Deathwing; Current Meta

[march10k]

The advantage I feel the Dakka Pole lists have is that they can go up against any other list. It's not absolutely guaranteed to be the stronger army, but I feel safe fielding it agains Nids, Orks, Marines, Tau... No matter the game plan my opponent is using. At least with my Dakka Pole list, anyway; hence my current 11 game winning sreak. However, it could be that my usual opponents are simply bad at adapting.

 

I completely understand.  It's a very conservative choice.  You'll rarely find yourself (badly) outmatched playing that list.  It's a very steady, methodical grinding machine, like the 3rd edition SIGAFH was...and it's just as boring as that one was, IMHO.  At the same time, it'll rarely deliver a decisive blow to the enemy, it'll just grind on him for six turns and hope that it's enough.  Against many, it will be.  But there are answers to it, just as there are answers to my list.  I suspect that our win percentages are similar, but that your wins and losses are less spectacular.  My games are usually all over but for the crying by the end of turn three.  I

 

 

March10k, your Deathwing list is strong, but do you have tactical advice for when the army you're up again plays your game better than you do? I.e. You're against an elitist Swarmlord, Prime, Shrikes & Genestealer Tyranid list, or you're against another Terminator army (Deathwing or Space Wolves) that have twice the amount of units as you? Do you have a new formation and approach for thse opponents, or do you accept that they have the upper hand and stick to your original plan and aim to just have fun?

 

I haven't yet played a nid list of that description, but it sounds like a free lunch for deathwing. The only scary unit is the swarmlord, and he's one model.  The rest can either be shot to pieces (stealers and shrikes) or are no match for deathwing in melee (prime-he outmatches a melee terminator, sure, but not a whole squad of them!).  The key here is to shoot the shrikes early, they're not scary to a buttoned up crusader, but it should damned well scare the pants off of them with its 10-16 AP5 shots, depending on range.  Then shoot the stealers when they show up, they're even easier, although I expect there to be quite a lot of them.  The big challenge is the swarmlord.  IIRC, against knights, he hits on 3s, wounds on 3s, and then they have to reroll their saves?  That's 2/3*2/3*5/9=20/81, for a bout a 25% chance for each attack to wound?  That should average one dead knight.  Assuming that they charged (fair, given the crusader), they should hit on 4s, achieving 1.5 hits per model, or six hits from four survivors.  Assuming smite, he's done.  And I have six knights, that's what you call insurance!

 

There are lists that answer mine and beat me badly, perhaps even some nid lists...but this isn't one of them...it tries to play my game, and fails.  It fails because it's not immune against being shot before it assaults, and because DWK were made to kill the centerpiece monster.

 

 

March. I'm not sure I've described what I intended to do very well. I didn't really intend to castle at all. In fact my whole plan was to use the Eldar's superior mobility to split you or pincer you. I get how your list works. I would hate to face it on a 4X4, but with Eldar or Dark Eldar (assuming I have a mobile list) on a 6X4 I think the various Eldar would have an advantage if both players are at the same level. Dark Eldar might be more numerous and have more sacrifice units, but they would also be far more vulnerable to your ranged weapons.

 

Ah, misunderstood.  I guess you might be able to get across the board and consolidate your forces pretty quickly, but I don't have as far to go, so I still think that my army will just about finish trashing half of yours right about the time the second half arrives (saving me the trouble of chasing them down?)  Unless you can consolidate by the end of your second turn...?

[Master Avoghai]

While I agree that the Deathwing have gotten better (and how can they not with all those nice new rules they got), we're going to have to agree to disagree on their viability in a competitive environment. Their points went up for abilities they can only use against a certain army (which is being taken more and more as an ally instead of a main detachment) and if you don't deep strike you're wasting a few points there as well. And in the age of dirt cheap everything, you really can't bring something to a competitive environment that isn't really points efficient. And unfortunately that is where the Deathwing sit at the moment.

 

When the new codex first came out I thought Deathwing would be really viable, like they have been in the past. Yes you were going to have an uphill battle from the start, but you were going to fight for that W, which is half the fun. Then the next few codices were released, and they were the ones to change my mind on them in the current meta. Dirt cheap fast Daemons, dirt cheap dakkaing Tau and now to add to that list dirt cheap fast dakkaing Eldar. Yes it'll be hard to win just like in the previous editions, but some of these are borderlining on the impossible. If your aim in a tournament is to roll some dice and have a few games, then Deathwing will be viable. But if your aim is to actually win the majority of these games, you might want to look elsewhere, thats all I'm saying.

 

This codex really should have been called Codex: Ravenwing with the buffs that they got, which they needed. Last edition they were extremely points heavy for what they did. Looking at forum's Army Lists reviews (like Dakka Dakka) you'll see a plethora of Ravenwing/Crusader lists and in almost every Deathwing list you'll see something along the lines of "this list will just really give your opponent a W, why not take Ravenwing instead?" As a Deathwing player it frustrates me to no end that this is the current state of the Deathwing.

 

Yeah but who is arguing (including march10k included) that DW is a tourny auto win?

 

Deathwing is not and never used to be the tourny leader, so what's new?

 

To use a sport image, Deathwing is the army that will never be eliminated at first turn and often qualify for quarter finals and in some occasion may go to the semi of even the final... It's the kind of army against who the tough players need to be careful because they can win but not using the same tricks.

 

But it's not the new GK or v5 Tzeentch deamons and never has been!

 

 

On a side note. I see people talking about  "they are worth than before"... But what "before" are you talking about? The 5 year of purgatory Jervis put us in? or just the gap between september 2012/January 2013 that introduced AP3 power weapons and raise of AP2 weapon costs?

