Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Dark Angels v1.2 The long slog to NetEA

 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 5:43 pm
Posts: 274
Location: Germany/UK
Its a bit - uber buffed up - imho

Would have a special rule for the relic vehicle - great idea, whoever came up with it :P - that if destroyed every unit automatically receives 2 BM - due to the harrowing loss of said vehicle


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 222
I do agree with the people illustrating the power creep in this list but id counter by asking if that's a real problem... There's not a marine list alive that will compete with a well designed Eldar list which is so much further along the creep ladder than any other army it's beyond a joke. There's no moves to bring eldar back into line so frankly I'm ok with attempts to bring new lists into the realms of playability.

On power level overall I'd rate this as more powerful than the standard astartes but that's not saying much... I'd not rate it as good as either the newly approved space wolves or imperial fists.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:42 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4305
Beefcake4000 wrote:
There's not a marine list alive that will compete with a well designed Eldar list which is so much further along the creep ladder than any other army it's beyond

On power level overall I'd rate this as more powerful than the standard astartes but that's not saying much... I'd not rate it as good as either the newly approved space wolves or imperial fists.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense, the codex SM list is just as powerful as any approved eldar list and tournament stats back that up.
I can't speak for the SW but I've tested the IF a lot and they lose a lot of units and tactics to compensate for what they gain.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 222
Steve54 wrote:
Beefcake4000 wrote:
There's not a marine list alive that will compete with a well designed Eldar list which is so much further along the creep ladder than any other army it's beyond

On power level overall I'd rate this as more powerful than the standard astartes but that's not saying much... I'd not rate it as good as either the newly approved space wolves or imperial fists.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense, the codex SM list is just as powerful as any approved eldar list and tournament stats back that up.
I can't speak for the SW but I've tested the IF a lot and they lose a lot of units and tactics to compensate for what they gain.


Just to be clear Steve I don't have an issue at all with either the IF or wolf lists and you appear to be defining them to my reading. I think they are more powerful, you seem to think they are just different, sure no worries.

I'd love to see that tourney data supporting that marines are holding their own though hey, none of the comps in Aus last year had marines on the podium that I can remember despite them generally making a notable portion of the players.

Each to their own meta but you're not going to convince me that marines don't need a boost and that's purely from an opponents perspective. Hell, what do I know about army design.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9315
Location: Manalapan, FL
Thanks for putting together something to chew on Mard. The DA are a hard nut to crack and have a difficult balancing act, especially as existing lists already cover most of their themes, albeit in a more narrow fashion. I really appreciate you guys putting the work in here ! [high fives]

I especially want to thank Steve54 and Kyrt's well thought out and presented thoughts as well.

There's a few comments and thoughts and another section for a "just going to be done this way if it's going to be EA" deals. It's very rare I'll ever do a dictatorial statement but... :)

Ok starting with Zimmy's Procrustean commandments (just to get them out of the way):
-Land Raider Achilles. They've got well tested and established stats in NetEA. Use those stats. No "DA Achilles" name games either. ;) It's a trifle to modify regardless (The Thunderfire gets a boost while MM will always be 15cm).
for convenience I'll write out the establish approved stats
Land Raider Achilles AV 25cm
A:4+ C:6+ F:4+
Thunderfire Cannon 60cm
2× AP4+/AT6+ Disrupt
OR
2× AP4+/AT6+ IC
2× Twin Multi-melta 15cm MW4+
and (15cm) Small Arms MW
Notes: Reinforced Armour Thick Rear Armour Transport May transport one Terminator unit or two infantry units without Jump Packs or Mounted.

Marine SHT's will always be 15cm move as long as I'm here. Through the power of handwavium it's due to extreme age of the units involved and the extra special careful use for valued relics :P

Ok onto the fun stuff! :) (and in no particular order)
====================
-What makes the DA as a list work thematically is largely the special victory condition, otherwise the existing lists cover them and it serves no purpose as a tournament list. The goal is to provide a unique of flavorful twist on something familiar. Without needing to be said, though I'll do it anyways, it must be fun to play with and against. I will confirm that the intention is to change the Blitz Victory Condition for DA, not the DA blitz objective itself for the opponent (wording). Without a doubt this MUST be at the opponent's discretion, not the DA and I strongly encourage that it SHOULD be declared and decided BEFORE seeing the opponent list (though I'd suggest the faction be known - "I'm playing orks." "Oh great, want to try HFTF for a twist?" "Sure!").

-We should consider also that with for theme that the DA operating in this fashion are not about holding territory but performing extraordinary rendition that they cannot get the "They Shall Not Pass" if they use the HFTF. This is also a HUGE factor in balancing and being fun to face against a very very very powerful list with lots of toys (which I am not opposed to it being-those goodies being a large part of the joy of playing it).

