Games with the new DA codex.

[Prot]

I would agree with a lot of that, however the Ravenwing might just be the most 'efficient' of the detachments. I agree that the units are lackluster, but for me the selling point is the detachment rule (which is good for scoring) extends to all units (I believe).

 

So in theory a Ravenwing list SHOULD look a certain way, but as you mention it probably won't. However the rule might be worth testing on a larger scale (non-Dark Angel units) to get some serious scoring potential.

 

As far as Inner Circle: 

46 minutes ago, Raychu said:

For them, the deathing detachement gives too much info to your opponent to really be useful.

 

If what you mean by this is the detachment strongly projects its intent, then I completely agree and this is what I've been saying: The Vowed Objective is a decent rule. Not great, and I believe very limited to "Deathwing" keyword, but it's so easy to avoid. 

 

In fact I've had games where things aren't going well for my DA, but my opponent being stubborn insists on pouring onto an objective I've "Vowed". This gives me a slight advantage, but he refused to avoid it, and there's where my best scoring was. In fact in some games I've literally told my opponent, "If you avoid that objective, you win!"

 

The Deathwing Inner Circle Detachment is close, but falls short with projecting so much intent. (The beauty of "Oath" is you simply pick any unit, where as a Vowed Objective assumes your opponent must interact with you on that spot.) Also the main units this detachment leverages are just too lethargic and over pointed. 

 

I don't think I'll ever come around on the Unforgiven (greenwing) detachment. I stopped trying to make it work BEFORE the codex came out, and now the dataslates have been turned down even more, so there's even less incentive for me to try to make it work.

 

With Ultra I was winning over half my games. With the DA codex/detachments I'm at the lowest win rate I've been in for 10th edition. This might be stubborn (suitably so?) but I refuse to play the Gladius or Emperor forbid, the Ironstorm lists that are unrealistically improving the horrid "Dark Angels" win rates. 

 

 

[ashc]

Moving forwards this needs to be how the space marine supplements are judged - if the incentive is not strong enough to run at least one of the book's detachments with a handful of their chapter-specific units then it's a failure.

 

 

[Harleqvin]

Something else I thought a little strange was they didn’t give the inner circle/Desthwing detachment the ability to make the three base DA TDA units all objective scoring (edit - mean battleline.) similar-like they did with the Ravenwing one.

 

would that have made it too powerful?

Edited March 27 by Harleqvin

[jaxom]

5 hours ago, Harleqvin said:

Something else I thought a little strange was they didn’t give the inner circle/Desthwing detachment the ability to make the three base DA TDA units all objective scoring similar-like they did with the Ravenwing one.

 

would that have made it too powerful?

Dark Angels can bring, what, a total of 12 Terminator-type squads in any force? Ravenwing can bring 9 bike-type squads normally, but that goes up to 12 when Outriders gain Battleline. Seems like it was more of a consistency thing.

[Malakithe]

@Prot maybe you can try DA Firestorm? Ive been trying to brainstorm Firestorm lists for a while now with various Chapters so maybe DA could work. Like many detachments you dont have to lean into the flamer aspect. The +1S might work for certain things? Who knows...

 

So the DA specific units that work well are...Azrael and Darkshrouds lol

[CCE1981]

I have been running Firestorm since the Codex came out.  You don’t need to lean on torrent weapons.  That + 1 str for a majority of units doesn’t do much, but when it does mean something it REALLY means something.  I had a near zero winrate with Gladius, it suffers from too much of put all your eggs into the one basket Fire Discipline, and only one Doctrine mattering every game, one every other game, and the last never ever mattering in the slightest.  Firestorm, you build a list with multiple threats, giving you massive board coverage and threats everywhere.  Every unit can be a threat, and that what makes it shine, no need to have a deathstar, your opponent is taking losses no matter what they hit.  Keeping your damage output pretty reliable.

[Prot]

So I guess we're throwing in the towel on the codex itself? 

