Dark Angels Index

[ValourousHeart]

14 hours ago, Harleqvin said:

(instance being some ork players tried to say quartering tables could be done lengthwise and GW chimed in with no its +.)

 

Lengthwise table quarters?  Let me guess, so they can claim they are in all 4 table quarters while still in their deployment zone. Am I hearing you correctly that certain players were trying to gerrymander table quarters?

 

And we are going to blame this on GW, not the players.  Got it.

Edited June 16, 2023 by ValourousHeart

[ValourousHeart]

1 hour ago, m_r_parker said:

But I will say that despite this being needed, and being grateful for it being available before release, the fact that I have an FAQ for a core product that I don't even own is the first mis-step in the Leviathan / 10th Ed launch in my opinion. Great fix, shouldn't have needed it in the first place though.

 

Maybe you could view this as a Day 1 patch for a Triple A video game.  For some reason all of us accept that as normal without throwing a tantrum.  Yet we expect GW to be perfect in spite of a segments of the player base actively trying to justify their blatant cheating and the rest of the player base willing to blame GW for the actions of those cheating players.

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 hour ago, farfromsam said:

What is going on in this picture?  Jeez

Clearly that's a Land Speeder Tornphoon.

Later in the HH Land was influenced heavily by his peer Cawl and decided that guns on your guns guns was the proper approach to STC software development. 

[m_r_parker]

33 minutes ago, ValourousHeart said:

 

Maybe you could view this as a Day 1 patch for a Triple A video game.  For some reason all of us accept that as normal without throwing a tantrum.  Yet we expect GW to be perfect in spite of a segments of the player base actively trying to justify their blatant cheating and the rest of the player base willing to blame GW for the actions of those cheating players.

 

Dude, not throwing a tantrum, not quite sure how you read that but wasn't my intention when writing it.

I do feel it is justified to point out where mis-steps have occurred. And as I said, this is, in my eyes, the first mis-step of the 10th Ed launch. Stock levels / availability  were good (I went to GW direct, others people mileage may vary), build-up of info prior to launch has been thought-out, free to download data sheets for the entire product range is amazing and not something I think I've seen before (8th Ed made us buy Index books). Nothing is perfect, I highlight the good and the bad. 

[ValourousHeart]

Sorry, temper tantrum wasn't directed at you specifically.  More at the general attitude of the Warhammer community vs the Video Game community with regard to day one FAQ and Patches.

 

Most of us play video games, so the comparison of our attitudes on various games and events across mediums is worth considering.  I don't know what your experience is, but for me I've never purchased a Triple A video game that didn't have a day one patch that was a significant update compared to the game out of the box.  There would also be another significant update within 3-6 months from launch addressing system stress related features and balance updates after observing player data from the game out in the wild.

 

Perhaps we should take a hint from ourselves about a better way to respond to FAQ and Balance changes with Warhammer.

 

But you are correct we should highlighting the good and the bad.

 

I think the Warhammer community handles the DLC part of the conversation much better than video game community.  But I think that is a matter of expectation.  Video games used to be sold as a complete game... with the expectation that if the developer was going to release something new, it would be a brand new game.  Over time the video game industry changed course without having a real conversation with their player base.  And players didn't appreciate the fact that they were purchasing what was ultimately an incomplete game, with no assurance that the developer would ever complete the game.  Warhammer had the design style and we'll cycle out each faction and additional content over time all along and we, the player base, could pick an choose which new content we wanted.

[Frater Cornelius]

On 6/16/2023 at 9:21 AM, Tacitus said:

I'm pretty sure that TDA Ancient was a one-off special model or something and they're just keeping rules support so people don't get upset  at it going away right after they got it. - and not part of the TDA Command Squad I have. 

