Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Dark Angels v1.2 The long slog to NetEA

 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:51 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8960
Location: Worcester, MA
Why is it confusing for people to respond like that if, as you say, the list is broken? You don't think it be a waste of everyone's playtesting time if people kept their mouths shut? After those games the list would either be modified to fix or put forward for approval and denied. In either case, more playtesting would be needed.

It's easier on everyone to start from a place that the most people agree on. You're likely to have more people willing to playtest the list and need less changes in the long run if everyone's opinion and play-style are considered.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15


Last edited by Dave on Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 2:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9283
Location: Manalapan, FL
A friendly reminder to everyone everywhere: NetEA leverages an open design philosophy. This means that everyone is welcome to make a contribution and to express an opinion provided it is done politely and follows the rules here (to which everyone is generally following-I've got no complaints with the recent post history). Just because someone has a different opinion of things or is making a case for a differing view at the same time doesn't mean anything is to be done with said points. You see...that's how open development works. One of the critical ways to gain feedback is to do exactly what Mard's done here and put something up as a starting point for discussion. By the same token community reaction is an important thing to gauge. This is to be encouraged.

Mard's a grown up (he's got big boy pants and his own credit cards and everything). There's no need to shield him; He's a tough cookie. :)

carry on folks

_________________
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: Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 608
Location: Australia
Working on 30k battlescribe project today. Will be back to post comments and revision tomorrow.
Will respond to many things and will be revising a list - as dobbsy reminded. It's v1.0


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 608
Location: Australia
Kyrt wrote:
I think the fallen rule isn't perhaps intended to replace the blitz objective but the victory condition. So the physical objective still exists. Otherwise it's comically good for the DA player because it also denies the opponent the DtF victory condition.

However, honestly I think this rule still has big problems. Against some armies it is just going to be trivially easy to achieve. And where it is not easy, you simply don't use it. I mean, it can only ever be to the advantage of the DA player but that advantage is hugely variable. How can you possibly balance that? When it comes to it there are quite a lot of edge cases and covering them all will make for a very inelegant rule. You could make it that the opponent chooses but then you have the opposite problem - you're only going to do it if it is clearly to your advantage, and you could do some weird things like nominate guardians in the webway, never bring them on, and meanwhile not have to worry about your blitz.

I could understand if this was a defining rule of the DA that had to be made to work at all costs, but does it really bring that much to the list? To me it just seems not fun.


Thanks for looking the list over, you are right in reading that it changes the victory condition, not the actual objesctive and I have changed the wording to try and reflect that. Giving the list a unique victory condition is something I always wanted to do for the list and is something I'd love to see other list try out int the future. It has seen some rudimently playtesting here in Australia - but not recorded so we can't officially point to that. Needless to say this has not been spun out of thin air. But testing will show the way
Removing all planetfall options and Landers may see it as a harder victory condition to pull off now.

Kyrt wrote:
The nephilim are much improved over their old ridiculous stats, with initiative 1+ perhaps still slightly undercosted but the list can't afford to make its only real AA any more expensive. Maybe bringing the range of the heavy bolter down to 15 would make it less extreme and add a bit more nuance to a unit that's currently just really good at everything.

Good pickup, after looking at the IF Storm Talon Gunships AA ability I've followed your advice and brought down the Heavy Bolter to 15cm, also the price has bumped up to 250 for testing

Largo_W wrote:
Perhaps this is considered offensive, but do you guys play another version of this game downunder? And I wont tackle "Hunt for The Fallen" as it is clearly meant as a joke and only applies to friendly games. At least I hope so.

Your entire tone and dissmissiveness was considerd offence, so I'll be skipping your post, onto helpful people

Kyrt wrote:
By way of example look at the land speeders. You've added two new ones, both awesome, and not removed any. You could just as easily have dropped any 2 of the original three, as well as losing MW FF from the vengeance (why does it even have it?). That would be restraint. Then the darkshroud, did it really have to be cover AND inv save for the whole formation AND an additional unit?


For now I'd like to keep all the Landspeeder option in, see testing, and in the future remove any that seem supurfluess.
The Vengeance has now lost the MW FF, you're right - no reason to have it
Darkshroud has been reworked to: Changes to support playstyle - Grants cover to all friendly units within it's zone of control (Being scout - 10cm)

jimmyzimms wrote:
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).

All good, oversight on my behalf, easily brought in line with :)

jimmyzimms wrote:
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


jimmyzimms wrote:
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.