Because in the first case sorry but I've never seen people complaning about how strong the DW was under v5... They were a little viable maybe a little more than the rest of the crappy codex but other than that I don't know what you are talking about...

And for the the second solution, how can you be nostalgic of a 4 months gap that was more due to a change of meta game combined with bugs of a end-of-life codex that really a situation wanted by game conceptors... 

[elphilo]

I'm not trying to argue that they should be a tournament auto win nor a tourney leader. What I'm trying to say is that as the current tournament meta stands, they aren't competitive at all. 5th edition was the edition of the Death Star and MSU, which is what Deathwing really excelled at. This edition is the edition of tons of cheap foot slogging infantry, which is the opposite of what the Deathwing is. Now I've stated this multiple times before, I realize that taking Deathwing is an uphill battle from the very beginning. You will always be out manned and out gunned, that is just a fact of the Deathwing and thats what appealed to me when I first started playing Deathwing. But what has really developed my stance on them being uncompetitive, and almost unplayable in a tournament environment, is the last 3 codices.

 

Daemons get really cheap really durable things, they also get monstrous creature spam. Tau, as stated multiple times and is for some reason not being taken into consideration enough, cheap overwhelming firepower. That Ethereal is probably the best force buffer in the game, triple tapping firewarriors? Yes please! Eldar get some really cheap really fast units that usually get some sort of rending.

 

Before the last 3 codices came out I thought Deathwing had a chance. It was going to be a tough fight but a fun fight, like it always was. But these last 3, at least to me, have sealed the deal on a pure Deathwing army being unsuitable for tournaments.

[Master Avoghai]

But again I'm repeating :

 

The only period of time where DW used to be strong was between the v6 rulebook release and the release of codex DA.

At least they profited from a broken FAQ modifying the CML profile without modifying the cost but I fell like Uma Thurman with schweppes : what did you expect?

The cost was too low for a standard CML and now we have a CML with split fire and VS and still we pay it the price vanilla do...

 

Other than that what's the problem? We can't contest with multi MC tzeentch armies?

 

It's paradoxal : comparing to no brainers army but refusing DW to be a no brainer...

 

Whatever way I look at it I can't see the problem.

I don't see where come this nostalgia from a hypothetical time when DW was supposed to be strong. They always have been the average joe.

[march10k]

Ephilio,

 

I get your stance on tau, I really do. As I've said before, I have 72 fire warriors and love the look of disdain that people give them before the game, followed by the look of horror as their own army melts away in the face of pulse rifle spam. But saying that DW is unplayable because someone might spam fire warriors is like saying that battle company lists are unplayable because someone might field three drakes. There's always a yin to whatever yang you choose to field. Besides, if you're spamming fire warriors, you're cutting into the points available for other sexy choices, increasing the survivability of my tanks. And overwatching neighboring units isn't foolproof. Those crusaders can easily be used to screen LOS so only the unit targeted by my tactical termies have LOS back to them, or screen the assault termies so only their victim has LOS to snap fire at them. Listbuilding is about tradeoffs. The weapons to torrent my termies are useless against my tanks, and the weapons that can hurt my tanks can maybe kill one termie at a time. If you load up on one, you don't have enough of the other. FW spam lets my tanks live, while meltaspam (even three railheads are not enough to scare my tanks) makes for really juicy targets for my termies and puts you into the same model count category as me.

 

Besides, we're talking about theoretical army lists that are more or less optimized against my list. An all comers list is going to have some things that are problematic for me, and some that aren't. Is the average tau army with the average tau general going to do better, on average, than my list, in a tournament? Almost certainly. Is that army going to beat mine? Maybe. You'd swear that DE lance spam was the ultimate nemesis of terminator-based lists in late 5th edition. I certainly thought so. Then I went 1-0-1 against them (yep, two out of three games, the TO musta had it in for me!) at Ard Boyz regionals. It's easy to look at the options available in a given codex and say that that codex beats the pants off of army X. When the dice drop, though, all bets are off. Half of the sexy stuff in that codex didn't make the list because of the compromises that the listbuilder had to make to get a well-rounded army on the table.

 

I know that the other three post-6th updates have potential to be utterly unbeatable by my list. But building them that way would involve trade-offs that would unacceptably weaken them against other lists, which is why I haven't seen that potential actually show up on the tabletop. I've had a lot of tough fights against them (not so much the eldar yet), and some losses. But they haven't been noticeably harder to beat than the codexes that haven't been updated, beyond the usual codex creep.

 

I don't think Tau, Daemons, or Eldar is auto-win, and I don't think DW is auto-lose.

 

PS: I'm really loving the increase in GEQ-spam that I am seeing...it's motivating me to finish my griffons ~nasty evil grin~

[Master Avoghai]

That's exactly what I usually see march10k. My opponent and I both play at 1750. He doesn't play at 3000 while I'm playing 1750. Hence he's limitated in the number of units/weapons he can choose.

 

And we're not reasonning with a standard all comer list. We compare unit by unit or with a list tailored against DW. Of course we'll have trouble with a tailored list, it's its goal! But then, in a tourny, do you think this tailored list won't have trouble against other lists?

 

I want to see more all comer tau/eldar lists at 1750pts to say if they're THAT strong. And discuss about them. Other than that I tend to think that this discussion is endless.

[elphilo]

I see what you guys are saying, but everyone of my posts have been from the stance of a TAC list. And the only reason I believe the two Land Raider list is one of the only lists that could take on a TAC Daemons/Tau/Eldar list is because they really don't have anything to take out two AV14 vehicles fast. They might be able to take out one on turn 2, but as you said it would be too late because that second one is already in your face.