 

Funnily, the TDA Ancient is actually quite good in the DWCS. They will have 3OC per model that can't be shocked away (1 through DA base rules, 1 through the Ancient that's part of the CS, and 1 through the attached Ancient leader), +1 to hit on an almost universally 3+ hit profile once a model is dead, and they have access to FnP enhancement through the Ancient. Couple this with the Apo bringing back models and the defensive strats the DA have, throw in a TDA Captain and I think you'll have an amazing midfield objective camper that can shoot away chaff and kill big stuff on the charge.

[Isual]

I just noticed GW, as expected, found a way to undercut the detachment ability of the dark angels. 

 

Because of the order modifiers are applied (to read in the rules commentary), set to fixed value first, apply multipliers/divisions second and +/- third then round up. This means everyone can have OC 1 in battleshock if they can get a +1 and our bonus can still be taken away. 

 

If they just gave us a general +1 to OC, maybe capped at a certain value, it would have had the same effect and would be useful when not battleshocked. 

 

Or am I missing something crucial? 

[unrealchamp88]

Just reading through comments in here to learn things i've missed or not understood etc.

 

Can someone clarify how a Terminator Ancient can join a Deathwing unit? I've seen comments saying such, but in the indexes a Terminator Ancient can only join;

Relic Terminator Squad, 

Terminator Squad,

Terminator Assault Squad

 

However, Deathwing units lack those keywords, so how is it able to join them?

 

Appreciate the clarification/education.

[Isual]

49 minutes ago, unrealchamp88 said:

Just reading through comments in here to learn things i've missed or not understood etc.

 

Can someone clarify how a Terminator Ancient can join a Deathwing unit? I've seen comments saying such, but in the indexes a Terminator Ancient can only join;

Relic Terminator Squad, 

Terminator Squad,

Terminator Assault Squad

 

However, Deathwing units lack those keywords, so how is it able to join them?

 

Appreciate the clarification/education.

 

I have to check this, but I think I read somewhere that a unit Deathwing Terminators counts as Terminators for that purpose. 

 

Edit: Its on the unit datasheet. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Isual

[FarFromSam]

So, with the -1 to dmg capped down to 1 dmg minimum.  Is anyone still looking to take DWK?  

 

47 ppm.

Str6.

No ranged.

[unrealchamp88]

35 minutes ago, Isual said:

 

I have to check this, but I think I read somewhere that a unit Deathwing Terminators counts as Terminators for that purpose. 

 

Edit: Its on the unit datasheet. 

 

Thank you. Appreciate the heads-up. Its obvious now I look *face palm*.

[Karhedron]

59 minutes ago, farfromsam said:

So, with the -1 to dmg capped down to 1 dmg minimum.  Is anyone still looking to take DWK?  

 

47 ppm.

Str6.

No ranged.

 

I am not sure. They are an absolute blender unit with 5 MEQ-killing attacks each along with Sustained Hits 1. But I feel that the DW Command Squad simply offers more for less points. 4 T5 Wounds behind a 2+/4++ with 1- Damage is pretty formidable defences but the Command squad can resurrect fallen members thanks to the Apothecary and can still access the -1 Damage in Melee via the Unbreakable Lines stratagem if they run into enemy pack lots of 2D weapons.

[FarFromSam]

45 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

I am not sure. They are an absolute blender unit with 5 MEQ-killing attacks each along with Sustained Hits 1. But I feel that the DW Command Squad simply offers more for less points. 4 T5 Wounds behind a 2+/4++ with 1- Damage is pretty formidable defences but the Command squad can resurrect fallen members thanks to the Apothecary and can still access the -1 Damage in Melee via the Unbreakable Lines stratagem if they run into enemy pack lots of 2D weapons.

Absolutely.  I'm waiting to get some game play feed back, and try to find some combos to get them to work.  Love the models, love the fielding them.

 

The raised toughness scale does show merit here though.  They want these guys to be anti heavy infantry.  Str 6, 3 dmg, hits the mark while keeping them from clobbering vehicles.  (Could use more than the single -1ap though...)  Might be a unit that gets fine tuned when the codex drops.

