New Codex Gripe(s) *Yes, a bit of a rant*

[Frater Cornelius]

 

 

 

There is a difference between not liking a book and pointing out its flaws. It may be the best one to date, but as far as other books go, it still has more flaws that it should have had.

 

Edit: For me, most of the book can be described with 'X is good, but...'.

 

 

It seems to me that the problem is your gaming group, not the book. Most of the unique things that DA have are in the formations.

 

 

Yeah, well, talk to the TOs here. But even if they were allowed, I dislike jumping through hoops. But that is precisely what these Formations make you do. They also restrict your choice of units. I do not want to put work into units that I will never use outside of a Formation. I may be narrow-minded, but I also have my own view on things.

 

@ twopounder - Please stop saying it. I know that it is the best DA book to date. But not the best book of all the books. Maybe I am missing something, but I would not play DA in a competitive setting. Not over UM anyway.

As for not having counter, GK, any ML2 Psyker + Shield Eternal CM in a unit, ML2 Rune Priests, Khorne or Tzeentch Daemons make Maledictions very unreliable. Thunderfire Cannons, Tau Markerlights/Buffmander, Warlocks with their Primaris Power (Conceal/Reveal), Tigurius fishing for Perfect Timing, the Auspex, fast melee units a la TWC or IK, Knight Acheron, Sicaran Battle Tank, any tank with Battle of Keylek, three Vindicators doing the apoc blast, Hellhammer, Wyvern, Orders, Typhon Heavy Siege Tank, Warpscythes counter anything Ravenwing-related. Most lists include at least one way of ignoring cover or units that do not care about cover.

There isn't a single unit or combo in this game that does not have a counter. As far as Ravenwing or Interromancy goes, they have plenty. They are strong tools but not the be-all end-all you are making it out to be.

 

Edit: Ultimately, I want to say that if I point out gripes or inefficiencies in Formations or units, I talk about a purely subjective point of view. I have certain ways I build my armies and I has served me well. YMMV, I do not doubt that for a minute and I may be wrong as well, no denial there. I am happy for you if you like it, I genuinely am. All I trying to do is find my own happiness, but it keeps eluding me.

[Xenith]

As a long time Dark Angels Player(12 years) I'm am so sick of being the chapter that everyone takes from. Don't get me wrong, it used to be flattering that everyone wanted to be like us, but now it's just disheartening.

 

The Blood Angels say Hi (Stormraven, dreads with 2 DCCW, assault marines with special weapons, veteran assault marines, furious charge, feel no pain, detachment bonuses thelistgoeson).

 

DA got grav, didn't you? Give it back! The lending goes both ways. Griping is fine, but you need to have perspective.

 

Using the Archangels as an example is also a pretty poor one. To get the first turn reserves for them, you need to take a whole company of veterans.

[twopounder]

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between not liking a book and pointing out its flaws. It may be the best one to date, but as far as other books go, it still has more flaws that it should have had.

 

Edit: For me, most of the book can be described with 'X is good, but...'.

 

 

It seems to me that the problem is your gaming group, not the book. Most of the unique things that DA have are in the formations.

 

 

Yeah, well, talk to the TOs here. But even if they were allowed, I dislike jumping through hoops. But that is precisely what these Formations make you do. They also restrict your choice of units. I do not want to put work into units that I will never use outside of a Formation. I may be narrow-minded, but I also have my own view on things.

 

@ twopounder - Please stop saying it. I know that it is the best DA book to date. But not the best book of all the books. Maybe I am missing something, but I would not play DA in a competitive setting. Not over UM anyway.

As for not having counter, GK, any ML2 Psyker + Shield Eternal CM in a unit, ML2 Rune Priests, Khorne or Tzeentch Daemons make Maledictions very unreliable. Thunderfire Cannons, Tau Markerlights/Buffmander, Warlocks with their Primaris Power (Conceal/Reveal), Tigurius fishing for Perfect Timing, the Auspex, fast melee units a la TWC or IK, Knight Acheron, Sicaran Battle Tank, any tank with Battle of Keylek, three Vindicators doing the apoc blast, Hellhammer, Wyvern, Orders, Typhon Heavy Siege Tank, Warpscythes counter anything Ravenwing-related. Most lists include at least one way of ignoring cover or units that do not care about cover.

