Comparing the Dark Angels to the Codex Astartes

[Chaplain Lucifer]

That was always the gist of it. SM was always more flexible than DA thus captivating to more "serious" players while DA is more apealling for people into modelling and fluff. But this comunity here is really invested in making DA Codex work and thanks to many people we now have Prot's Azz-zeke bombs, March10K's Mech DW and some other competitive ways to field DA. We just have to keep trying to come up with more ways to "beat the system".

[Master Avoghai]

I think the reason those players don't take da to the table is because they go with what's easy. Nobody wants to work to make a good list they want to grab paint and assemble and roll faces. And you simply have more options to do it in other books. Why make ravenwing work when you can use white scars. Why take Greenwing if you can bring sentinels of terra, Klan raukkan, or any of a pile of generic marines that have more options in the book and more things that generically fit togeather. The sm generic book revolves are fitting generic pieces togeather to finish the puzzle. Da's rely on select key items to bring it togeather.

You can also identify several reason.

- we had a crappy codex during 5 years, the current codex was classified "fine but not OP" when released and was followed by the totally OP Tau and elder codex... In people's mind, DA are just "average". When you go to win a competition, you cannot be satisfied of "average".

- the evolution of power of the DA codex doesn't come from a new edition of it. It comes from a new edition of the metagame. DWV became better thanks to the new damage charts, LS and DW LR became better due to secured objective, Nephilim hunter rule became better thanks to the new flyers crashing roll... As a consequence, players are not tempted to decrypt the DA codex like they would do if it has been released yesterday.

 

 

Of the games I've observed, I've RARELY seen OS contesting objectives with non-OS units in games

Yes but it seems here that you are mixing cause and consequences. You didn't see that because as a player, I don't see a point to bring a non OS unit on an objective hold by a OS unit. Or because I've made sure the OS unit don't hold it by destroying it.

 

It means that OS does have a consequence in term of game on the way the players will move their units. I don't think a tyranid players will act the same if his 20 haunts unit stand on an objective in front of a OS LR and in front of a non OS LR.

In the second case they can simply ignore it as it won't be able to make enough damage to prevent them to score... But in the first case it's another problem.

[Darkangeldentist]

Bringing the tournament scene into the discussion was inevitable but it does highlight some very important issues and one them is that success in competitive arenas is dependent on who represents which force and what the overall meta is at the time. 

 

It's been a long time since I was invested in competitive 40K, when I did GW still ran it's Grand tournaments as a (fairly) competitive annual event with heats and a final. I qualified through the heats every time plus used a different style of Dark angel list each year (Ravenwing, doublewing and classic mixed wing with just basic marines as the troops). This was under the previous (and generally maligned) book that so many found lacking competitively. Even managed as high as 2nd overall in one heat but I failed to actually take the top spot so perhaps that does show the book to be have been lacking.

 

Perception is always going to be difficult to change and Dark angels are definitely stygmatised by their history of being underpowered relative to other codices. The current Tau and Eldar books that followed our release in the current cycle didn't do anything to change that belief and the perception that DA are less powerful/competitive than other chapters is a hard one to shake. I don't accept it myself because I've seen what Dark angels can do in the right hands and against a large variety of foes. A bit of luck will be involved but it's a game of dice, that's inevitable.

 

Now the differences in gaming groups and the level of play does impact hugely on what counts as a competitive list. I argue that Dark angels are competitive because my experience with them demonstrates them to be so. I win most of my games and rarely if ever feel that a loss was down to their army simply being so much better. I am no longer as aware of the greater gaming trends as I used to be even though I have faced some of those highly regarded competitive builds and beaten them. So perhaps my view is too skewed and limited to really assess Dark angels as objectively as I should but I will still talk about their positives and my exploits with them when I can.

 

It has been good to read about the things other people see as being differences between Dark angels and other Space marines, it is always good to discuss these things as it can influence people to reassess units, lists, tactics and strategies with a new open mind in light of the views expressed.

[Mc_luhvin]

Ezekiels model. That's it. Done. Discussion over. No really, Ezekiels model was what drew me to look up the dark angels and read about their lore and differences to ultramarines (the other marine army I was considering), glad I chose DA

[SvenONE]

The tourney aspect is a good point and I see it similar to Luci's sentiments.  I think tournament players represent a sot of hyper-playtesting of simply playing the codices into the ground until you've emerged with some pretty strong lists.  But the SM codex almost half our age and they've already emerged really well as a top tier codex, a good portion of them using White Scars Bike armies (reportedly at least).  Here's a recent posting from a tournament.   I think that's a pretty telling sign of what competitive players think of DA codex.

