_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

Yeah, add them in. Remove the option for two Hunters then though.

I think the two hunters option is fine with the planes too, EUK haven't removed the dual hunter option from either BT or DA since adding aircraft

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Clearly I voted for the option of taking the aircraft, and in general I'd say this will be popular. If you remove the hunters though, then please add in a mortis dreadnought or similar as I think a GBAD option will be required in the list (noting of the three, the hunter is the only one to have a model too).

I think your biggest issue will be balance, as discussed in the DA thread, there is a lot of objection to 3x AA attack on a single AC. I personally have no issue with the qty of attacks provided they are realistic and costed appropriately.

I think balance may be easier with the TL lascannon version rather than the Avenger Mega Bolter:
1. Because stats already exist for TL Lascannons and TL heavybolters on AC. (TL LC is at best AT4/AA5, and the TL HB AP4/AA5 allowing you to take a fairly poor blacksword missile as something like AT6/AA6, which i think is realistic given their avg stats in 40k, ie they won't harm a battle tank in 40k unless hitting from side or rear, and then generally only on a 5/6 roll).

2. The AMB by 40k stats and fluff should be effective against AP, AT and AA, and should probably have 2 shots in a direct comparison. This will cause more heart ache in development, and the multiple shots will only increase its effectiveness as an interceptor due to the +1 to hit.

If you go with something like this, then stats wise the Nephilim become equal to a thunderbolt against AT, worse against AP and slightly better against AA but then it is really designed as an interceptor, and not the heavy fighter a thunderbolt is under its FW incarnation. (we must also remember that the tbolt stats were representative of the GW model at the time and not the more popular FW version. If that was to follow the FW design, then the thunderbolt would probably have a save of 5+ due to size and durability, have 2 sets of TL Autocannons AP4/AT5/AA5 and a TL lascannon AT4/AA5 so that would be a very good interceptor. Imagine the forum rage at those stats...)

Anyhow, my 2c is don't be afraid to give it appropriate weapon stats, the model is what it is, just make sure the cost is appropriate.

Personally I think it should be included, but with a specific target of how well we want it to perform and how much it should cost (IMO similar to Thunderbolt on both counts). Since it will definitely have initiative 1+, I suggest a target cost of 200 points for 2, which means toning down its weapons significantly compared to what was proposed initially. In general I think it's best to keep aircraft formations small, with low costs and limited power. If you make them too powerful at AA (even if appropriately costed) then they can make the game very binary. But that's just my preference, clearly the most important thing is they're costed appropriately. If the formation is to be a very reliable transport WE hunter though, then they should cost a lot. And I don't think it is wise to make a niche formation like a fighter cost more than 300 points.

So, to summarise some of the stats under discussion so far:

The nephilim should have:
Twin Heavy Bolter
Darksword Missiles
Twin Lascannon OR Avenger Mega Bolter

The EpicUK list went for the lascannon (albeit not twin). According to what I've read this is the "standard" armament but I gather that people normally choose to exchange this for the AMB in 40K, simply because the stats are better.

Latest AoC proposed stats:
Armour 5+
Avenger Mega-bolter: 30cm AP4+/AT6+/AA5+ FxF
Twin Heavy Bolter: 30cm AP4+/AA5+ FxF
Darksword Missiles: 30cm AT4+/AA5+ FxF

Ortron's proposed stats:
Armour 5+
Twin Lascannon: 30cm AT4+/AA5+ FxF
Twin Heavy Bolter: 30cm AP4+/AA5+ FxF
Darksword Missiles: 30cm: AT6+/AA6+ FxF

And the EpicUK stats:
Armour 6+, Invulnerable Save
Lascannon: 30cm AT5+/AA5+ FxF
Twin Heavy Bolter: 30cm AP4+/AA5+ FxF
Underwing Rockets: 30cm: AT4+ FxF

(I guess it is 6+/inv because all Ravenwing units have it in the EpicUK list). At 200 points for 2, it is in the right ball park, though may actually be very slightly undercosted compared to a thunderbolt. The TBolt has its intercept capability limited by a combination of its need to get within 15cm to be effective and its poor armour. The negation of that limitation and initiative 1+ are significant benefits for the nephilim, whereas the weaponry is pretty much the same power (the TBolt's AP5+/AT6+ shot vs the nephilim's AT5+).