Complete rework of the Relic section has happened, removal or Falchion and the Glaive as follows: rice upped to 325, DC upped to 4DC, Quad Lascannon split into left and right arcs. Volkite Carronade changed to 45cm 3BP IC, Disrupt
Currently in line with IF approved Falchion stats with pricing and DC strength and other weapons - though missing demolisher and different main armament


jimmyzimms wrote:
-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).



I'm happy to get a lot of testing around this unique VC

jimmyzimms wrote:
-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


I'll be keeping an eye on playtests for trimming bloat.
On saying that, speaking of the tornado, I don't think I'v ever seen them in any list in Australia in any tournament. Most people like the standard LS. But i remember the uproar Angel of Caliban had when he took out Vindicators and destroying people collections. For this reason I'd rather leave them in at the moment. Also I'm not inclinned to replace the Pred Anihilator at this point.
Also as an interesting little factoid. Version 1.0 of this list had 39 individual units, version 1.1 currently has 37. This bring it behind the total number of units of the Space Wolves and in line with the IF (Both thought over here to be the only two really competitive SM lists)

jimmyzimms wrote:
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.

Yep, testing will point up in the right direction, but you've got to start somewhere :)

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

Yep, after talking with the local group over the weekend we have changed the Darkshroud to: Grants cover to all friendly units within it's zone of control.
Personally I'd love to see more "support" units in the game eventually :) But We'll see what happens


mordoten wrote:
- 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.


- No allies will always be a thing for this list :)
- I had the ability to pump the formation up to 6 in version 1.0, but after discussions we've dropped this back down to the standard 4. The Dark Angel list will not be the list that will break this trend currently as a unit of 6 Terminators is pretty massive with ATSKNF
- We're bringing them down a bit at a time currently :)
- Hunters re-added


SpeakerToMachines wrote:

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

Fixed :)

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.

For now I've removed the scout options for the bikes


SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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".


The old rule was like that, but could disrupt and affect your opponents army if he brought say, Necrons or any list that was all using planetfall/webways etc

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

Fixed :)

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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?


Thanks on that pickup! Oversight on my behalf from an earlier design phase, forgot they were there - now removed.

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.

Both have taken nerfs and price bumps to 250 to start with

Dark Talon has had Stasis Bomp changed to 1BP and continual use for now for testing, loses disrupt

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.


I aggree

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.

We've played with this as well

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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

I'll be keeping an eye on these, if they aren't really used or taken, I'll be removing them

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.

I will think on it, but honestly I will not be looking to remove Annihilators from the list. Executioners are an upgrade to the standard Annihilator

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
Typo: "Achillies" > "Achilles"

Typo: "Nephalim" > "Nephilim"

Fixed

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
Whirlwinds should not have Ironwing Support.

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

Fixed

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
e 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?

Just accidents really, re-alligned with standard codex

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.

Interesting ideas! But I doubt they'll let us have it :P


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.0 (Going for NetEA)
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 608
Location: Australia
OK

So after speaking to the local Australian players, gathering feedback etc I've done some more work to the list.
Change-log will be in the first post once i upload the new document. But I'll also post it here for now:

Changelog for Ver1.1
* Ravenwing Rules: All bikes lose scout, will limit teleport homers to attack bikes for testing
* Hunt for the Fallen: REword final sentance to "This replaces the Blitz victory condition for the Dark Angel player"
* Space Marine Transport: Renamed and changed to Dark Angel Transports: All options for Drop pods removed
* Deathwing Formation: Removed option to bump unit up to formation of 6
* Hunter upgade returned
* Ironwing: Added option take Hunter upgrade
* Tactical Line COmpany: Added Hunter upgrade, removed Deathwing Support and Ironwing Support
* Devestator: Removed old Plasma upgrade, Added Hunter Upgrade, removed Ironwing Support
* Executioner Upgrade should read: Replace any pair of Predator Annihilators with a pair of Preadator Executioners.
* Nephilim: Prices up to 250, Heavy Bolter brought back to 15cm range
* Dark Talon: Prices up to 250, Stasis Bomp changed to 1BP and continualuse for now for testing, loses disrupt
*Landing Craft: Removed - Going for ground pound so unit removed
*Land Raider: Added Hunter Support
*Whirlwind: Added Hunter Support
*Vindicator: Added Hunter Support
*Relic - Removed Falchion from list
*Glaive: Rework - Price upped to 325, DC upped to 4DC, Quad Lascannon split into left and right arcs. Volkite Carronade changed to 45cm 3BP IC, Disrupt
Currently in line with IF approved Falchion stats with pricing and DC strength and other weapons - though missing demolisher and different main armament
*Ravenwing Black Knights: Change profile to Infantry Will ask thread on where to go, currently a free option to trade up two normal bikes for a +1 better in FF
*Supreme Commander: Loses Fearless
*Company Master: left out Invulnerable Save by accident in profile
*Interrogator Chaplain: left out Invulnerable Save by accident in profile
*Deathwing Librairan: left out Invulnerable Save by accident in profile
*Land Speeder Vengence: Looses MW FF
*Land Speeder Darkshroud: Changes to support playstyle - Grants cover to all friendly units within it's zone of control
*Removing all drop pods and planetfall abilities
*Land Raider Achillies: Brought into line with IF stats
*Land Raider Crusader: Brought into line with current stats
*Renamed Thunderhawk Gunship: Renamed to Dark Angel THunderhawk Gunship to remove planetfall ability