 

I'll be honest, in a year of posting on these boards (I haunted Heresy-Online/Warseer before settling here) We haven't really seen any major developments if you ask me.  I feel like if there was some golden list out there, we'd have seen it by now.  A lot of us seem to be active enough and have armies vast enough to have tried these lists.  Most of us I will say though seem to be very GW and DW heavy, with RW not really being as talked about as much.

 

D.A.D, you make some great points as always.  But I still think there is, appropriately so, a little bit of denial in DA players, on how good we perceive our codex to be vs how good it actually is.  In the example of the "synergy" of delivering our terminators, that's the only thing we have -- so of course we're going to accept it over other avenues, we don't have much of a choice.  As a small sidebar, I believe in the purging of Kadillus has a scene in which a scout squad directs, and sacrifices itself for a Deep-Striking Belial to issue a blow to Ork operations.  I find it comical that our Deathwing the guys who show up WHEN YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED SOMETHING DEAD, only have 2 forms of reliable delivery, one of which you see coming a mile away (Landraider).  But it's more than just that, I have a saying in my line of work "you can't put a dress on a piece of :cuss and call it a doll".  I think you can argue how great our various aspects are, but in practice, are they really that great?  I would argue that putting at least 300 points of 8 models (3 RWAS bikes and 5 Terminators) within, what is most likely rapid-fire range of any army is foolhardy and a great way to throw 300 points away, but that's one specific exmaple.

 

But again, it's more than arguing over RW/DW tactics vs CSM's tactics with their bikes or terminators.  This is a matter of looking at the peculiar choices GWs made when it comes to writing this codex, especially when compared to other 6th edition codices, and our vanilla cousins.

 

Our warlord traits are ok at best, giving The Hunt to HQs who will, if pursuing that extra D3 will do "ok" vs most of the Warlords who they will be ultimately challenged by.

 

our relics are strange.  A 20 point storm bolter that has 1 better AP and 1 extra shot? 15 points more than a normal one? A power sword that costs THREE TIMES MORE than a normal power sword, which most of the time is going to be slightly stronger than a power sword? The Shroud of Heroes which gives FNP to ONE model and shrouded if it's not in a unit (and why tactically would one ever do that).  A 1 time use plasma cannon?

 

What about the many banners we have available to us.  The Company, Chapter, and Revered banners are largely forgettable especially given their cost.  When was the last time you entertained the need for the Standard of Retribution in your list.

 

Our company master, a member of the Inner Circle, but can't get on a bike? A terminator sarge who under no circumstances will give up his Power Sword for a thunder hammer while all his underlings can? Company champions who wield UNWIELDY power swords (for 15 points mind you), a landspeeder who's main armament costs nearly DOUBLE of the base vehicle and can glance itself? How about the strange fact that the C:SM codex librarians, who cost the same base, can get another mastery level 10 points cheaper than we can? The NJ's existence is polarizing enough to show all you need to say about that.  A Codex that has 3 unique types of landspeeders, and an advanced Landspeeder squadron, somehow can't produce some for their scouts to ride around in? Our Chaplain's have Zealot, but also have Inner Circle.

 

The codex is just loaded with so many oddities it's shaken my faith in GW as rules/games writers.

 

To me, it's not about, and never has been, having all the same goodies that C:SM has.  it's about having the options within our own codex to have it stand on its own, and in some cases I think it's pigeonholed into certain mixed-unit compositions which are both expensive and rigid in their execution.  It's also about having fun, and that's something that's always going to be gauged on a personal level, on my personal level, 1 out of ever 3 or 4 games is actually enjoyable playing Dark Angels.

 

My grieving isn't because I don't like Dark Angels, it's because I love Dark Angels and I want to see them perform well, I don't think anyone is out there saying "Dark Angels, solid codex"

[FerociousBeast]

 The codex is just loaded with so many oddities it's shaken my faith in GW as rules/games writers.

 

 

You had faith in GW as rules and game writers???

[Prot]

The tourney aspect is a good point and I see it similar to Luci's sentiments.  I think tournament players represent a sot of hyper-playtesting of simply playing the codices into the ground until you've emerged with some pretty strong lists.  But the SM codex almost half our age and they've already emerged really well as a top tier codex, a good portion of them using White Scars Bike armies (reportedly at least).  Here's a recent posting from a tournament.   I think that's a pretty telling sign of what competitive players think of DA codex.