There isn't a single unit or combo in this game that does not have a counter. As far as Ravenwing or Interromancy goes, they have plenty. They are strong tools but not the be-all end-all you are making it out to be.

 

Edit: Ultimately, I want to say that if I point out gripes or inefficiencies in Formations or units, I talk about a purely subjective point of view. I have certain ways I build my armies and I has served me well. YMMV, I do not doubt that for a minute and I may be wrong as well, no denial there. I am happy for you if you like it, I genuinely am. All I trying to do is find my own happiness, but it keeps eluding me.

 

 

Can't hear you over the sound of my 14 free, objective secured razorbacks and bs4 overwatching devastators.

[Stormxlr]

You realize this is the best codex in the game so far? It's beyond broken with the double shooting phase and psychic powers that rend entire units worthless. It has no hard counters. I'm seeing a lot of people complain over a book they haven't tried yet about non-issues that come down to vanity. You want to play a certain way. Guess what? I had a bunch of imperial artillery that was removed from the new IG codex. All that money and time... GONE. Your gripes are purely entitlement. I hope you see that.

 

I agree that there are a lot of typos and oversights as far as formation composition goes. But losing an noncompetitive force org shift does not make this book any less powerful.

 

Mate, no one ever said it makes the book any less powerful. We pure DW players are complaining that we cant play pure DW anymore without jumping through loops and hoops. Yes we are happy that RW is better, yes we are happy that Greenwing is better, yes we are happy that you can run Ironwing again. But us pure DW players are forced to use units that are not part of DW that is what frustrating us. We are forced into one single way of playing our force. We lost more than we gained. Sure we can run Unbound, but we could do that in 6thed too. But unbound just shows poor rule writing and cant be used in most events and is usually looked down upon by most players.

 

New DA Codex is great, but Deathwing were not implemented well by the development team. Tell me would you be happy if RW strike force had to take a group of tacticals just to show up on the table turn 2? or one and only formation they have did not show up until turn 2?

You are not looking at it from perspective of a Deathwing player. Why people bring up that DW is not competitive ? I personally dont care about that, same as other people with few thousand points of Deathwing. Personally i think i play Deathwing very well and can simply outplay stronger armies.

 

 

While I lament with the DW players out there I think it's time to let go of the Pure DW of 6th edition as a thing.  It's success really, to me, hinged on how many Landraiders you had in your list.  The biggest hit isn't really the loss of Belial's FOC changing ability, but rather the extremely rigid rules of the Detachment and the Formation.  The forced reserve rule is effectively a tax, so the savings we may have gotten from the DWT point drop is immediately put towards investing in something that keeps you from losing the game like a RW squad.

 

Now I'm gonna go and say something bold, if you want to run Pure DW run Unbound.  Off the top of my head, here are some differences (Wargear excluded) between running a 6th edition Belial-DW list, vs a 7th edition Unbound:

 

• Must either start on the board or roll for reserves
• No objective secured
• Chance for a warlord trait (Belial has fixed trait)
• No Deathwing Vehicle tax
• Not obligated to bring Belial
• Command squad available immediately

 

Now let's look at those same issues within the context of running a 7th Edition Unbound vs 7th Edition Formations/Detachments:

 

• Must either start on the board or roll for reserves -- Formation can't start on board, but can automatically arrive on a specified turn, detachment requires RW to automatically arrive, Unbound can start on board inside dedicated transports or on foot.
• No objective secured - No one has this
• Chance for a warlord trait - Unbound can't re-roll, Formation/Detachment can
• No Deathwing Vehicle tax - Confusion over Dedicated transports and deep strike in both Formation and Detachment
• Not obligated to bring Belial - Neither lists are obligated to bring Belial
• Command squad available immediately - Detachment has this, Formation requires obligatory models, Unbound is unbound!

 

Deathwing Vehicle rule was never a tax, you could always take LRs as heavy support to bypass taking DW.

Sure Command Squad is available immediately now, but tell do you ever not take an HQ? Before they also did not take FOC slot.

You could run unbound 6th edition too. But you didnt have to.

Now Venerable Dreadnoughts are taxed.

I bought into warhammer because i loved the idea of running pure Deathwing, and its my biggest and most complete army.

