DA identity in the new codex

[knife&fork]

 

Of course, our attempt as hobbyists to piece this identity together parallels the Dark Angels' search for clues in the fluff...or maybe I'm getting too meta! Others may have a completely different view. :-)

 

 

I think that there's a lot of good ideas out there. The only thing lacking is probably a strong, centralized design philosophy. 

 

Ward got a lot of flak for his treatment of the fluff. But with the C:SM (ultras at least) and necrons you could feel that he cared about the armies and wanted to flesh them out, make them stand out on their own merits. I don't think there's anyone at the design studio that is passionate about DA at the moment, that's why they feel a bit neglected and unfocused. 

[Phoebus]

I was not suggesting that a monastic focus was mutually exclusive with a knightly focus, in terms of fluff. I was suggesting that it was nearly exclusively monastic in model design, prior to the recent releases. With exception to a few sword icons here and there, DA models were differentiated almost exclusively by their robes, censers, etc. The knightly aesthetic was hammered on with the latest codex. This is simply in reference to models, not the Angels' fluff.

I have to disagree with your chronology and your interpretation of the Dark Angels' look.

The changes you're referring to didn't start with 6th edition, but with the 4th - back in 2006. Prior to 4th edition Codex (circa 2006), I can't think of any Dark Angels characters/models outside of the Inner Circle that had a non-Codex look.

As of 4th Edition, members of the Deathwing and Masters of the Dark Angels were shown predominately with "angelic" heraldry and devices, but sometimes also with more traditional chivalric heraldry (the latter more prominently where Company Masters are concerned). While this edition did introduce examples of brethren of the line wearing robes, uninitiated Dark Angels overwhelmingly stuck with the "Codex" look - both in terms of models and illustrations.

All the 6th Edition to reinforce the themes introduced by 4th Edition did was introduce the Deathwing Knights. These models are much like the Company Masters in that they display prominent heraldry. This makes sense, given that they are the elite from which the Company Masters are drawn.

Where the overall look is concerned, the robes and censers are central to your argument. You feel the former are less knightly and more monastic. But again, it's key to remember that those two concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The reason I referred to the Knights Templar is because military orders such as they were not, initially, "knightly" in appearance - in the popular sense of the term. That is, they didn't display personal heraldry, crests, etc. They were monastic knights, sworn to poverty and to a code that emphasized humility. For specifics, if you're not familiar with it, do a Google search on The Latin Rule: the code of conduct of the Knights Templar (which goes down to their manner of dress, diet, etc.).

As far as censers go, I can only think of a single instance where characters other than Chaplains, Interrogator-Chaplains, and Librarians are shown wearing/carrying them - a Veteran Sergeant in the new Army Display section of the newest Codex. Limited to characters of the Inner Circle, if anything they do even more service to the concept of the Dark Angels as a nod to the Western European military orders: the Knights Templar, the Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights, etc., all included chaplains as part of their organization.

Books, keys, and lanterns are the other popular "fetishes" and regalia that can be seen on all Inner Circle characters. These, I would argue, are apropos as symbolic of the mission statement of the Inner Circle: they refer to knowledge, secrets, and having access to said things.

Nor did I mean to suggest that the knightly aspects disappeared entirely with the fall of Caliban. I was suggesting that it became a veneer, or at best a distant second, to the theme of the Fallen. The noble knightly order trappings still exist in the form of Chapter structure, but even that is now shaped around the hunt of the Fallen. So even as the Chapter's highest echelons resemble the knightly origins of the Legion and the Order, the ideals they stood for are almost dead, consumed by millenia of obsession over a stain on the honor of those knightly origins. In an attempt to satisfy honor, they've all but destroyed it. Words are sort of failing me in this paragraph, but I hope I'm communicating the point well enough.

What you're seeing is the opposite of the Black Templars Effect. The Black Templars went from a small institution with a unique look and theme within a larger legion that had an altogether different theme to a Chapter that was entirely in Sigismund's image. The Dark Angels went from a legion that eventually became defined by a knightly theme to a number of Chapters where only the elite were initiated in the Calibanite legacy - and thus became knight-like themselves.

You've assessed the compromises of the Dark Angels correctly, but I think you err in arguing that because those ideals have been trampled that the concept itself is null. It's about as null as the Knight Templars' concept was when their primary mission ceased being defending pilgrims, or when the fall of Jerusalem divested them of the ability to defend the Temple of Solomon. The organization exists in either case, as do its trappings, its traditions, etc.

Regardless, this doesn't mean that the Dark Angels are suddenly less "monastic" or more "knightly". They are basically what they were a few editions ago, plus the Deathwing Knights.

I think that what this conversation is really revealing is that the Dark Angels have, frankly, a weak premise. They are the "best gear hiding the fact that many went bad during the heresy and are obsessed with hunting them down" marines. The trouble is that all marines have access to incredible gear, every legion had some traitors, and everyone tries to kill Chaos legionnaires when they get the chance. So where does that leave Dark Angels? It leaves them with players who aren't satisfied because their models aren't the best and a chapter's who's fluff seems immature and inconsistent.

