never seen played in the last three to four years - Tyranids, Space Wolves, Black Templars, Dark Eldar, many of which have new books, so I'm guessing it's just the local community and what floats their boats.

In more general terms, if we judge internet forum traffic as evidence, there does seem to be a fairly widespread and loyal fanbase of people with DA armies. Some have started using other army books, others have stuck with the original, but there would still seem to be a fairly large market of players that the new book would appeal to.

MasterValrik
10-02-2012, 10:05
DA's have one of the best historys out there, I am not up on the newer rules and codexs as Ive been away from the game for the last 3 1/2 years and just now find myself coming back. But from all the talk it seems the DA's have made GW mad or something and have become a step-child???

Beppo1234
10-02-2012, 10:37
DA's have one of the best historys out there, I am not up on the newer rules and codexs as Ive been away from the game for the last 3 1/2 years and just now find myself coming back. But from all the talk it seems the DA's have made GW mad or something and have become a step-child???

no, they were just among the first of the new generation of codices, which have been surpassed by subsequent codices... they're in the same boat as C:CSM. They were early '5th' edition codices, that are finally coming around on the update schedule revolution

Dark Aly
10-02-2012, 12:43
I have a ravenwing army which I have had since halfway through 3rd ed and a deathwing army that I started towards the end of 4th and I'm now considering getting some power armour too. I don't know of any others though.

LonelyPath
10-02-2012, 13:40
Including myself there are 4 gamers with (and also use) Dark Angels at my regular Monday gaming group. What's also nice is that 3 of us actually use the DA dex to field them and they do pretty well. I know horde armies hate facing my regular DA list since it sports so many missile launchers and other blast/template weapons andit also does fairly well against more elite and mech lists.

Treadhead_1st
10-02-2012, 23:05
Salamanders don't have their own book... Dark Angels do.. that's the difference. If GW came out with Codex: Salamanders but you used Codex: Space Marines then i'd say you were playing Space Marines.

You say that, but you would not receive the flak I get for playing my Salamander army. Why? Because I don't field Vulkan. I constantly get told (online, not in person - in person people are usually going on about my conversions and painting, or wouldn't dare to be an ass) that I am not playing "proper Salamanders" or that I'm playing "green Ultramarines, not Salamanders". Apparently, one character an army makes, because after all - the rules are what defines a chapter. Never mind the fact that I have played the Salamanders since the release of Codex: Armageddon (wherein they had no twin-linked Flamers or Meltas or master-crafted Thunder Hammers funnily enough), nor that I have an effective yet very themed force rather than a balls-to-the-wall competitive one...I'm not doing it "right".

This is why I am lax on people who say they are Dark Angels but run with Codex: Space Marines - because I get enough bull from people for not fielding a single damn character that I do not have the heart nor the will to do the same to someone else. To those arguing that point, ask yourself this:

Am I not a Salamanders player? After all, I can be an Ultramarines player yet include Vulkan. I can be an Iron Hands player yet include Chronos. I can be a Raven Guard player yet include Telion. I can be an Ultramarine player and not include a single character. But I can't be a Salamander player because I don't field Vulkan? If you think that sounds absurd, please rethink your argument regarding the Dark Angels. The characters are designed to represent particular Chapters, and have rules to do so, just as the Dark Angels have a Codex rules-set to represent that chapter - so why do you *have* to field those rules to field a Dark Angels army?

Droma
10-02-2012, 23:28
I exclusively use the dark angels codex and my models are built using dark angels parts. However I've told people that are looking to field their DA battle company army to use codex space marines as that will give them rules that work better for their theme. Theme is all that matters when you declare what army you play.

I'm a dark angels player but I only field deathwing until they update my codex.
I'm a dark angels player but I only field ravenwing until they update my codex.
I'm a dark angels player but I use codex space marines for my battle company until they update my codex.
I'm a dark angels player but I like using ravenwing/deathwing mixed in with my battle company so I still use the DA codex.

