Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

[Fanlist] Dark Angels 3.X (deprecated)

 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Doomkitten wrote:
This allows the Dark Angels greater access to those specialist units, but keeps them from making an army solely of them.

I can't see an issue of making the army all Wing formations as you should be free to build what you want to a degree. I do, however, agree that access to support/line should be more plentiful.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9563
Location: Manalapan, FL
Doomkitten wrote:
n the rest of the list - I strongly, hugely, enormously dislike the idea that ***wing formations should form the core of every army. They are less than one quarter of the standing force of the Dark Angels (I won't even start with how the "Iron Wing" is an abomination against fluff, and a stupid idea implemented to sell more tanks to Dark Angels players). Core should always be regular marines.


The purpose of this list is to represent not a generic dark angels deployment but one specifically around the hunt for the fallen which is the *-wing's entire purpose therefore it is logical for then to take center stage here. When they're doing a more general deployment just to knock some heads (no fallen) then they'd use the Codex list.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:48 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Australia
Doh, looks like I've misread the line formations comment. Ignore my comments regarding the list structure being too restrictive, I'll give it another try.

Agree with speakers comments, though if that's the case of suggest dumping the iron wing to expand the Ravenwing. If we're going to have new units why not have those that are already part of 40k DA?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Sorry for the delay guys, but I'll try to reply to all points. I might pass over your post if it echoing from others, but all comments and feedback was welcomed and read.


mordoten wrote:
Assault terminator with +2 EA MW attacks sounds pretty damn good.

I kept the CC 3+ and just added an attack for the lack of Shooting Weapons. Ie 1 MW for Lighting Claws and 1 MW for Thunder Hammers and 1 Normal. Too Powerful? Maybe? Normal Termies get 2x AC shots, 1 MW attack for just PF and 1 Normal Attack.

jimmyzimms wrote:
Also since you're going off the reservation on the stats for the Predator Executioner I'd suggest you rename the unit to Dark Angels Predator Executioner. This is not the standard configuration so probably shouldn't claim to be in the unit entry.

Do we have an existing Predator Executioner in a list?? I just took the turret from Leman Russ Executioner. In hindsight maybe Heavy Bolters instead of side Plasma Cannons, but I do love Plasma Cannons, lol.

jimmyzimms wrote:
Perhaps I missed this in the older thread but what's the thought behind inventing a new pattern of dreadnought vs including the Unforgiven only dreadnought pattern of the Mortis? Irrespective, I'd drop the Hellfire from the list if it stays.

Well the Executioner Dread has been in there for a long time, I believe its a normal codex option. Mortis was dropped because it wasn't anything exciting. Hellfire Dread has been an iconic DA item since 2nd 40k. I want to keep 2 Dread options and I rather see fluffy Plasma and Iconic Hellfire.

jimmyzimms wrote:
I am glad to see the assault terminators. I suggested those stats myself but got shouted down this year;) I hope they pan out in testing. Playing with the to-hit if they prove to be OTT is an option to consider after extensive testing. Digging them as they really fit in a DA themed army! :)

Right! There was discussion when I first brought them in. It was the same time as Frogbear added Assault Termies to the IF list. I want to portray a stand of Lighting Claws and Thunder Hammers, while Frogbear was going for Thunder Only stand. I was told there was too much micro stating with two Assault Termie stats, so I i went with Frog's and gave in. Since I heard IF dropped Assault Termies I could try them back at the stats I thought were more reflective of them.

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
I still think the Plasma cannon statline is vastly inferior to regular missile launchers; those extra 15cm matter. If you're really set on that line, plasma-equipped units should recieve a discount. On the razorback, however, it is better at the same cost than twin bolters, which is unfortunate - why would anyone pick bolter razorbacks, then?

Do you want help with an Armyforge file?

Speaker, So far people imply its an even swap. Only testing can show this. I rather not try different pricing off the bat. Maybe just gut the HB Razor? Or the Plasma?

I always appericate your help if you want to make an Armyforge file.