If you ask me, the Dark Angels need a serious rewrite, from the bottom to the top.

I don't mean to come off disrespectful, but I can't help but feel that most of what you bring up here is anecdotal and ignores context.

"Best gear" is a concept I've seen raised many times in this forum and others, but I really have never seen any basis for it. Master Avoghai pointed that out rather ably in this very topic.

Every legion had some traitors, but the Dark Angels were the only legion whose second-in-command rebelled and is believed to have dealt their primarch a mortal blow and caused the destruction of their homeworld. The added context to that situation is that the Imperium shortly thereafter went, well, insane. It was, to quote the Codex, "an era steeped in paranoia, recriminations and vengeance." It was a time when the Imperial Fists almost came under fire because their primary felt that his hitherto unimpeachable loyalty should not be questioned, and that his legion should not be broken on the recommendation of another primarch. It was during that period that the Dark Angels found out about the Fallen only after that.

Were the Dark Angels wrong to commit the sins they did in the name of the Hunt? Was the Hunt necessary if the Dark Angels were to survive? Did the Dark Angels have to keep Luther's betrayal, the Lion's supposed death at his erstwhile friend's hands, and the destruction of Caliban a secret? The answer to all those is yes, of course.

Finally, do all Space Marines try to kill Chaos Space Marines whenever they get the chance? Of course. Is any other Chapter's survival dependent on ensuring that a very specific number of Chaos Space Marines never gets to so much as speak to a party loyal to the Imperium? No.

• The "parent" chapter is manipulating its successors, suborning their command structures in order to remain, in some sense, the legion they once were.

That's not true. The Dark Angels and their Successors are continuing a conspiracy they began while peers under the same, as-of-yet unbroken legion. The manipulated parties are the uninitiated members of their 2nd-10th Companies.

The point is that both the Blood Angels and the Space Wolves are pure style. They aren't dependent upon plot elements - either history or current circumstances - to define their nature (although both their history and their circumstances contribute to their nature).

How is the Blood Angels' Red Thirst and Black Rage not a plot element?

... they go about keeping this secret through organizational slight-of-hand that is entirely mundane.

In what way is the Inner Circle "mundane"?

There are a number of things you could do to fix the Dark Angels, and it wouldn't be that hard.

What if it was Luther who was loyal and the Lion who had gone rogue? Then the Dark Angels could be keeping the secret shame of their own Primarch's treachery.

No offense intended, but how is that not cliche and contrived? The "big reveal" being the exact opposite of the purported truth has been done how many times already? And that would assume that the fiction has already moved on with what has been canon since the 1990s: that Luther was the traitor.

What if the Dark Angels were motivated by compassion, not vengeance, and were willing to accept "reformed" Fallen - as well as those engendered with their geneseed - into their numbers? Those hoods could hide the stumps of hacked off or pried out Chaos mutations and eight-sided scars from flayed-off tattoos.

Because that would be contrary to practically everything Warhammer 40k stands for - insofar as the "moral values" of Imperial forces is concerned.

What if the Dark Angels had a motivation tangential to the Imperium? What if the Lion was still alive and his chapter was trying to find a way to put him on the throne of Terra?

Because that concept demands that we go against a fundamental theme of Warhammer 40k: no loyalist primarchs. And besides, as with #2, you're asking the Dark Angels to abandon a grimdark uniqueness for a "special snowflake" uniqueness.

EDIT: I really hope I didn't come off as rude or combative. We're not in agreement on this topic, but ultimately we're just discussing factions of a fictional setting. I apologize if I seemed hostile in this post.

[knife&fork]

  Is any other Chapter's survival dependent on ensuring that a very specific number of Chaos Space Marines never gets to so much as speak to a party loyal to the Imperium?  No.

 

 

But the inquisition is already aware of the fallen... and surely other imperials are as well even if I can't come up with specifics right now. The tragic/dramatic part about the hunt for the fallen is how DA themselves obsess over it. 

[Phoebus]

 

  Is any other Chapter's survival dependent on ensuring that a very specific number of Chaos Space Marines never gets to so much as speak to a party loyal to the Imperium?  No.

 

 

But the inquisition is already aware of the fallen... and surely other imperials are as well even if I can't come up with specifics right now. The tragic/dramatic part about the hunt for the fallen is how DA themselves obsess over it. 

Well, Kaldor Draigo knew, but there is no indication he disclosed the secret since the events of Pandorax...

 

There's also the fact that Marine chapters are already a sci-fi version of monastic knightly orders. I think that's why it feels a bit off to just make them more monastic and more knightly. At least when you get to things like the DW knights who are some sort of monk-monk knight-knight-knights with super special secret keeping.

