Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

[Fanlist] Dark Angels 3.X (deprecated)

 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Kyrt wrote:
I had a 3k battle with the Dark Angels 3.0 list vs an air assault Biel-Tan list.

Thoughts

Despite the final score this felt like a very close game. The only marines left unbroken at the end were 2 bikes, 1 land speeder and 6 terminators. If a few crucial events had gone differently, such as the terminator assault in the eldar half, Eldar could have won 4:2. Throughout the game the marines had very few units operational on the table but broken formations can always rally and in the end they were just enough to hang on with very "efficient" placing of units. The eldar were forced to overextend and expose themselves, leading to a lot of broken eldar.

The nephilim were good considering that there were no mixed or LV formations on the table. One ground attack was not exactly great but did kill the autarch, another was a CAP that missed entirely with 6 dice. But they broke 2 ground formations which ended up possibly winning the game, as well as shooting a loaded vampire out of the air (granting the hunt for the fallen goal) and nearly taking out another one. All their weapons being 30cm range (and the fact they always get a 90 degree turn being fighters) meant that they did not take any flak shots whatsoever, which meant they activated on a 1+ every turn. A pretty good showing, and not at all bad considering this was the non-interceptor version. Their ability to take down air assaults in one CAP gives DA much better AA cover than codex marines (enough that I didn't miss hunters). A very good and very versatile formation.

The hunt for the fallen goal was a joke, way too easy to get and with no downside. The eldar player had to choose between leaving his guardians and vampire out of the game entirely, or risking running the CAP gauntlet. There were 3 vampires and only 2 interceptor formations, but the eldar had to either risk the guardians or the BTS + SC.

I'm not sure I like the ravenwing formations, even though their large size ended up helping them survive to get the DtF goal, the inflexibility and large up front cost means I don't think I would choose them if I didn't have to in order to get nephilim. It felt like the ravenwing were a hindrance for the DA not a benefit. Teleport homer didn't come into play, but I did have a question about it - do you measure on a unit by unit basis? i.e. if you only have 1 terminator within 15cm of a ravenwing unit, do you only re-roll that unit's teleport dice?

The planes will be vamped and I'll post more in depth shortly.

The Goal needs changing. Possible Opponent chooses 3 formations and DA player chooses 3 and then roll a D6 to pick the formation? Would resolves opponent choosing a harder target and the DA picking an easy one.

The RW are design to represent a 2 full squads, similiar to the DW formation. 3 Bikes Stand x4 = 12 Marines + 4 Attack/Speeder x2 = 8, Grand total 20 Marines.

I hear some people calling the RW too cheap and too expensive. Your comment about "only taking them to get planes" works for me. I want to see Classic Wing units hunting NOT just planes. The lists worked as designed in that moment.


kyussinchains wrote:
Had a 3k game with the v3.0 list against NetEA black legion

Thoughts

As expected the planes were stupidly good, breaking lots of formations and killing loads.... Kev was pretty fed up with them by the end.... as was I..... much much too good

Assault termies, again too strong, especially with the thawk to ferry them around in

Plasma preds were actually weaker than expected although I was a bit cavalier with their use.... they blew up a greater daemon with relative ease though, they really make up for the lack of warhounds in the list


Planes, again will touch base shortly.

Assault Termies, Maybe giving them MW on their normal attack and just +1EW MW. Ie 2 MW only at +3 or we could go back to +2.

Plasma Preds, Glass Hammer? I'm thinking about giving them HB on the sides.


kev101 wrote:
My thoughts after last nights game

Plasma preds I see no problem with them if slow firing or hit on a 5+ but at 4+ are much to strong a counting for their speed and rate of fire. I as a dark angles player would prefer slow fire

Ravenwing I like the fact that it can be all bike but scout should be removed.

Deathwing assults should be 2cc + mac and not the two macs as this make them too strong with the added Chaplin and 7 macs dropped out of a t hawk is extreme

As for the fighters they turn the game by themselves only a full loaded eldar aa army knowing what it was fighting would have a chance.
There are just to many shots coming from this formation with very high it potential it kills the game and makes it no fun. with its range They can hang back out of aa.


The stats for the Plasma turret matches the IG LR and will not be changed. The sides are look to be dropped to HB. I will NOT have Slow Fire back in this list.

Ravenwing gained Scout long ago to give them the ability to garrison and be vanguard units. I really don't see this changing and there hasn't been any other complaints in years about it.

Planes and DW were/are commenting already.

_________________
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: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:57 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Quote:
Nephilim Jet Fighter

AC Fighter 5+ N/A N/A

Avenger Bolter 30cm 2x AP3/AT5 FxF
Twin Heavy Bolters 30cm AP4/AA5 FxF
Blacksword Missiles 30cm AT5/AA6 FxF

Formation: 2 Nephilim Jet Fighters Cost: 250


After reading comments and the Air Discussion http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=28271

I feel the above stats and formation is a good revamp. The only change from the current list is formation sizes and cost. The weapons match existing stats. 2 AA shots per plane and 4 per formation.