I might not be expressing it clearly enough, but I'm not just cherry picking things from one codex and yelling the sky is falling the sky is falling! I do seriously believe that in the current tournament environment that a TAC list of the last 3 codices could seriously beat the pants off of almost any Deathwing list you bring to the table. My complaint is in the past I could bring a Deathwing Army and at least have a fun competitive game, but now if I were to do that I would almost certainly not be able to do much by turn 4. As I would be bogged down by cheap units being thrown at me via melee or being shot up and forcing me to take multitudes of saves. And because of that I don't think they are very competitive. We won't' truly know how much all of our Terminators Special Rules cost until C:SM comes out so we can't really complain about points too much

And march I too am noticing that GEQ spam increase as well, makes my Guard playing friend smile since he loves griffons . Though I'm sure with a new C:SM release that will change right quick like

[rover]

I don't want to sound rude but I think that you play with poor opponents guys. At the moment basically any army commanded by a player with equal skill to a Deathwing player can eat DW on breakfast. I'm sorry to disappoint you but in any kind of competitive environment pure Deathwing is not a playable faction at the moment. Two land raiders or not you are gonna get owned unless you face unskilled or unprepared opponent.

[DWK]

As much as I love Deathwing terminators as well, I have moved to a mixed wing list in order to remain competitive.  You can win with an all deathwing list, but against seasoned players, your strategy becomes 1 sided and predictable.

 

I think that because of the meta now, they are moving towards more of a support role whose primary task is to sit on objectives or engage MCs and tanks up close using their deepstrike or a land raider.  2 DW squads at most (using normal term squads or DWKs) is the optimal build either geared for shooting or cc.  

[march10k]

I don't want to sound rude but I think that you play with poor opponents guys. At the moment basically any army commanded by a player with equal skill to a Deathwing player can eat DW on breakfast. I'm sorry to disappoint you but in any kind of competitive environment pure Deathwing is not a playable faction at the moment. Two land raiders or not you are gonna get owned unless you face unskilled or unprepared opponent.

"Unprepared opponent?" That sounds like "hasn't had the opportunity to tweak his list to deal with mine." Of course anyone who reads my list and then modifies his own is going to beat me. I really only have two different models in my list, TDA and land raiders. That's not hard to counter if you tailor your list. But two can play that game. While you're gearing up to meltaspam my land raiders, I'm slipping in a pair of whirlwinds to blow holes in the gun line that you expect to torrent my termies with. Or whatever.

 

Sure, there are all comers lists that will beat mine when run by an equally skilled player. There's no such thing as an unbeatable list, or an unplayable one. But by and large, bringing more of something than the average competitive list is prepared for (in this case, venerable 4++ crusaders), and sidelining 90% of his shooting for 1/3 of the game, those are recipes for success, especially when they let you pick a target or three and eliminate them before the enemy can respond.

 

As for Tokyo players...there are two kinds. There're the casual ones, like everywhere else...and then there are the WAAC tourney players who are as mechanical and joyless as a Korean professional Starcraft player.

[rover]

It's not about tweaking the list to counter a particular build. It's about universal character of the lists that are made by experienced players. They usualy manage all potential threats without any tweaks vs particular armies.

What makes me think that you face mostly casual players is the fact that you wrote that one LR in CC range is a usually a win for you. It looks like that on a paper but it's not like that on a table top. The people you play with seem to lack a basic knowledge about countering your build and as a matter of fact it's very easy for most armies without even touchning your Land Raiders.

What worries me on the other hand is that your list really seems to be one of the most punishing DW options (which is sad tbh).

As a pure DW player I still think it's not really meant for a competitive play though. I understand your point of view and I would love DW to be a better army but I still can't buy what you try to sell here

[march10k]

~shrug~

 

There are armies that can avoid my crusader rush, sure.  Most of them start the game with little or nothing on the table, like drop pod lists and daemons.  It's hard to rush what isn't there, and those lists flip the script on me in that they get to see my deployment before they hit the table, so all I can do then is drop both raiders together where I have the best shot of dominating the most objectives.  Those are really tough games.  And there are a few that are so incredibly mobile (ravenwing, for example) that they can stay out of range indefinitely.  But any list that relies on tracked, 4-wheeled, or foot transportation has a hell of a time, bubble wrap be damned (I have plenty of turn two shooting to blow a hole in that), trying to keep my melee units off of their targets.

 

Also, I don't think I said getting one land raider in range is "usually a win for me."  What I think I said is that getting one land raider in range lets my plan unfold as intended.  That's nowhere near auto-win!  I still have to worry about objectives and such, which is tough when you start the game with three scoring units.  Getting that land raider in range (or both) just lets me kill the unit or three whose survival would make it damned near impossible for me.  Then the real fight starts.

 

Anyway, my list is not a casual list, I don't play it in friendly games. For friendlies, it's battle company lists (no dakkapole) that always include the fun stuff, like assault marines, that don't belong in competitive gaming. This list only comes out in competitive play...and it competes.  If I wanted to just roll people in those games, I'd play my mechanized guard.  Nobody's prepared for seventeen tanks, cause everyone knows they're too fragile, so they all dropped their transports AND their anti-transport weapons (except for the stupid ADL quad gun).  Those games are methodical and boring.  29 heavy weapons, 12 special weapons, and four pieplates makes for a really bloody mess in one hell of a hurry.  But it's not any fun, it's jsut sit there and throw dice.  Playing DW against a competent opponent...that's fun, because it's hard.

[Darkangeldentist]

Apologies for resurrecting the thread but after reading it I want add my thoughts to the mix. I think Deathwing are playable and certainly fun but with a lot of very bad matchups and games can always be made difficult because of the mission. This does not, I think, make them particularly uncompetitive though.