In all those cases you're still a dark angels player. You're a dark angel player if your army theme is dark angels or dark angels successor. Rules don't matter. What your army is when divorced from rules is what matters. When someone sees your army sitting looking awesome on a shelf that's what matters.

samiens
11-02-2012, 00:57
The thing is, and its a small, ignorable thing, a dark angel tactical marine isn't the same as a codex tactical marine- he lacks combat tactics. Similarly, but in a more pronounced way, Deathwing are markedly different to codex terminators and Ravenwing are different to bike squadrons. The overall effect is that mechanically, the armies play differently and have different optimal units.

Now, there's a recent(ish) trend of using count as in a dubious fashion to gain better rules for your faction. This is rarely about background when were talking about established factions with their own codex- Dark Angels fluff is better represented mechanically by the DA codex than the marine codex. Lets be honest, a rule that lets your army strategically back off doesn't seem very Dark Angel like. Its so common now that its pretty much acceptable, if distasteful.

It leads us to a bigger question about whether rules and mechanics matter for representing your army. At the small end, its a courtesy for your army to be easily recognisable for your opponent. As a bigger point, you're basically saying, by using counts as for an established faction, that you like the background for army A and the rules for army B so will merge the two. It's having your cake and eating it.

What's more, you're purposely ignoring the things which make DA different (Deathwing and Ravenwing) which I find bizarre but each to their own- these are the thing that make DA unique and feel like DA.

So, all of this together leads me to think that codex jumping DA sympathiser may be entitled to call themselves DA players but they are less of a DA player than the people using the right codex. Frankly, if rules and models and background are so divorced, why strucure the rules into named factions anyway?

Oh, and the optimal post FAQ DA list is better than an optimal marine list- so why bother Amway!
Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

Droma
11-02-2012, 06:20
The thing is, and its a small, ignorable thing, a dark angel tactical marine isn't the same as a codex tactical marine- he lacks combat tactics. Similarly, but in a more pronounced way, Deathwing are markedly different to codex terminators and Ravenwing are different to bike squadrons. The overall effect is that mechanically, the armies play differently and have different optimal units.
Belail counts as Lysander now they're stubborn. If you're using raven/deathwing then yeah use the DA dex but not everyone wants to use those units. Some want to use their battle company.


Now, there's a recent(ish) trend of using count as in a dubious fashion to gain better rules for your faction. This is rarely about background when were talking about established factions with their own codex- Dark Angels fluff is better represented mechanically by the DA codex than the marine codex. Lets be honest, a rule that lets your army strategically back off doesn't seem very Dark Angel like. Its so common now that its pretty much acceptable, if distasteful.
You should put a big'ol IMO before that.


It leads us to a bigger question about whether rules and mechanics matter for representing your army. At the small end, its a courtesy for your army to be easily recognisable for your opponent. As a bigger point, you're basically saying, by using counts as for an established faction, that you like the background for army A and the rules for army B so will merge the two. It's having your cake and eating it.
What's wrong with that?


What's more, you're purposely ignoring the things which make DA different (Deathwing and Ravenwing) which I find bizarre but each to their own- these are the thing that make DA unique and feel like DA.
Once again not everyone wants to use those units. You should be able to still be DA and play a battle company. Also the DA codex does a bad job of making a battle company feel DA so why bother sticking to that rule set?


So, all of this together leads me to think that codex jumping DA sympathiser may be entitled to call themselves DA players but they are less of a DA player than the people using the right codex. Frankly, if rules and models and background are so divorced, why strucure the rules into named factions anyway?
There is a difference between a bandwagon jumper and someone using a newer codex to represent part of their army rules wise because their codex(DA in this case) sucks at it. That's more down to badly written codex's than any fault of the player.


Oh, and the optimal post FAQ DA list is better than an optimal marine list- so why bother Amway!
Also a matter of opinion. But once again some people just want fluffy lists or just don't want to play deathwing armies and still be competitive.

Overall you've expressed an elitist attitude. Basically "stick with your codex or you're not playing that army right!". Or you've got an axe to grind against counts as? Your arguments just seam really flimsy.

samiens
11-02-2012, 08:22
I apologise if it came across too combative- I don't have a major problem with 'counts-as' at all these days- though I do find all the codex jumping distasteful.