 

If you were to go back to the Marines codex, and use the Firestorm detachment, what would be the Dark Angels units that make this work better for us than other chapters? Or are we just suggesting this because it's better than the Codex which is apparently quite a low bar.

 

 

[CCE1981]

Darkshrouds and Black Knights.  I think Black Knights do get a ton out of Firestorm.  Str 8 plasma without overcharge, Onslaught of Fire and Crucible of Battle both bring a lot for them, and then three of the enhancements would do pretty good on a Black Knight Command Squad. Crucible of Battle will help that squad a lot if the unit wants to charge non-Vehicle and -Monsters.

[Karhedron]

I think it is the Detachments that are sub-par (although Ravenwing may have some play). The Codex contains some good units. If you are playing a non-specific Chapter then Azrael is probably better than a generic Captain because his free +1CP per turn is pretty strong. Here is a list of what I would consider "strong" units from the Codex (feel free to disagree and nominate other candidates).

• Azrael
• Dark Shroud
• Black Knights
• Ravenwing Command squad (especially when added to the above).

[CCE1981]

I have only really gotten into theory crafting for Black Knights, but I am thinking that a Ravenwing Command squad and 3-man Black Knight Squad would be more ideal than a 6-man squad.  Mostly because of the amount of area that unit would cover.  Nine bike models is a huge footprint, and I doubt you would be able to get that many models into a fight.

[jaxom]

4 hours ago, Prot said:

If you were to go back to the Marines codex, and use the Firestorm detachment, what would be the Dark Angels units that make this work better for us than other chapters?

 

Initial thoughts from looking over the firestorm detachment and our units:

• Deathwing Knights and a Captain in Terminator Armour. The Captain gives reroll Charge distance and can use Rites of Battle to get the Crucible of Battle stratagem for 0 CP, giving the unit +1 to wound. They're already a solid defensive unit, and this boosts their offense. The Rapid Embarkation stratagem helps with mobility once they are on the table.
• Deathwing Terminators aren't that different from normal Terminators, but they'd work well with the +1 Strength to ranged weapons within 12" (Deep Strike or pop out of a Land Raider). Thirty-two Str5 storm bolter shots, assuming you use Crucible of Battle, could do work.
• Deathwing Terminators on foot with a Librarian in Terminator Armour. The unit has Assault because of the detachment rule and Sustained Hits 1 from the Librarian; becoming a surprising mobile force that throws out a lot of shots.
• Azrael with Hellblasters in a transport. Rocket the transport forward and when it gets shot at, use Burning Vengeance to pop out close enough to benefit from Rapid Fire 1 and +1 Strength on the Hellblasters.
• Land Speeder Vengeance playing danger close, to get the overcharged plasma battery up to Str10.
• As @CCE1981 noted, Black Knights and Ravenwing Command Squads. 

Oddly enough I think a better option would be Stormlance detachment. There's the obvious synergy with all the mounted Ravenwing units, but take look at what we get for our other units:

• Inner Circle Companions and Deathwing Knights can Advance and Charge and Fall Back and Charge. Attach a character with Portents of Wisdom enhancement and they can reroll the Advance roll. Deathwing Knights which can Fall Back from a tar pit and Charge elsewhere could be worth more consideration.
• Deathwing Terminators using the Blitzing Fusillade stratagem to give all their ranged weapons Assault.
• Wind-Swift Evasion on any Terminator unit is hilarious.

[Tacitus]

On 3/26/2024 at 11:36 PM, Harleqvin said:

Something else I thought a little strange was they didn’t give the inner circle/Desthwing detachment the ability to make the three base DA TDA units all objective scoring (edit - mean battleline.) similar-like they did with the Ravenwing one.

 

would that have made it too powerful?

Doubly so that they didn't add +1 OC to Terminator and/or X-Guard Units.  Bikes are naturally OC2 - Terminators and other veterans are OC1.

[Tacitus]

13 hours ago, CCE1981 said:

I have only really gotten into theory crafting for Black Knights, but I am thinking that a Ravenwing Command squad and 3-man Black Knight Squad would be more ideal than a 6-man squad.  Mostly because of the amount of area that unit would cover.  Nine bike models is a huge footprint, and I doubt you would be able to get that many models into a fight.

