Dark Angel Aggressors?

[Helias_Tancred]

Do you use them? Do they play well for us given our chapter rules? If so flamer or bolter? Seems the flamer always puts out far more "shots" just 6" less range, but auto hits? I wish the boltstorm aggressors were better.

 

 

[Karhedron]

Actually Boltstorm are pretty good. They have fragstorm launchers as well so average 9.5 shots so 6.333 hits at 18" range. The Flamestorm average 7 hits but only at 12" range. Flamestorm can Advance and fire without penalty but even so, the extra D6" movement does not usually compensate for the shorter range and prevents charging.

 

I think most players agree that Boltstorm are better than Flamestorm, especially now that there is no difference in points cost. The only thing Flamestorm have going for them is a pretty effective overwatch against chaff.

[Helias_Tancred]

Well I guess it's good that I have a squad of 3 for each type lol? Sounds like maybe 2 more boltstorm aggressors might be a good addition?

 

 

Edit: Also I've been out of the game side of 40k for a good year. Can someone explain to me why Dark Angels are doing so good right now? What units are being used, tactics, etc? Thanks.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Eilio Tiberius

[Karhedron]

7 hours ago, Eilio Tiberius said:

Edit: Also I've been out of the game side of 40k for a good year. Can someone explain to me why Dark Angels are doing so good right now? What units are being used, tactics, etc? Thanks.

 

Dark Angels are doing well due to a couple of factors.

 

Firstly, the reversion to Doctrines means that Marines can now stay in a Doctrine if they wish. This benefits Dark Angels who are really strong in the Devastator Doctrine. As well as Heavy Weapons benefitting, Ravenwing get a special rule allowing them to move an extra 3" and also Advance and Fire as if their guns were all Assault Weapons. This means bike units can move 23" and unload all their shooting which is an incredible rate of movement.

 

Ravenwing units gain a 5++ against shooting while they are moving or a 4++ if they Advance which stacks very potently with the above rule.

 

Deathwing units gain the special rule that they can only ever be wounded on a 4+ which is crippling against your opponent's heavy weapons.

 

Lastly the 1st and 2nd company detchament allow you to specialise in Deathwing or Ravenwing if you wish. Not to mention that unlike normal Marines, you can field Apothecaries on Bikes or in TDA which is handy for keeping those high-value models alive.

[phandaal]

Aggressors are not one of our competitive choices, not by a long shot. If you are going for heavily armored elites, go Terminator, and if you want shooting then Ravenwing or a Redemptor are better.

 

However - I do have 6 Flamestorm Gauntlet Aggressors, because it is fun to shoot their flamers in combat in the Tactical Doctrine. Advance + auto-hit, auto-hits in overwatch, auto-hits into combat, that can be a lot of fun. Also, I just like Gravis.

[Karhedron]

Good point. I forgot about shooting in melee in the Tactical Doctrine. Probably not as strong as some of the other stuff listed but a nice buff. It means they can be really dangerous to both hordes of chaff with their flamers and tough targets with their gauntlets.

[Skywrath]

Lately I been looking at Aggressors for Dark Angels a bit more closely, competitively. As @phandaal pointed out, they compete with Terminators/Knights and even Bladeguard for a spot in DA tournament lists. However what makes aggressors interesting is their single-handed ability to threaten and control a mid-point objective, especially if you run Azrael, and flamer gauntlets. Of course there is the argument for why not take terminators or Bladeguard, but I'd argue with Azrael's bubble of a 4++ and having a native T5 with the option to transhuman, as well as being cheaper than either option makes them at the very least, interesting.

 

Let's assume a scenario. You have a 5m squad on a mid-board objective and there is a squad of say a 10m squad of assault intercessors charging you. You weather the attack through transhuman and overwatch and because of the DA rule of standing still, now you have 20 odd attacks hitting on 2's, at S8, -4 D2. Which would wound them on 2's, as they are T4, unless transhuman. Bear in mind, this is all after they get an unholy amount of dakka in their faces either through bolters/flamers with CM re-rolls in overwatch. This is what makes the Aggressors interesting - they are durable, they hit hard, they are cheaper, they are T5, they have more attacks than Terminators, and now they hold down the objective like it practically has Aggressor written all over it.

