Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next

[Fanlist] Dark Angels 3.X (deprecated)

 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Ginger wrote:
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'

Ginger,

Thanks for moving the discussion. But as I said before I want to match any stats with existing units. If that makes the plane too powerful then different weapons or getting scrapped are the options.

Avenger Bolter 30cm 2x AP3/AT5
OR
Twin Lascannon 45cm AT4/AA4

AND
Twin Heavy Bolters (30cm/15cm) AP4/AA5
Missiles OPEN

The above are stats for the weapons in question on other planes, (If I missed something please comment and site source). I already here the crys about the Lascannon, simple we don't use it. That leaves us with the Avenger with existing stats, they will only change if testing and agreement with other AC's. The Heavy Bolter has an argument for 15cm or 30cm, I'm open to either as we pick the other weapons but I do like 30cm. Rockets are open to anything atm as they has no precedent. I thought giving the option of both planes but there seemed to be a fair amount of blacklash. I am open to reducing to 2 planes after some testing, I believe Ortron is planning on breaking the current stats as it is.

Possible Loadouts:

Ani Ground
Avenger Bolter 30cm 2x AP3/AT5
Twin Heavy Bolters 30cm AP4/AA5
Missiles 30m AT4/AA6

Anti Air/Amour
Twin Lascannon 45cm AT4/AA4
Twin Heavy Bolters 15cm AP4/AA5
Missiles 30cm AT4/AA6

If choose of loadout was taken then range of weapons would have to match, but if they were only one option I prefer the above setup. The above are all FxF and costs, formation sizes and save are open to discussion.

_________________
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: Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
kyussinchains wrote:
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....

Indeed, I can understand on SOME ground units, but really on planes that leave the field?

Kyrt wrote:
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.

Yes? With one Deathwing Formation you get 2 Line company formations. Per every Core Formations you have access to TWO other formations of some kind.

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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:
[color=#00FF00]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.


1. Thank you, This is a Codex operating moment and therefore a Codex style lists isn't fitting.

2. Indeed, like Kyrt mentioned. I think that will be edited as a few people have gotten wrong.

3. Lol, if only I could. The plane can o' worms has been opened, I doubt I could put them back now!

4. Special Rule has a lot work left. I'm not sure if the Blitz is the right option to replace? I think BTS is a better and more themed route. Letting the opponent choose might be okay, however I feel the BTS would still be the BTS in most options. A leader specific stand or character, hard to word.

Thanks Speaker![/color]

_________________
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: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:11 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6348
Location: Leicester UK
I think we're at an impasse with the plane, for some reason AoC insists on it matching other stats and having all the weapons GW bolts on it..... it's massively overpowered, utterly utterly overpowered as it is....

I think the big question is whether these planes are meant to be air-dominance fighters like nightwings, or whether they're meant to be attack craft.... currently they're pretty damn good at both roles with no real drawbacks that I can see.... certainly superior to thunderbolts across the board.... much more so than the piddly 12.5 point per-plane increase in cost suggests.....

as a minimum they should be reduced to 3-shots per plane, and probably have one of their AA attacks at 15cm so they have to risk defensive fire and can't hide outside token 30cm flak bubbles as easily.... this is not just theoryhammering either, we've had endless discussion about why AA4+ on interceptors is a slippery slope and generally it seems most people agree.... we should have similar conventions about other aircraft weapon loadouts as the same power creep issues apply

there is LOADS of precedent for flexibility in weapon stats for aircraft and making stats which fit the intended role of the craft, and not the stupid OTT GW fluff

Also, I will post a gentle reminder that the community voted pretty overwhelmingly to include the plane, as a NetEA appointed sub-AC I'm afraid it's your remit to do as the community wishes even if you don't agree as this isn't YOUR list, but a community list.... if you want to keep to a strict vision of your own, this should be in a sub-variant and not the NetEA Dark Angels list IMO....

_________________
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: Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2550
Location: UK
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
I want to match any stats with existing units. If that makes the plane too powerful then different weapons or getting scrapped are the options.

