Tactical Command

[Fanlist] Dark Angels 3.X (deprecated)
Page 1 of 11

Author:  Angel_of_Caliban [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:49 am ]
Post subject:  [Fanlist] Dark Angels 3.X (deprecated)

AC edit: Due to long term inactivity this particular branch of NetEA Dark Angels is deprecated and lives on as an alt-Fan List version.

This thread is for comments, discussion and feedback for the Dark Angels 3.X list intended for the NetEA Project. Our goal is to playtest and develop this list to NetEA Approved Status while keeping in line with background and character of the Dark Angels.

The Dark Angels, and their successor chapters, are referred as the Unforgiven. This is because of the terrible secret they themselves only know regarding the events of Horus Heresy. Every moment of the Dark Angels Inner Circle is focused on absolving themselves from this unfathomable sin. Because of this the Dark Angels tend to avoid associating with most Imperial Allies so they are free to track down every clue, lead or Fallen Dark Angel they come across. This list is designed to be played with No Allies of any kind.

Being the remnants of the First Legion of His Most Holy Emperor, the Dark Angels have a larger and more unique arsenal then most Space Marine Chapters. The Dark Angels are one of the few, if not the only, chapter that can deploy their entire 1st Company in Terminator Armour. They also have a large amount of ancient Plasma weaponry that even exceeds normal variants of standard equipment.

Hunt for the Fallen

Current Rule Test Will Be Placed Here

Attached is a PDF of the current list. [3.1 Updated 11/28/14]

NetEA Dark Angels 3.1.pdf [415.02 KiB]
Downloaded 889 times

Author:  mordoten [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

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

Author:  ortron [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

Thanks for getting this up, I'll give it a trial tomorrow.

Initial thoughts are that the new structure forces you down the DW/RW path somewhat but I've yet to really play around with list creation.
Also worried about "hunt for the fallen wording" as it stands it looks too good but I'll try to illustrate that in a game. Basically though it gives the DA player a potentially easy victory condition for no loss.
RW formations look more flexible now which is a good thing.
The inclusion of all unit stats is appreciated.
The new razorback option and different sponsons on executioner will draw the fluff nerd rage :)

Battle report to follow.

Author:  Borka [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

ortron wrote:
Also worried about "hunt for the fallen wording" as it stands it looks too good but I'll try to illustrate that in a game. Basically though it gives the DA player a potentially easy victory condition for no loss.

I agree. The part about them having the chance to achieve an extra victory goal seem a bit to good IMO. Do they need that? I'd suggest changing it so that such a characters formation becomes the BTS (and replaces the ordinary BTS even if cheaper).

It would still be a good rule for the DA player, for instance when facing an enemy army led by a titan.

Author:  jimmyzimms [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

ortron wrote:
The new razorback option and different sponsons on executioner will draw the fluff nerd rage :).

There is a codex lascannon plasma gun combo available as well that might be worth considering it fluff rage ensues :)

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.

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.

I too will add that the Hunt for the fallen seems open to abuse as well as puts some lists at a disadvantage due to the presence of "lightweight" characters such as Veteran Officer in the IH and Tech Marine in the IF (I'm sure there's more examples but that comes to mind). I'd suggest starting a bit more limited with say the Supreme Commander first and then if there is not one, allowing others?

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! :)

Author:  SpeakerToMachines [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

Nice; Looking forward to trying this.

Quick thoughts and reactions:

- Hunt for the Fallen - it's a benefit without a cost; I'd propose removing (for instance) the ability to claim the Blitz goal when using this option.

- Assault Terminators certainly looks attractive now.

- Interesting list structure; It'll certainly guarantee Wings formations, and distinctiveness from Codex marines. 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...

- 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?

Author:  Kyrt [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

My initial reactions:

Hunt for the Fallen - this is baaaad. There is literally no disadvantage to the Dark Angels. At the very least, make it so that if they -fail- to get the goal then they get -1 a victory condition. But to be honest I would rather just remove it. For one, it is going to vary widely how this affects the game. For instance Steel Legion get enough commissars they end up putting them in small formations like artillery or flak. Those just become easy goals, especially for an army with lots of fast scouting bikes and teleporting terminators.

List structure: I get what this is doing and it gives a distinction from the codex list, but I think it goes too far. Instead of mandating that the majority of formations are 'wing formations AND that there is a mix of all the wings (practically), I think it'd be better to simply mandate that there are at least some on the table. That can be done with a more relaxed (and simpler) 1:3 wing:non-wing ratio. For all that the DA have lots of terminators, I thought there were still only 100 of them, which means 3-5 formations. The DA still have far more "normal" marines (which means tactical, assault and devastator) than they do their special units. With the current structure I suspect it's not going to prevent you from building an effective army, but it does feel like it is more rigid and requires more bookkeeping that practically any other list, which is odd considering the codex list has no restrictions whatsoever except the 1/3 allies limit.