Thoughts?

At this point in time I see the list revolving around taking the three main core formations and acting around the unique victory condition.
I've removed all drop pods and options for Planet-fall to start to step away from other Marine lists. I'll be keeping the Thunderhawks as we see this list as mainly a ground based list, but still having the option to load up a Thunderhawk or two. It just won't be able to do full landing craft/drop pods like standard Marines.

Also I'm not sure what to do with Ravenwing Black Knights. I'd like them in the list as a 0-2 upgrade like the Terminator upgrade but not 100% sure on stats, so I'm open to suggestions - including removing them if need be.

That's it for me at the moment, looking forward to hearing more feedback from you all.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 5:43 pm
Posts: 274
Location: Germany/UK
Only issue I can see now is the HFTF replacing Blitz - this then allows the opponent to ignore his normal Blitz Guard and instead use that unit in battle. If DA were to choose an enemy Terminator detatchment with chaplain, which may also count as BTS as well as HFTF for example, I wouldnt teleport those termies in till turn 3 last turn, knowing at least my BTS and Blitz were safe. Or does the DA player nominate whats on the table? or whats in the opponents List? cause for concern again might be choosing a buckshee Inf stand that gets taken out first turn


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:20 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6332
Location: Leicester UK
Hey Mard, thanks for writing the list, I know all too well that releasing a new list can be like sticking your hand in a woodchipper so kudos for putting yourself out there :)

Thanks also for taking on a good slice of feedback, the list is looking far better for it :)

my only comments come from a fluff POV (yes I know that's not normally how I roll) and concern the Achilles, from what I've read (lexicanum) the Achilles was developed by the IF with some gifted to other chapters (notably the DA) but the IF are currently the only chapter able to field them in any quantity, even then they are rare chapter relics, in the IF list I've limited them to 0-2 as upgrades to represent this rarity, can I suggest you take a similar approach for the DA? also I currently can't access the army lists (probably because I'm procrastinating at work and there is some issue with the network) but in V1.0 the Achilles were just a drop-in replacement for the standard land raider, which is probably a bit cheap for them (IF has them at 25 points each to upgrade them)

having said all that, this is a good opportunity to test the Achilles out, so perhaps a few games with them unlimited and costed more cheaply will show that they can have a similar reduction and de-restriction in the IF list :)

I'd definitely be up for some stress-testing of the list once I get the OGBM, EC and RC games I've promised various people played ;)

_________________
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: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 608
Location: Australia
junkstar wrote:
Only issue I can see now is the HFTF replacing Blitz - this then allows the opponent to ignore his normal Blitz Guard and instead use that unit in battle. If DA were to choose an enemy Terminator detatchment with chaplain, which may also count as BTS as well as HFTF for example, I wouldnt teleport those termies in till turn 3 last turn, knowing at least my BTS and Blitz were safe. Or does the DA player nominate whats on the table? or whats in the opponents List? cause for concern again might be choosing a buckshee Inf stand that gets taken out first turn


HFTF let's the opponent choose which formation with a character or infantry stand is the target for the DA player.
While this does give up the Blitz victory condition, you can still grab the blitz to grab the Take and Hold victory condition. Your opponent still has to be careful of guarding the objectives.

Also not teleporting those termies in till turn 3 if a fair tactic against the DA player, it's a risk you run. But also a risk the opponent faces by not utilizing those forces earlier in the game. What happens if they drop in for the assault late turn three and with terrible rolling lose combat?

I may need to re-word it slightly, but the DA player should also be choosing whether to use HFTF after finding out the army list the opponent is using (Say White Scars for example), but before knowing what units are in the army.