<snip>

Possible Loadouts:

Ani Ground
Avenger Bolter 30cm 2x AP3/AT5
Twin Heavy Bolters 30cm AP4/AA5
Missiles 30m AT4/AA6

Anti Air/Amour
Twin Lascannon 45cm AT4/AA4
Twin Heavy Bolters 15cm AP4/AA5
Missiles 30cm AT4/AA6

I do get the desire to match up the weapons, although what I think we've demonstrated is that it's not possible to do and still have a formation that is both balanced and cheap enough to actually use.

I'm honestly stunned that you could propose the second of those loadouts, let alone in formations of 3 planes. This formation would average 4.5 hits, has a spread of up to 9 hits with only a very low chance of causing very few hits, and could still intercept better than a lot of other interceptors even at 45cm. It's crazy. I do appreciate the principle of keeping the stats matched but there is a lot you could do, all of which IMO are necessary for it to be remotely reasonable:
- remove AA from the missiles
- reduce to 2 per formation
- range of both HB and lascannon should be reduced by 15cm (i.e. HB=15, las=30cm) - the reason for reducing it is because a) it's mounted on the hull of a fast moving plane and b) for balance reasons. This precedent exists, so I see no reason to ignore it.
- AA of twin lascannon reduced to 5+ - again, look at the twin HB - it is 4+/5+ because AA should not have as good stats as AP or AT. Same for twin shuriken cannon, same for twin bright lances.

Thus if you do all of those:
Twin Lascannon 30cm AT4+/AA5+ Fixed Forward
Twin Heavy Bolters 15cm AP4+/AA5+ Fixed Forward
Darksword Missiles 30cm AT4+ Fixed Forward

And what do you know, it now looks remarkably comparable to an initiative 1+ thunderbolt. Easy peasy. 2 for 200 points.

The anti-armour variant could be OK (i.e. not game breaking) if the HB is reduced to 15cm (if it's anti armour then it should not be as great an interceptor). The big question over this variant is if its cost will be too high for people to include in a standard 3k army, as those are some fantastic shooting stats and there's only so much that is sensible to commit to flying things that cannot land. Consider that despite being awesome, night wings are not as ubiquitous as you might expect because you have to take 3 for 300 points which is quite a lot. At the very least run them in pairs not triples.

_________________
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 9:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Batrep here:
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=28241&p=537045#p537045

Thoughts:

Another game of less than average dice rolls on my behalf. :(

Ravenwing core - Too expensive as a core. Could simply be just a mix of 5 for 200 similar to all other Marine lists for ease of play testing. If you're concerned about the Teleport Homer costing I wouldn't worry because it's a 2 edged sword in that it telegraphs where you're likely to put your Terminators anyway.

Ironwing Core - Have options. Land Raiders should be a choice instead of just Preds or have a mix if you like.
Executioners - Why would you bother to take anything else?! A no brainer. A good inclusion for the loss of Warhounds etc though. The list needs some sort of MW shooting.

Deathwing Core- given the DA only have 100-ish suits I think a 0- 5/6 option needs to be installed or it just doesn't seem right with an entire 8 Deathwing formation force kitted out in Terminator suits - which is entirely possible. Didn't try the larger formation due to cost prohibition versus activation count. Also we discussed that 8 units would hamper Thunderhawk collection if required otherwise the army/formation would just get stuck around the board without a transport option.

Nephilim - Disappointing - Didn't really perform all that well due to less than average dice rolls and only 1 aircraft survived (lost 1 per turn). They weren't all that strong with 5+ saves but the third aircraft helped with longevity. 1+ initiative is a CAP no brainer first action. To help the army with points cost issues I think dropping these to 2 planes for 225 is best on the back of this game at least. I would prefer to have more activations/points to spend.

Hunt for the Fallen - We didn't actually use this but if the opponent chooses it would most likely just be the BTS as they're usually the hardest formation anyway. Atension had planned to do this anyway. I would have chosen the Stormboyz as the weakest formation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9563
Location: Manalapan, FL
Quote:
Deathwing - given the DA only have 100-ish suits I think a 0- 5/6 option needs to be installed or it just doesn't seem right with an entire 8 Deathwing formation force kitted out in Terminator suits - which is entirely possible.

As a fluff argument doesn't always stand up. After all, this could be a joint operation with two or more of the unforgiven workng together, no?

A balance argument can be totally be made however.