 

 

I think this pretty much echoes my last post.... but I think I differ on some of the finer points of interest.

 

Some codexes have what I call 'oddities' that make them work regardless of age. Perfect point: 6th edition Nids. Everyone loves hating them as much as Chaos. A guy took Nids to Nova (can't remember if it was finals or not) but finished very high.... way higher than anyone would guess.

 

If I recall he used the monstrous creature, Iron arm combo which was strong.

 

Why did it work? So many people net list. I play against Netlist players frequently. I love to. I love to bring weird crap to my games and many netlisters are boggled by something that is not a netlist.  Sometimes someone brings something to your little comfy meta and it throws a fork right into the gears of 'netlist of the week'.

 

Old stuff does work if you find the oddity AND learn to leverage it.

 

I am not going to put my tournament resume here as it came across as fat headed, but let's pretend I've had some great, and moderate successes. And in each one I brought something you're not supposed to win with.

 

I think it can be done, but I think there are two ways of getting competitive (and I don't mean WAAC.) 1- you find a simple, cost effective unit, and you spam it. This usually means you're going to play your own game. You will win big, or lose big, and your opponents' moves don't really factor into how you roll your dice.

 

2 - Reactive lists. Reserved, but never huge wins, nor huge losses. How well do you know your opponent - is probably the best way to think of these lists.

 

Version 1 from the old days would be: Iron Warrriors: 9 oblits, 2 squads of troops, Lt., 3 Defilers. 1500 pts. (that's all I saw for a few years and learned to pull it apart piece by piece.) This was as simple as it gets.

Version 2 would have been my old Templars. Nothing stood out at all, but somehow I'd manage the wins.

 

I prefer version 2, and I think DA fits that standard.

 

Another consideration is 7th edition. IF objective play becomes the norm, it REALLY hurts version 1. Maelstrom, and tournaments that use (or even slightly leverage) that mechanic can change the tournament scene making Stand back and shoot armies far less potent. In my opinion DA work better in that scenario as well.

 

But at the end of the day it is not the units, nor their short comings that hurt the idea, it's the point efficiency. That's what it always is.  The "Grey Hunter" is considered by many to be the most points efficient marine troop in the game.  For a few years, a seemingly very basic Wolves list comprised of Razorkbacks and small squads was winning very competitive tournaments. They were well played of course, but the list fell in category 2 above. (in my opinion)

 

To prove a point I would start playing more in this direction with my DA, and less of my goofy experiments but it looks like I've got another project on the go! (i'm bad at multi-tasking!)

 

That being said I'd love someone to really show what can be done. You don't have to win a tournament, but I strongly believe that solid tactica, and a 'min-maxing' attitude with the DA codex could result in some top level competitive play.

[SvenONE]

I would actually say, as an exercise, try to play lists with different point costs.  Get a friend who's willing to play against your list.  Heck, March's DW list gets an extra 60 points out of that.  Or if you run a RW list, try running at 63 points per squad instead of our 80.  

[Darkangeldentist]

SvenONE, I could never argue any of the people I play to let me use Ravenwing at a discount. They all feel them to be overpowered, particularly black knights and the command squad. The land speeder vengence probably but my local group do not see anything overpriced about Ravenwing and Deathwing.

[Bryan Blaire]

But they don't think there's anything under-priced about theirs for competitive effectiveness either, do they?

 

One of the things I like people to do is swap armies, see what playing the other side really is like.

[Komrk]

The only way I would ever let someone play at reduced price is if either I got to reduce something's price (like Vanguard Vets, massive point sinks even before upgrades) or they lose objective secured if they're troops

[Varizel]

Just to put my 2 cents in,

The C:SM is always the better of the 2 codexes/codecii because they are updated, pts wise and playstyle wise. The way i looked at DA is they are like the classic SM from days ago, and play like them too, like 4th edition BBB old, so they are like, way behind times and have a bad pts efficiency. Examples:

1.We still use whirlwind where everybody else (Marines that is) already moving on to Thunderfire Cannon. While whirlwind is awesome and all, but Thunderfire Cannon for the pts you pay is really really really good and the go to for the SM guys besides Centurions. Hell... the latest game i got when i tested out 7th ed, a guy who played me was wondering what tank was i taking (Whirlwind) cuz he never saw it deployed before at all. After being told what the weapon stats is, he was puzzled and asked why i didn't take a TF Cannon instead? TF Cannon shoot like 4 times and whatnot, while Whirlwind only one, it comes with techmarine, blablabla, We all know the difference, i don't think i need to extrapolate. Suffice to say, when i said i don't have access to them, he was like wow... how old are your codex man?