[Tacitus]

9 hours ago, Isual said:

I just noticed GW, as expected, found a way to undercut the detachment ability of the dark angels. 

 

Because of the order modifiers are applied (to read in the rules commentary), set to fixed value first, apply multipliers/divisions second and +/- third then round up. This means everyone can have OC 1 in battleshock if they can get a +1 and our bonus can still be taken away. 

 

If they just gave us a general +1 to OC, maybe capped at a certain value, it would have had the same effect and would be useful when not battleshocked. 

 

Or am I missing something crucial? 

I think you're missing something.  Its Set to 0/1 by Battleshock, then you apply multipliers/divisions then addition/subtraction. 

 

Ironically this also means a non Dark Angel unit theoretically is set to 0, then add 1 for the Death Wing Ancient etc.... 

[m_r_parker]

1 hour ago, farfromsam said:

So, with the -1 to dmg capped down to 1 dmg minimum.  Is anyone still looking to take DWK?  

 

47 ppm.

Str6.

No ranged.

 

It depends, specifically on what you're looking to get from them.

 

On paper, they look like great objective securers. With 4 wounds a piece, a 2+ / 4++ with a once per battle 4+ FNP against MW, they're going to be difficult to get rid of in both shooting and combat - although without a ranged option, there's a preference to engage at range. Your opponent can either spend a lot of effort to shoot them off, attempt to Melee them off whilst attempting to claim the objective (which may be difficult if the Knights are positioned correctly), or simply ignore them and go for an easier target. 

And I think that's the rub - they're an expensive unit to take if the primary use is for them to sit on an objective and not do much else, especially if they have no ranged firepower. If your opponent ignores them, they're focussing a much larger force against the remainder of yours, or he's tempting you to abandon an objective to get them into combat so that a separate unit can sneak in the objective steal.

Of course, you can decide to go offensive with them and get them to push off an opponent from an objective. You can Deep Strike them, but even with the Company Champion bonus you still need to be rolling above average for a charge. Or you can give them a transport, like a Land Raider variant. But for every turn they're on the battlefield and not in combat, that's time wasted.

 

The comparison between Deathwing Knights and a Deathwing Command Squad is interesting. The Knights will have more wounds, as none of the Command specialists can take Storm Shields, as well as more resilience against D2+ weaponry. The Apothecary bringing a killed model back in each of your Command Phases is a hugely powerful ability, and potentially (likely probably) give more wounds across the length of a battle over a Knight squad. Before factoring in points I would likely go for a Command Squad over a Knight Squad just to get some ranged capabilities, probably with a Cyclone Launcher over a Plasma Cannon or Assault Cannon. I can only see Knights getting selected where I knew I was coming up against a list where D1 weaponry is in the minority.

 

Part of this is assuming that shooting is going to be strong in 10th Ed, and that this isn't a Melee edition of the game. I think a little time is going to be needed to see how the game has changed first, before deciding whether Knights are "worth it" or not.

[FarFromSam]

57 minutes ago, m_r_parker said:

 

It depends, specifically on what you're looking to get from them.

 

On paper, they look like great objective securers. With 4 wounds a piece, a 2+ / 4++ with a once per battle 4+ FNP against MW, they're going to be difficult to get rid of in both shooting and combat - although without a ranged option, there's a preference to engage at range. Your opponent can either spend a lot of effort to shoot them off, attempt to Melee them off whilst attempting to claim the objective (which may be difficult if the Knights are positioned correctly), or simply ignore them and go for an easier target. 

And I think that's the rub - they're an expensive unit to take if the primary use is for them to sit on an objective and not do much else, especially if they have no ranged firepower. If your opponent ignores them, they're focussing a much larger force against the remainder of yours, or he's tempting you to abandon an objective to get them into combat so that a separate unit can sneak in the objective steal.