_________________
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: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
jimmyzimms wrote:
Quote:
Deathwing - given the DA only have 100-ish suits I think a 0- 5/6 option needs to be installed or it just doesn't seem right with an entire 8 Deathwing formation force kitted out in Terminator suits - which is entirely possible.

As a fluff argument doesn't always stand up. After all, this could be a joint operation with two or more of the unforgiven workng together, no?

A balance argument can be totally be made however.

A joint operation? Two Unforgiven working together doesn't mean the DA would have 160 suits etc.... Not sure I see what you mean. They have 100 suits which equals 5 formations. I guess you could argue they have 160 suits but it's unlikely from what I've heard about TDA availability even if the DA have more than anyone else.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9563
Location: Manalapan, FL
Each chapter has a full set of termies and is organized with the same *-wing formations **. This isn't the Dark Angels only list, this is the Unforgiven Hunting the Fallen as Exemplified by the DA, the progenitors. :)

**: Yes I know they are not all called the same thing but in practice they are equivalent formations.

_________________
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: Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Um, I have to agree with the others. One of the main reasons we continue to have these discussions is the tendency for people to cite 'precedence' as a justification for increasing the power of weapons and aircraft. The issue is that the air-game can easily overpower the ground game. In this case I suggest trying three formations of 3x Nephilim with these stats to see the effect - or even better, try four or five pairs (at 200 or 225 respectively), especially against a list that is low on AA.

To the weapons in particular, as far as I am aware, they are either under change, under development, or incorrect and therefore should not be used anyway.
  • The twin Lascannon (taken from the Helltalon) is being reduced to 30cm, and should never have been made AA4+. There has been disagreement on this ever since it was listed, and it is the only case where a FB has AA4+.
  • If the Avenger mega-bolter is taken from the Skitarii list, that is not yet approved (though the AMTL list is). Again, this weapon is overpowered for an aircraft weapon - indeed it is better than many similar weapons on ground units
  • With great respect, the Heavy Bolter cannot have two different ranges in the same list. This should only be 15 cm like the wing-mounted weapons on the THawk.

Finally, please could you explain why you are not using the E-UK version of the Nephilim aircraft and stats. Though IMO overpowered, they are a lot closer to the stats for the E:A air-game.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 995
If there are two different desired roles for the Nephilim (and while I don't like it, as was touched upon by Kyuss, it was very clearly backed for inclusion by the community so we should all work towards "how" rather than "if" we use it) I don't think it's too terrible an idea to have one pure "Fighter", with reduced ground support weaponry but a little better AA and one "Fighter Bomber" load out, with much more limited AA (perhaps even only a single Heavy Bolter/15cm/AA5+ attack!) but with much more robust ground power.

Yes, it's more options and might be against the fluff (I don't know as my following of DA fluff ended at 3rd edition), but I see no driving reason why they wouldn't outfit the planes per-mission, rather than as one generic unit with everything bolted on.

As far as mentioned stats go - I too am confused at to why the Nephilim HB is granted 30cm on it's attack, and I'm slightly concerned if it comes to the table with quite so many accurate AA strikes. Some compromise of power versus slightly too slavish attention to lore is often necessary for the sake of keeping the game interesting, I certainly think this is one of those times, if only to keep the Nephilim from becoming undisputed galaxy heavyweight champion of the air.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
First off, does anyone read my posts? Or am I not typing right? People harp on things I have gone over or gave reasons for like I don't explain anything?


kyussinchains wrote:
I think we're at an impasse with the plane, for some reason AoC insists on it matching other stats and having all the weapons GW bolts on it..... it's massively overpowered, utterly utterly overpowered as it is....

Also, I will post a gentle reminder that the community voted pretty overwhelmingly to include the plane, as a NetEA appointed sub-AC I'm afraid it's your remit to do as the community wishes even if you don't agree as this isn't YOUR list, but a community list.... if you want to keep to a strict vision of your own, this should be in a sub-variant and not the NetEA Dark Angels list IMO....

I'm not insisting on anything EXPECT to match stats with current weapons. It is my PET PEV that we have multiple stats for the SAME damn weapons between sames units, lists or races.