2. Teleport Homer on our Ravenwing Bikers. Of course per fluff, it fits. It is a shame however that it limits Ravenwing to always teleports Deathwing. The moment we didn't use Deathwing, is the moment we waste points on our teleport homer. As per codex design, we paid for those homers. So it's either DeathRaven, or you paid extra for junks. I just see it as a missed chance to upgrade it to homing beacon, so you can use it for the drop pods too you know, or hell Landspeeders Squadrons. Actually making Ravenwing the true scout for Codex Dark Angels, expanding on their fluff too.

Of course those are just examples, and many more from our codex. Like new rules that benefited Deathwing Assaults/deepstrike only, Landspeeder that can kill itself (happened to me last time, it was hilarious though, cuz it made my opponents sweating bullets since his units is out in the open and really packed, only for the landspeeder to die without killing anything, and not from any of his units shooting at it too. Laughs to be had by all in the room , and it was worth it for me to take that unit just for THAT moment.), and others. Space Marines don't have that much discrepancies compared to us, and certainly not on supposedly key units like Deathwing.

Now of course, i don't say Whirlwind is bad, alright, or Ravenwing are bad too. I loved them. I used them. They won games for me and i loved those models too, ESPECIALLY whirlwind. I just put them as examples for the 2 pts i said which is old school, bad pts efficiency.

My 2 cents, man.

PS: @Prot: 6th Edition Nids don't have Iron Arms, they can't take any powers from the rulebook. You mean 5th ed Nids on 6th ed rules? Cuz Nids was pretty bonker awesome on 6th ed early on. Limited on built though.

[march10k]

6th edition emphasized S5/6 shooting.  7th hasn't really negated that, but maelstrom has added a few wrinkles.  While everything scores now, the distinction between regular scorers and super-scorers has made units with "objective secured" absolutely vital.  And the standard number of objectives now being six, you either need enough super-scoring units to saturate the objectives, or you need a few stupidly fast superscorers (eldar jetbikes?) combined with the firepower to kill any  enemy superscorers that might be camping the objective you just randomly generated.  At the same time, you need some balance, since there are also "kill stuff" objectives, some of them being specific to shooting or melee, and there are linebreaker and other mobility-related objectives, too.  So it seems like troops on bikes are a good choice...enter ravenwing.  Except for the way that RW got screwed on jink...but so did every other bike army...so ravenwing, not pure, but as a component of a well-rounded list.  Couple squads of bikes to zoom over and grab objectives, some tactical squads to camp near objectives while their empty drop pods crash far ones, maybe a single mechanized deathwing squad to  threaten the midfield and score melee kill objectives...?  Sounds like an Azrael list to me, I think DA can be really good at maelstrom, but not while playing monowing.  Let me gin up a list...

[Prot]

6th edition emphasized S5/6 shooting.  7th hasn't really negated that, but maelstrom has added a few wrinkles.  While everything scores now, the distinction between regular scorers and super-scorers has made units with "objective secured" absolutely vital.  And the standard number of objectives now being six, you either need enough super-scoring units to saturate the objectives, or you need a few stupidly fast superscorers (eldar jetbikes?) combined with the firepower to kill any  enemy superscorers that might be camping the objective you just randomly generated.  At the same time, you need some balance, since there are also "kill stuff" objectives, some of them being specific to shooting or melee, and there are linebreaker and other mobility-related objectives, too.  So it seems like troops on bikes are a good choice...enter ravenwing.  Except for the way that RW got screwed on jink...but so did every other bike army...so ravenwing, not pure, but as a component of a well-rounded list.  Couple squads of bikes to zoom over and grab objectives, some tactical squads to camp near objectives while their empty drop pods crash far ones, maybe a single mechanized deathwing squad to  threaten the midfield and score melee kill objectives...?  Sounds like an Azrael list to me, I think DA can be really good at maelstrom, but not while playing monowing.  Let me gin up a list...

 

 

You're echoing almost exactly what I've been saying for months with my Az-zeke bomb list. 