 

IMHO this new forced way to play DW is a way for GW to force DW players to buy more models since most of us have our 20-30 Terminators a few land raiders and dreadnoughts and thats it.

 

 

As a long time Dark Angels Player(12 years) I'm am so sick of being the chapter that everyone takes from. Don't get me wrong, it used to be flattering that everyone wanted to be like us, but now it's just disheartening.

 

The Blood Angels say Hi (Stormraven, dreads with 2 DCCW, assault marines with special weapons, veteran assault marines, furious charge, feel no pain, detachment bonuses thelistgoeson).

 

DA got grav, didn't you? Give it back! The lending goes both ways. Griping is fine, but you need to have perspective.

 

Using the Archangels as an example is also a pretty poor one. To get the first turn reserves for them, you need to take a whole company of veterans.

 

Deathwing is a whole company of Veterans. And I would throw that over powered and poor balanced and unfluffy grav weapons back at Codex Ultramarines if I could.

 

 

Can't hear you over the sound of my 14 free, objective secured razorbacks and bs4 overwatching devastators.

 

Sir, most people dont own 14 razorbacks.

Your attitude is quite obnoxious too. @Immerstrum gave very reasonable counter argument.

[Frater Cornelius]

@ twopounder - Can't hear you over the sound of White Scars doing it better due to the ability to Scout Rhinos with two Grav Cannons (Devs) allowing for very potent shooting T1. We both can play that game ;)

[JJD]

Again, not saying it is worse. I am saying that I like it less. Big difference.

 

Also, unfortunately every single Formation is a source here. I guess I should say not two sources but two Detachments then.

Restrictions such as this really frustrate me. If you impose artificial restriction on the game then it is going to have consequences. In my opinion if you impose these restrictions you can't then complain your codex doesn't play right. You need to help move your gaming group out of 5th ed and into 7th.

 

Check out the lion and wolf thread for some great fun and competitive ideas using 7th ed rules to the full

[SvenONE]

If anyone's posting about competitiveness of Dark Angels in this forum, I think you might be in the wrong forum and with the wrong army.  

 

I used to be into the idea of competitive 40K when I first started, but then I saw what it really was.  Then I started playing Corvus Belli's infinity because that's an actual competitive game with tournament support and rankings, it also releases ALL of its weapons/model profiles/special rules at once rather than over a revolving development cycle.  Just think of the start of 6th edition, to the middle, to the end, to the beginning of 7th, and now here we are over, what a year later deep into 7th.  This is a very different game from 2 years ago.  When you release at the pace GW does, you have to hope that you fall in a time that GW likes what it's doing.

 

Play unbound, or accept that GW believes RW and DW should run together.

[Frater Cornelius]

 

Again, not saying it is worse. I am saying that I like it less. Big difference.

 

Also, unfortunately every single Formation is a source here. I guess I should say not two sources but two Detachments then.

Restrictions such as this really frustrate me. If you impose artificial restriction on the game then it is going to have consequences. In my opinion if you impose these restrictions you can't then complain your codex doesn't play right. You need to help move your gaming group out of 5th ed and into 7th.

 

Check out the lion and wolf thread for some great fun and competitive ideas using 7th ed rules to the full

 

 

Well, feel free to call the TOs around here. They admitted themselves to be very conservative. I know the ETC has very similar restrictions, same as ITC, although that one is more lenient.

[WellSpokenMan]

There are 14-19 codexes (depending on how you define that term) that also are not the strongest. We are firmly in the top 3rd, which is as good as I think a player has a right to hope for.  SM and Eldar are consistently in the top 3, so it is possible that you have chosen the wrong army to collect if you aren't happy about our current power level.

 

Look, nobody is saying you have to play this codex and like it.  There are other factions availabIe. I feel bad for DW players to a point, but if you choose to ignore the rest of the codex there is no point in trying to have a two-way conversation.  Nothing anybody here can say to you will make you feel better.  The best you can hope to accomplish by focusing on what makes you unhappy is to make yourself and others feel worse.  Something was lost and something was gained.  Focusing on one over the other is a choice.  You don't have to be happy, but then you can't expect people to be content to listen to how unhappy you are until the next DA codex drops.

[notmattlythgoe]

 

 

Again, not saying it is worse. I am saying that I like it less. Big difference.

 

Also, unfortunately every single Formation is a source here. I guess I should say not two sources but two Detachments then.