As for the "Community" aspect, I think I do a fairly decent job wrangling the horses. Let me point you to the direction on AMTL and Nids over the years where AC's didn't follow anything and caused majors list splits, unhappy gamers and dropped playtesters. Often I have seen AC makes choices against the grind, so I don't really appreciate getting a finger pointed at me, implying the rest of the NetEA is roses.

Kyrt wrote:
I do get the desire to match up the weapons, although what I think we've demonstrated is that it's not possible to do and still have a formation that is both balanced and cheap enough to actually use.

I'm honestly stunned that you could propose the second of those loadouts...

- remove AA from the missiles
- reduce to 2 per formation
- range of both HB and lascannon should be reduced by 15cm (i.e. HB=15, las=30cm) - the reason for reducing it is because a) it's mounted on the hull of a fast moving plane and b) for balance reasons. This precedent exists, so I see no reason to ignore it.
- AA of twin lascannon reduced to 5+ - again, look at the twin HB - it is 4+/5+ because AA should not have as good stats as AP or AT. Same for twin shuriken cannon, same for twin bright lances.

If we can't use the same stats then there is big issue with the Epic system.

The loadouts are what the plane has WITH current stats from other planes. I'm not saying we should use any, but that is what I'm working with. The rockets can be whatever as there are no existing stats but the other weapons do. AA from missiles and 2 planes are both things I mentioned that COULD be changed. HB could be 15cm or 30cm as there are planes with BOTH, but find me a TWIN Lascannon that isn't 45cm? I only see 45cm, so that's what it is if we use it. Same with the AA4, that's what is on a TWIN Lascannon on planes, I didn't make these stats I'm just following them.

Ginger wrote:
Um, I have to agree with the others. One of the main reasons we continue to have these discussions is the tendency for people to cite 'precedence' as a justification for increasing the power of weapons and aircraft.

To the weapons in particular, as far as I am aware, they are either under change, under development, or incorrect and therefore should not be used anyway.

With great respect, the Heavy Bolter cannot have two different ranges in the same list. This should only be 15 cm like the wing-mounted weapons on the THawk.

Finally, please could you explain why you are not using the E-UK version of the Nephilim aircraft and stats. Though IMO overpowered, they are a lot closer to the stats for the E:A air-game.

I didn't even want to add the damn plane because its overpower from a GW OTT system. Trying to balance it into Epic wasn't/isn't easy and plus I felt it was unneeded. However I'm not going to throw it in with stats it doesn't have to make it work.

The only weapons in development is the Avenger Mega Bolter, and I'll match whatever Vaaish and the Dwarf want to do with that, but it WILL match.

The HB could be 15 or 30, if both planes were in the lists I would have them use the same range. I was just spit balling builds from what I had to work with.

The reason for not using the EUK is simple. 1 were not EUK, were NetEA. 2 I wanted to match weapons with existing stats as I think, or hope, have made clear by now.

Doomkitten wrote:
....I see no driving reason why they wouldn't outfit the planes per-mission, rather than as one generic unit with everything bolted on.

As far as mentioned stats go - I too am confused at to why the Nephilim HB is granted 30cm on it's attack

Mission would be Hunting the Fallen, the whole list is aimed that way. So I think we could safely have one variant of plane for the list.

The HB has 30cm because that is what OTHER planes have, some have 15cm and others 30cm. So we have a case to use either range to help balance the unit.


I think we can safely cut the Twin Lascannon as a half doezen people will have kittens if we use the stats that other planes have. That leaves us with:

Avenger Bolter 30cm 2x AP3/AT5
Twin Heavy Bolters (30cm/15cm) AP4/AA5
Missiles OPEN

_________________
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: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Dobbsy wrote:
Batrep here:
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=28241&p=537045#p537045

Thoughts:

Another game of less than average dice rolls on my behalf. :(

Ravenwing core - Too expensive as a core. Could simply be just a mix of 5 for 200 similar to all other Marine lists for ease of play testing. If you're concerned about the Teleport Homer costing I wouldn't worry because it's a 2 edged sword in that it telegraphs where you're likely to put your Terminators anyway.

Ironwing Core - Have options. Land Raiders should be a choice instead of just Preds or have a mix if you like.
Executioners - Why would you bother to take anything else?! A no brainer. A good inclusion for the loss of Warhounds etc though. The list needs some sort of MW shooting.