_________________
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: Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Stats look okay, except...aren't they just Super Thunderbolts? Better at ground attack both for AP and AT, about equal AA (one less to hit on one weapon, but 30cm range on both), better save. It pays the points, but still.

One thing to look into is swapping the heavy bolters with storm bolters, like how the thunderbolt replaces the quad autocannon it has in 40k.

_________________
- Ulrik


Last edited by Ulrik on Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Please see my post on the AMB stats and the reasoning here.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:40 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6348
Location: Leicester UK
the planes are still too powerful, if I'd taken 4 lots of two in my test game, the result would have been the same, except better as in T3 I'd be placing extra blast markers which would have broken the chaos preds.... 30cm range on all their weapons is horrible as they can hang back and avoid flak much more easily. You're not going to balance these planes through points cost alone, the stats need a serious rethink.... I suggest going back to the twin lascannon variant with 30cm AT4+/AA5+ instead of the avenger.... it still follows the fluff, it's still a worthwhile unit to use, but it's not stupidly broken and kicking open the doors for futher power creep in the air game

the plasma preds are still going to be awesome with HB sponsons, they will still be a no-brainer over the destructor as apart from a single pip of FF, they are as good as, or much better in every respect.... they're ideal for doing stuff like doubling up and breaking falcon formations, reducing AA and letting your planes run amok....

why faff with assault terminators? just make them CC2+ with EA+1, it's recieved a fair bit of playtesting and that is how they are statted in the black templars list, as you're so keen on harmonising stats across the lists that should be how it's done

I'm one of the lucky people on the forum, I get a game in most weeks, but I'm not going to keep wasting that one game, proving points that really don't need proving because of the incessant 'playtest or I'll ignore you' attitude which seems so prevalent lately

as a curiosity AoC, are you planning any battle reports with the list? if you're playing games with it, a cursory search of your posts seems to show that you're not writing them up, it would be good to see your take on things.....

_________________
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: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
kyussinchains wrote:
the planes are still too powerful, if I'd taken 4 lots of two in my test game, the result would have been the same, except better as in T3 I'd be placing extra blast markers which would have broken the chaos preds.... 30cm range on all their weapons is horrible as they can hang back and avoid flak much more easily. You're not going to balance these planes through points cost alone, the stats need a serious rethink.... I suggest going back to the twin lascannon variant with 30cm AT4+/AA5+ instead of the avenger.... it still follows the fluff, it's still a worthwhile unit to use, but it's not stupidly broken and kicking open the doors for futher power creep in the air game


Running 4 lots of planes would change your list drastically and would not easily breaking formations in T3.

4 RW (1400 pts) + 4 Nephilim (1000 pts) = 2400, leaving 600 points for other formations.

I'm at a lost here. Would dropping the rockets appease you and Ginger? My hands are pretty tied while trying to match stats and hold consistency. The AMB will match whatever Vaaish wants to do, he started the stat line and I'm willing to match it, I have no fight in what the stats are. The Twin Lascannon matches the current stats, unless you can find me another Twin Lascannon stat that isn't 45cm AT4/AA4 I think were stuck with it, hence the move to keep the AMB instead the Twin Las where in theory the stats can change. As for Heavy Bolters they have both 15cm and 30cm in lists. Considering this fighter is a interceptor I figure the 30cm was more suited then the 15cm found on larger AC as a additional piece instead of the main AA armament.

kyussinchains wrote:
the plasma preds are still going to be awesome with HB sponsons, they will still be a no-brainer over the destructor as apart from a single pip of FF, they are as good as, or much better in every respect.... they're ideal for doing stuff like doubling up and breaking falcon formations, reducing AA and letting your planes run amok....

Fair point with the Preds. I was thinking last night that maybe make the Executioner Preds as upgrades for XX points. Leaving Annihilator, Destructor and Vindicators in the Core option. I'll have a think on this.

kyussinchains wrote:
why faff with assault terminators? just make them CC2+ with EA+1, it's recieved a fair bit of playtesting and that is how they are statted in the black templars list, as you're so keen on harmonising stats across the lists that should be how it's done


First, what is faff? ;)

Indeed, I did not think they were any other lists as DA had them first and then IF. I consented to match the IF previously for consistency even tho I felt they didn't represent Assault Termies but more Thunder Hammers as the IF list called them. I'll revert back and once were Approved its something we can try testing in conjunction with other AC's.

kyussinchains wrote:
I'm one of the lucky people on the forum, I get a game in most weeks, but I'm not going to keep wasting that one game, proving points that really don't need proving because of the incessant 'playtest or I'll ignore you' attitude which seems so prevalent lately

as a curiosity AoC, are you planning any battle reports with the list? if you're playing games with it, a cursory search of your posts seems to show that you're not writing them up, it would be good to see your take on things.....