-Been mentioned several times that there's an over-preponderance of units. You've recognized that. Others have pointed it out. I'll also point out to the community that Mard's stated that we'll figure out what is superfluous organically through testing. There's no need to belabor the point and I can accept that as a starting point.
Probable Bloat units are
--LS Vengance should just replace Tornado since the former is an upgun'd version of the latter
--Predator Executioner probably could be replacement, not upgrade for the Annihilator
--One of two type of SHT are probably going to be clear winners (though I'll admid my preference for the Glaive over the falchion for obvious reasons).
let's keep an eye out

-Thanks for catching the Executioner weapon as being a Plasma Destroyer, not plasma cannon. It's going to need SF, period though dude or some toning down. Testing will absolutely show that though. I'm just noting that it's silly good right now as stands and is axiomatic as such. :)

-The Darkshroud bonus should be distance based, not formation based for obvious fluff and balance reasons. They look fun.

-SHT should be 6+ in CC. I don't care "but Marines" doesn't hold water. They should TOTALLY be vulnerable to titanhammer type formations. that's EXACTLY how you deal with them in 30k/40k and by precedence, EA as well.

-I'm with Largo on this, the pricing is WAYYYY under for the huge buffs on marines. Testing will show it as you've noted as a an area for improvement in this list. I need to caution you about starting high and dialing back: It will produce an echo chamber effect as you're going to alienate players. alienate players and you don't get any traction on a list. no traction, no results.

I'm excited to see where you go with this and look forward to a hearty, vigorous (AND RESPECTFUL) discussion and play testing! Fun time ahead indeed

edit: I know many of these units have different stats/established stats in HH lists. That's NOT an acceptable argument from anyone and will not be considered in NetEA discussions. Keep it out of the thread.

_________________
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: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9315
Location: Manalapan, FL
Beefcake4000 wrote:
Just to be clear Steve I don't have an issue at all with either the IF or wolf lists and you appear to be defining them to my reading. I think they are more powerful, you seem to think they are just different, sure no worries.

Thank you for your calm reply. :)

Beefcake4000 wrote:
I'd love to see that tourney data supporting that marines are holding their own though hey, none of the comps in Aus last year had marines on the podium that I can remember despite them generally making a notable portion of the players.

The NEAT, Adepticon, EpicUK (and more than a few random NA) events have consistently shown they can be in the top 3. That's not debatable. It's also not debatable that in the AU meta they've consistently NOT been high scoring. That's not an endorsement nor condemnation; I'm just reminding folks that we're trying to make a widely used fun game here.

_________________
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: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:14 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4305
Beefcake4000 wrote:
Steve54 wrote:
Beefcake4000 wrote:
There's not a marine list alive that will compete with a well designed Eldar list which is so much further along the creep ladder than any other army it's beyond

On power level overall I'd rate this as more powerful than the standard astartes but that's not saying much... I'd not rate it as good as either the newly approved space wolves or imperial fists.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense, the codex SM list is just as powerful as any approved eldar list and tournament stats back that up.
I can't speak for the SW but I've tested the IF a lot and they lose a lot of units and tactics to compensate for what they gain.


Just to be clear Steve I don't have an issue at all with either the IF or wolf lists and you appear to be defining them to my reading. I think they are more powerful, you seem to think they are just different, sure no worries.

I'd love to see that tourney data supporting that marines are holding their own though hey, none of the comps in Aus last year had marines on the podium that I can remember despite them generally making a notable portion of the players.

Each to their own meta but you're not going to convince me that marines don't need a boost and that's purely from an opponents perspective. Hell, what do I know about army design.


http://epic-uk.co.uk/ukepicachampionship/racevrace.php
35% vs 39% SM win rate vs Eldar win rate. Also SM have won tournaments in the Uk every year. I know its EUK but the lists are very similar (and there is no comparable netEA data)
At the last 2 Euros (players from UK, France, Sweden, Germany, Norway and Denmark) SM have been in the top 3 individual lists in both.

Like the squats, Dark Eldar, Tau, AMTL I would say that this is possibly a result of the unusual Australian terrain rules providing less cover (with SM being one of the less 'shooty' armies)

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:15 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 5792
Location: UK
Mard wrote:
Was not going to bother replying to the thread till after the weekend when people have a chance to look at the list, calm down and give some constructive feedback, in helpful terms.

But had to come back just to say thanks for being a <snip> largo, real helpful and constructive there


What sort of feedback would you find most constructive at this point? I tried to make my point about Fallen constructive, and agree with Kryt's further points.

However, I also agree with pretty much everything Largo has said. Tone aside, they are pretty much all points that should be considered.

You've already identified that there are a lot of options in the list. At present it has more unit types than even the kitchen-sink vraks list has– I can't think of a list with more unit types than this DA list (not saying there isn't one, just cant bring one to mind!). Maybe a good place to start and remove some of the more overpowered additions?