I'm with March10k on the double land raider list as a great basis for a pure Deathwing army. Personally I take regular land raiders, I like the range and tank busting firepower. The mass of twin-linked firepower they bring is good and it's still possible (not likely but possible) for them to take down 4 tanks a turn. The limited transport capacity is annoying but it does give the list some valuable transport options.

I've also found Deathwing to be (perhaps surprisingly) fun and effective at 1500pts. Yes a third of the points go on land raiders so the list is tiny but it works and I've enjoyed using it a lot. Having not used the pure list against Tau yet (so perhaps I'm just naive about it at the moment) I can only go on my experience against them with other lists but past experience has shown me that land raiders are not that terrible against even the Tau. They still need to roll quite well to get past the armour.

Even at 1500pts there are enough points to get a librarian, Belial and 3 terminator squads and their most recent outing was enormously entertaining. It also reminded me just how important it is to appreciate how 6th edition has changed the value of a 2+ save.

Combat is no longer as scary as it once was and the nature of the 2+ save means that unless the opponent has the correct tools it is very, very hard to guage how much to commit towards the removal of a unit. The same applies to tanks like land raiders. Yes it could go pop from the first shot but on the other hand it could also hang on till the end of the game because you opponent just never rolls quite high enough. Even against melta and the infamous Tau rail guns (the one that are still strength 10) they need to roll quite well to get that penetrating hit they need to really worry the land raider.

The latest outing for my pure Deathwing was very entertaining, The dice skew was obscene so I can take no credit whatsoever about the result but it does reflect on a couple of valuable facets of playing pure Deathwing lists. My opponent is an old and familiar foe, a very good player who currently runs Orks (not the most up to date army but still pretty decent in my view). He was fielding a Wazzdakka biker army, some 30 ork bikes with powerklaw nobs (one exception), 2 small units of deff koptas plus a few gretchin and an ork dakka jet.

Belial with a heavy flamer terminator squad is a lovely thing to drop on someone and especially orks, both games it did spectacularly well on arrival and although the heavy flamer never survived the following turn it was worth the investment. The other two squads with assault cannons and storm bolters did really well over the course of the game. It would be nastier if I had some black knights and the grenade launcher to make the job easier but that would be breaking the theme and require quite a lot of point juggling.

The assault cannon squads did not deep strike, I found the advantage of deploying in the land raiders better because I could dictate range better and although it meant that in the second game the librarian started hiding behind one of the raiders is still worked out a good decision. The plan with the list was simple, Belial and his squad make a turn 1 alpha strike to one side and then the rest of the army tried to either finish off the mauled unit or take down as many of the models that would be able to retaliate against Belial's unit next turn. The plan worked, the heavy flamer killed 5-6 bikers each time it landed and with the storm bolters and a bit of support there was generally only 2-3 orks from that unit left. The rest of the army whittled down the next nearest unit which leads us to where the game got a bit silly. In both games my saves were amazing, it forced complete rethinks in strategy from my opponent and swung the games hugely in my favour. First game was closer and the dice saw Belial as the sole survivor of his unit take most of a unit of bikes shooting on the chin in one turn to then wade into combat. The sword of silence was amazing and I am really taken with it, such an improvement on the previous version. In the second game things got really silly when a unit of terminators took on first the shooting from 15 ork bikers followed by a charge with Wazzdakka and not one terminator fell that turn! (He rolled well, I just didn't fail any saves.) Needless to say the game did not go well for the Orks after that.

Now the match up was a not bad and the dice were a bit crazy but it does bring up a very relevent point about Deathwing armies. Your opponent has to be very thoughtful about what and how much they commit to taking down anything and everything in the army. A squad of terminators can reasonably expect to weather small arms fire fairly well but enough shots should see them fall and I've seen more than enough terminators die to just a handful of shots. (Belial was eventually brought down in the first game to a volley of Gretchin shots! ) The question is how many saves will it take to kill those terminators? Good opponents will try to maximise their efficiency by taking opportunistic shots first and follow up with their most reliable options later but the question of how much to commit initially is actually quite difficult. As my opponent found, what he initially assumed would be enough to deal with my units turned out to be terribly off and in the first game it swung the game as Belial was able to wipe out his smaller units and remove his options to contest objectives and as a result remove any chance of taking the game by controlling and contesting objectives.

So the key to maximising your chances is to split their army up as much as possible. Take out their long range fire if possible and focus on those units that most reliably and effectively threaten yours. Never be afraid to put down an aggressive sacrifice, Belial's no scatter deep strike makes him an ideal option for this kind of tactic and he can really damage an opponent's morale and focus if he survives the turn following his arrival.

Now it's all well and good highlighting how particular pieces are good counters to various options but it always comes down to a combination of how well you can apply those choices to their targets and how lucky you or your opponent is on any one turn. Deathwing are a scapel army that has to remove specific threats early if it wants to win and will always be prey to the vagaries of dice but no one is saying they are an easy army to win with.

As a competitive army I feel they are in an ok spot, a skew list that can throw people for a loop and one that has the tools to bring down just about anything with a bit of luck. The new armies that I have been seeing do not make me feel that we are in any worse a position than previously. Deathwing is certainly not the most powerful way to run Dark angels (I don't them to be either) but they aren't a bad way to run them either. With such a specialised list you are always going to be making your bad match ups worse because of that over-specialisation but it also makes those armies that aren't able to cope more vulnerable. I have been trying to keep up to date with the other armies and currently don't think any of them stand out too much. By and large GW seems to be doing a good job not making any of the book too powerful. (Forgeworld additions aside.)

I may well have a chance to put Deathwing to the test in a competitive environment soon so perhaps I'll get a good chance to really test them out. Will have to see though.