Of course, you can decide to go offensive with them and get them to push off an opponent from an objective. You can Deep Strike them, but even with the Company Champion bonus you still need to be rolling above average for a charge. Or you can give them a transport, like a Land Raider variant. But for every turn they're on the battlefield and not in combat, that's time wasted.

 

The comparison between Deathwing Knights and a Deathwing Command Squad is interesting. The Knights will have more wounds, as none of the Command specialists can take Storm Shields, as well as more resilience against D2+ weaponry. The Apothecary bringing a killed model back in each of your Command Phases is a hugely powerful ability, and potentially (likely probably) give more wounds across the length of a battle over a Knight squad. Before factoring in points I would likely go for a Command Squad over a Knight Squad just to get some ranged capabilities, probably with a Cyclone Launcher over a Plasma Cannon or Assault Cannon. I can only see Knights getting selected where I knew I was coming up against a list where D1 weaponry is in the minority.

 

Part of this is assuming that shooting is going to be strong in 10th Ed, and that this isn't a Melee edition of the game. I think a little time is going to be needed to see how the game has changed first, before deciding whether Knights are "worth it" or not.

 

Now that my friends, is how you rate a unit.  I agree with everything said here.

 

Prior to the rules clarification of -1 dmg to 0, I was excited.  Although pricey,  the unit had a role in a mechanized list where 1dmg weapons would be starved for a target if you only presented targets >8 toughness,  or lower T infantry that ignored their damage. 

 

Now it is the opposite.   

 

Going to try them out in a small 5 man unit in DS.  The watchmasters weapon and the perceived "threat" of them dropping in may create opportunities to have them disrupt deployment zones... at 235 points though.  

 

Does feel like an "anything you can do, I can do better." When compared to DWCS.    

 

What other unit stands out to you @m_r_parker?

[Marshal Mittens]

Dark Angels seem like they are in an ok place. We have an upper middle tier army for the start of 10th, I think. We are not Eldar, but we are not as weak as Admech. I think for friendly games with normal people, space marines in general, including Dark Angels, will do well. I think some armies will struggle to deal with the tougher units we have. 

[m_r_parker]

5 hours ago, farfromsam said:

 

What other unit stands out to you @m_r_parker?

 

Honestly, Im feeling a little overwhelmed by the info dumps at the moment. I still feel like I'm missing a large part of the rules and today I twigged what it was - the mission details. We get one in the Core Rules, and it's a "first to kill the opponent wins" and has no objectives. I want to see the "real" missions, like the ones we get in Age Of Sigmar with objective layouts, funky deployment areas, and mission specific special rules. For my experience in AoS that informs a lot in terms of how I build an army, and without that 'guidance' I'm feeling a little lost in 40k.

(From a technical side of things, I have the PDF's downloaded to my computer but trying to flip between sheets is causing it to lag and it feels too clunky to allow me to effectively flip between units. I may end up swallowing some dignity and paying for data cards so I can physically flip through them).

Also, from all I can tell, Battleline only comes into effect when making an army and allows you to take 6x of a single unit instead of the regular 3x. For a while I was thinking it was more aligned to AoS where different army sizes have different minimum numbers for Battleline and Leader units. 

 

I'm still scratching my head as to why we as Dark Angels:

• Still have access to Terminators Squads, Terminator Assault Squads, and Relic Terminators when we already have a base Deathwing Squad, and technically aren't all Terminator Squads still 1st Company and therefore all Deathwing?
• We don't have a dedicated Ravenwing squad, but have Ravening Knights and Ravening Command Squads, and have access to generic Space Marine bike and speeder units. Aren't all of the Chapters bikes and speeders still maintained by the Second Company?
• Our Chaplains have been neutered with losing our Interrogators. 

 

One thing I'm trying to look at is the different combo's we can have by including Characters as part of a Unit. Some others have pointed out having a second Terminator Ancient in a Deathwing Command Squad, and honestly I'm kinda glad there isn't a separate Terminator Apothecary that we can throw into a Deathwing Knight unit.