Kyrt wrote:
List structure:

Aside from the structure itself, might I suggest a different way to word it? Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the general "core" distinction which grants access to additional line companies, and have everything in the same place:

For each Deathwing detachment you can take 2 Line Company detachments
For each Ravenwing detachment you can take 1 Line Company detachment and 1 Ravenwing Support detachment
For each Ironwing detachment you can take 1 Line Company detachment and 1 Ironwing Support detachment

In hindsight, your thought on wording might be better, but it can wait till the next revision since it doesn't change anything in practice. I'll go more in to depth in list design at the end of this reply.

Dobbsy wrote:
Nephilim.... Could we truly not have just gone with 2x aircraft to begin with...? A bit OTT even with the restriction of tying them to the Ravenwing. These are pretty much the best fighters in the game now. The Heavy Bolter could easily be toned down to a 15cm attack for starters.


Meh, damn plane. I'll go more detail later in reply.

Dobbsy wrote:
Assault Terminators - Re-inventing the wheel? Now any other list with them has to change. Otherwise re-name them. Also, they should actually still be +1EAMW as the basic CC weapon would be MW statted. As written they get 3 CC attacks and should lose their Invulnerable save as they don't have Storm Shields. Why do I feel like Assault Termies should be ditched in all lists and just stick with standard...? :-\ I guess we see how they work out....

Where else are they used? I thought it was only in the IF list and then ditch? I want Assault Termies to match across the SM lists if they exist. I just liked these stats as mentioned before. I read as 2 MW and 1 Normal. I don't think they should have 3 MW hits? Again see previous mention.

Dobbsy wrote:
A few typos/grammaticals etc:

Ravenwing - All Bikes, Attack Bikes, Land Speeders (All Variants) have the Scout (-s) ability. Bikes have Teleport Homers which allows Terminator(+s or units) to re-roll a failed Teleport test if within 15cm.

Unforgiven - The Dark Angel (+s') dark secret is their(')s alone(.) No Imperial Allies can be taken in (a) Dark Angel(+s) Force.

The Devastator stat has only 1x Missile Launcher. If they're standard Devs it should be x2.

Good eye mate!

Doomkitten wrote:
On the rest of the list - I strongly, hugely, enormously dislike the idea that ***wing formations should form the core of every army. They are less than one quarter of the standing force of the Dark Angels (I won't even start with how the "Iron Wing" is an abomination against fluff, and a stupid idea implemented to sell more tanks to Dark Angels players). Core should always be regular marines. Always. I have no problem with increasing availability of ***wing units in a DA force, but would prefer something along the following lines:

I'll go into more detail forthwith, however Jimmy rebuttal well to my same thought pattern.

Steve54 wrote:
Deathwing tactics - a free swap of normal terminators for assault is too good IMO. A pure assault terminator formation is worth less than a pure terminator formation as they are so specialized in CC but a mixed formation of 3 terminators and 1 assault or 2 and 2 is IMO better as it vastly improves the terminators primary use CC but leaves them still able yo shoot and FF

Valid concern but the lists has had the option for sometime and yet to yield an issue. It was revamp to not allow 1/3 formations, you have to use pairs when swapping ie 2 Normal 2 Assault or All the same kind. The Deathwing specialization is mixed combat, hence the interchangeability.

Kyrt wrote:
By the way, it occurred to me when I read your report that the Hunt for the Fallen rule as written only allows formations with Characters to be selected. Farseers and Seer Council are not characters, they are infantry units. So technically there actually aren't all that many choices for some armies - for Eldar only exarchs and autarchs. It also raises another reason why this rule is just weird. For some armies it just doesn't make sense that they could be, or associate with, a Dark Angels Fallen. Tyranids and Necrons, I'm looking at you. I'm sorry to be so negative about this rule without giving it a chance, but it just feels wrong on every level to me.

A very good point I overlooked. I'll reply in detail about the rule since there are lots of comments.