 

Then again people don't seem to mind when grey knights turned into literal grey knights so I might be alone in this. 

I can totally get behind this, and not just where the Dark Angels are concerned.  More than one Chapter begs the question as to when a Chapter stops being a unit of Space Marines and becomes something altogether different.

 

Bang on - and to me, this is what Cypher is all about. His raison d'etre is the restoration of the ideals of the Order.

And the corollary is: Cypher cares nothing for the Imperium or the Emperor - they are useful only as a means for the Order to live up to/demonstrate their commitments to their old Order's ideals. The irony being, as long as Dark Angels continue to go to extreme lengths to hunt Fallen, they continue to disappoint the Orders' ideals. It's a vicious/negative circle.

Whatever Cypher's ultimate aim really is, he believes in breaking eggs to make an omelet at least as much as the Inner Circle does. Evidence of this ranges from material as old as the Thirteenth Black Crusade to as new as the Cypher Dataslate.  If Cypher really is judging the Inner Circle's members to see which of them is worthy of the old Order's ideals, then he is an incredibly wretched hypocrite.  His sins are every bit as egregious as those of the Inner Circle, and his cause for committing them is no better than theirs.

[Firepower]

 

 

As far as censers go, I can only think of a single instance where characters other than Chaplains, Interrogator-Chaplains, and Librarians are shown wearing/carrying them - a Veteran Sergeant in the new Army Display section of the newest Codex.  Limited to characters of the Inner Circle, if anything they do even more service to the concept of the Dark Angels as a nod to the Western European military orders: the Knights Templar, the Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights, etc., all included chaplains as part of their organization.

 

 

I include the Angels troop/upgrade sprue in the mention of censers, as well as bitz from their vehicles.  Just because it is absent from the Characters, it is not a necessarily a minor feature in their iconography or aesthetic.  Also, among newer models, there are weapons literally made from censers.  Outside of Grimaldus' mace, I can't think of anywhere else they appear in the Marine model range.

 

While monastic and knightly are indeed not mutually exclusive, I'm positing that the knightly aspect was largely absent until the recent kits.  In simple terms of the models separate from all other influences (i.e. knowing from the fluff that the Angels had a knightly root and/or theme), there was not much in any real sense to suggest a knightly theme beyond or beneath the monastic paraphernalia frequent throughout the models.  The armor beneath/separate from the robes was very largely no different from standard Marine kits.  It was not as clear (or outright in-your-face) as the new kits, or as the Templar and Grey Knight kit(s).

 

Books and keys are frequent fetishes on many models outside the DA range as well, particularly on Librarians.  I don't think I can recall any non DA use of lanterns outside the Templars.

[Phoebus]

I can't help but feel that we are dancing in circles. Pity for you that one sworn to the often contradictory secrets of the Inner Circle can't be so easily confused by your attempts at dissembling!

Again, your argument is contingent on monastic and knightly themes being mutually exclusive. If monastic and knightly are not mutually exclusive concepts, as you yourself say, then there's no point in arguing that the robed models prior to 6th Edition are predominately monastic in style and that the Deathwing Knights are somehow more knightly. They are both part and parcel of a collection of Chapters whose elite are monastic knights. These Chapters uses robes to indicate rank or position; those initiated into its Inner Circle have robes, panoply, and/or fetishes that display the legacy of Caliban more prominently.

As for whether this look is "recent" or not? The fact of the matter is that, between Codex: Angels of Death (late 1990s) and the 4th Edition Codex, only a handful of named Inner Circle characters wore "monastic robes" (point of fact, only the Watchers in the Dark wear robes; the Dark Angels wear tabards no different than those worn by the Knights Templar, save for the hood). That means the Dark Angels didn't look either "monastic" or "knightly" (or, rather, one and the same) for a solid ten year period. For the past eight years, though, the theme described in the paragraph above has been in place.

[Firepower]

Monastic and knightly are not mutually exclusive, but if you just saw a guy wearing robes, and he happened to be a knight, you wouldn't know the latter unless someone told you. That is the situation the older models were in. Someone uninitiated in DA fluff would not think they were knights. The word wouldn't even pop into their heads. That's why I deliberately said "models separate from all other influences," meaning if you looked at the models without any knowledge of the Chapter.

Ninjas and priests are not mutually exclusive, but if a dude walked up to you dressed as a priest, would you guess that he was a ninja in his free time?

[Lucien Eilam]

The fact of the matter is that, between Codex: Angels of Death (late 1990s) and the 4th Edition Codex, only a handful of named Inner Circle characters wore "monastic robes". That means the Dark Angels didn't look either "monastic" or "knightly" (or, rather, one and the same) for a solid ten year period.

 

That's… not a fact. Codex Angels of Death was released in 1996. Codex Dark Angels (3rd edition) was released in 1999, alongside these boys: http://www.solegends.com/citcat2000/c2000p015-00.htm

[Isiah]

[...], only a handful of named Inner Circle characters wore "monastic robes" (point of fact, only the Watchers in the Dark wear robes; the Dark Angels wear tabards no different than those worn by the Knights Templar, save for the hood). [...]