[Tacitus]

5 hours ago, m_r_parker said:

 

 

 

I'm still scratching my head as to why we as Dark Angels:

• Still have access to Terminators Squads, Terminator Assault Squads, and Relic Terminators when we already have a base Deathwing Squad, and technically aren't all Terminator Squads still 1st Company and therefore all Deathwing?

The Rule of 3. 

[FarFromSam]

I think gladiators and predators really shine.  An armored wall with scout snipers 12" behind for DS denial/ scoring  While a couple forward units contest hold midfield FTW. 

 

(Also,  why are those goofy new speeders the same toughness as dreadnoughts? )

Edited June 20, 2023 by farfromsam
New rules. Old brain.

[Deadman Wade]

Just a quick question, sorry if this was already discussed.

As I understand Deathwing Terminator Sergeant now can't exchange his power sword and storm bolter for claws or hammer and shield, is thi correct?

Also, what do you guys think about Land Speeder Vengeance? Seems like an unreliable heavy infantry killer unit, not sure if it's worth taking now.

[FarFromSam]

8 hours ago, Deadman Wade said:

Just a quick question, sorry if this was already discussed.

As I understand Deathwing Terminator Sergeant now can't exchange his power sword and storm bolter for claws or hammer and shield, is thi correct?

Also, what do you guys think about Land Speeder Vengeance? Seems like an unreliable heavy infantry killer unit, not sure if it's worth taking now.

At one sixty points,  sadly there are much much better options.    Maybe if it was around 100, or 110?

[Tacitus]

7 hours ago, farfromsam said:

At one sixty points,  sadly there are much much better options.    Maybe if it was around 100, or 110?

Its D6+1 Blast D2 even before you Overcharge.  The Redemptor with Plasma is beefier, the same thing with an extra -1 AP, serious tank busting Hand to Hand, and a 60ish point higher price tag.  If I've got the points I'd pick a Redemptor, if I need to shave, I'd give thought to swapping in a Vengeance - especially if I don't need the Redemptor Fist. 

 

As for the Sergeant, yes strictly speaking you can't swap - but I'd expect an update to restore that sooner rather than later probably just a bad copy/paste. 

[Harleqvin]

On 6/16/2023 at 3:21 AM, Tacitus said:

I'm pretty sure that TDA Ancient was a one-off special model or something and they're just keeping rules support so people don't get upset  at it going away right after they got it. - and not part of the TDA Command Squad I have. 

The basic termy box came with a standard bearer (now ancient,) and an apothecary didn't it? (... GK have the TDA squad with Apoth & Standard...) Soon enough we will get a new TDA box which will likely get rid of that (or maybe it will get put back in... for a basic TDA command squad that the DA can't use.)

 

On 6/16/2023 at 4:03 PM, ValourousHeart said:

 

Lengthwise table quarters?  Let me guess, so they can claim they are in all 4 table quarters while still in their deployment zone. Am I hearing you correctly that certain players were trying to gerrymander table quarters?

 

And we are going to blame this on GW, not the players.  Got it.

Yes actually, because of GW making it you do as it's written (since the start of 8th ed.)

If you make the game system to be done in a way that you just do what is written, and you don't have it stated how it is SUPPOSED to be, it is their fault, as in the case of the Ork players they did in fact quarter the table as it said to do in the rules...

Edited June 21, 2023 by Harleqvin

[ValourousHeart]

6 hours ago, Harleqvin said:

Yes actually, because of GW making it you do as it's written (since the start of 8th ed.)

If you make the game system to be done in a way that you just do what is written, and you don't have it stated how it is SUPPOSED to be, it is their fault, as in the case of the Ork players they did in fact quarter the table as it said to do in the rules...

 

That is total BS, and you know it.  Everyone knows that drawing A is what table quarters means.  Anyone trying to claim that table quarters means B, C, or D is cheating.