That said, this is a subjective topic in a forum- its likely to be my own opinion ;)

Im also not sure its elitist to suggest that a codex specifically written for a faction best represents that faction than one that isn't. Ultimately, the ultimate arbiters of how an army should act on the tabletop are GW, its their IP
after all. But lets be clear, ill happily play against DA who use the marine codex- though I don't really see the logic behind doing so- it's not my place to judge how people play, though I am likely to have an opinion on the matter!

The one thing im going to pick up from your specific comments, because there's no interest fo anyone else in is going back and forth on minor points, is where you basically call DA a badly written codex because it doesn't do a battle company very well (not that I agree with that, you've got all the relevant units, you lose a highly unfluffy rule and gain rites of battle which seems appropriate for an army of master strategists- but I do see it costs more points) whichis entirely an opinion and yet you don't state it as such. I only point this out because its one I strongly disagree with. I think we'd be in a much better place if the sensible restrained approach had been retained- and those codexes (DA, Eldar, Chaos and Orks with a possible on daemons) were beautifully balanced against each other- id argue later codexes were poor, sadly also totally readjusting the points balance of 40k
Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

Droma
11-02-2012, 09:05
Well I understand how you "don't get it" and that's fine. I also agree that if this toned down method of codex writing had continued into fifth that the game would at least be more balanced(I can't say it'd be more interesting or fun though).

As far rites of battle goes 4th ed SM also had it so it never was a DA thing to begin with. Leadership value also has no correlation to the master strategist fluff. If anything combat tactics represent the master strategist idea better but it does go against the DA hold their ground fluff, not that any DA special rules represent the holding ground aspect at all. Overall anyone using C:SM to represent their battle company is doing it because of the better points cost and some of the new units like master of the forge, thunderfire cannons, etc. I(and I think most counts as players) don't see a reason to be at a disadvantage rules wise when there is very little or no fluff reason in the rules to actually do so. I just don't see how higher points costs, less options, and rites of battle represents DA battle companies better than just using the C:SM rules for it.

I'm hoping this discussion will be a moot point sooner rather than later. Whenever our new codex does get here though I hope the rules really make the DA FEEL DA.

samiens
11-02-2012, 09:38
The slight issue with that is that DA are pretty much codex marines- they've never felt particularly different to normal guys- so I suspect it will be a new invention of how DA should feel. We've been marines with terminators who are immune to psychology, marines with plasma love and odd intractable rule and now marines with a smattering if fearless.

Really, and as a life long DA player, it might not be awful if we were folded into the marine codex, I shudder to think what niche we might get next...
Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

Ronin_eX
11-02-2012, 11:34
I've played the Dark Angels for 16 years at this point. Started with the Angels of Death codex, suffered through the original 3rd Edition codex before going on hiatus. I took the 4th Edition codex with a smile until the Marine codex came out and GW had simply shafted us. I tried a few things, writing my own codex, using Space Wolves as a Counts As codex and those were both just fine. I honestly don't know why marine armies with their own codices get so uppity about people using them.

The marine community runs rampant with this kind of misplaced elitism. They will accuse new players of jumping on the bandwagon, they will accuse people using the codex they think is best to represent their force of being power gamers (even though this oddly isn't leveled at the people using it because they paint their force the "right" colours, unless they are new players of course, then they are power-gaming band wagoners!). But worst of all is using the wrong codex for a force that already has one. I just don't bloody well get it after all these years.

An army is what you make of it. If you call your little dudes Dark Angels then you are a Dark Angels player whether you are using the Dark Angels codex, a homebrew or the Eldar codex. I swear, making WYSIWYG an actual rule back in 3rd did a lot to warp the community's mentality, and all that rule did was dictate that a gun should look like the gun it is (unless it shouldn't). People have since run with that and decided this crap is some kind of sacrosanct contract and thou shalt not do what ever the hell they please (and if they do then they aren't a real X).