Last edited by Mard on Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:00 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 608
Location: Australia
kyussinchains wrote:
Hey Mard, thanks for writing the list, I know all too well that releasing a new list can be like sticking your hand in a woodchipper so kudos for putting yourself out there :)

Thanks also for taking on a good slice of feedback, the list is looking far better for it :)


Cheers Kyuss.

kyussinchains wrote:
my only comments come from a fluff POV (yes I know that's not normally how I roll) and concern the Achilles, from what I've read (lexicanum) the Achilles was developed by the IF with some gifted to other chapters (notably the DA) but the IF are currently the only chapter able to field them in any quantity, even then they are rare chapter relics, in the IF list I've limited them to 0-2 as upgrades to represent this rarity, can I suggest you take a similar approach for the DA? also I currently can't access the army lists (probably because I'm procrastinating at work and there is some issue with the network) but in V1.0 the Achilles were just a drop-in replacement for the standard land raider, which is probably a bit cheap for them (IF has them at 25 points each to upgrade them)

having said all that, this is a good opportunity to test the Achilles out, so perhaps a few games with them unlimited and costed more cheaply will show that they can have a similar reduction and de-restriction in the IF list :)

I'd definitely be up for some stress-testing of the list once I get the OGBM, EC and RC games I've promised various people played ;)


I'll most likely match the current pricing of the Achilles then :)
And I'll welcome and love help with testing, though I'm pretty sure I'm one or two more theory versions before the first testing will commence. Regardless I'll be trying to have my first games with the new list after the Blood Bowl tourney next month


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 5:43 pm
Posts: 274
Location: Germany/UK
Mard wrote:
junkstar wrote:
Only issue I can see now is the HFTF replacing Blitz - this then allows the opponent to ignore his normal Blitz Guard and instead use that unit in battle. If DA were to choose an enemy Terminator detatchment with chaplain, which may also count as BTS as well as HFTF for example, I wouldnt teleport those termies in till turn 3 last turn, knowing at least my BTS and Blitz were safe. Or does the DA player nominate whats on the table? or whats in the opponents List? cause for concern again might be choosing a buckshee Inf stand that gets taken out first turn


HFTF let's the opponent choose which formation with a character or infantry stand is the target for the DA player.
While this does give up the Blitz victory condition, you can still grab the blitz to grab the Take and Hold victory condition. Your opponent still has to be careful of guarding the objectives.

Also not teleporting those termies in till turn 3 if a far tactic against the DA player, it's a risk you run. But also a risk the opponent faces by not utilising those forces earlier in the game. What happens if they drop in for the assault late turn three and with terrible rolling lose combat?

I may need to re-word it slightly, but the DA player should also be choosing wheather to use HFTF after finding out the army list the opponent is using (Say White Scars for example), but before knowing what units are in the army.


or teleport them in turn 3 as last activation against enemy blitz - but only contesting not engaging, BTS and Blitz survive intact - for example. But if i Knew I would face DA I would use AMTL and stick an emperator on the table with a legate a very tough nut to crack


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 608
Location: Australia
junkstar wrote:
or teleport them in turn 3 as last activation against enemy blitz - but only contesting not engaging, BTS and Blitz survive intact - for example. But if i Knew I would face DA I would use AMTL and stick an emperator on the table with a legate a very tough nut to crack


haha, but at a tourney you noramally have to prepare an all comers list. Plus Emporer titans are banned at pretty much any tournament I've ever seen :P
I'd also not choose to use HFTF against an AMTL list :P


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9283
Location: Manalapan, FL
nice stuff, Mard!

Glad to see the darkshroud tweak as well. it's very easy and logical simply being the ZOC and doesn't require much mental energy to remember.

Glad to see you're open to testing and finding what's going to end up being superfluous. I'm with you on it: it'll be evident organically through testing in short order.

Great idea in pulling the drop pods as that really pulls the list back to the core theme. Kuddos. If we're wanting DA doing shock and awe then we've got plenty of lists around that idea already. Mmmmm....Ironwing rolly death:D

The relic glaive versus falchion is a good choice too. Finally have a damn reason to paint mine up now ;D *pew pew*

I have to agree with Mard on simply not electing to use the HFTF against an "extreme themed force" like Gargant Mob, AMTL, Eldar Titan Clan would be axiomatic. Regardless though, great input Junstar. That's an area we need to keep watch on to make sure that it's not too able to be gamed as a spoiler. I'm hoping we could get some batreps from you hopefully on that. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders for that.

It's going to be troublesome to get the victory condition just right but we've got a good community 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 v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 5:43 pm
Posts: 274
Location: Germany/UK
jimmyzimms wrote:
I'm hoping we could get some batreps from you hopefully on that. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders for that.