I'm grateful for your playtesting and comments, but when you repeat the same issues. I have explain my concerns with the planes and on many occasions have pointed out where I'm willing to adjust. I then get more demands even to areas I agree we can change like points and formation sizes. I thought your report was valuable regardless of planes discussions.

As to Playtesting, I have mentioned before but I'll do so again. Currently I'm unable to play because 1) My collection is in storage. 2) Between working and finding a new place to move to I don't have time really. 3) The closest gamers, to the best of my knowledge, are 75 miles away if not farther. But if you have a way to protect my models and store them that I can call at a moment notice with a opponent then I might get a game in. ;D ;)

I feel I might have sensed a wee bit of barbed or jaggedness in your post. I hope not but I'm just trying to build a NetEA list that holds true to the DA and tries to keep consistency with other NetEA units and weapons.

_________________
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: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Ulrik wrote:
Stats look okay, except...aren't they just Super Thunderbolts? Better at ground attack both for AP and AT, about equal AA (one less to hit on one weapon, but 30cm range on both), better save. It pays the points, but still.

One thing to look into is swapping the heavy bolters with storm bolters, like how the thunderbolt replaces the quad autocannon it has in 40k.

If they are is that bad? These are SM after all not Navy. Plus they cost 75 pts more currently. They do have better AP but their AT is about on par I say. AA worse with one having 30cm instead of 15cm.

As for the Thunder Bolt changes compared to the FW/GW/40k ones, the T-Bolts and Marauder were stated and made BEFORE 40k had them. That is why the stats are mismatched but others made after are more accurate. I would vote to change them to match FW/GW/40k and I have expressed this years ago.

Thunder Bolt (2 for 175)
Stormbolters 15cm AP4+/AA5+, FxF
Multilaser 30cm AP5+/AT6+/AA5+, FxF
Underwing Rockets 30cm AT4+, FxF


Nephilim (2 for 250)

AMB 30cm 2x AP3/AT5 FxF
Heavy Bolter 30cm AP4/AA5 FxF
Dark Missiles 30cm AT5/AA6 FxF

_________________
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: Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9563
Location: Manalapan, FL
AFAIK the only Imperial plane in an approved and developmental list that has Twin Las cannons are all bombers.

Even the lightning has a customized lascannon weapon:
Wingtip Lascannons
30cm
AT5+/AA5+, FxF

The plane could easily do something along those lines as well. It doesn't have to be the same weapon [shrugs]

I've posted in the Air Power Creep thread has what a modern 7th edition Thunderbolt would be stat'd at in Epic today if we were starting from scratch. I care that planes are equivalently stated to each other. If we do a universal reset I couldn't care less as at least everyone would be equally overpowered. I don't see that happening (that and I don't want to give Ginger an aneurysm! :) )

PS looking forwards to trying this list out soon!

_________________
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: Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
jimmyzimms wrote:
AFAIK the only Imperial plane in an approved and developmental list that has Twin Las cannons are all bombers.

Even the lightning has a customized lascannon weapon:
Wingtip Lascannons
30cm
AT5+/AA5+, FxF

The plane could easily do something along those lines as well. It doesn't have to be the same weapon [shrugs]

I've posted in the Air Power Creep thread has what a modern 7th edition Thunderbolt would be stat'd at in Epic today if we were starting from scratch. I care that planes are equivalently stated to each other. If we do a universal reset I couldn't care less as at least everyone would be equally overpowered. I don't see that happening (that and I don't want to give Ginger an aneurysm! :) )

PS looking forwards to trying this list out soon!

Indeed I only found it on Bombers, that's not my fault or problem. Your suggestion with the Wingtip Lascannon is my issue. I dislike doing that with the Lighting and is my petpev in Epic. If it has a Twin Lascannon then it should have one not some made up "Wingtipped" poop.

I'm in favor for a universal reset, but as noted in the Air thread the ERC are asleep at the wheel again.

We can strip the rockets or even take the AA off but then were left with a plane with crap AA which is the whole damn reason to put them in the list, sigh. I liked it better with just Hunters ;D

_________________
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: Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
As for the Thunder Bolt changes compared to the FW/GW/40k ones, the T-Bolts and Marauder were stated and made BEFORE 40k had them. That is why the stats are mismatched but others made after are more accurate. I would vote to change them to match FW/GW/40k and I have expressed this years ago.