I must take issue there Pheobus. For accuracy DA always wore 'proper' robes on power armoured models, and still do - because the front and backs fully join at the sides and are continuous. Also note that Brother Bethor was robed as were three (or was it just two) Dark Angel metal marine models that many people used as their upgraded Deathwing Honour sergeants, so not just named characters per se. In fact back in the day people built (expensive) all-robed DA armies just using those models purely for the cool factor.

In the past the BT tabbard conversion was a popular way to err, 'robe' a terminator model prior to the release of the DW plastic models we now have. But note as the front and back of these items of clothing aren't joined at the side so they are indeed tabbards - and I hate them for the BT copyists that they are .

And no one has explained to me how the termy's hoods (coming from inside their armour) joins the tabbard on the outside of the armour. Seriously annoying .

Apologies for pulling topic slightly off kilter here - but undoubtedly robes are as much as fluff an important aspect in the overall DA identity - more so to external folks.

PS: I'd agree that Seraphicus is drawing dangerously near to be wearing a tabbard. The DV Sgt is wearing a tabbard. Something that must be stamped out grrrrr.

Cheers

I

[Darkangeldentist]

And no one has explained to me how the termy's hoods (coming from inside their armour) joins the tabbard on the outside of the armour. Seriously annoying .

Cheers

I

Because medieval style hoods are separate items of clothing. The hood/cowl is an individual piece that covers the head and shoulders. Normally you would put the main robe on first and then the hood would go over the top.

In this case it's also partly down to aesthetics since robes covering all of a terminator would make it look very weird. A head poking out through the middle of a tent of fabric doesn't really work conceptually for me. So instead we can imagine the hood is adorned before entering the armour (in a similar manner to cushioning undergarments traditionally worn under plate armour) and the tabbard attached on the outside to provide that under-appreciated possibility of pockets along with displaying heraldry etc...

[Isiah]

It was all in jest DAD :P

[Darkangeldentist]

Ah..ok.

[Phoebus]

Monastic and knightly are not mutually exclusive, but if you just saw a guy wearing robes, and he happened to be a knight, you wouldn't know the latter unless someone told you. That is the situation the older models were in. Someone uninitiated in DA fluff would not think they were knights. The word wouldn't even pop into their heads. That's why I deliberately said "models separate from all other influences," meaning if you looked at the models without any knowledge of the Chapter.

I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my cranium around this. What else would they assume a Dark Angel is?

Maybe I'm assuming too much in this Age of Google, but when a Codex talks about "monastic warriors", it takes about a second's thought process and another second's search for me to arrive at a plethora of results that indicate the Dark Angels are either informed by:

1. Martial artist monks (e.g., Shaolin, Sohei), or ...
2. Christian military orders of knights (e.g., Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller).

Of the above, which one looks like it informed the charming, cheerful fellows below:

http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/22/21568/Dark_Angels_Art_1.jpg

This guy?

http://i2.wp.com/jp.learnoutlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/sohei1.jpg?resize=192%2C306

Or these guys?

http://blog.templarhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/3templars.jpg

Bear in mind that the name of the Chapter is Dark Angels.

[Phoebus]

 

The fact of the matter is that, between Codex: Angels of Death (late 1990s) and the 4th Edition Codex, only a handful of named Inner Circle characters wore "monastic robes". That means the Dark Angels didn't look either "monastic" or "knightly" (or, rather, one and the same) for a solid ten year period.

 

That's… not a fact. Codex Angels of Death was released in 1996. Codex Dark Angels (3rd edition) was released in 1999, alongside these boys: http://www.solegends.com/citcat2000/c2000p015-00.htm

 

Good catch, Lucian.  I guess I was focused too much on the Codices, and I should definitely be careful about stating things as a fact.  That having been said, all this does is move back the chronology for Dark Angels adopting this look.  One of my arguments against Firepower is that the Dark Angel "monastic knight" look is not recent.

 

 

 

[...], only a handful of named Inner Circle characters wore "monastic robes" (point of fact, only the Watchers in the Dark wear robes; the Dark Angels wear tabards no different than those worn by the Knights Templar, save for the hood). [...]

 

I must take issue there Pheobus. For accuracy DA always wore 'proper' robes on power armoured models, and still do - because the front and backs fully join at the sides and are continuous. ...

...

PS: I'd agree that Seraphicus is drawing dangerously near to be wearing a tabbard. The DV Sgt is wearing a tabbard. Something that must be stamped out grrrrr.

I guess I'm being too casual with my terminology.  I consider anything that is sleeveless less "robe" and more "tabard".  I'm not the end-all, be-all on the Christian military orders (or even close to it!), but what we see on the majority of the Dark Angels illustrations and models is not terribly different from what we see on historical knights of that era (minus the hoods, of course).