As for rolling us up in to the vanilla codex, I figure after all we have given to the vanilla codex after all of these years that the vanilla codex should be Codex: Dark Angels and using those rules you could represent the Ultramarines, the Imperial Fists and any other chapter. Because from where I sit they don't deviate enough from the Dark Angels to warrant their own codices. ;)

In all seriousness though, I think GW made a mistake by splitting marines so much. In RT they were all the same and differed in background and some fluff details (easy to alter in a scenario-based game like RT). In 2nd there were 3 marine codices and this was a little much. Considering the diversity of the Chaos codex in 2nd I would have preferred one codex with a few modifications for the other chapters, perhaps a mix and match system like Chaos had to allow for more or less codex-adherent forces. But things really started getting bad in 3rd and 4th. Dark Angels and Blood Angels split up, they started playing around with the idea of the Black Templar (prior they were codex adherent as their brethren). Then in 4th you had marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Black Templar, Space Wolves and Daemon Hunters. Now that GW have made their policy of supporting all of them with codices they have really complicated things.

It doesn't help that the BT stepped on a lot of toes when they came around. They were incredibly codex divergent like the Space Wolves, they were assault focused like most of the specialized marine chapters and they co-opted the knightly shtick from the Dark Angels. I just don't see a purpose for them as their own force and wish they had died in Codex Armageddon with the rest of the sub-lists. But that has as much of a chance of happening as the DA getting folded in to the vanilla codex (or becoming it :P ).

So in the end what I want them to do is at least pay the Dark Angels the same courtesy they did every other chapter in the game since 1999 and expand them rather than cut a bunch of their toys or give them away to others wholesale. We are one of the few codices that has spread its stuff around this much since 2nd. Space Wolves, Vanilla/Ultra and Blood Angels have picked up a lot of expanded material since 3rd Edition hit. But each new codex sees the Dark Angels lose things outright or has them share them with the rest. At this point GW needs to actually give them something back and do some design work on their concept since that has barely been looked at since AoD hit the shelves in 1996. They have a lot of design space to use, GW just needs to go ahead and do it.

Astromarine
13-02-2012, 13:19
I've played the Dark Angels for 16 years at this point. Started with the Angels of Death codex, suffered through the original 3rd Edition codex before going on hiatus. I took the 4th Edition codex with a smile until the Marine codex came out and GW had simply shafted us. I tried a few things, writing my own codex, using Space Wolves as a Counts As codex and those were both just fine. I honestly don't know why marine armies with their own codices get so uppity about people using them.

The marine community runs rampant with this kind of misplaced elitism. They will accuse new players of jumping on the bandwagon, they will accuse people using the codex they think is best to represent their force of being power gamers (even though this oddly isn't leveled at the people using it because they paint their force the "right" colours, unless they are new players of course, then they are power-gaming band wagoners!). But worst of all is using the wrong codex for a force that already has one. I just don't bloody well get it after all these years.

An army is what you make of it. If you call your little dudes Dark Angels then you are a Dark Angels player whether you are using the Dark Angels codex, a homebrew or the Eldar codex. I swear, making WYSIWYG an actual rule back in 3rd did a lot to warp the community's mentality, and all that rule did was dictate that a gun should look like the gun it is (unless it shouldn't). People have since run with that and decided this crap is some kind of sacrosanct contract and thou shalt not do what ever the hell they please (and if they do then they aren't a real X).

As for rolling us up in to the vanilla codex, I figure after all we have given to the vanilla codex after all of these years that the vanilla codex should be Codex: Dark Angels and using those rules you could represent the Ultramarines, the Imperial Fists and any other chapter. Because from where I sit they don't deviate enough from the Dark Angels to warrant their own codices. ;)

In all seriousness though, I think GW made a mistake by splitting marines so much. In RT they were all the same and differed in background and some fluff details (easy to alter in a scenario-based game like RT). In 2nd there were 3 marine codices and this was a little much. Considering the diversity of the Chaos codex in 2nd I would have preferred one codex with a few modifications for the other chapters, perhaps a mix and match system like Chaos had to allow for more or less codex-adherent forces. But things really started getting bad in 3rd and 4th. Dark Angels and Blood Angels split up, they started playing around with the idea of the Black Templar (prior they were codex adherent as their brethren). Then in 4th you had marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Black Templar, Space Wolves and Daemon Hunters. Now that GW have made their policy of supporting all of them with codices they have really complicated things.