[[TA]Typher]

Apologies for resurrecting the thread but after reading it I want add my thoughts to the mix. I think Deathwing are playable and certainly fun but with a lot of very bad matchups and games can always be made difficult because of the mission. This does not, I think, make them particularly uncompetitive though.

 

 

I may well have a chance to put Deathwing to the test in a competitive environment soon so perhaps I'll get a good chance to really test them out. Will have to see though.

Against orks they can do well, but nob bikers with power klaws, cybork bodies, wahgg banner and a pain boy will consistantly beat all but DWKs.

 

As for the tau, you should find a veteran player. And try your pure DW. Going up against 30+ shots at ballistic skill 5, strength 5 and ignore cover will make you think twice about the competitiveness of a pure DW list.couple that with a strength 10, balistic skill 5 tank with the tank hunter special rule and your landraiders probably wont survive the game. Dirt cheap fire warriors and cheesy wargear really hurts the low

Model count lists.

 

I haven't played againstthe new Eldar yet. Hopefully it won't be as bad as it sounds.

 

Don't get me wrong I'll always play DW because I lov'em, i doubt we'll Be seeing pure DW at the top of any tourney lists.

[Master Avoghai]

There's something very funny in the posts of those arguing that DW is weak.

 

In filigran, you always feel the argument "your opponent are weak" or "try to fight with a REAL good general"

 

I find it very despising first. You can't judge the level of anyone without playing against him.

 

Secondly, and it has a relation, I can't judge your level either. A little bit of humility guys. Who proves me that you got beaten by tau/eldar/whatever only because the codex of your opponent and its special rules were better? Who proves me that your opponent was of equal gaming level?

 

Actually nothing. At least, there are no more proof as when you claim that march10k or others only win because their opponents are weak.

[BigGumbo]

 

Apologies for resurrecting the thread but after reading it I want add my thoughts to the mix. I think Deathwing are playable and certainly fun but with a lot of very bad matchups and games can always be made difficult because of the mission. This does not, I think, make them particularly uncompetitive though.

 

 

I may well have a chance to put Deathwing to the test in a competitive environment soon so perhaps I'll get a good chance to really test them out. Will have to see though.

Against orks they can do well, but nob bikers with power klaws, cybork bodies, wahgg banner and a pain boy will consistantly beat all but DWKs.

 

As for the tau, you should find a veteran player. And try your pure DW. Going up against 30+ shots at ballistic skill 5, strength 5 and ignore cover will make you think twice about the competitiveness of a pure DW list.couple that with a strength 10, balistic skill 5 tank with the tank hunter special rule and your landraiders probably wont survive the game. Dirt cheap fire warriors and cheesy wargear really hurts the low

Model count lists.

 

I haven't played againstthe new Eldar yet. Hopefully it won't be as bad as it sounds.

 

Don't get me wrong I'll always play DW because I lov'em, i doubt we'll Be seeing pure DW at the top of any tourney lists.

Oh good, another "try them against this specific enemy unit" post explaining why DW isn't competitive. Thanks for that.  

 

Interesting implicit definition of competitive too: how many Codexes are competitive on the measure of being seen "at the top of ... tourney lists"? Logically there can only one at any one time, so is this really what you mean by competitive?

[march10k]

 

 

 

Against orks they can do well, but nob bikers with power klaws, cybork bodies, wahgg banner and a pain boy will consistantly beat all but DWKs.

That's great...his deathstar unit is unbeatable...except by our deathstar unit?  Advantage: DW? 

 

As for the tau, you should find a veteran player. And try your pure DW. Going up against 30+ shots at ballistic skill 5, strength 5 and ignore cover will make you think twice about the competitiveness of a pure DW list.couple that with a strength 10, balistic skill 5 tank with the tank hunter special rule and your landraiders probably wont survive the game. Dirt cheap fire warriors and cheesy wargear really hurts the low

Model count lists.

 

~sigh~  I am a veteran tau player and a veteran deathwing player.  Well, as veteran as it's possible to be with a new codex. 

 

30+ shots with BS5 sounds fantastic...and I've exceeded that total more than once.  But very few players are stupid enough to allow that to be the norm.  They (including DW) will find ways to break LOS so that only the targeted squad of FW, plus maybe a fractional one, shares LOS with them.  wrecked transports make excellent LOS-blockers. You can talk all day about how great it is when you have dozens of FW double-tapping an enemy to force 4-5 saves per model, but it's not really that common.  If they can't safely get within 30" of you, they damned sure aren't going to volunteer to do it unsafely.

[Garath]

  Hi guys- great read so far!

 

  Before I start my (fairly long) post I will just flat out state that I love March10k's idea!  It composes everything a list should have- specific model choices combined into a plan greater then the sum of it's parts and a element of surprise.

 

 That ,in itself, is a major boost to one's chances in a tournament setting

 

 

  Now onto my reasoning.  This list is a classical idea of mechanized Deathwing with some newish toys wored into it (Librarian and DK ).

  I've spent quite a bit of time reading all 3 pages of this topic so far and have to say that some of the con's of this concept that have been presented here (so far) indeed to stand (there was this thing about SMS and whatnot) . While I do agree that this list has counters to it- no one presented them before hearing  March10k's plan form A to Z.

 

That might mean a lot of people would get surprised by 2 land raniders rushing them on turn 1.

 

Once you get surprised in 40k, and off guard, by such a list - bouncing back will be very hard indeed

 

One thing that no one talked about so far is the fact that if you're playing against a list that has only one or 2 models that can kill a Land raider at range ( and I'm not talking about 5-6 lascannons on the other side of the table) a new kind of game  can be played- the one where 2 LRC  are driving around and just shooting people with no replay whatsoever.