[Space Truckin]

To me, it feels like... I don't know. If you went to work at an American corporation and discovered that not only were they engaged in the typical tax-dodging nonsense that American corporations do all the time, they treated it like a big secret, to the point that they would gather in the board room wearing masks and robes in order to discuss the dark secret of... our tax shelter in the Virgin Islands. Dum dum dum!!! If you were any kind of American businessman, you'd laugh your off.

From a business owner that lives in the Virgin Islands and collects Dark Angels...

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/1b/1bd653ca7760b8bb57c60797e773b15b4c6a92ea476e60e91e2e1e264cd5d43f.jpg

There is nothing to see here...

move along please...

[Lucien Eilam]

Good catch, Lucian. I guess I was focused too much on the Codices, and I should definitely be careful about stating things as a fact. That having been said, all this does is move back the chronology for Dark Angels adopting this look. One of my arguments against Firepower is that the Dark Angel "monastic knight" look is not recent.

Oh, not really getting involved in the main argument, but I know my toy soldiers.

[Firepower]

I still have that book. Classic stuff

I was wondering what the hell you were talking about with that statement Phoebus. Thanks Lucien, for saving me the trouble of correcting him

[Prot]

There's a lot of really good posts on this thread.

 

When I think of what tires me of the Dark Angels it is the never ending fallen thing. It's just to me there is so much more to this chapter, but it's stuck in a rut perpetuated by some authors that just won't move on. Some (not typical DA) authors have grabbed on to the personality of the Primarch and/or the fact they are the 1st, and I personally much prefer those takes on the chapter.... it is refreshing and motivates me.

 

Secondly, for a long time we've discussed the over pricing of a great many units in the book. It's way off the mark for what you get.

 

Those are two big negatives from the current codex for myself, but more specifically:

 

1) Chaplains. These should be much more iconic, potent, and usable. This is a -nearly- useless HQ choice in a codex that could have some very spiffy Chaplain toys/artifacts/rules.... even a generic one.

 

2) Greenwing. It's not something you want to focus on when going for a mildly competitive build, and that's just not right.

 

3) Historic units. The first have done it all, and been exposed to the oldest methods/technologies of an ancient era. This is almost non-existent in the book! To keep this brief I have to only point to one (of many) examples: The Nephilim. Read the fluff entry for this beautiful model, and it's historic background. Now look at how that translates on the tabletop to an overpriced, mixed bag of mediocrity. (And here I thought this was going to be the week I didn't mention that unit!)

 

4) Combat Tactics. Should they be something that is winning us games? No, but how about something a little more current and usable? (Not triggering on terrible failures on the tabletop).

 

So many units need re-working, almost EVERY 'unique' unit in the codex is over costed, and out classed or nearly useless, except the Black Knights. (I don't even like the Deathwing Knights anymore after switching them up for Hammer/Shield mixed units with multi-purpose).  I don't know what someone was drinking when they created the Darktalon

 

I don't want this to become a bash the current codex post, so I'll just say for myself, those things need to be focused on in the next codex because their the most glaring issues imo.

[Master Avoghai]

There's a lot of really good posts on this thread.

1) Chaplains. These should be much more iconic, potent, and usable. This is a -nearly- useless HQ choice in a codex that could have some very spiffy Chaplain toys/artifacts/rules.... even a generic one.

I don't see where they are not usable. Often I've been said to prefer a chaplain over a libby because the re roll he gives to his squad doesn't need a psychic test and cannot be denied.

I find them cheap and well equiped basically. Your commentary tend to mean that the other HQ choice are better.Do you think the Company Master is really better?

 

2) Greenwing. It's not something you want to focus on when going for a mildly competitive build, and that's just not right.

But they cost the same price as vanilla ones and have nearly the same weapons (but who plays the grav gun on an infantry unit?)!

Who focus on tactical marines in a more general feeling? Competitive vanilla army take 5 scouts to grab objectives and prevent scout moves and 5 bikes because they have the commander on bike.

Do you really think it is a problem specic to DA?

 

3) Historic units. The first have done it all, and been exposed to the oldest methods/technologies of an ancient era. This is almost non-existent in the book! To keep this brief I have to only point to one (of many) examples: The Nephilim. Read the fluff entry for this beautiful model, and it's historic background. Now look at how that translates on the tabletop to an overpriced, mixed bag of mediocrity. (And here I thought this was going to be the week I didn't mention that unit!)

I think that, like often, GW had its classical black/white behavior when creating a unit. First they created the Valkyrie/ Storm Raven/ Helldrake and they were so powerful (at this time) that everybody spammed them. Hence the Game designers started to think that Flyers should be less powerful : so they created the Neph/DT, then the Tau flyer (has anybody EVER played one?), the eldar flyers etc etc

 

Unfortunately, we were the first of this crappy wave... But I recognize that describing the Neph as a vehicle hunter and give him S6 weapon is laughable :D

Same thing for the weapon of the DT : an ancient terrible weapon with only a 3" blast and AP- mwahahahaha ridiculous. And why in the hell don't I have the option for HB? They are in the kit anyway!