And I say Hell No. The Epic Thunderbolt is the Epic Thunderbolt. Letting that mess of a game (40k) wag the dog is not how to do it. Inspiration for new units, yes. Slavishly following everything to the detriment of game balance, no.

And the Nephilim has an expected value of 1 AT hit over the t-bolt's .67 hits - that's 50% better.

edit: My point about Super Thunderbolts is that I'd think they'd be more interesting if they weren't simply better at (almost) everything. The t-bolt is a generalist, and if you take a generalist and improve everything you get something that's just plain great at everything - not a good idea. My suggestion would be to either keep the ABC and nerf the AA or swap the ABC for lascannons to make it better at AA.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
I attempted that but a Twin Lascannon 45cm AT4/AA4 gave people baby cows.

Maybe

Twin Lascannon 45cm AT4/AA4 FxF
Heavy Bolters 30cm AP4/AA5 FxF
Missiles 30cm ATX/AA6 FxF

OR

Twin Lascannon 45cm AT4/AA4 FxF
Heavy Bolters 30cm AP4/AA5 FxF

OR

Twin Lascannon 45cm AT4/AA4 FxF
Missiles 30cm AT4/AA6 FxF

OR

Idk....

Still not sure going the AMB is the better way, it turns into a AP unit more then AA which is why we added it in the first place.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 09, 2014 1:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 2518
Location: California
Thinking aloud....about adjustments to Ironwing

Predator Executioner
AV 30cm 4+ 6+ 4+

Plasma Destroyer 60cm MW4+
Heavy Bolter 30cm 2x AP5+


Ironwing Core 250
4 Predators (Annihilator or Destructor)

Upgrades:
Master
Hunter
Ironwing Support (add up 2 Predator A or D)
Executioner (Upgrade any number of the formation to Predator E Variant) +25 Pair

Land Raider (IW Support Choice) 325
4 Land Raider, LRC or Ares.

Land Raider Ares
AV 25cm 4+ 5+ 5+

Demloisher 30cm AP3+/AT4+ Ignore Cover

Twin Assault Cannon 30cm AP4+/AT4+
OR/BOTH?
2x Twin Heavy Flamer 15cm AP3+, Ignore Cover AND (15cm) (Small Arms), Ignore Cover

_________________
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: Thu Oct 09, 2014 1:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:39 am
Posts: 1097
Location: Alleroed, Denmark
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
I liked it better with just Hunters ;D

Amen! I don't even know of a good proxy that would look nephilim-like on the table :(

On the topic of Assault Terminators: I've finally got a formation with assault terminators in it, so next game (at the current pace, probably i 2015...) will feature a double deathwing with oversize terminator formations, including Assault Terminators. I really doubt that they'll do anything amazing at either statline, the lack of any FF is in my opinion a rather serious weakness. Is there a particular reason (except symmetry) to keep them at the same price as regualr terminators? A 25 pts discount on 2 assault terminators (ie, x2 for 150 instead of 175) would also allow a little more fleilbility in list construction - you could then get to decide if adding a Razorback is worth switching two regular terminators to assault terminators...

On a different note, some time ago I suggested an alternative flavor-tweak, allowing Deathwings to take two Masters, as long as they were different (eg, both a Chaplain and a Librarian). We hardly ever see anything except Terminator Chaplains, it would be nice to have a reason for fielding the other Terminator leaders. Also, it would allow a (fluffy and representative) higher density of Interrogator Chaplains than in regular Codex armies. Any thoughts on that?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Still not sure going the AMB is the better way, it turns into a AP unit more then AA which is why we added it in the first place.


I would say that the t-bolt gives a precedence that you don't have to follow current 40k loadouts slavishly. Imagine that the Nephilim was designed years ago, and not in the current flyer meta. Stuff like giving it a single lascannon instead of twin, swapping the heavy bolters for a storm bolter etc.

What role do you want for it? Interceptor, tank hunter, strafing runs?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2550
Location: UK
AoC, you can't ask to be shown examples of different stats as precedent and then just ignore them. You're cherry picking one of three different stats for it and quoting it as the only example.

To reiterate my earlier post, both the Lightning and landing craft have different stats for the lascannon, with the lightnings being almost exactly the weapon and mounting we are talking about. It makes no logical sense to me how you can accept that the HB can have a reduced range but the las cannot.

Give it a twin las (or plain las like epic UK) at 30, a HB at 15, and some AT missiles and you're done. In pairs, they nicely slot into the role that DA lost with the tbolt. Call the las "nose mounted lascannons" if you want. I appreciate you may not personally like the wingtip lascannon stats, but they are there for a reason.

Just think about it for a second, does it really sound feasible to shoot an aircraft out of the sky from full range whilst going Mach 2? As we have established in the other thread, there is widespread support for nerfing ranges in aircraft.

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


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, 7, 8 ... 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