 

I went 12-0 with it in Maelstrom. It DOES work. I'd add one thing to what you're saying.... survivability in small units that are fast is HUGE. Jink did screw me over in my pure Ravenwing, but as a result it forced me to try Azrael which opened a whole new style of play for me. One squad of termies, break up some bikes. Zero rhino's (no need, too slow, too inconsistent) and you've still got some 'fun' points left over. 

 

I originally tried your dual Landraider list, and unfortunately I wouldn't walk within a country mile of those things in competitive play, regardless of where they are in the force org chart. Every time I try it in 7th, it bites me big time. I could just have the worst luck with them but for now I've found so much diversity in my Azrael drop pod lists, I just don't see the need.

 

This post had my collected thoughts on Azrael in Maelstrom, including batreps, unit reviews, successes/failures, and experimentation right here: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/293650-prots-az-zeke-bomb-or-az-bomb-dark-angel-tactica-for-7th-ed/

 

It garnered no real interest though so I've let it die and moved on  myself, but it was a real shocker to me once I started to understand it. A few times I was almost positive I was going to get my stuff pushed in, but a combination of luck and the right units and it all came together!

[march10k]

Well, having stumbled onto the same idea, I'm excited to try it out...I put up a list, wanna critique it?  Oh, and my version doesn't have azzy deepstrike, it has him ride in a PFGed crusader with a thundernator bomb (so no real purpose for Zeke, he can't cast psychic powers from inside the tank, so he's not in the list, although I really really strongly considered him).  But the 800 point deathstar in the middle of the table should take TONS of pressure off of the rest of the list, and with AV14, 4++, deathwing vehicle, and 5+ to repair...it's going to soak a LOT of pain.

 

/edit/

 

And my mechanized deathwing still work for me, it takes practice...but in 7th, it's no longer 4 squads and 2 tanks. It's 3 and 3.  Why?  Because the tanks are superscorers now, and the PFG works from inside now, so you can have three crusaders inside the 3" bubble.  So now it's only 16 termies where it used to be 21, but it's now 6 (super) scoring units instead of the 4 that I had before.  It's actually pretty much my 5th edition list, only the new codex and 7th edition rules (objective secured, PFG, melee weapons having an AP, etc) make it better.

[Prot]

That's awesome. I wouldn't even critique it because my own experiences with the Landraider lists keep running into big trouble, but I'd love to hear how yours turns out.

[The Shadow Guard]

Excellent thread......... but everyone has forgotten the one feature that makes the Codex: Dark Angels far superior to the Codex: Space Marine.

When you buy Codex Dark Angels you get access to THE DARK ANGELS FORUM OF THE BOLTER & CHAINSWORD! That is worth a regiment of Land Raiders and more!!!

Through good times and bad this forum makes up for any and all weaknesses, perceived and real, found in the Codex Dark Angels! A bortherhood forged in blood and adamantium!

SG

[SvenONE]

Excellent thread......... but everyone has forgotten the one feature that makes the Codex: Dark Angels far superior to the Codex: Space Marine.

When you buy Codex Dark Angels comes you get access to THE DARK ANGELS FORUM OF THE BOLTER & CHAINSWORD! That is worth a regiment of Land Raiders and more!!!

Through good times and bad this forum makes up for any and all weaknesses, perceived and real, found in the Codex Dark Angels! A bortherhood forged in blood and adamantium!

SG

[drops mic]

[leaves]

[JJD]

Just to put my 2 cents in,

 

The C:SM is always the better of the 2 codexes/codecii because they are updated, pts wise and playstyle wise. The way i looked at DA is they are like the classic SM from days ago, and play like them too, like 4th edition BBB old, so they are like, way behind times and have a bad pts efficiency. Examples:

 

1.We still use whirlwind where everybody else (Marines that is) already moving on to Thunderfire Cannon. While whirlwind is awesome and all, but Thunderfire Cannon for the pts you pay is really really really good and the go to for the SM guys besides Centurions. Hell... the latest game i got when i tested out 7th ed, a guy who played me was wondering what tank was i taking (Whirlwind) cuz he never saw it deployed before at all. After being told what the weapon stats is, he was puzzled and asked why i didn't take a TF Cannon instead? TF Cannon shoot like 4 times and whatnot, while Whirlwind only one, it comes with techmarine, blablabla, We all know the difference, i don't think i need to extrapolate. Suffice to say, when i said i don't have access to them, he was like wow... how old are your codex man?