 

4) Combat Tactics. Should they be something that is winning us games? No, but how about something a little more current and usable? (Not triggering on terrible failures on the tabletop).

But have you any proposition? Thing is stubborn is part of DA DNA, I remember v5 when we lost it and it was given to IF, everybody shout loudly. Do you think we should have stubborn AND something else?

 

So many units need re-working, almost EVERY 'unique' unit in the codex is over costed, and out classed or nearly useless, except the Black Knights. (I don't even like the Deathwing Knights anymore after switching them up for Hammer/Shield mixed units with multi-purpose).  I don't know what someone was drinking when they created the Darktalon

I don't like generalization like evry unit is over costed... I mean, it sounds like it's not true for other codexes. It sounds like every other codex can field whatever unit without worrying about unit's efficiency/cost ratio. It's wrong. Even for a tough codex like eldar : do you find scorpions? banshees? vypers? Look at the ork codex, everybody is moaning about the lack of nobz on bikes as troops like if it was the only thing that made their codex meh. Look at the DE : if you don't play heamonculi, you're out of competitive environment.

 

So if you play against such armies, do you think your units are over costed?

 

Secondly, I would like (again) to remind what the armies of competitive environment look like :

 

primary detachment :

Chapter Master on bike with TH and relic shield

5 scouts

5 bikes with grav guns

Centurions with grav guns

 

Allied detachment

SW cheap character

5 blood claws or grey hunters

Drop pod (to put the centurions inside)

 

Inquisitorial detachment

inquisitor with 3 servo skulls

 

And, if you have the points, an imperial knight...

 

And you can do the same with an eldar/DE/tau alliance...

 

Competitive lists are made from multiple codex. A single codex cannot run in competitive environment anymore. To me, claiming for DA to run in competitive environment is useless as it's claiming for an advantage that no codex has. To the very least, you can claim for DA units to be used as primary detachments or allies in competitive lists. And it's already the case : I've seen DW Crusaders with dakka banners in ETC qualification recently.

 

Sorry if I look like denying all your critisms (well not all :P ), but I see lots of such comments those days around the "DA are over costed-thing".

When you say over costed it's in relation with something else. And I fail to see, in relation with what. CSM?Orks?DE??GK? Tyranids? I find the tau not as terrible as they were in the begining of v6. My last opponent saturday didn't managed to open my DW LR. Maybe you have the eldar but then if you are over priced in relation to a single codex, maybe it's this codex which is under costed ;)

 

[Brother-Sergeant Bohemond]

I think, for GW, the DA are informed by the Knights Templar more than other monastic warrior orders...while the Black Templars are informed by a cross between the Crusading themes of the Knights Templar and full on Teutonic Knights.

 

As far as the Codex goes, I actually like it. Sure, its not perfect, but then thats a rarity for every army. 

 

But as per the topic. We often have many disagreements on our identity; what makes us unique? The answer, really, always comes back to the secret of the Fallen. This is what defines the Unforgiven. The Codex puts that front and centre - we might hate parts of it, be grumpy with the rules, but so much of it comes back to this. Caliban. The Fall. The Fallen and our Shame - that is what is front and centre of our rules, our fluff and our units.

 

Is there more to it? Yes. Of course there is - I mean 80% of the Chapter (roughly) have no clue of the secret, but, ultimately, this is what defines us. It is our identity - not swords, robes, feathers. These are by products of a forgotten age - an age we want to return too, ultimately. While I understand that these are important to our image and ascetic, they are not what defines us. 

 

What defines us? Our unrelenting desire to atone for the sins of our forebears and our stubbornness in the face of adversity; to never fail again but to persevere against all odds. Does Grim Resolve answer this? Yes. Does it hurt us at times? Oh yea, it certainly does but it ties into what defines us. Inner Circle - does this rule match our background? Of course! Does it not help very much when you want to run from combat or not fighting Chaos Marines? Yes, but, again, the rule is fluffy. 

 

The question here is not whether the Codex sucks - we all know it has weaknesses in a purely competitive sense - but whether our identity is kept in the book. I think it is at the front and centre of everything in our Codex, even the DarkTalon and Vengeance.

 

Our identity is our quest for Redemption, our quest for lost Caliban, our desire to rid ourselves of our shame. And how that changed us as a Legion, as a Chapter, as Sons of the Lion. The struggle to be Knights, when every instinct screams to serve, to defend the subjects of the Emperor, yet the compromise, no, the sacrifice of this that we have to do in order to gain redemption. That we must commit atrocities that once we never dreamed of purely to gain redemption. Acts that are not knightly must be committed by an organisation desperate to be Knights; to be honourable. Or, who think they are desperate to be so.