 

Another thing worth mentioning here is the fact that land raiders, especially OUR DW landraiders have the option to just tank shock stuff to death.Stuff lik MC.

 

That is more then viable- all you need is 2 units to stand behind the MC at a 45 degree angle behind it and block it's escape (as it needs to have space to avoid tank shock ) and the LR has to take a single auto hit- with AV,4++ and whatnot you bet your sweet behind it will.

 

 Those 2 units could be a terminator squad (teleported in without scatter by Belial) and ...another LR?

 

 

   

[Darkangeldentist]

I generally play very competent gamers who have been playing for a long time. Currently there are a few Tau and Eldar forces floating around and I will post my experiences against them using pure Deathwing when they happen. I have played against Tau with Dark angels and I know very well what their firepower can do. How easily they can apply that firepower is very much subject to factors such as terrain and deployment. It is easy to point out how nasty Tau firepower can be, it is very nasty indeed but the question is whether they can apply it effectively and what can be done to prevent it. 

 

Player skill is largely impossible to determine via this kind of discussion but it's always better to assume everyone is a competent and experienced player unless stated otherwise. 

 

I've been playing Dark angels for many years, most of them competitively and feel that Deathwing are probably in a better place than they have been for a long time. The support from Librarians is better than it ever has been and the Deathwing are more flexible than previously for a largely un-significant jump in points. Everything about the army is at least as good as it used to be save the cost of the thunder hammer and storm shield combo.

 

Meta is going to be subject to what's being played in the local area but more generally I've seen more and more people focus on weight of fire, a few choice toys and specialist units/characters to deal with specific threats. Deathwing are vulnerable to specialists who can deal with their armour and are very unpredictable against weight of fire. However they are also quite capable of removing those threats themselves and more often than not Deathwing will get the first chance to remove that threat. (How reliably they can do that is something else though.)

[elphilo]

Oh good, another "try them against this specific enemy unit" post explaining why DW isn't competitive. Thanks for that.

Interesting implicit definition of competitive too: how many Codexes are competitive on the measure of being seen "at the top of ... tourney lists"? Logically there can only one at any one time, so is this really what you mean by competitive?

Sigh. We know Deathwing will never be "A NUMBER 1 GUY!!!!!!!!!" We're not asking for that, nor have we ever asked for that. This is getting a little old when I have to constantly repeat my self. We would like to be in a position to be in the top 16, no thats probably asking for too much, top 32 of a GT. And in this current edition some of us feel that is extremely hard borderlining on the impossible.

And telling you to play them versus Tau is too much because? As I've stated multiple times before in this thread, Tau are a meta changer. You'll most likely start seeing them in the top brackets of events because their firepower is that overwhelming. And because of this rise you'll also probably see the rise of Daemons because they are Tau's hard counter. So in this meta, cheap overwhelming firepower and cheap fast multiple wound assault units *cough Khorne Hounds cough*, its really hard for an elite army to do well. Before you would be outnumbered 2:1, but now you're looking at 4:1 and those odds just don't help.

There's something very funny in the posts of those arguing that DW is weak.

In filigran, you always feel the argument "your opponent are weak" or "try to fight with a REAL good general"

I find it very despising first. You can't judge the level of anyone without playing against him.

Secondly, and it has a relation, I can't judge your level either. A little bit of humility guys. Who proves me that you got beaten by tau/eldar/whatever only because the codex of your opponent and its special rules were better? Who proves me that your opponent was of equal gaming level?

Actually nothing. At least, there are no more proof as when you claim that march10k or others only win because their opponents are weak.

True, skill level of both players need to be taken into account. But since we're just arguing about meta I think its safe to assume that players are on an equal skill level.

~sigh~ I am a veteran tau player and a veteran deathwing player. Well, as veteran as it's possible to be with a new codex.

30+ shots with BS5 sounds fantastic...and I've exceeded that total more than once. But very few players are stupid enough to allow that to be the norm. They (including DW) will find ways to break LOS so that only the targeted squad of FW, plus maybe a fractional one, shares LOS with them. wrecked transports make excellent LOS-blockers. You can talk all day about how great it is when you have dozens of FW double-tapping an enemy to force 4-5 saves per model, but it's not really that common. If they can't safely get within 30" of you, they damned sure aren't going to volunteer to do it unsafely.

You're right, you're not going to willing charge a Tau blob without line of sight blocking stuff. But that might be harder than you think. Since you cannot move the transport after disembarking the unit. Meaning no turbo boosting that turn. So around turn 3 you'll be set up to block line of sight? I still think that a TAC Tau is going to have some sort of fusion blasters with target lock deep striking to destroy those Land Raiders. Yeah they're probably going to die to the assault next turn, but he just chopped your mobility in half.

Honestly I think your dual Land Raider list is the best equipped list to take on a tournament. But I also think you're still going to have a rough time versus a TAC Tau list. You'll also probably have a rough time versus a Daemon Flying Circus list, though you'll probably be at an advantage versus a Herald list. But the more popular of the two is the flying circus list unfortunately

Another thing worth mentioning here is the fact that land raiders, especially OUR DW landraiders have the option to just tank shock stuff to death.Stuff lik MC.

That is more then viable- all you need is 2 units to stand behind the MC at a 45 degree angle behind it and block it's escape (as it needs to have space to avoid tank shock ) and the LR has to take a single auto hit- with AV,4++ and whatnot you bet your sweet behind it will.

Those 2 units could be a terminator squad (teleported in without scatter by Belial) and ...another LR?