Heavens To Betsy wrote:
I think where you've put at the top "All Standard Space Marine rules apply . . .", it should be more explicit and state which rules apply. Presumably you mean And They Shall Know No Fear and Space Marine Transports.

Talking of the latter, none of the detachments include ". . . plus transport", meaning no Rhinos or Drop Pods can conceivably be taken. You could still take Razorbacks, though, since the upgrade just says "add" rather than "replace".


Meh, I was lazy? ;D This is an experimental list. I expect the players to understand the rules and NetEA system well enough to know better. Bad assumaption? Maybe. But in the NetEA list packet it will be written clearly but for a standalone testing document I thought it was fine.

ortron wrote:
Agree with speakers comments, though if that's the case of suggest dumping the iron wing to expand the Ravenwing. If we're going to have new units why not have those that are already part of 40k DA?

Ironwing isn't new, its from 1st/2nd 40k fluff and has be lost a bit. I was paying homage as the Ironwing would really be fielded in Epic size games. The only thing new is one Predator which I've been thinking on awhile. I might consider adding the Plasma LS later but not sure. Besides that, what is there? The Icon LS and variant Fighter?

jimmyzimms wrote:
The purpose of this list is to represent not a generic dark angels deployment but one specifically around the hunt for the fallen which is the *-wing's entire purpose therefore it is logical for then to take center stage here. When they're doing a more general deployment just to knock some heads (no fallen) then they'd use the Codex list.

Well said Jimmy and right in line with my thoughts. The DA around the rest of Imperium operates just like a Codex army for the most part. The rest of the time when were Hunting Fallen Angels we act differently. You can use the Codex list to show DA in general for game play. The Hunt will have larger and more units of both RW and DW, therefore is the focus and mandatory formations taken. Minimal Battle and Reserve Companies asset it Hunt operations for 2 reasons, 1- There too busy operate like a normal chapter somewhere else in front of the rest of the Imperium. 2- Only DW (RW are DW members) know about the fallen and in varying degrees, so yes while hunting they are going to have mainly DW members to do it, not line companies.

Is the creation pattern restrictive? Yes, I want to see Wing formations while Hunting the Fallen, there should NOT be general marines in large numbers. 1 DW formation and HALF a Battle Company seems like a good ratio considering the background of the list.

Hunt for the Fallen Special Rule

Revamp? Sure. First test idea that came. Needs tweaking. I would like to see it tested as is or with minor changes for now. But I believe REPLACING BTS is probably a better idea. Also, Kryt brought of a good point about Characters. Maybe a list of certain units? Or worded where any Infantry formation OR formation with a Character added? I mean Farseers and Commissars in Tanks should be target-able. Crons and Nids are sticky but, maybe a Hive Tyrant has Bio-matter that give details? Crons might have SM reclics? idk

Nephilim Jet Fighter

Test it and prove theory hammer, (thanks Ortron). The Avg Bolter is matching stats with the other flyer with the same weapon to the best of my knowledge. I want to keep that. Heavy Bolters match other plane stats, I have seen 15cm and 30cm, possible change if too powerful. Dark Missiles are Completely changeable but no one talks about them really, that's where I'm willing to make the adjustments the most because there is no precedent. 2 instead of 3 planes? Maybe, but I liked the idea of 3 since they seemed small and easily broken. But maybe 250 for 2? Let's get a few tests in and see.


If I missed anything or anyone please throw a rock at me and I'll reply. Thanks again folk for the feedback.

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

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 8:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
ortron wrote:
OK so we got our game in tonight, full batrep will have till wait until the weekend probably but in summary the DA lost 4:1 to eldar. Some due to poor decisions on my behalf, some due to luck.