Beefcake4000 wrote:
[
I'd love to see that tourney data supporting that marines are holding their own though hey, none of the comps in Aus last year had marines on the podium that I can remember despite them generally making a notable portion of the players.

Well just this saterday a UK event had codex place 3rd (without using warhounds), and EUK dark angels place 2nd (again, no warhounds, EUK DA list is different but far far weaker than this proposed epicAU one). So that is about the most recent tournament data possible for holding their own in that meta anyway.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9315
Location: Manalapan, FL
OHHH crazy thought.

If DA picks HFTF, the opposing player gets to claim BTS if they kill the chapter master! :D

TOTALLY vraks

_________________
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: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3333
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
I must say that Largo W raises alot of good points but is very rude doing so which is too bad. Non the less this list has way to many overpowered things going for it.

As someone else mentioned. When doing new lists have alot of restraint and do not try to fill them up with every cool gadget/rule you can think of. This feels like the opposite.

What i would want to see in a DA list:

- No allies because of the "unforgiven rule"
- Teleport homers on Ravenwing formations.
- The ability to add +2 units of terminators to Deathwing formations.
- Nephilim fighters (a seriously toned down version) as AC.

other then theese things it should be exactly like the codex list. A few changes is all that is needed i think. And absolutly include hunters in the list.

Thats would be good start and if it shows to much like the codex list add 1-2 things more. Thats how I would do it.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:39 am
Posts: 1097
Location: Alleroed, Denmark
Hi Mard,

Glad to see list a revival of list development; My Angels of Redemption are looking forward to joining the fun.

Thoughts and comments to the v1.0 list:

Typo: "Dark Angels Core" on p1, should go on p2.

Ravenwing special rule: I like it, but the addition of Scout to all RW units should bump the price of the Ravenwing detachment to 225 or 250; It is such a useful ability.

Hunt for the Fallen: I like this, obviously. I think it should be amended by requiring the Fallen formation to start on the table (otherwise it can frequently be gamed unachievable by leaving the formation in reserve). And yes, replace "Blitz objective" with "the Blitzkrieg goal".

Deathwing detachment: "two Line Company detachment" > "two Line Company detachments".

Tactical: Why do DA tacticals have more integrated combined arms formations than regular SM? I'd lose the Deathwing Support and the Ironwing support from them.

Devastator: Again, why Ironwing support?

Nephilims: Underpriced at 225. Start them at 275, maybe later dropping to 250 if that's too much. The stats seem OK - very very good, not Nightwing pilot level, but heavier gunnery. With Ini 1+, they have to be expensive.

Dark Talons: Not worse than Marauders, certainly. Start at 275, at least.

Land Speeders: There are probably too many variants, yes, but I would hesitate to lose any of them. Land Speeders variety feels right for Ravenwing.

Darkshroud: Granting the entire formation cover is probably a bit much. How about "friendly units within 15cm" or similar? Then it can also help just-teleported-in Deathwing or other formations that don't like being stuck in the open... I'd lose the Inv Save entirely.
It's a really great ability, and undercosted at 50 points. How about 75 points to replace a regular Land Speeder with one of these? It keeps the unit size down at 5, too.

Land Raider: While I appreciate that DA in general may have a larger collection of Land Raiders to pick from, perhaps this aspect of the Chapter can be de-emphasized in a Hunt for the Fallen themed list? I don't see the Achilles or Crusader adding anything thematic to the list

Relics: Same as above, and the absence of proper TK weaponry is a good thematic weakness of Dark Angels on a man-hunt mission. It also serves to make the HFTF goal that much more challenging.

Predator Executioners are a proper thematic addition; how about just dropping the Annihilators entirely? It will also make it easy to use existing collection Annihilators as "counts-as" executioners in this list, if there are no actual Annihilators to confuse them with.

Typo: "Achillies" > "Achilles"

Typo: "Nephalim" > "Nephilim"

Whirlwinds should not have Ironwing Support.

Vindicators may actually benefit from Ironwing support (looks like the upgrade is on the wrong line).

I'm not sure I get what you're trying to do with the "Master"s - except for the Grand Master, who is better than a SM SupCom, the rest are worse than SM equivalents. Is there any special fluff reason why DA leaders don't have Inv Save? Or that the SupCom has Fearless?

Radical idea (reiterated): Leave the leaders statline as stock SM, but restructure the upgrades as
1) Master: Add Captain or Librarian (at +50) or Supreme Commander (at +100) to formation
2) Chaplain: Add Chaplain (at +50) to formation.
This allows the DA to field more Interrogator Chaplains, in addition to the normal leaders, which seems appropriate when hunting fallen.