 

Fighting with them is secondary.  Its a GOOD secondary, but I'm looking to Fire Discipline the Plasma Talons on overcharge if I'm running Black Knights.   After that I'll charge whatever's left and basket weave my way into engagement range. 

[Karhedron]

I feel it is slightly sad that the use of any decently shooty unit always falls back to Fire Discipline. It's ubiquity seems to skew the entire faction around it. 

 

Sustained Hits triggering on a 5+ is great but it seems like you are losing half the benefit if you take it on a unit that does not have Lethal Hits. Or is there a way to give Black Knights LHs?

[Tacitus]

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

I feel it is slightly sad that the use of any decently shooty unit always falls back to Fire Discipline. It's ubiquity seems to skew the entire faction around it. 

 

Sustained Hits triggering on a 5+ is great but it seems like you are losing half the benefit if you take it on a unit that does not have Lethal Hits. Or is there a way to give Black Knights LHs?

There is not that I know of, but Black Knights are one of the few that makes it worthwhile to go without because of the quality of the shots.  9x A2 + RF1 also goes a little further than 10x A2 + LH

[Prot]

Previously I posted that I had a nearly 'real' win with the Hunters Detachment.

 

It was a slightly turned down Ork list that had been very potent at LVO 2024.

 

Tonight I'm trying out the detachment again. I'll report back.

 

 

[Prot]

Okay, so I'm getting the feeling not a lot of people are playing games... or at least not with DA.

 

Well I ended up pairing against Genestealer Cult! And let me cut to the chase by saying... I still got my jeans on! 

 

So my list was relatively unchanged. I will say his list was very flexible, but he did only have one of those sneak attack bomb squads, and one of those nasty Abberant squads (wow do those hit like a truck.)

 

I can't write out a full proper report, but I'll say the highlights were:

- He was winning for 3 turns. He had strong board control, and my ability to move him off objectives was a sticking point. 

- My vehicles were clearly the turning point, and the shooting over all. The big bike squad was about a 7 out of 10. In killing they are a 4 out of 10, and in scoring they are a 9... so my compromise here is realizing they don't last as long as you like, they actually can get in over their heads easily, however you are best of pushing them for scoring, and using that huge -1 to hit strat from shooting.

 

- Late game the Hellblasters made a bigger difference. He was terrified of them but I noted that I was mostly killing single wound models at T3 (he played well to avoid obvious fire lanes).

- The biggest dissapointment by a mile is the Deathwing knights again. These are just so bad, but I just repainted a squad and really want 1 in the list. I was getting pushed back hard so I had to do a 'free' incursion in my zone to reinforce an onslaught in my zone.  But one turn they got Basilsk'd in the head, killing 2 models.. (you gotta be kidding) and then as a result of being hit, I had a wonderful movement of 2". I finally made it to the Abberants, and even after swinging first, he wiped my squad out. This squad is so bad it isn't funny. I'm really PO'd at GW for what they did to this classic unit.

 

Anyway, at the end I did take heavy casualties, but ended up winning by 5 points. Super close. I was collapsing on one side (he was also recycling dead models there) and he was collapsing on the other side where I was pushing hard with Bikers and good ol' Bladeguard with Admodai. I was just able to complete the cards with superior board control (not by much) in the very late stages.

 

My thoughts at this point are.... the detachments still stink to the mossy underbelly of Caliban.  Of the stoinky ones, I'm seeing more success with the Hunters for obvious reasons... just being able to keep shooting freely is decent, but in my last loss with this list, it was against a far shootier opponent. So it's a catch 22.... you can't neglect Close Combat, however overpaying for it (IE: Deathwing) can cost you the game.

 

I still much prefer the feel of the Inner Circle, however I've effectively replaced what that detachment rule is with one model: The Speeder that gets you +1 to wound against vehicles.