Deathwing Core- given the DA only have 100-ish suits I think a 0- 5/6 option needs to be installed or it just doesn't seem right with an entire 8 Deathwing formation force kitted out in Terminator suits - which is entirely possible. Didn't try the larger formation due to cost prohibition versus activation count. Also we discussed that 8 units would hamper Thunderhawk collection if required otherwise the army/formation would just get stuck around the board without a transport option.

Nephilim - Disappointing - Didn't really perform all that well due to less than average dice rolls and only 1 aircraft survived (lost 1 per turn). They weren't all that strong with 5+ saves but the third aircraft helped with longevity. 1+ initiative is a CAP no brainer first action. To help the army with points cost issues I think dropping these to 2 planes for 225 is best on the back of this game at least. I would prefer to have more activations/points to spend.

Hunt for the Fallen - We didn't actually use this but if the opponent chooses it would most likely just be the BTS as they're usually the hardest formation anyway. Atension had planned to do this anyway. I would have chosen the Stormboyz as the weakest formation.

Yeah! Battle report!!!! Go Dobbsy, Go Dobbsy! WOOT WOOT!

RW - Too Expensive? Regular Codex Bikes 5 stands is 200, ie 40 each. The RW gets 4 Bikes and 4 Attack Bikes OR 4 Land Speeders (any) for 350. at 40 each that's 320 plus I gave them Scouts and Teleport Homers which I felt was covered by the 30 point increase. Reduction on price need way more playtesting at this point.

IW - Adding it Land Raiders throw off costing/upgrading the formation. Plus I would think that in a Termie heavy list you would see the LR's with Termies or on their own to support them? Executioner is great choice, I think it will change sides to HB to match the variant in (which list again?) other SM list.

DW - Really a cap? Is there one in the Codex list? No you say? ;D If I can run 8 formations (160 TDA) for 2800 in a codex list, why not in the Dark Angel Terminator Happy List? I mean honestly any REAL Epic SM list would be portrayed by more then one chapter in reality.

Nephilim - :o How dare you say they were not good! I have a mob of Theory Hammer boys that says differently! Quick! The pitch forks and after Dobbsy! ;D

The previous post covers the plane well enough.

Hunt - Needs work by far. If the opponent chooses your likely to have the same BTS as before, if you choose it might be a easy target. But the opponent could just hide the new BTS but could offset his plans. This might be good however if the BTS was WE since we don't have much WE take down power. Thoughts?

Thanks again Matt, glad to see a report!

_________________
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: Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:19 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6348
Location: Leicester UK
I tried to respond with quotes but the quote-within-a-different-coloured-quote thing gave me a headache

I wasn't disparaging your approach as an AC, I like the direction and theme of the list.... but on this specific issue (the plane) from my point of view it seems you at least appear to be ignoring the majority opinion and forging ahead with an approach which opens the door to power creep in the air game

I've already explained why a twin lascannon on a figher plane shouldn't have AA4+ and stats for the same weapon can be different in different applications, see the old DA thread for that, nobody has given any kind of reason why the argument is wrong and the only argument is 'I want to do it this way' which is just not good enough for me.... I and several others have suggested perfectly reasonable stats for the plane which have all been completely ignored and you've repeatedly refused to compromise or listen to alternative views hence my comment.... it was not intended as a personal dig, we all get involved with lists we're developing and testing, I just wanted to point out that there are other approaches

as you said yourself, the avenger cannon stats aren't even finalised, this is a perfect opportunity to test them out in a different form and let the darwinian approach rule.... also from the other thread, it seems that the 40k stats differ between the aircraft anyway so matching them is not neccessary....

your snarky comment on Dobbsy's playtest is noted, however one data point does not a graph make.... ;)

I am planning a playtest of this list next week, I plan on taking 3 formations of nephilims, it may go terribly, but I'll try it again a few times and would be happy to be proven wrong

The planes as they are currently in this list give the opportunity to try the ork flying circus tactics out, not only are the planes more resilient than Tbolts, they also reliably activate and come in threes, perfect for attacking in waves, and the nephilim has more than twice the firepower per plane of an ork fighta bomber to boot, I'd even be tempted to try it with the plane in pairs

I suggest the following weapon stats: it requires one very easily rationalised compromise on the AA value of the lascannon, supported by the majority of the community, then you have a decent plane which can intercept acceptably and ground attack well, it's not breaking any of the unofficial community rules, nor is it using any experimental/developmental weapon stats and it's still well worth including

twin lascannon 30cm AT4+/AA5+FxF
heavy bolter 15cm AP5+/AA5+ FxF
Blacksword missiles AT4+ FxF

225 for two

forget the avenger bolter, having planes flying around with half a titan weapon is just not ever going to be agreed on by consent unless you drop a shot or the firepower....