I don't mind what we give it really, but IMO would like to keep it very similar to thunderbolt in both stats and cost, because it is much easier to justify inclusion and balance and doesn't change the dynamics of the marine list.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I think you should have the option of the Dark Angels stuff and the standard SM fliers

_________________
Walk softly. And carry a big gun.

Personally, I think the idea of adding the 40K cash-grab fliers to a Dark Angel list is a terrible one. It chews up and spits out what was familiar and fluffy about the Dark Angels list and makes it less distinct rather than more. That's bad for a list that already has a strong 'base' list that could easily be used to represent them. If you want fliers, there are plenty of other non-DA lists available.

I see no positive in including the fliers, and I don't think anyone else can give a good reason for including them outside of "it's progress and it's in the new 40k list", both of which are horrible reasons for a change of this scale.

I am in favour of adding the new flyers, so long as the proposed stats are tweaked to be a little less powerful.

The thing is, I feel the original rationale for excluding flyers from the Dark Angels list has now gone - so keeping them out now makes no sense. While originally the DA not tending to work with allies meant that Imperial Navy formations being excluded worked and was fluffy, this is not about bringing in allied formations, but rather the inclusion of organic Dark Angels support which seems pretty fluffy to me.

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/

+1

It's not like the Dark Angel list was intended as a "no flyer list", it was just meant to be a Dark Angel list and it was hard to justify including Navy units. I'm not sure why adding flyers, that the fluff says only the Dark Angels have, is a problem just because it is "new" fluff. That point of view seems to revolve around "we don't like change", which I can understand and support for a finished list, but the DA are far short of that.

Far from there being no good reason to include the nephilim, the lack of flyers was always a sticking point stopping people using the list, and it seems the perfect opportunity to fix it. Most of my encounters with Dark Angels in the past have been represented by the codex list instead, precisely for that reason. The Dark Angels are not terribly represented by the codex list, so if you're going to make a Dark Angel list you might as well actually make it a Dark Angel list. Variant tanks and the like are barely worth including, but this is actually a full-on proper unit that, really, is more relevant to the Epic scale than it is to 40K.

Finally, if you want to play the "no flyer" list that you're used to, you can. Just don't include them in your games.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Sorry, but that's really a terribly weak argument - when the list is balanced with the idea that the unfluffy flyers should be included (thus losing anti-air benefits, or advantages in other avenues) then not taking those flyers leaves a gaping hole in the playability of the list. If it's NOT balanced with the flyer usage in mind, and includes other advantages over and above the Astartes list, it's going to swing the other way. Either way, the result is a diluted, poor compromise between fluff and rules. Or, to simply use the same argument on it's head, if people want to use Space Marine flyers they can just use another list to play DA models. There's no need to change a list that is very fluffy and currently fairly distinctive because of tactical limitations.

Besides which - if we're wanting to add unique, powerful flyers just for Space Marine lists, why haven't the Hawk Lords (a chapter specifically renowned for their air assets and piloting skills) received a list with cool new toys? I think there's more justification to build that list over adding stuff to Dark Angels solely because GW wanted to sell an overpriced Dark Angel fighter plane in 40k scale.


I just wanted to add - yes, I'm most certainly (and unashamedly) one that considers the 'older' fluff to have more weight than the new, and really don't want to be chasing our tails every time GW adds another figure to their increasingly ludicrous skirmish range. I also know that I have a tendency to come across a little more 'harsh' in tone than intended. Please don't take offense. We might disagree, I'll fight my corner with all the ferocity of a Doomkitten, but we're grown ups and that doesn't meant I'm suffering hurt feelings.

Your objection was not based on balance but on what was "familiar and fluffy", so I think it is quite reasonable to propose that if you dislike fighters, you could choose not to include them. I really don't see how you can describe them as "unfluffly flyers". How is "more hunters than other chapters" more fluffy than a flyer that is ONLY AVAILABLE to Dark Angels? It's not more fluffy, it's just what you are used to. I will grant you that it creates a tactical difference to the codex list, but that differences is a purely artificial one and is in no way "fluffy".

And this is exactly proving my point - we are not talking about Space Marine flyers, we are talking about Dark Angel specific ones. You can't just use another list to play those DA models, because they don't exist for anyone other than Dark Angels.

Never heard of the Hawk Lords, AFAIK they are not an iconic chapter, but if they are the most appropriate chapter to include generic Space Marine flyers (you mean storm raven etc?) then I'd agree with you. Although if the inclusion of the flyers is the motivation then personally I think it does not actually need to be a specific chapter but a particular way of fighting. Either way, a separate list from the codex list that dates from 2004.