 

I have another game coming up and I'm not sure which DA attachment to use. I have no success with ICT even though it should be much better. And I refuse to use the main codex detachments. :)

 

[Prot]

For those that try to keep an eye on the competitive scene, we are seeing results from the recent points drops.... and we still suck: This comes from Den of Fools who do a great job of rounding up the results in an easy to follow format.

 

 

So we are officially well below the 'goldilocks' zone at 39.7%... with our new codex. At least we are better than... "Unknown"!

 

 

[jaxom]

The lack of data on detachment choice also makes the data kind of useless for analysis. For example, Salamanders have enough players to make the data somewhat trustworthy, but they could be running any number of detachments and the only thing in common is one or more Salamander characters. What I find most interesting is the almost plus/minus 10 percentile point difference in win rates for less 20 player tournaments compared to 20 player or more tournaments for so many Chapters.

[Karhedron]

3 minutes ago, jaxom said:

What I find most interesting is the almost plus/minus 10 percentile point difference in win rates for less 20 player tournaments compared to 20 player or more tournaments for so many Chapters.

 

I think that is because in a small tournement a single good/bad/(un)lucky player can significantly skew the results for a faction (up or down).

[Prot]

I agree the data isn't perfect. But what I do know is this:

 

34 players chose the DA supplement. This gives us the most data/feedback out of any chapter. Even game play wise, it's pretty high. So are a few of the others.

 

Of the 34 DA players I assume some are using the DA detachments but I'm guessing 50% - 90% are not.

Of all the non-DA players I assume 0 are using the DA detachments.

 

In tournaments with 20 players or more (harder to skew results), the result is pretty bad. Keep in mind this is with the "Deathwing" getting cheaper and other discounts, but also gets hit with some of the base marine adjustments as well. (Let's be honest, there is no non-character in the DA codex that needed to be spanked.)

 

What I get from this is the new codex is still a bust. In fact, I think if you took the DA players playing Space marine Ironstorm, etc with Azrael out of the equation, it would be abysmal.  I follow the competitive scene quite a bit and we play fairly competitive in my main group and the base DA codex is really hard to function with.  

 

I do agree though it would be incredibly helpful if the data had detachment 'tagging' or something searchable there because it does make a tremendous difference. GW has this asinine adjust rule where they won't touch dataslates but will change points. So something REALLY good in one detachment (IE: Inceptors) gets hit hard as soon as John Lennon does tremendous with maxing them at London GT. Now the unit pays the sins of the detachment even when it is far less optimized.  (just an example)

 

The detachment clearly is a huge factor in the results but we are blind to it in these results. However I really do think that the ability of DA to play any detachment and it still is showing poorly indicates just how bad the DA detachments/units are.

[Malakithe]

With the points dip are DWK still meh compared to BGV?  I'm trying to find reasons to play a unit of Knights cuz they are so cool but man is it hard to justify them va BGV. 

 

Trying to make a Firestorm but need at least one melee unit to get in somethings face.

[Karhedron]

5 hours ago, Malakithe said:

With the points dip are DWK still meh compared to BGV?  I'm trying to find reasons to play a unit of Knights cuz they are so cool but man is it hard to justify them va BGV. 

 

For 215 points, DWKs get 20 T5 wounds at -1 Damage and a 2+/4+ save.

For 180 points BGVs get 18 T4 wounds and a 3/4++ save and can reroll 1s to Hit or Save in melee

 

As a pure anvil, DWKs do outperform BGVs in sheer durability. DWKs also come with Teleport which can save points on a Transport (although they may be better off just walking).

 

For 215 points, DWKs get 25 1 Damage attacks

For 180 points BGVs get 24 2 Damage attacks

 

Offense is where BGVs really come out on top as those MCPS really get work done. You can give DWKs Maces for 2 Damage but then you are looking at only -1 AP and 20 attacks for the squad.

 

It is a tough call. BGVs are better all-rounders IMHO but if you just want a unit to sit on an Objective and soak up a ton of punishment DWKs are probably viable now at 215 points.

Edited May 10 by Karhedron