Restrictions such as this really frustrate me. If you impose artificial restriction on the game then it is going to have consequences. In my opinion if you impose these restrictions you can't then complain your codex doesn't play right. You need to help move your gaming group out of 5th ed and into 7th.

 

Check out the lion and wolf thread for some great fun and competitive ideas using 7th ed rules to the full

 

 

Well, feel free to call the TOs around here. They admitted themselves to be very conservative. I know the ETC has very similar restrictions, same as ITC, although that one is more lenient.

 

 

The point is, don't complain to us about your crappy TOs. Complain to them. The Codex isn't crappy just because it isn't tailored to you TO group. They need to get on board with formations, not the other way around.

 

To your other argument about the codex not being unique and SM doing everything better. Here is a list of unique things our codex can do.

- Relentless command squad

- Overwatching Tau like landspeeders at BS2

- BS 5 grav bikes

- 12" non scatter termie/bike combination

- Overwatch at full BS

- Immunity to overwatch

- Rerollable jink saves

- etc.

[SvenONE]

 

Deathwing Vehicle rule was never a tax, you could always take LRs as heavy support to bypass taking DW.

Sure Command Squad is available immediately now, but tell do you ever not take an HQ? Before they also did not take FOC slot.

You could run unbound 6th edition too. But you didnt have to.

Now Venerable Dreadnoughts are taxed.

I bought into warhammer because i loved the idea of running pure Deathwing, and its my biggest and most complete army.

 

IMHO this new forced way to play DW is a way for GW to force DW players to buy more models since most of us have our 20-30 Terminators a few land raiders and dreadnoughts and thats it.

 

 

Again, what's stopping you from running an unbound list of DW.  What's so wrong with running your 20-30 terms or Landraiders as an Unbound army.  I mean what's really the issue here.  GW has given you a blank canvas to do exactly that.

 

In the previous edition the "forced" way to play Pure DW was to HAVE to take Belial, who was largely an expensive and mediocre HQ who was only tolerated for his ability to field DW as troops.  He was like the girl everyone was friends with over the summer because she had a pool.  Let's not forget when the 6th codex was conceived there was one set of missions and only troops could capture them at the end of the game.

 

That's completely gone as we now have a game where any unit can capture any objective so long as you have it at the end of your player turn, not only that you can turbo-boost or flat out a vehicle to claim an objective.  

[twopounder]

You realize this is the best codex in the game so far? It's beyond broken with the double shooting phase and psychic powers that rend entire units worthless. It has no hard counters. I'm seeing a lot of people complain over a book they haven't tried yet about non-issues that come down to vanity. You want to play a certain way. Guess what? I had a bunch of imperial artillery that was removed from the new IG codex. All that money and time... GONE. Your gripes are purely entitlement. I hope you see that.

I agree that there are a lot of typos and oversights as far as formation composition goes. But losing an noncompetitive force org shift does not make this book any less powerful.

Mate, no one ever said it makes the book any less powerful. We pure DW players are complaining that we cant play pure DW anymore without jumping through loops and hoops. Yes we are happy that RW is better, yes we are happy that Greenwing is better, yes we are happy that you can run Ironwing again. But us pure DW players are forced to use units that are not part of DW that is what frustrating us. We are forced into one single way of playing our force. We lost more than we gained. Sure we can run Unbound, but we could do that in 6thed too. But unbound just shows poor rule writing and cant be used in most events and is usually looked down upon by most players.

New DA Codex is great, but Deathwing were not implemented well by the development team. Tell me would you be happy if RW strike force had to take a group of tacticals just to show up on the table turn 2? or one and only formation they have did not show up until turn 2?

You are not looking at it from perspective of a Deathwing player. Why people bring up that DW is not competitive ? I personally dont care about that, same as other people with few thousand points of Deathwing. Personally i think i play Deathwing very well and can simply outplay stronger armies.

Can't hear you over the sound of my 14 free, objective secured razorbacks and bs4 overwatching devastators.

Sir, most people dont own 14 razorbacks.

Your attitude is quite obnoxious too. @Immerstrum gave very reasonable counter argument.