DA list was as follows:
Deathwing + Deathwing Spt + Grand Master
Deathwing + librarian
Deathwing
Tactical + hunter
Assault
Thunderhawk
Ravenwing (all atk bikes changed to LS Tornados)
Ravenwing Air (Nephilim)
Ironwing (4x executioners)

The intent was to test out the Nephilim, and demostrate the ease at which the "hunt for the fallen" could be exploited. Clearly there was a huge amount of DW terminators but this was a requirement due to new list design. (this felt way too restrictive)

I deployed the RW, iron wing and tacticals and everything else started off board. I lost the initiative turn 1 and shortly after the Ironwing was shot to pieces by a phantom and fireprisms. Late in the turn the RW moved up to constrain some eldar units in the centre but a failed Gnd Atk by the thunderhawk let some eldar bikes clip the RW and they were all but annihilated.

Turn 2 saw a large terminator assault, although I took 6BM from teleporting 14 stands.... anyhow the terminators easily defeated 3 eldar formations and picked up the bonus BTS for killing the target character (a black guardian formation). But after that the lack of mobility killed me and some poor activations left the DW stranded and picked off by eldar firepower.

The Nephilim were highly effective at ground attack. In two turns they accounted for 2 fire prism, 4 guardians and a wave serpent for the loss of 1 AC. They failed to arrive turn 3.

Deathwing were effective but against eldar were a bit of a 1 trick pony as they avoided them in turn 3. Some unlucky (too risky?) assaults by me saw the assault marines and thawk lost as well as a DW formation.

I was pretty much tabled by end of turn 3, with the eldar getting BTS, T&H, TSNP & Blitz. DA on the other hand only got the "bonus" BTS. Had I not failed so may activations, it may have been 3:1 or even 2:1 in the third but the poor start meant an uphill battle.

In hindsight I needed to go all out for a 2/3rd turn attack or protect the 1st turn forces more, or have less in reserve. The current list format is very restrictive. Personally I think as an all but "codex" chapter, stick with the standard marine list and show character through the DW & RW options. This list is already hampered by the loss of titans, the heavy restrictions on list design just makes things harder.

I didn't get a chance to show off the executioners, but CAL knew the danger of these from our 30K playtests (where they cost more than a standard pred) and took care of them early on.

AA is still a big threat to the Nephilim, but they were my main trouble shooting unit. I'll take them again for sure, but I'd say they are under costed at 300pts. Suggest we try 2 for 250 or 300. 3 gives them a lot of durability and allows you to take on AA, expecting to loose 1-2 and still dish out the pain. 2 would make me less brazen with their employment.

Ref new units:
Happy with idea for PC armed Dreadnought, no big change here, though a mortis would have been be cool.
I suggest you look at the LC/TLPG razor back, instead of the Plasma cannon variant - 1 there is a model already, 2 the current 1 invalidates the TL HB variant - 3 & minor point - no fluff basis for this ever being a razorback weapon option.
Predator Executioner - a thematic choice but suggest sponsons go back to HB and it take a points increase. It is a vastly superior vehicle in our testing to date. PC sponsons just make it even more so.

Ref Hunt for the fallen:
It was pretty easy to get the additional BTS and as stated, it felt too easy when I could pick the formation, and even then I went after a tough formation though it did contain the enemy supreme commander as a bonus. If we are going to run something like this I suggest the DA cannot claim Blitz, as this turns the game into a man hunt. No risk of blitz allows the enemy to focus on protecting their VIP (fallen angel) and represents the DA being less interested in winning the war by threatening enemy lines of communication etc (as the blitz represents). Having the enemy pick the formation is also good. Not sure they need the fearless and stats buff though, and would be rather hard to balance give the huge range of characters/stands that could be applied to. Also, does it only apply to actual characters? what about command style elements that are a unit in their own right?

Great Feedback, look forward to detail list and more details. Most of your points I think were covered in general discussion.

Maybe if the DA don't take the chosen BTS they get a -1 to Objectives claim but this would only count at game end ie not to figure out when to end the game. Thoughts?

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

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9563
Location: Manalapan, FL
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Sorry for the delay guys, but I'll try to reply to all points. I might pass over your post if it echoing from others, but all comments and feedback was welcomed and read.