 

2. Teleport Homer on our Ravenwing Bikers. Of course per fluff, it fits. It is a shame however that it limits Ravenwing to always teleports Deathwing. The moment we didn't use Deathwing, is the moment we waste points on our teleport homer. As per codex design, we paid for those homers. So it's either DeathRaven, or you paid extra for junks. I just see it as a missed chance to upgrade it to homing beacon, so you can use it for the drop pods too you know, or hell Landspeeders Squadrons. Actually making Ravenwing the true scout for Codex Dark Angels, expanding on their fluff too.

 

Of course those are just examples, and many more from our codex. Like new rules that benefited Deathwing Assaults/deepstrike only, Landspeeder that can kill itself (happened to me last time, it was hilarious though, cuz it made my opponents sweating bullets since his units is out in the open and really packed, only for the landspeeder to die without killing anything, and not from any of his units shooting at it too. Laughs to be had by all in the room :D, and it was worth it for me to take that unit just for THAT moment.), and others. Space Marines don't have that much discrepancies compared to us, and certainly not on supposedly key units like Deathwing.

 

This is an interesting point. Check out this article over at bold listing the ten worst units http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/07/the-10-crappiest-40k-units-out-there.html. Guess what was the 1st entry. And yet it is regularly fielded by DA's

 

I don't think it's a coincidence the two beginner set armies are not top tier as they want to encourage people to buy other armies but maybe that just me strapping on my tin foil hat.

 

That said there is plenty of good reasons to play DAs And I agree this forum is the biggest one.

[FerociousBeast]

That article at BoLS is bad even for BoLS's standards. Big Red's opinions (aka click bait) should never be considered evidence.

[GreyCrow]

Compared to the xenos, Space Marines (including Chapters with their own codex) are hardly cheese factories. Armies with "elite" base units (meaning expensive and that have a variety of roles), like C:SM and especially Dark Angels, must ABSOLUTELY NOT rely solely on the unit profile or loadout to judge the effectiveness of a unit, because points for points, they will lose out compared to specialized Codexes like Xenos.

Rather, Captains MUST rely on what happens on the tabletop, and how they actually play their army to win. Otherwise, they just won't. And Space Marines armies of all kind allow the players to adapt strategy on the field to respond to different threats depending on the current priorities. And to do that, they have to combine both in list building and on the tabletop the strength of different units.

 

The Codexes allows for that and the DA Codex allows for that ! Best example, when people say Assault is dead in 6th/7th edition, they couldn't be more wrong. It's just not an automatic response anymore. Tau Support Fire Overwatch ? Just have the threat of 2 Fresh Tactical Squads to charge their lines and see whether they decide to Support Fire against the first squad, the 2nd squad or split fire.

 

People say that the grass is always greener in the neighboor's garden, and I get what people are saying with the C:SM codex, but (no pun intended) the same applies for the Dark Angel Codex. There are so many tools available there to make a decidedly brutal army, and there are so many tools to give enormous control over the battlefield to the player.

Terminators that don't need to roll for reserves and that can Deep Strike in the first turn (and you choose which turn you throw them !), and have Twin Linked weapons the turn they arrive ? Yes please ! That's the Ultramarines Tactical Doctrine for them without needing to think whether you waste it or not. For 5 points a model more ?

Bikes that have Scouts and Hit and Run ? Great, that's half the CT of White Scars right there, and throw in the Khan's special ability while we're at it, now coming with a free Teleport Homer. Without the Teleport Homer, that's going to be only 2pts (!) per model over the base space Marine Biker ! I agree you won't get to use the teleport homer much often, but overall that's only roughly 6 points per model.

Very unique characters with strong abilities and most importantly, very unique wargear. It might not seem as efficient as more straightforward gear from other Codexes, but it brings a massive Tactical value in that the enemy won't expect them. The Vengeance has an awesome capability : the opponent will fear the words "Large" "Blast" "Plasma" in the same sentence. On the tabletop, it might scatter and Get Hot but most importantly, it'll draw fire away from other units.

The Shroud of Heroes is awesomen albeit a tad expensive ! I'm not trolling here, I'm picturing a Company Master on a Bike with Thunder Hammer and the Shroud. Here come the 2+ Jink save for 190 points... The opponent will waste so many shots trying to down him it's funny. Another idea, a Divination Librarian with the Shroud on a Bike. Between 135 and 160 points depending on the mastery level, he'll swing his bike like a boss while giving nice rolls to the full size units (see below) and he will likely not die.