 

Now assume a scenario where it's either Bladeguard or regular terminators doing the same thing? Will they have that kind of effect? In melee? Perhaps. In shooting? No. Out of all the above options, I'd imagine the Deathwing Knights will be the one that could cause a similar amount of carnage, but only in the one phase - melee.

 

All this is why I think Aggressors are a very good choice, competitively. 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Skywrath

[Helias_Tancred]

16 hours ago, Skywrath said:

Lately I been looking at Aggressors for Dark Angels a bit more closely, competitively. As @phandaal pointed out, they compete with Terminators/Knights and even Bladeguard for a spot in DA tournament lists. However what makes aggressors interesting is their single-handed ability to threaten and control a mid-point objective, especially if you run Azrael, and flamer gauntlets. Of course there is the argument for why not take terminators or Bladeguard, but I'd argue with Azrael's bubble of a 4++ and having a native T5 with the option to transhuman, as well as being cheaper than either option makes them at the very least, interesting.

 

Let's assume a scenario. You have a 5m squad on a mid-board objective and there is a squad of say a 10m squad of assault intercessors charging you. You weather the attack through transhuman and overwatch and because of the DA rule of standing still, now you have 20 odd attacks hitting on 2's, at S8, -4 D2. Which would wound them on 2's, as they are T4, unless transhuman. Bear in mind, this is all after they get an unholy amount of dakka in their faces either through bolters/flamers with CM re-rolls in overwatch. This is what makes the Aggressors interesting - they are durable, they hit hard, they are cheaper, they are T5, they have more attacks than Terminators, and now they hold down the objective like it practically has Aggressor written all over it.

 

Now assume a scenario where it's either Bladeguard or regular terminators doing the same thing? Will they have that kind of effect? In melee? Perhaps. In shooting? No. Out of all the above options, I'd imagine the Deathwing Knights will be the one that could cause a similar amount of carnage, but only in the one phase - melee.

 

All this is why I think Aggressors are a very good choice, competitively. 

 

 

Boltstorm or Flamestorm?

 

[Marshal Mittens]

I have some and use them, they are not point for point the best unit, and feel a nit fragile in this edition, but they look cool and work well enough in normal games. I find them very good in melee against elites and vehicles and monsters, personally.

[Skywrath]

On 3/26/2023 at 8:47 AM, Eilio Tiberius said:

 

Boltstorm or Flamestorm?

 

 

That is indeed the question. In the above scenario I went flamer due to the nature of auto-hits and for them to be camping a mid-field objective. However you could very easily make the argument that you'd get more use from the bolter aggressors, so that you get more shots and then the +1 to hit for standing still wouldn't be wasted (due to the flamers auto-hitting). 

 

Admittedly this is a theoretical concept that I haven't properly tested out yet, but I got a game this weekend with a friend, so I'll let you know how that goes :)

[Karhedron]

Don't forget that 10th edition is probably only 3  months away so it might be worth playing the waiting game.

[Helias_Tancred]

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Don't forget that 10th edition is probably only 3  months away so it might be worth playing the waiting game.

 

Other than getting Primaris Azrael and The Lion, thats my plan.

 

[Helias_Tancred]

12 hours ago, Skywrath said:

 

That is indeed the question. In the above scenario I went flamer due to the nature of auto-hits and for them to be camping a mid-field objective. However you could very easily make the argument that you'd get more use from the bolter aggressors, so that you get more shots and then the +1 to hit for standing still wouldn't be wasted (due to the flamers auto-hitting). 

 

Admittedly this is a theoretical concept that I haven't properly tested out yet, but I got a game this weekend with a friend, so I'll let you know how that goes :)

 

Please do. I have three of each, and have given thought to eventually picking up two more and rounding out the ones that I prefer?