Except people are saying that. And no, pure deathwing players are not complaining. I have 100 terminators and have run pure deathwing since it was an option in the 3rd Edition Rulebook (yes, rulebook because we had no codex yet). You see me complaining about it? It is, to be blunt, self entitled players who are demanding the codex cater to what they want instead of being a broad book that caters to everyone. Also, it was not a reasonable counter argument. He listed a stack of things that rarely appear in the game along with a couple psychic powers that we in turn can cancel out. Yay, your seer council removed jink on a single unit. Here, catch 30 twin-linked heavy bolter shots.

Demons? Who plays that army? Grey knights? Haven't seen them since 6th. Good to know they have to take very specific units and powers to attmept to counter a broad, always on ability my army has.

If you want pure deathwing, play unbound. Your group doesn't understand? That's a problem with your group, not the codex.

Bottom line, you don't get to play however you want. It's a game that is meant to cater to many, not to you, and everyone already knows that you could lose the privilege (yes, privilege) of using models you paid for with any new edition. You really think this is the first time it happened? We lost attack bike squadrons for no reason. We couldn't take typhoons for a long time. Orks lost looted tanks (actual looted tanks, as in, they could use imperial vehicles with all the imperial vehicle rules). Eldar lost biel-tan, necrons lost pariahs, IG lost its artillery formations, heavy infantry, airborne infantry, light infantry, rank formations and about 30 other special formations.

Ravenwing is not a viable stand alone army due to the 1HQ limit and extra vehicle taxes, though slightly more viable than deathwing in that you don't auto-lose on the first turn. I'm not on here whining about not being able to run full deathwing or ravenwing, and instead I broke out my power armor and started painting. Something I haven't done in almost a decade.

Also, there is no "ironwing" and there has never been any specialized vehicle formations outside of the Ravenwing.

@ twopounder - Can't hear you over the sound of White Scars doing it better due to the ability to Scout Rhinos with two Grav Cannons (Devs) allowing for very potent shooting T1. We both can play that game

And I'd laugh when he had to go up against an IG leafblower army? That's a neat gimmick, but nothing more.

[plasmaspam]

 

 

So you would take a turn 1 shotgun scatter over a turn 2 precision strike with twin-linked weapons and shoot/run run/shoot?

 

Pretty hollow argument to me, but whatever.

 

I'd like the choice between the two, not be forced down one arbitrary path.

Well, something about people in hell wanting ice water. The codex is good, what you're doing is complaining about a free car that's blue instead of red. Pure Deathwing isn't competitive and stopped being fun with the last Eldar codex. You're ignoring what is possibly the most powerful codex to date because you can't get all your terminators killed on the first turn. We don't need pure deathwing or ravenwing. It's a nice addition but by no means a god given right. My advice is to be happy that it wasn't a 4th edition remix.

Allow me elaborate - I'd like the choice between the two, just like we had three weeks ago. I think the maths will show this edition has nerfed the Deathwing however you play them.

 

More disturbingly, you're asserting your opinion as fact, so I'm sorry but I can't then put much faith in your advice.

[twopounder]

 

 

 

So you would take a turn 1 shotgun scatter over a turn 2 precision strike with twin-linked weapons and shoot/run run/shoot?

 

Pretty hollow argument to me, but whatever.

I'd like the choice between the two, not be forced down one arbitrary path.

Well, something about people in hell wanting ice water. The codex is good, what you're doing is complaining about a free car that's blue instead of red. Pure Deathwing isn't competitive and stopped being fun with the last Eldar codex. You're ignoring what is possibly the most powerful codex to date because you can't get all your terminators killed on the first turn. We don't need pure deathwing or ravenwing. It's a nice addition but by no means a god given right. My advice is to be happy that it wasn't a 4th edition remix.

Allow me elaborate - I'd like the choice between the two, just like we had three weeks ago. I think the maths will show this edition has nerfed the Deathwing however you play them.

 

More disturbingly, you're asserting your opinion as fact, so I'm sorry but I can't then put much faith in your advice.

 

 

well, once you prove the ability to take pure deathwing is a right guaranteed by your government, I'll concede that it's opinion. 

[WellSpokenMan]

 

Allow me elaborate - I'd like the choice between the two, just like we had three weeks ago. I think the maths will show this edition has nerfed the Deathwing however you play them.

 

More disturbingly, you're asserting your opinion as fact, so I'm sorry but I can't then put much faith in your advice.