The plane that debuffs the enemy is also quite funny. Blind and Stasis are really good tools to give you an edge. And both planes have 3 Hull Points, which is definitely awesome.

The Standards are definitely great. The Dakka banner will pin light infantry in cover while your force marches up.

 

I'm actually tempted to start a DA army after I finish my Raven Guard force. It's a good Codex, and it gives many tools to the experienced player. But, it requires a lot of effort to master.

 

From a C:SM player perspective, Stubborn is a little strange of a rule to give to units with ATSKNF. Negative modifiers for Ld or Pinning tests are rarely see outside of melee (and then again, with their high initiative and ATSKNF, Marines usually stay in combat). What that means is that once you are in combat, the DA stay there until they're wiped out.

To me, that screams full sized squads that aim to go to Assault. Which is good, because the larger the squad, the better they will synergize with the Banners ! It's also good for the odd Psychic Power like Telepathy or the Tyranids.

 

It seems the DA are an attrition based army at its core due to that rule. That is, if you go Greenwing. In addition, because many units cost more than the base DA, it takes every bit of thinking to use the right tool at the right moment on the battlefield to get that edge that will win the game.

DA are not a firepower based army, like the Tau, the Eldars or the Imperial Fists. But they provide a pretty damn good set of Tactical tools that other armies don't have.

 

Because units are more expensive, you must not throw them away and charge headlong to the battle. I've actually never got the craze about suicide squads anyways. Sure, a 10 man Sternguard Squad will cause some havoc if they're in a pod. At most, they can kill 20 Termagaunts or a Land Raider, both of which can be lost. Then the Sternguards die and the enemy has wasted 250 to 350 points in the first turn. Now, that destroyed Land Raider won't deliver a unit deep into the enemy deployment zone and that's not too bad, because anyone relying on a Land Raider to assault Deep into the enemy DZ in all circumstances should find another means of transportation (Deep Strike ? Especially in the first turn, thanks to DWA !).

 

The game is played in 5 turns+, so let's take the most out of them, and not expect to wipe out the enemy in the first turn, because that's how we lose them :)

 

____

 

Hope I contributed a bit from an outside perspective ! I'm not saying any comment here is not justified, but I felt that the perspective of a guy from the "Vanilla" codex might cheer up the mood :)

[SvenONE]

It's an interesting perspective GreyCrow, I would encourage you to play a DA list with a Shroud of Heroes and Landspeeder Vengeance enough times and then report back to us if you still feel they are as good as you initially think they are . This would probably make you the first person on this board to field a Shroud of Heroes, let alone a Shroud of Heroes HQ and LSV in the same game.

I would also challenge you to try and recreate some of your most successful RG lists into DA lists, I think then you'd start to see the cost issue this codex has.

[Prot]

It's an interesting perspective GreyCrow, I would encourage you to play a DA list with a Shroud of Heroes and Landspeeder Vengeance enough times and then report back to us if you still feel they are as good as you initially think they are . This would probably make you the first person on this board to field a Shroud of Heroes, let alone a Shroud of Heroes HQ and LSV in the same game.

I would also challenge you to try and recreate some of your most successful RG lists into DA lists, I think then you'd start to see the cost issue this codex has.

I chuckled at this.

GreyCrow definitely brings up some great points so I want to be clear I'm not picking on what he's said, but as soon as I read some of it, I realized, this is probably not a DA player.

That being said a lot of what he wrote is very true. The Vengeance is far too expensive, and can't even fire if it jinks. So for that point value I'll take an AV13 dread to 'draw firepower'. :)

Back to the point... I completely agree that there are tactical, and inherent strategic values to units within the DA codex. My issue has always been the point value of it often puts the unit outside of what I consider a competitive standard.

GreyCrow, thanks for your perspective. It's truly insightfull, and very interesting to hear from a different marine player's perspective (especially from the Space Marines codex.)

[Komrk]

It would be hard for me to recreate my successful RG lists as DA lists because you guys don't have Vanguard Vets and that means at 1500 I wouldn't be able to create just over 1/3 of my points

[FerociousBeast]

Well, we wouldn't want you to recreate your Raven Guard list, because... then it would be a Raven Guard list. We'd want you to create a Dark Angels list :)

 

But I imagine there's something in our codex that's choppy or shooty or grimdark that you could spend 500 points on instead of Vanguards.