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

Author:  kyussinchains [ Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

looking at the stats for the nephilim, they seem pretty potent.... shooting at a mixed formation/light vehicles, you get 4 shots, per plane and it's not like they're token shooting attacks either.... powerful AP shooting with good AT, also they're SR1 which is a big bonus and all their weapons have 30cm range.... on intercept you bring 3xAA4 and 3xAA5 at 30cm so you're avoiding defensive AA in most cases, you get a hell of a lot for your 300 points..... personally I think they need to be toned down as they'd be an auto-include if I was playing

Author:  Dobbsy [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

Well done on getting new list up AoC. :)

I will echo everyone regarding the Hunt for the Fallen rule. It just doesn't fly. At the very least you need to give the choice to your opponent as to which formation has the Fallen in it. This will make it difficult to gain that BTS as it should. Otherwise I think the Hunt for the Fallen rule as written is broken.

I would suggest something like:

Before the game begins the Dark Angels' opponent must choose a formation from his army to contain the Fallen Dark Angel or a close associate. That formation now counts as the Break Their Spirit objective. The requirement of destroying the formation with the highest cost no longer applies as the Break Their Spirit objective.

If he puts it in his toughest formation... well, no one said the Hunt for the Fallen was easy.... ;)

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.

Structure - I agree that non-core could/should be more accessible but let's see how it pans out in testing.

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....

I like the new Ravenwing set up.

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.

Author:  Doomkitten [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

This might be a little bit of a wild thought, but re: Unforgiven - how about allowing the enemy to choose which formation has the Fallen in it and then somehow improving said commander base ? Give it Invulnerable save, give it +1 MW CCW attack, or some such extra benefit. Something to the enemy in exchange for the DA's extra victory condition.

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:

"Each of the first Dark Angel Ravenwing Land Speeder, Dark Angel Ravenwing Bike, Dark Angel Ravenwing Attack Bike and Dark Angel Deathwing Terminator formation taken does not count towards your maximum number of support formations."

This allows the Dark Angels greater access to those specialist units, but keeps them from making an army solely of them.

Author:  Ginger [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

As others, I like the principle behind the structure though worry that it is a little too constrained. I also like the various alternatives presented.

On the "Fallen Angel", I agree that the current wording is flawed and worse that there is no implied penalty. I do like Dobbsy's thought that the opponent decides where this character is located. I would also suggest the character is "fearless", possibly provides a CC EA+1, and that the opponent gains 1VP if the character is not destroyed by the end of the game. So my version of the rule would be as follows:-
Hunt for the Fallen
The Dark Angels are driven to absolve an unfathomable sin. Before the game, the Dark Angel's opponent must specify a unit in formation that contains the 'Fallen Angel'. That unit gains Fearless and CC EA(+1). The destruction of this unit forms an additional goal for the Dark Angels. If this unit is destroyed the Dark Angels gain an additional goal, otherwise the opponent gains the goal. This goal is additional to the other five tournament goals.

Nepthilim fighter:-
Still *far* too strong. These stats are stronger than the E-UK stats (which are also OTT IMO >:( ).

Per a/c, your stats give 3 dice against either infantry or armour and 4 dice against mixed formations, all at 30cm (compared with each Eldar Nightwing that gives 1 dice against infantry or armour, and 2 dice against mixed).

If you reject the E-UK stats as a starting point, then I suggest the Avenger mega bolter stats need to be reduced to a single AP4+ / AT5+ at 30cm, that the Heavy bolters be dropped to 15cm and that the Blackwood missiles be dropped altogether. Even then, you are still looking at 275-350 for 3 a/c.

Author:  Steve54 [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

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 specialised 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

Author:  ortron [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

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
Tactical + hunter
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?

Author:  Kyrt [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

Are you sure you're reading the list structure correctly? You get 2 line formation slots for each deathwing, for example, as well as a line formation and a ravenwing support formation for each ravenwing. It's a bit confusing IMO which is why I suggested a unified wording.

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.

Author:  Heavens To Betsy [ Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [NetEA] Dark Angels 3.0

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".

Probably me misreading it, but I'm not sure I quite understand the Unforgiven rule. For the tournament game, I didn't think there was scope to take allies of any stripe. If it's just meant to explain to people who normally play a Codex Astartes force why there is no Imperial Navy or Titans in the list, then I think it would be better to include it as a small Designers' Note. If it's not in the list, then you can't take them, simple. No need for a special rule.

Page 1 of 11 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group