 

How, exaclty, do you figure that?  If you choose to ignore the majority of the units in your factions codex, then that may be true.  Even so, I would still like to see your equations.  Regular DW squads are cheaper by 4 points a model, are no longer forced to pay for a largely pointless upgrade to their Land Raiders, and are no longer forced to buy a special character that got a buff and still manages to be mediocre.  I can see the argument that they aren't competitive, particularly for Maelstrom missions.  I can see the argument that you lost tactical options.  I can't see how anything mathematical got worse for them over 6th.  Please elaborate.

[twopounder]

Honestly, if you want to gripe about something, here are some much more legitimate concerns:

 

1) Massive amount of typos

2) Jumbled rules that are very poorly worded

3) Extremely low quality, outsourced artwork that I'd expect in a $9.99 book from a startup game company

4) CAD rules that require the purchasing of unrealistic numbers of models

5) Special rules applied to full units to force the purchasing of unrealistic number of models (instead of just improving the ability of a single model and not requiring a unit at all)

6) Desperate need of an FAQ that is highly unlikely to ever surface.

[Frater Cornelius]

Honestly, if you want to gripe about something, here are some much more legitimate concerns:

 

1) Massive amount of typos

2) Jumbled rules that are very poorly worded

3) Extremely low quality, outsourced artwork that I'd expect in a $9.99 book from a startup game company

4) CAD rules that require the purchasing of unrealistic numbers of models

5) Special rules applied to full units to force the purchasing of unrealistic number of models (instead of just improving the ability of a single model and not requiring a unit at all)

6) Desperate need of an FAQ that is highly unlikely to ever surface.

 

Those are the only objective grievances one could have. Everything else, including what I said, is purely subjective and will differ from person to person.

[WellSpokenMan]

Honestly, if you want to gripe about something, here are some much more legitimate concerns:

 

1) Massive amount of typos

2) Jumbled rules that are very poorly worded

3) Extremely low quality, outsourced artwork that I'd expect in a $9.99 book from a startup game company

4) CAD rules that require the purchasing of unrealistic numbers of models

5) Special rules applied to full units to force the purchasing of unrealistic number of models (instead of just improving the ability of a single model and not requiring a unit at all)

6) Desperate need of an FAQ that is highly unlikely to ever surface.

4 kind of confuses me.  Did you mean the Battle Company or something else.  AFAIK, CAD rules didn't change,

[Dillithium]

Honestly, if you want to gripe about something, here are some much more legitimate concerns:

 

 

3) Extremely low quality, outsourced artwork that I'd expect in a $9.99 book from a startup game company

 

Really this. The artwork is infantile and not the quality I expect from a 46 euro book. But okay, that's a personal gripe.

Now Ravenwing is great, Greenwing has unique options that make us very competative. 

 

Can someone tell me how to play Deathwing Knights in the two available formations? I love the fact that the MoR is AP3 now, and the selectable smite is great. But I am forced to deepstrike them. I cannot put them in Land raiders. I cannot assault after a deep strike move. This is the problem. I don't want turn 1 assault back necessarily, I don't even want twin linked on the turn they come in. I want there to be a difference between the two formations. I want a deathwing formation that is not restricting. That's all. It has nothing to do with how good the other options are in the book, I do not care if we are now in the top 3 of codices based on RW and GW. I just want to play with my favorite models without being told how to play them.

[twopounder]

 

Honestly, if you want to gripe about something, here are some much more legitimate concerns:

 

 

3) Extremely low quality, outsourced artwork that I'd expect in a $9.99 book from a startup game company

 

Really this. The artwork is infantile and not the quality I expect from a 46 euro book. But okay, that's a personal gripe.

Now Ravenwing is great, Greenwing has unique options that make us very competative. 

 

Can someone tell me how to play Deathwing Knights in the two available formations? I love the fact that the MoR is AP3 now, and the selectable smite is great. But I am forced to deepstrike them. I cannot put them in Land raiders. I cannot assault after a deep strike move. This is the problem. I don't want turn 1 assault back necessarily, I don't even want twin linked on the turn they come in. I want there to be a difference between the two formations. I want a deathwing formation that is not restricting. That's all. It has nothing to do with how good the other options are in the book, I do not care if we are now in the top 3 of codices based on RW and GW. I just want to play with my favorite models without being told how to play them.