Better hold on folks. A wall of green text coming! ;)

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:

I kept the CC 3+ and just added an attack for the lack of Shooting Weapons. Ie 1 MW for Lighting Claws and 1 MW for Thunder Hammers and 1 Normal. Too Powerful? Maybe? Normal Termies get 2x AC shots, 1 MW attack for just PF and 1 Normal Attack.

Yeah I'm down with that above. If it turns out to be troublesome then another option is to represent the awesome H2H abilities of termies by giving them FS and a single MW 2+ attack. Only play testing will confirm.

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:

jimmyzimms wrote:
Also since you're going off the reservation on the stats for the Predator Executioner I'd suggest you rename the unit to Dark Angels Predator Executioner. This is not the standard configuration so probably shouldn't claim to be in the unit entry.

Do we have an existing Predator Executioner in a list?? I just took the turret from Leman Russ Executioner. In hindsight maybe Heavy Bolters instead of side Plasma Cannons, but I do love Plasma Cannons, lol.

The canonical entry at this time is in Fatdex's supplement which goes with the anti-armour load out

Predator Executioner AV 30 cm 4+ 6+ 5+
Plasma Destroyer 60 cm MW4+
2x Lascannons 45 cm AT5+

In no form of 40k however are plasma sponson weapons allowed for the vehicle IIRC (sorry been a bit since last I dug through the books). I'd suggest instead the HB loadout.

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
jimmyzimms wrote:
Perhaps I missed this in the older thread but what's the thought behind inventing a new pattern of dreadnought vs including the Unforgiven only dreadnought pattern of the Mortis? Irrespective, I'd drop the Hellfire from the list if it stays.

Well the Executioner Dread has been in there for a long time, I believe its a normal codex option. Mortis was dropped because it wasn't anything exciting. Hellfire Dread has been an iconic DA item since 2nd 40k. I want to keep 2 Dread options and I rather see fluffy Plasma and Iconic Hellfire.

I think you're misunderstanding me. The plasma cannon is an option for the hellfire dreadnought. It's not it's own unit. I'd collapse them into a single unit entry of "DA Hellfire Dread". I just don't like making up names for units when all we're talking about is a weapon swap when there's already an established name. :) If we're to keep both sets of weapons then kust make it an -OR- option with the more regular missile + las cannon version.

The reason I dig the mortis unlike any other list is the fact it has AA capabilities. That's unique and fluffy and interesting. :)

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Since I heard IF dropped Assault Termies I could try them back at the stats I thought were more reflective of them.
Not so sure they got dropped. I believe there was faction wide discussion about abstracting them away except where they are an iconic unit of the force, e.g. Imperial Fists. I will admit I can be making things up in my old age however :)

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Meh, damn plane. I'll go more detail later in reply.

[grabs popcorn] Image

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:

Doomkitten wrote:
On the rest of the list - I strongly, hugely, enormously dislike the idea that ***wing formations should form the core of every army. They are less than one quarter of the standing force of the Dark Angels (I won't even start with how the "Iron Wing" is an abomination against fluff, and a stupid idea implemented to sell more tanks to Dark Angels players). Core should always be regular marines. Always. I have no problem with increasing availability of ***wing units in a DA force, but would prefer something along the following lines:

I'll go into more detail forthwith, however Jimmy rebuttal well to my same thought pattern.

We REALLY need to start putting the 1-3 sentence design concept / mission statement into the top of the lists I feel. Demonstrably, just putting it on the forums in the OP is not good enough, especially considering the PDFs have a life of their own.

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 8:51 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6348
Location: Leicester UK
jimmyzimms wrote:

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Since I heard IF dropped Assault Termies I could try them back at the stats I thought were more reflective of them.
Not so sure they got dropped. I believe there was faction wide discussion about abstracting them away except where they are an iconic unit of the force, e.g. Imperial Fists. I will admit I can be making things up in my old age however :)


nope, they're dropped as of V0.3 of the IF list for gameplay reasons, I've come around back to the point of view that having different versions of terminators is too granular for epic, and that they do their job pretty well with the stats they've had since the beginning.....