While I like your thinking about tank shocking MCs (and who doesn't like that idea of squishing something so big :D) I don't think it'll work out very well versus a Riptide. Those suckers are fast with their overcharged jump move of 4d6. You're only going to be able to do that if the Tau player lets you. The only real scenario I can come up with in my head (though I'm sure there are more than this single instance) is you've successfully killed all his AV14 killers and his last resort is the Riptide in melee smashing your Land Raider. If he's successful that Riptide is dead because of all the goodies that just popped out of the Land Raider

[elphilo]

I've been playing Dark angels for many years, most of them competitively and feel that Deathwing are probably in a better place than they have been for a long time. The support from Librarians is better than it ever has been and the Deathwing are more flexible than previously for a largely un-significant jump in points. Everything about the army is at least as good as it used to be save the cost of the thunder hammer and storm shield combo.

Well we can't really argue points until we see what the SM get in their codex. Then we can figure out how many points all our rules cost

Meta is going to be subject to what's being played in the local area but more generally I've seen more and more people focus on weight of fire, a few choice toys and specialist units/characters to deal with specific threats. Deathwing are vulnerable to specialists who can deal with their armour and are very unpredictable against weight of fire. However they are also quite capable of removing those threats themselves and more often than not Deathwing will get the first chance to remove that threat. (How reliably they can do that is something else though.)

You're right, the local meta changes from place to place. Which is why I assumed we were talking about Tournament Meta, that is usually more static than anyone's local meta.

[BigGumbo]

 

Oh good, another "try them against this specific enemy unit" post explaining why DW isn't competitive. Thanks for that.  

 

Interesting implicit definition of competitive too: how many Codexes are competitive on the measure of being seen "at the top of ... tourney lists"? Logically there can only one at any one time, so is this really what you mean by competitive?

Sigh. We know Deathwing will never be "A NUMBER 1 GUY!!!!!!!!!" We're not asking for that, nor have we ever asked for that. This is getting a little old when I have to constantly repeat my self. We would like to be in a position to be in the top 16, no thats probably asking for too much, top 32 of a GT. And in this current edition some of us feel that is extremely hard borderlining on the impossible.

 

And telling you to play them versus Tau is too much because? As I've stated multiple times before in this thread, Tau are a meta changer. You'll most likely start seeing them in the top brackets of events because their firepower is that overwhelming. And because of this rise you'll also probably see the rise of Daemons because they are Tau's hard counter. So in this meta, cheap overwhelming firepower and cheap fast multiple wound assault units *cough Khorne Hounds cough*, its really hard for an elite army to do well. Before you would be outnumbered 2:1, but now you're looking at 4:1 and those odds just don't help.

If I'd been responding to one of your posts, your long-suffering sigh would have been justified. But I wasn't. TATypher didn't explain what he meant by "top of tourney lists", hence the need for interpretation. Top 16 or Top 32? Fine, that's your measure but it's not necessarily an obvious standard - when someone says to me "at the top" I assume that they mean, you know, at the top ... not "up to fifteen places below the top".

 

Also, I wasn't referring to Tau, but to the Nob warbike unit - you know, the one-off thing that you might or might not encounter which doesn't prove anything as an example in a vacuum, as opposed to the whole new gamechanging codex that, er, still doesn't prove anything in a vacuum. Let's wait and see whether we do actually start to see them in the top brackets of events before claiming them as a meta-changer, shall we? Anything else is theorising and fails to take account of relative skill levels, tournament missions, terrain placement, dice rolling etc and so on - to say nothing of the possibility of them being eliminated by a non-DW army that the DW turn out to be quite well placed to beat.

[Master Avoghai]

Sigh. We know Deathwing will never be "A NUMBER 1 GUY!!!!!!!!!" We're not asking for that, nor have we ever asked for that. This is getting a little old when I have to constantly repeat my self. We would like to be in a position to be in the top 16, no thats probably asking for too much, top 32 of a GT. And in this current edition some of us feel that is extremely hard borderlining on the impossible.

Maybe you don't elphilo but some other do. You're tired to see people reproaching others to claim for DW being number 1 at tourny because its not what you're asking for.

 

But just look : each time we try to argue that DW has strength and that tactics exist to make convenient result in a tourny, you have someone bringing back the argument "yeah but against multi tzeentch MC army, you'll get in trouble" (that or a necron flyers list)

Long story short : the DW doesn't beat the number 1 tourny armies.

 

Soooo people doesn't want DW to be #1 but want them to beat #1s? See the paradox and why the opposite camp always argue in a way you don't like?

 

The other classic reply is "yeah but against this type of army (tailored against DW) you'll are in big trouble". Sure but what is the result of this army in global meta? Cos if they beat my DW but lose the other 5 games and in the opposite, I win 4 games and lose 2, my DW does better result in the meta.

 

What Biggumbo is replying to is more this type of argument and even more specifically about the "yeah but unit X is a Death Star for DW". What's the point of such argument? You'll agree to say none.

 

Last thing : DW are also doing bad result because in high level tournies, lots of people are playing copy/paste armies more or less. So if on a tourny of 24 players, you'll have 14 players using roughly the same lists, yeah it would be hard for DW to be in the top 12... But they have not 15 armies better than them they have 5x3 armies better which is different...

[Darkangeldentist]

I've been playing Dark angels for many years, most of them competitively and feel that Deathwing are probably in a better place than they have been for a long time. The support from Librarians is better than it ever has been and the Deathwing are more flexible than previously for a largely un-significant jump in points. Everything about the army is at least as good as it used to be save the cost of the thunder hammer and storm shield combo.