Don't worry I think there are plenty of people who are not GW's biggest fans. We all know why those flyers exist in 40K. But I think it's more than a hint of rose-coloured spectacles to think that the old fluff is somehow not about selling model soldiers. Hell, why are there several slightly different marine chapters painted in different colours and with slightly different unit and weapon compositions? As I said, I agree on the whole that we need not include stuff just because GW comes up with a new unit, but that doesn't mean there has to be a blanket ban. This is actually an occasion where GW has released a new unit that solves a problem with the Dark Angels list that we already knew about (i.e. the lack of non-allied flyers). Even with that, I would still be against including the nephilim if this were an approved/finished list, and I have expressed that opposition to inclusion of the storm raven for example in the codex list - IMO "core" lists should be locked and new units put in a separate list. But the DA list is clearly nowhere near approved and splitting it now seems a pretty bad move.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Have to go with Kyrt on that one, mate. Bringing up the Hawk Lords is a bagatell and has nothing with the topic of Dark Angels (and successors) only flyer in the Dark Angels (and successors) Marine list.

Thanks for bringing them up however as they're actually pretty interesting and would be fantastic to build a variant list around flyers for. Consider it on my to-do list!

edit: damn you! Now I've gone and written another list! viewtopic.php?f=73&t=27848



Actually I often forgo allied flyers in many lists I take, irrespective of their availability, all depending on my battleplan so it's all 'round a weak argument with a weak rebuttal and has little weight on the DA flyers question in practice. Not taking flyers has never hamstrung me when playing Codex list; I doubt it will here

And just a note here Doomkitten. I think Kyrt is more taking exception around your assertion that a DA only flyer being included is somehow less fluffy. You might not like that part of the fluff but it's still part of the fluff, hence his general response. See IF Termitubbies for more on that type of discussion. It is important to remember that the DA list does not have a "no-flyers" design goal. It has a "no-allies" goal.


Agree. They're an expensive unit and if you want to sink the points on them then so be it. It's costing activations which is ample drawback.

I've got no horse in this race and I'd suggest letting the poll run to conclusion but the it's pretty obvious that the inclusion is overwhelmingly favored. I'd rather the discussion pivots more to toning down their stats.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

While I agree that we should just let the poll run it's course now, I have to wonder (admittedly from a "newly returned to epic" point of view) precisely why it matters if GW's new additions to an army list should be included in a new list but not in a current one. I'm already slightly frustrated at the thought that Space Marine flyers won't be included unless a new list comes out, so to see a non-specialised list being pushed to get unique flyers... It doesn't seem right at all. Anyway...

I don't think that, strategically, the lack of fighters genuinely cripples the Dark Angel list, I think their inclusion will just enable them to be used in the ways that people -expect- Space Marines to fight. I believe that it will take out a significant part of what made the Dark Angels actually unique, both in battle doctrine and fluff and not just "yet another chapter, but with robes and different names for two companies". Only time can tell on that one, I suppose!

But, if there has to be a compromise, and obviously I think there should, then they absolutely shouldn't lose options just because they're getting a newly invented toy plane and the new toys shouldn't be of a standard that makes them auto-inclusions in every list. Keep them as viable as they've ever been without the new stuff and I suppose then there really shouldn't be a problem, as those miserable grognards (me) can still refuse to acknowledge the air assets existence and carry on without!


(And off topic, I know, but if someone starts doing something with an codex-air-doctrine force, my Hawk Lords are at your disposal. I didn't have enough terminator models to make a convincing Dark Angel army anyway. )

Oh the whole "new units go in new lists not core ones" thing is just a personal opinion, and some others will I'm sure disagree. For my part, it's mainly because I think it's the only way to satisfy the "ain't broke don't fix it" crowd as well as the "why isn't the list up to date with current 40k?" crowd - trying to make a list that is both at the same time just leads to aggro and/or deadlock. Having a design philosophy for the list is extremely helpful when trying to finish a list as it focuses minds towards what the list is supposed to represent, sadly that is not always made clear, especially for lists that are just the product of "there needs to be a list for X because they exist in 40k" - that's how you end up with differing opinions on what should be in and out of the list. For instance, if it was the stated objective of this list to represent "dark angels hunting the fallen as they were in 2009" then I wouldn't want the nephilim in it and we probably wouldn't be having this debate

The system of lots of variant lists is not how I would design things from scratch given the choice, but we are where we are and I figure we need to make the best of it. And it has its benefits too, e.g. the lists are constrained enough to make balancing them possible. That's why epic is a great competitive game.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I've suggested many times and even have lead the way in the lists I'm responsible for that a small blurb should be present at the top of each that succinctly states the design goal or theme or whatever that governs the list aka Why this list exist. Unfortunately I've not seen any traction on that idea with anyone elsebut I'd be remiss if I didn't put it out there, again =/

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!