Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
The naming was just so there wouldn't be any confusion on the different stats. I agree I rather have them match everyone else but I can't fathom them being any good to use with current Slow Fire stats. Maybe we should knock on the ERC door again?
I'm not a fan of the MkII idea. For one thing why are DA plasmas
better different? And secondly if you go down that road everyone will be changing plasma cannons to MKII cannons.
Until the question of plasmas is revisited by the ERC, just stick with standard cannons. If the unit/formation is underperforming
then we can perhaps look at price drops for DA Tacs instead.
blackLegion wrote:
I would name them either Dark Angels Tacticals.
I agree.
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
IIRC TRC mention that most of the Mortis patterns could be taken in the standard Codex now so i figure take the traditional DA pattern Dread which I feel is the shooty ML/Las ie Hellfire. Plus its one less new unit.
Agreed on this last bit especially.
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
What did you think of DW with other formations? I thought it was Fallen Hunting ish.
I like it, but oh my gosh! shall we say "Space Wolves-like"?

I knew the DA were a jealous lot but this is funny
Seriously though it does work and I like the theory of Fallen-hunting ad-hoc formations tailored for certain missions etc etc.
Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
Also do have any idea about fixing the AA cover issue? I don't think extra Hunter is going to hack it plus its not a excursive thing to the list anymore.
An option might be a Dark Angels Hunter that fires 2x AA but loses its AT ability. It may not be exactly canon with the fluff but then the Hunter never was to begin with and it's not a huge stretch to imagine the DA recognising a gap in their armoury.... It would also provide a DA-specific weapon to help cement the "Chapter-apart" style while providing better AA capability. Pricing might need to be number-crunched for balance though <shrug>