Well we can't really argue points until we see what the SM get in their codex. Then we can figure out how many points all our rules cost

>Meta is going to be subject to what's being played in the local area but more generally I've seen more and more people focus on weight of fire, a few choice toys and specialist units/characters to deal with specific threats. Deathwing are vulnerable to specialists who can deal with their armour and are very unpredictable against weight of fire. However they are also quite capable of removing those threats themselves and more often than not Deathwing will get the first chance to remove that threat. (How reliably they can do that is something else though.)

You're right, the local meta changes from place to place. Which is why I assumed we were talking about Tournament Meta, that is usually more static than anyone's local meta.

True tournaments tend to flux only when a big shift happens in the balance of power for armies. However meta shifts can have odd consequences, Tau may be on the rise but I think there are some very effective counters to them, Eldar and Necrons are my immediate thoughts in that regard and one of them is already considered a strong tournament force.

One of the things that is interesting about tournament meta though is that what is seen is strong doesn't always win events. The saturation of a particularly strong army type tends to skew tournaments so that the winner will be the army best suited to countering that type. This was particularly well demonstrated back in third edition when marine type armies dominated tournament participation but frequently it was Eldar that would walk off with the top spot because they could deal with marines most effectively.

I don't think any of the newer codices are necessarily pushing a shift in the meta that will make Deathwing stronger but the counters to them might.

[elphilo]

Oh good, another "try them against this specific enemy unit" post explaining why DW isn't competitive. Thanks for that.

Interesting implicit definition of competitive too: how many Codexes are competitive on the measure of being seen "at the top of ... tourney lists"? Logically there can only one at any one time, so is this really what you mean by competitive?

Sigh. We know Deathwing will never be "A NUMBER 1 GUY!!!!!!!!!" We're not asking for that, nor have we ever asked for that. This is getting a little old when I have to constantly repeat my self. We would like to be in a position to be in the top 16, no thats probably asking for too much, top 32 of a GT. And in this current edition some of us feel that is extremely hard borderlining on the impossible.

And telling you to play them versus Tau is too much because? As I've stated multiple times before in this thread, Tau are a meta changer. You'll most likely start seeing them in the top brackets of events because their firepower is that overwhelming. And because of this rise you'll also probably see the rise of Daemons because they are Tau's hard counter. So in this meta, cheap overwhelming firepower and cheap fast multiple wound assault units *cough Khorne Hounds cough*, its really hard for an elite army to do well. Before you would be outnumbered 2:1, but now you're looking at 4:1 and those odds just don't help.

If I'd been responding to one of your posts, your long-suffering sigh would have been justified. But I wasn't. TATypher didn't explain what he meant by "top of tourney lists", hence the need for interpretation. Top 16 or Top 32? Fine, that's your measure but it's not necessarily an obvious standard - when someone says to me "at the top" I assume that they mean, you know, at the top ... not "up to fifteen places below the top".

Also, I wasn't referring to Tau, but to the Nob warbike unit - you know, the one-off thing that you might or might not encounter which doesn't prove anything as an example in a vacuum, as opposed to the whole new gamechanging codex that, er, still doesn't prove anything in a vacuum. Let's wait and see whether we do actually start to see them in the top brackets of events before claiming them as a meta-changer, shall we? Anything else is theorising and fails to take account of relative skill levels, tournament missions, terrain placement, dice rolling etc and so on - to say nothing of the possibility of them being eliminated by a non-DW army that the DW turn out to be quite well placed to beat.

The sigh was a general sigh because it seems every time someone states they don't think the Deathwing is competitive someones response is "Deathwing has never been a tournament winner." Which isn't what was said. What was said is we wish Deathwing would be competitive in the current tournament environment. Which is pretty much stated in almost every single one of my posts, hence the sigh.

As to the Ork thing I apologize about that, I thought you were talking about Tau. Though you're right, you're probably not going to face them that much in the meta. But if you do face Orks, you probably will face a Warboss on bike (he's known as the "green torpedo" in my neck of the woods) with a strong possibility of Nobs on bikes.

Sigh. We know Deathwing will never be "A NUMBER 1 GUY!!!!!!!!!" We're not asking for that, nor have we ever asked for that. This is getting a little old when I have to constantly repeat my self. We would like to be in a position to be in the top 16, no thats probably asking for too much, top 32 of a GT. And in this current edition some of us feel that is extremely hard borderlining on the impossible.

Maybe you don't elphilo but some other do. You're tired to see people reproaching others to claim for DW being number 1 at tourny because its not what you're asking for.

But just look : each time we try to argue that DW has strength and that tactics exist to make convenient result in a tourny, you have someone bringing back the argument "yeah but against multi tzeentch MC army, you'll get in trouble" (that or a necron flyers list)

Long story short : the DW doesn't beat the number 1 tourny armies.

Soooo people doesn't want DW to be #1 but want them to beat #1s? See the paradox and why the opposite camp always argue in a way you don't like?

The other classic reply is "yeah but against this type of army (tailored against DW) you'll are in big trouble". Sure but what is the result of this army in global meta? Cos if they beat my DW but lose the other 5 games and in the opposite, I win 4 games and lose 2, my DW does better result in the meta.

What Biggumbo is replying to is more this type of argument and even more specifically about the "yeah but unit X is a Death Star for DW". What's the point of such argument? You'll agree to say none.

Last thing : DW are also doing bad result because in high level tournies, lots of people are playing copy/paste armies more or less. So if on a tourny of 24 players, you'll have 14 players using roughly the same lists, yeah it would be hard for DW to be in the top 12... But they have not 15 armies better than them they have 5x3 armies better which is different...

I see your point about the circular arguing. And honestly about 2 pages ago I've felt that. So with that said I'm going to do the agree to disagree thing and drop it.

I'm sure both sides are tired saying the same thing over and over