It doesn't help that the BT stepped on a lot of toes when they came around. They were incredibly codex divergent like the Space Wolves, they were assault focused like most of the specialized marine chapters and they co-opted the knightly shtick from the Dark Angels. I just don't see a purpose for them as their own force and wish they had died in Codex Armageddon with the rest of the sub-lists. But that has as much of a chance of happening as the DA getting folded in to the vanilla codex (or becoming it :P ).

So in the end what I want them to do is at least pay the Dark Angels the same courtesy they did every other chapter in the game since 1999 and expand them rather than cut a bunch of their toys or give them away to others wholesale. We are one of the few codices that has spread its stuff around this much since 2nd. Space Wolves, Vanilla/Ultra and Blood Angels have picked up a lot of expanded material since 3rd Edition hit. But each new codex sees the Dark Angels lose things outright or has them share them with the rest. At this point GW needs to actually give them something back and do some design work on their concept since that has barely been looked at since AoD hit the shelves in 1996. They have a lot of design space to use, GW just needs to go ahead and do it.

These days I read Warseer more to roll my eyes at humanity than as a Warhammer site. It's really rare that I find a post that I just want to grab people, shove the post in their faces, and start shouting "DO YOU SEE??"

You, sir, have made one of those posts. Congrats, and well said.

Captain Collius
13-02-2012, 14:28
+1 Yes I am with you brother we are a seperate chapter and deserve a little love i don't need thunderwolf cavalry or a characterwho carves his name into daemon princes hearts. Just give me a codex that is in line in everything but terms and bikes and a difference in terminator abilities and ravenwing abilities. Ohh and 1-2 unique units (e.g. plasma pred, land raider ares, or mortis dread) and i will be happy.

samiens
13-02-2012, 18:13
I agree with about half of it- GW shouldn't have split so much, to be honest angels of death was a mistake (a few special characters and about 3 unique units across 2 lists) that built expectation for a codex of our own.

The big issue is we don't fit a niche at all- if you had fearless troop terminators with Belial and smiled rider (yep bring that back) ravenwing troops with Sammael you could absolutely fit us in the marine codex.

Chances are we'll get another rubbish codex, or something that ruins our background (please mention Cloud Runner in the Deathwing story again at least).

If we do get a plasma tank make it a predator please!

Anyway, I think actually the rise of pick up gaming and tournament gaming created the need for things to look like what they are- and frankly the rise of those kinds of games has done a lot of good things for this hobby- it'd be nowhere near as big if it were still an inaccessible pseudo-RPG.

But ill admit im biased, I started off with Space Hulk and the Deathwing expansion- so the idea of the kind of army that codex marines can represent Ii.e.lacking deathwing and ravenwing) doesn't appeal at all, like a tactical marine blood angel army
Sent from my 7 Mozart using Board Express

Astromarine
13-02-2012, 23:04
I agree with about half of it- GW shouldn't have split so much, to be honest angels of death was a mistake (a few special characters and about 3 unique units across 2 lists) that built expectation for a codex of our own.

The big issue is we don't fit a niche at all- if you had fearless troop terminators with Belial and smiled rider (yep bring that back) ravenwing troops with Sammael you could absolutely fit us in the marine codex.

Right, and that's the thing. Games Workshop has a couple designers on staff, last I heard. So they need to, once and for all, *give* us a niche. Not just a gimmick, but a reason why someone would want to play DA as opposed to anyone else. Fluff isn't enough, you have novels to inpire people with fluff. DW and RW isn't enough, unless you dedicate a whole book to them and then just post "If you want to play a Battle Company, use the SM codex with these units replacing those units" at the end, and *noone* wants that, not us, not them. Our BCs need to have something that makes them unique, and it's can't just be some differently-costed units just like the SM ones because that's boring as hell and invites stupid comparisons like the ones happening when our last codex was released.