 

 

How are you forced to deepstrike them? Just take them and stick them in a land raider or walk them. They are not a deepstrike only option. You don't HAVE to take a CAD or Formation.

 

 

Honestly, if you want to gripe about something, here are some much more legitimate concerns:

 

1) Massive amount of typos

2) Jumbled rules that are very poorly worded

3) Extremely low quality, outsourced artwork that I'd expect in a $9.99 book from a startup game company

4) CAD rules that require the purchasing of unrealistic numbers of models

5) Special rules applied to full units to force the purchasing of unrealistic number of models (instead of just improving the ability of a single model and not requiring a unit at all)

6) Desperate need of an FAQ that is highly unlikely to ever surface.

4 kind of confuses me.  Did you mean the Battle Company or something else.  AFAIK, CAD rules didn't change,

 

 

Have you tried running 14 razorbacks without buying the models first? I have 7, and may well convert 7 more, but the average player is going to have to pay $577.50 just for the razorbacks. That's outside of the minimum models required to unlock the special rule. Essentially, to fully unlock the Lion's Blade, you're paying over $1000. Granted, some of us already have the stuff, but that's giving us a substantial advantage over someone who doesn't. In effect, your wallet can give you an advantage over other players.

[Master Toddius]

As soon as grav weapons were introduced to the game - terminators in general were doomed. This DW fascination kinda already ended for me. And before that it was removal of 2 heavies per squad not 1 every 5 terminators. You could have 5 man terminator squads with dual assault cannons which was a beautiful thing. They need to go back to mass firepower.

[Brother Turok]

Yes the turn 1 nerf sucks. Dark angels have been about playing gw, dw, rw, or mixed wing armies. I used to play a dw army with black knights as support. The turn 1 desperation killed major threats and tied others up while the rest of my army moved forward.

 

It bothers me that other armies have taken what we were. I get the mixed wing fluff... but fluff also shows burial leading the entire deathwing -without ravenwing or greening - against major threats. So much for that fluff.

[Xenith]

 

 

As a long time Dark Angels Player(12 years) I'm am so sick of being the chapter that everyone takes from. Don't get me wrong, it used to be flattering that everyone wanted to be like us, but now it's just disheartening.

 

The Blood Angels say Hi (Stormraven, dreads with 2 DCCW, assault marines with special weapons, veteran assault marines, furious charge, feel no pain, detachment bonuses thelistgoeson).

 

DA got grav, didn't you? Give it back! The lending goes both ways. Griping is fine, but you need to have perspective.

 

Using the Archangels as an example is also a pretty poor one. To get the first turn reserves for them, you need to take a whole company of veterans.

 

Deathwing is a whole company of Veterans. 

 

What, and the Blood Angels first company isn't?

 

You misunderstand me, due to how ludicrous it is for BA to get T1 deepstrike. Let me emphasise: you have to take the entire Blood Angels First Company as listed in the Blood Angels Codex.

 

TDA Captain, TDA Chaplain, 10 squads in any mix of Terminator or Veteran, 4 Furioso Dreadnoughts. Compulsory.

 

Just pointing out that not all is as you think it is.

[Blank05]

So you would take a turn 1 shotgun scatter over a turn 2 precision strike with twin-linked weapons and shoot/run run/shoot?

 

Pretty hollow argument to me, but whatever.

You seem nice... -__-;;

 

Again, it's not that we no longer get T1 Deep Strike, it's that we used to have it (and as far as I know we were the only Astartes that could) and now, not only do we not have it, but everyone else does. All of my issues, with this codex and all previous ones, are that when we get something fun, unique and/or(emperor forbid!) good we have to share it or give it away.

[twopounder]

 

So you would take a turn 1 shotgun scatter over a turn 2 precision strike with twin-linked weapons and shoot/run run/shoot?

 

Pretty hollow argument to me, but whatever.

You seem nice... -__-;;

 

Again, it's not that we no longer get T1 Deep Strike, it's that we used to have it (and as far as I know we were the only Astartes that could) and now, not only do we not have it, but everyone else does. All of my issues, with this codex and all previous ones, are that when we get something fun, unique and/or(emperor forbid!) good we have to share it or give it away.

 

 

Welcome to 20 years of playing Dark Angels.