 

The sad truth is that while the Inner Circle, for the most part, may desire to be Knightly I do not think they can. The quest is all consuming, all pervasive and, even if we gain redemption, can the Dark Angels ever recover their lost honour? Can they ever return to what they once were? I do not know the answer to that question. This, is, I firmly believe, the core of our identity.

 

It is the impact of the Fallen on our Chapter and the struggle to complete this redemption while every instinct wants us to be Knights - or, at, least wants to be knightly (whether their concept is a true concept is debatable)

 

Just my 2 cents.

[shabbadoo]

Okay, something mroe specific to the OP.

What defines the Dark Angels (for most people I would think):

* PENITENT KNIGHTS!!!: it is more accurate to refer to the Dark Angels as penitent knights than warrior-monks, though they do live in conditions that are more strict than any other Chapters, excepting the Grey Knights and perhaps the Exorcists. One could say they are "monk-ish" in how they go about their austere lives, but this could be said of all of the Chapters. All the space marines really are "space knights" (i.e. heavily armored, oath driven warriors), but for the Dark Angels it is literal; their background equivocating to classic ideals of knighthood. The Black Templars cannot say the same, as they come from a different tradition (i.e. Imperial Fists), and it is they who actually best represent the "warrior-monk" ideal among the Chapters (i.e. "hate the witch" thing, etc.). The Grey Knights are comparable to the Dark Angels so far as the "knight thing" is concerned, but they instead diverge into being representative of "paladins" in the purest fantasy RPG sense of the word (i.e. crusaders against supernatural evil).

* Secretive/Untrusted: secretive, even among their own. "What is this '401K' you speak of?" "Sorry, Bob. You are not a member of the Deathwing. If I told you, I'd have to kill you." Easily distracted by references to "Cypher" or "The Fallen", so not always seen as dependable/trustwothy (people will request their aid before they do the Flesh Tearers though!). Untrusting even of their own, as to know the full truth of the Dark Angels is not something which can be handled by all minds. Circles of rank/secrecy within the Chapter.

* Honourable: any Space Wolf will (after a few curses) confirm this.

* Sinister/Mysterious: "So, why do they address you as 'Interrogator-Chaplain'?" "No reason." WHOOSH! "Oops. Forgot the safety on my plasma pistol. Sorry about your vaporized head." and [unnamed princess to the robed midget holding a giant sword] "Aren't you a little short for a Dark Angel?" and "Why did you change the color of your armor?

* Flawless Creations of the Emperor: only the Ultramarines' geneseed is comparable in its purity.

* Legendary: the Dark Angels are THE 1st Legion; the First to prosecute the Great Crusade alongside the Emperor himself.

* Elite Formations: Among the 1st Companies of all Chapters, the Deathwing stands a level above. The Ravenwing have no peer, except for the sons of the Great Khan.

* Legacy of Brilliance: though some Chapters might excel at certain tactical specialties, so far as overall strategic/tactical ability is concerned, only the Ultramarines are comparable to the Dark Angels (we absolutely OWNED our objective in the Medusa V Campaign too! ).

* Swords: part of the Chapter symbol, and the most sacred weapon relics of the Chapter are the Heavenfall Blades.

* Secret Legion: though the Dark Angels were broken up into a parent Chapter and Successors, they secretly continue to operate as a Legion (albeit a more compartmentalized one).

* Ancient Technology: while this finally does equate to a liberal dose of plasma weaponry now (yes, the "plasma thing" really is official as of this codex/model release), there are other examples of ancient technology in the form of Heresy era (and even pre-Heresy era) weapons, vehicle equipment, and wargear.

* Fearlessness/Perserverence: more so than most Chapters, the Dark Angels embody the "N-n-never give up! N-n-never surrender!" attitude.

* Dark Secret: yes, here it is, The Fallen. For something so little known of, it influences many of the other things mentioned above (at least the level to which they have been taken by the Dark Angels).

It would be an error to point to only one thing as defining the Dark Angels though- it is ALL of these things which collectively define the Dark Angels. If you like the sound of all that, and the background is a large part of what you enjoy about building a new army, you will probably enjoy building a Dark Angels army.

Did I miss anything?

[Prot]

Your commentary tend to mean that the other HQ choice are better.Do you think the Company Master is really better?

 

 

mmm... looking over my post I don't think I mentioned a company master. But almost every other generic HQ is a better choice for me. But again more to the point, if talking DA flavor I'm going to go with prominent Chaplains. Just my own take on what the chapter seems to have a strong usage of.

 

 

But have you any proposition? Thing is stubborn is part of DA DNA, I remember v5 when we lost it and it was given to IF, everybody shout loudly. Do you think we should have stubborn AND something else?

 

 

A bit beyond the scope of my post. I didn't want it to fill it with wishl-listing. But heck yea, I could come up with a fistful of fun yet meaningful ways to portray the DA as a chapter tactic.