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

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 995
jimmyzimms wrote:
We REALLY need to start putting the 1-3 sentence design concept / mission statement into the top of the lists I feel. Demonstrably, just putting it on the forums in the OP is not good enough, especially considering the PDFs have a life of their own.


Especially when the name of the thread/PDF/list doesn't directly reflect the intended theme. "Dark Angels" does not mean "Deathwing". I think more effort has been expended arguing against including it than would have been required to just write the damn thing in the first place.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
kyussinchains wrote:
nope, they're dropped as of V0.3 of the IF list for gameplay reasons, I've come around back to the point of view that having different versions of terminators is too granular for epic, and that they do their job pretty well with the stats they've had since the beginning.....

Gotcha. Well I think this makes the most sense but I've already stated my views :D

BTW AoC, EA+1MW added to EA+1MW = 1xCC attack + EA+2MW = 3 CC attacks. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Regarding the Nephilim fighter, IMO it is not just a case of reducing the number of aircraft, the stats of each aircraft also need to be reduced drastically.
See this thread for the full text.

The alternatives presented are
  1. Nephilim fighter
    Aircraft . . Fighter . . 6+ . . n/a . . n/a
    Twin Heavy Bolter . . . . . 15cm . . . AP4+/AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc
    and Lascannon or Avenger mega-bolter***

    225 for two aircraft

  2. Nephilim fighter
    Aircraft . . Fighter bomber . . 6+ . . n/a . . n/a
    Twin Heavy Bolter . . . . . 15cm . . . AP4+/AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc
    Missiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30cm . . . AT4+ Fixed Forward Arc
    and Lascannon or Avenger mega-bolter***

    225 for two aircraft


    ***The weapon stats would be
  • Lascannon . . . . . . . . . . . 30cm . . . . AT5+/AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc
  • Avenger Mega-Bolter . . . .30cm . . . . AP4+/AT6+ Fixed Forward Arc
  • There is also a case for making the missiles 'One shot'


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9563
Location: Manalapan, FL
Well my suggestion was close but

Nephilim
Fighter bomber 6+
2x Twin Heavy Bolter 15cm AP4+/AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc
Missiles 30cm AT4+ Fixed Forward Arc, single Shot
Avenger mega-bolter 30cm AP4+/AT4+ Fixed Forward Arc

_________________
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!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:58 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6348
Location: Leicester UK
my issue with single shot on the missiles is that the whole aircraft flying off every turn is meant to represent them going off to re-arm and re-fuel and whatnot....

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

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Just trying to put a list together for a game today and I'm finding this list too restrictive due to the Core:Line ratio. It could really do with a 1:2 ratio.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2550
Location: UK
Dobbsy wrote:
Just trying to put a list together for a game today and I'm finding this list too restrictive due to the Core:Line ratio. It could really do with a 1:2 ratio.

What do you mean exactly? It's already 1:2 (though not clearly worded). See my post near the beginning for a suggested clearer wording.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:39 am
Posts: 1097
Location: Alleroed, Denmark
SpeakerToMachines wrote:
- Interesting list structure; It'll certainly guarantee Wings formations, and distinctiveness from Codex marines.

I still like it, and think it provides flavor. if I want to play Codex-like, there's a perfectly good list for that where I can use the exact same units.

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
I would suggest allowing 2 line companies per deathwing, though. It's a bit odd that you need 4 deathwing formations to unlock a plain battle company...

Disregrard this comment, I can see I only need 2 deathwings (or a deathwing + 2 other wings) to get my battle company on the table. All is well, though it could have been worded better.


Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Meh, damn plane. I'll go more detail later in reply.


Just lose the thing, get a release 2.0 approved, and leave it for a future release.

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Hunt for the Fallen Special Rule


Why not let the opponent choose the "Fallen" formation (from any formation with at least one Infantry unit that starts play on the table), and simply replace the Blitz goal? It gives a radically different style of play, and is not obviously an advantage.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net