Would like to oblige but i'm concentrating on Heavy Mech


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:14 am
Posts: 255
Location: Germany
hey mard, thanks for finally coming up with it ;D

didn't want to post before the flame over your first entry had died down. i appriciate your effort and your thoroughness to deal with every constructive post. keep it up. i will add my thoughts on a later point but i think there is some good potential where this is heading. and also i have great interest in this list, since my very first epic army and what started this hobby for me back in 1992 was a dark angels army. tiny at first, because models were hard to come by here and i was so very broke back then. but over the years some 20k+ pts in da alone amassed and await their proper fileding! 8)

in order to keep you encouraged and especially because i love this model so much and its in the list now (notice the cheering madboys in the back):

cheers!


Attachments:
DA1.jpg
DA1.jpg [ 194.18 KiB | Viewed 1738 times ]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

Good to see speedy progress :)

Comments to the changes:

Mard wrote:
* Ravenwing Rules: All bikes lose scout, will limit teleport homers to attack bikes for testing

Losing scout is probably for the best. Why no teleport homers for the regualr bikes? It makes an already situational, but very cinematic, special ability much less reliable.

Mard wrote:
* Hunt for the Fallen: REword final sentance to "This replaces the Blitz victory condition for the Dark Angel player"

Strictly speaking, the VC is called "Blitzkrieg".

Mard wrote:
* Space Marine Transport: Renamed and changed to Dark Angel Transports: All options for Drop pods removed

OK by me, for massive air assaults there are other go-to lists. I wouldn't think DA would be above making a planetfall just to catch a Fallen, though.

Mard wrote:
* Deathwing Formation: Removed option to bump unit up to formation of 6

Hm. Reduces the iconic Deathwing feel, I think. There's nothing special about 20 guys in Terminator armour...

Mard wrote:
* Hunter upgade returned

OK, I did miss it.

Mard wrote:
* Nephilim: Prices up to 250, Heavy Bolter brought back to 15cm range
* Dark Talon: Prices up to 250, Stasis Bomp changed to 1BP and continualuse for now for testing, loses disrupt

I think the Bomb could stay at 2BP per plane; A 2BP attack from a full formation is pretty lackluster.

Mard wrote:
*Relic - Removed Falchion from list
*Glaive: Rework - Price upped to 325, DC upped to 4DC, Quad Lascannon split into left and right arcs. Volkite Carronade changed to 45cm 3BP IC, Disrupt
Currently in line with IF approved Falchion stats with pricing and DC strength and other weapons - though missing demolisher and different main armament

Sounds good. Now where can I get my mitts on a Glaive... ::)

Mard wrote:
*Ravenwing Black Knights: Change profile to Infantry Will ask thread on where to go, currently a free option to trade up two normal bikes for a +1 better in FF

Why would I *not* do this? It should be a +25pts upgrade (possibly with a better boost, 3+ FF shounds reasonable, or First Strike in CC)

Mard wrote:
(Masters)

If they are completely stock, why not keep the codex names?

Personally, I rather liked the "fearless-instead-of-invulnerable-save" idea...

Mard wrote:
*Land Speeder Darkshroud: Changes to support playstyle - Grants cover to all friendly units within it's zone of control

Thanks.

A few more general observations:

It would be nice with a two-paragraph "mission statement" as part of the list, to let readers know what the list author is trying to accomplish. Basic presentation technique - first tell them what you're going to say, then say it. And of course, finally tell them what you just said.

Hunt for the Fallen: I still think the nominated formation should be required to start the game on the table; It makes for a much more cinematic game - especially if the DA can't do a full air assault alpha strike anyway.

Spaceships: If the list does not allow planetfall, these should be replaced with Dark Angels Strike Cruiser and Dark Angels Battlebarge, with no transport capacity but with a lower cost - a lot of the value of a spaceship is that it allows Planetfall, so at their current capabilities they are overpriced.


And finally a few minor bugs again:

c/unless otherwise noted or replace as stated below/unless otherwise noted or replaced as stated below/
Ravenwing special rule: All Land Speeders have Scout in the unit description, no need for it here.

Unforgiven: There are no Imperial Allies units in the list; this is more a comment (or mission statement) than a special rule.

Space Marine Transports/TSKNF: Are these different from the standard Codex special rules? If not, they are not necessary, since "All Standard Space Marine rules apply unless otherwise noted"

c/Achillies/Achilles

Volkite Carronade: "Disrupt" moved from (15cm) to 45cm line.


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, 6 ... 8  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