_________________
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: Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 995
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Doomkitten wrote:
....I see no driving reason why they wouldn't outfit the planes per-mission, rather than as one generic unit with everything bolted on.

As far as mentioned stats go - I too am confused at to why the Nephilim HB is granted 30cm on it's attack

Mission would be Hunting the Fallen, the whole list is aimed that way. So I think we could safely have one variant of plane for the list.



I think you're missing my point slightly and also being both slightly dismissive and taking a tiny bit of a potshot based on my previous mentions of list orientation. If you're not, then my mistake, but it certainly reads that way right about now.

The primary operational goal for the list/**wing army is, as you state, hunting the Fallen, but within every mission undertaken the fighter might be most needed to protect ground forces against air assets, might be most useful in striking at entrenched ground troops without an AA umbrella where a direct ground assault would be risky, etc. That's all I intended to convey by outfitting "per-mission". I was just thinking that dividing the stats into two branches, air and ground, might help alleviate some of the concerns over power creep.

I don't see anyone here trying to have a go over anything, just people trying to help. I'm not sure anyone needs to be told to back off or for any of the snarky potshots that seem to be building up. Time for a break, a cookie, some tea and a deep breath all around, IMO.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:

RW - Too Expensive? Regular Codex Bikes 5 stands is 200, ie 40 each. The RW gets 4 Bikes and 4 Attack Bikes OR 4 Land Speeders (any) for 350. at 40 each that's 320 plus I gave them Scouts and Teleport Homers which I felt was covered by the 30 point increase. Reduction on price need way more playtesting at this point.

I meant as a core choice you don't need to have a 350 point formation. Make them 225 for 5 with the Scout rule or whatever. 350 for a formation that doesn't need to be 8 units can help the army put more in it.

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:

IW - Adding it Land Raiders throw off costing/upgrading the formation. Plus I would think that in a Termie heavy list you would see the LR's with Termies or on their own to support them? Executioner is great choice, I think it will change sides to HB to match the variant in (which list again?) other SM list.

Well you should be able to buy Land Raiders straight up if you want is what I meant. Having to buy a Pred formation to get a Land Raider formation is unnecessary IMO and just restricts you with the cost of the army. I would think they would be an Ironwing staple not a support element. An option might be nice for those who want them instead of Preds - like me.... :)

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:

DW - Really a cap? Is there one in the Codex list? No you say? ;D If I can run 8 formations (160 TDA) for 2800 in a codex list, why not in the Dark Angel Terminator Happy List? I mean honestly any REAL Epic SM list would be portrayed by more then one chapter in reality.

A fair point except the Codex list is meant to be able to represent multiple Chapters, the DA Hunt for the Fallen is one single chapter's list. DWWFY.

Angel_of_Caliban wrote:

Hunt - Needs work by far. If the opponent chooses your likely to have the same BTS as before, if you choose it might be a easy target. But the opponent could just hide the new BTS but could offset his plans. This might be good however if the BTS was WE since we don't have much WE take down power. Thoughts?

Of course the opponent could just deny you the BTS altogether.... If I'd chosen the Stormboyz, Atension could have just as well left them off the table....

On the Nephilim:
Of course a very simple abstraction for the plane is just an Avenger Cannon and missiles.... 2x AP3+/AT5+/AA5+ and a missile stat TBA(AT4+??). You could even possibly keep the 3 planes and possibly drop the price too. 6x AA5+ shots isn't as overwhelming as 9.... It also means the fighter performs both roles without the need for a second variant in one list.

Thunderbolts don't actually have the exact weapon load so I can't really see an issue with a slightly amended Nephilim fighter load for better balance.


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, 6 ... 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