Best of luck with this - and when we're done with the ETC in may, I'll be sure to post plenty of test games too :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 608
Location: Australia
Thanks for the constructive feedback guys. I'm away for the weekend seeing family but am keeping tabs on this and can see a lot of goo suggestions.
I will respond to them, and there are some things that I'm like: "Yeah, you're right, let's do that"

Just a few things

This is Version 1.0 for most of you, please remember this is still experimental. I did not put this up and say this is ready to be approved. It's rough, I know, so I'm more than ready to shift things.
I posted it in it's current state though now wanting opinions from the wider world and most of you have been helpful in a constructive positive manner. Cheers for that!
I'm of the opinion normally that it's easier to tone things down then bump things up - I think this is easier from a design perspective and a lot of these things have already been toned down once or twice.
The original ver 0.1 had EVERYTHING, because that's how i wanted to start, and people where loaded up with everything for rules and fluff sake. All Deathwing had fearless, all characters did. There were once assault terminators AND Deathwing Knights. Through time I've removed things and pulled stuff out/merged things together. Grabbed stats from HH lists, didn't realise we already had stats for some LR's already in existence.
Some things didn't have a real price till a day before the release and where given a price for a starting talking point.
An example already is that yeah, Bikes could lose scout, they had them for fluff. It was pointed out (Thanks Matt) that I could make an army that could almost all garrison and assault the opposition turn one in FF, so a clause went in to make bikes non garrison-able. Easy enough to go the next step and take scout away entirely.

Give me logic and reason and I will listen (But don't attack me and be dismissive of hard work getting the list to where it is around a life and work, <snip> move there) . Once again I'm not just throwing this up here and saying LOOK AT MY LIST! IT'S READY TO GO. I want to develop this further so it was time to open it to the world and get more opinions on it.

On a last quick note, I am also of the opinion that the basic marine list is bottom tear. Not all approved lists are balanced. Space Marines do have a few tricks, once you know them though and are used to playing them at a high level they start to become pretty easy to deal with. (Once again, my opinion. Also let's not get into another massive debate on terrain and how the Aussies play by the rules as written :P and you other sorts do some infinite high stuff?)

I'll post up thoughts and responses to a lot of things Monday when I'm at a desk and not using my phone. (This is a lot of things to type on a small tiny screen) Many ideas will be taken on board and changes WILL be made but you gotta start somewhere right?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 992
Mard wrote:
On a last quick note, I am also of the opinion that the basic marine list is bottom tear. Not all approved lists are balanced.


That shouldn't be an excuse to go overboard and make overpowered Dark Angels. After the fire storm over the squats that the Australians created I don't think we need another one that can be easily avoided by not discounting all other feedback, even if you don't personally like it.

Echoing what others said, a more sensible design paradigm is starting the list 'weak' then buffing things up to a competitive level - going the other way will only push players away from the list (at first by being visibly way, WAY overpowered, then as we go by people getting hurt that favourite unit X has been 'nerfed'). Introducing things as weak and then tuning them through improvements is, psychologically, more sustainable.

I'd also like to point out that many units simply aren't going to be able to have a direct port from 40K to EA - units have been constantly buffed and overpowered in the former for years. To maintain the integrity of every other list it's simply not viable to bring in new monster units at the most accurately translated stats we can make. I can't stop new units being put in, but for the sake of every other list and for avoiding enormous (and silly) shifts in power creep they can't be put in as super-heroes simply because 40k says so.

I look forward to seeing a viable (and even-handed) Dark Angels list. One, preferably, with hunters still available in it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:14 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8973
Location: Worcester, MA
Mard wrote:
On a last quick note, I am also of the opinion that the basic marine list is bottom tear. Not all approved lists are balanced.


This is not an opinion shared globally, at least not in the north eastern US and (from the response here) the UK. That's of no consequence if you're just playing the list locally, but if "going for NetEA" means you're looking to get it approved then you'll need to work with the groups on the forums.

I look at this list and see a wholesale replacement of the Codex list. It might not have access to a few units (Hunter and the allies) but everything the Codex list can do this one can do, often better and/or cheaper. That's not a good starting point for a game who's variant lists are focused in theme with a smaller unit selection pool. If it were approved many people would find little reason to play the Codex list.

A better way to go about this would be start some discussion threads about what would define the Dark Angels in Epic, what units should it NOT have (personally, this defines the theme of a variant list more than anything else), and what new units should it have. I think you're going to find a lot of common ground on the first one given the list posted, but less so with the latter two.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Did people not read the part when Mard says "This is a starting point?" :D

This isn't an approved list - it's not even a Developmental list. I'm always confused how an experimental list seems to receive an angry "OMFG this list is broken!" response. Of course it is. It's 1.0 of a new experimental list!

Folks, just give the list some time to even out. It's waaay too early to start flying off the handle on this. Just wait and see what occurs.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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