 

 

But they cost the same price as vanilla ones and have nearly the same weapons (but who plays the grav gun on an infantry unit?)!

Who focus on tactical marines in a more general feeling? Competitive vanilla army take 5 scouts to grab objectives and prevent scout moves and 5 bikes because they have the commander on bike.

Do you really think it is a problem specic to DA?

 

You keep moving the discussion off of an apples vs apples scenario. When I say 'overcosted' it is our termies, our bikes, etc, vs Astartes equivalents.

 

When I say our Tacticals, I don't mean vs scouts. I literally mean to say: IF told I must compose an army based on tactical squads, DA are going to be my last choice. Period.

 

After playing Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, and now Ultramarines, it's a very easy decision.

 

 

 

So if you play against such armies, do you think your units are over costed?

 

You're missing the point... or I wasn't clear enough. (making the argument against Tau/Orks/Eldar completely moot.)

 

When I say 'over costed' I mean in comparison to the Astartes equivalent where there is nearly a direct equivalent. And it's a tangible difference. It is a truth that many have broken down, point by point for months.

 

Just note that if you're going to argue the opposite, you can sift through mountains of posts that do direct unit per unit (heck a few are in this thread) comparisons that are quite revealing. I haven't seen a valid counter argument to those facts other than my own consideration that there are 'intangibles' that guys like Belial bring to the table (for an example) during my months of batrepping, I'm sure you've seen those discussions.

 

P.S.

Keep in mind that this discussion was more about defining a DA codex, and that's how I looked at it. To me many of those identifiers are lost on the table top because of the points/rules of truly 'Dark Angelish' units. That's why I say i would thoroughly re-work:

 

-Nephilim

-Dark Talon

- Vengeance Speeder

-Chaplains

-Artifacts

-Chapter Tactics

-Perhaps to a lesser degree Darkshroud

 

(almost in that order now that I think of it)

 

Also note I'm the one that started the 'Grass isn't greener' thread on this forum, and I believe it too. But if we're talking about 'defining' the DA, there's lots to do.

[Brother-Sergeant Bohemond]

Shabb - as much as I agree with everything you said, the most important part of that is the Fall of Caliban and how that informs and affects everything that the Angels have become in the 10,000 years since - from an even greater obsession with secrets to the quest for Redemption (penitent warrior-monks in the nature of military orders) and the relics of Lost Caliban. Its all informed from that one event. That event defines the modern Dark Angel.

 

But the rest all ties into that, feeds off it and runs with new stuff - including the awesome looks and imagery. So yea, there's no one thing, but if you boil it all down, we always come back to Luther, the betrayal and the loss of Caliban and the psychological effect of that on the Legion. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Blades of Caliban; nuff said.

[shabbadoo]

Shabb - as much as I agree with everything you said, the most important part of that is the Fall of Caliban and how that informs and affects everything that the Angels have become in the 10,000 years since - from an even greater obsession with secrets to the quest for Redemption (penitent warrior-monks in the nature of military orders) and the relics of Lost Caliban. Its all informed from that one event. That event defines the modern Dark Angel.

The loss of their homeworld is not what defines the Dark Angels.  The loss itself is not what is important.  Besides, the heart of Calibian was not lost- the fortress-monsatery of the Dark Angels still exists, and that is a very big deal to be sure.  The Crimson Fists lost their Fortress Monsastery and were nearly wiped out, and the Scythes of the Emperor lost everything and were nearly wiped out. Those losses are very much defining for them in a way that the loss of Caliban is not for the Dark Angels.  For the Dark Angels, the reason for the loss, the Chapter's "Dark Secret", is what is important:

 

* Dark Secret: yes, here it is, The Fallen.  For something so little known of, it influences many of the other things mentioned above (at least the level to which they have been taken by the Dark Angels).

 

I think that is what you mean to single out the importance of, which I very puposely did not neglect to do.  The Betrayal is the reason for much of what defines the Dark Angels, but not only that.  As important as that bit is, it is still not what defines the Dark Angels as being different from other Chapters.  The Betrayal is not responsible for everything that is the Dark Angels.  It is not responsible for the existence of the Deathwing, the Ravenwing, the Chapter's ancient technology, the circles of rank/secrecy/organization, nor their background being rooted in the ideals of classical knighthood.  All of these things existed befro the Betrayal.  Basically, if somebody asked a relatively unbiased space marine from another Chapter what differentiates Dark Angels from space marines of another Chapter, the known elements from the aforementioned list is what you would likely get in answer.  I think that is really what people need to know when they ask about what differentiates the Dark Angels from other Chapters (i.e. the "at face value" information). If that intrigues them, then you give them the answers to all of the "But why are they like this?" questions.

 

The Betrayal surely shapes everything the Dark Angels now do, but it hasn't shaped what they are very much at all, as nearly everything that defines them was there before the Betrayal.  Post-Betrayal changes are certainly a rich vein to further mine in the future.