All these things that the new Codex can't be, and not one idea of what it can? Well, no. It's hard, of course, and I'm not one of those designers employed by GW. :) I wish them good luck, they'll need it. I'm just saying what they *must* do if they want the DAs to be a vibrant army that's played, and bought, by people.

tezza21
14-02-2012, 00:03
In my local gw there is 2 DA players I play black templars and I'm also starting a ravenwing but I see loads of kids using smurfs shame really

MasterValrik
14-02-2012, 01:39
I've played the Dark Angels for 16 years at this point. Started with the Angels of Death codex, suffered through the original 3rd Edition codex before going on hiatus. I took the 4th Edition codex with a smile until the Marine codex came out and GW had simply shafted us. I tried a few things, writing my own codex, using Space Wolves as a Counts As codex and those were both just fine. I honestly don't know why marine armies with their own codices get so uppity about people using them.

The marine community runs rampant with this kind of misplaced elitism. They will accuse new players of jumping on the bandwagon, they will accuse people using the codex they think is best to represent their force of being power gamers (even though this oddly isn't leveled at the people using it because they paint their force the "right" colours, unless they are new players of course, then they are power-gaming band wagoners!). But worst of all is using the wrong codex for a force that already has one. I just don't bloody well get it after all these years.

An army is what you make of it. If you call your little dudes Dark Angels then you are a Dark Angels player whether you are using the Dark Angels codex, a homebrew or the Eldar codex. I swear, making WYSIWYG an actual rule back in 3rd did a lot to warp the community's mentality, and all that rule did was dictate that a gun should look like the gun it is (unless it shouldn't). People have since run with that and decided this crap is some kind of sacrosanct contract and thou shalt not do what ever the hell they please (and if they do then they aren't a real X).

As for rolling us up in to the vanilla codex, I figure after all we have given to the vanilla codex after all of these years that the vanilla codex should be Codex: Dark Angels and using those rules you could represent the Ultramarines, the Imperial Fists and any other chapter. Because from where I sit they don't deviate enough from the Dark Angels to warrant their own codices. ;)

In all seriousness though, I think GW made a mistake by splitting marines so much. In RT they were all the same and differed in background and some fluff details (easy to alter in a scenario-based game like RT). In 2nd there were 3 marine codices and this was a little much. Considering the diversity of the Chaos codex in 2nd I would have preferred one codex with a few modifications for the other chapters, perhaps a mix and match system like Chaos had to allow for more or less codex-adherent forces. But things really started getting bad in 3rd and 4th. Dark Angels and Blood Angels split up, they started playing around with the idea of the Black Templar (prior they were codex adherent as their brethren). Then in 4th you had marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Black Templar, Space Wolves and Daemon Hunters. Now that GW have made their policy of supporting all of them with codices they have really complicated things.

It doesn't help that the BT stepped on a lot of toes when they came around. They were incredibly codex divergent like the Space Wolves, they were assault focused like most of the specialized marine chapters and they co-opted the knightly shtick from the Dark Angels. I just don't see a purpose for them as their own force and wish they had died in Codex Armageddon with the rest of the sub-lists. But that has as much of a chance of happening as the DA getting folded in to the vanilla codex (or becoming it :P )

So in the end what I want them to do is at least pay the Dark Angels the same courtesy they did every other chapter in the game since 1999 and expand them rather than cut a bunch of their toys or give them away to others wholesale. We are one of the few codices that has spread its stuff around this much since 2nd. Space Wolves, Vanilla/Ultra and Blood Angels have picked up a lot of expanded material since 3rd Edition hit. But each new codex sees the Dark Angels lose things outright or has them share them with the rest. At this point GW needs to actually give them something back and do some design work on their concept since that has barely been looked at since AoD hit the shelves in 1996. They have a lot of design space to use, GW just needs to go ahead and do it.

Very nicely written.