Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Dark Angels v1.2 The long slog to NetEA

 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 11:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2541
Location: UK
On the spaceships, rather than replace with lower cost versions, why not just remove them? It would make sense if the DA can't planetfall because they don't have orbital support.

Think Mard has already covered the reason for not forcing the Fallen formation to deploy on the board: because it is the Dark Angel player who chooses to use the rule, they could fairly frequently force their opponent to deploy a unit on the board that they would normally keep off. The most obvious example being Necrons. Even many Eldar builds would be quite disadvantaged - personally as an Eldar player I almost always keep the most robust infantry formations off-board, only leaving rangers and maybe 150 point guardians. Even marines would also face a similar conundrum, only having garrisoned scouts deployed at the beginning.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2016 1:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Actually I think the Deathwing should stay 4-6 units for a couple of reasons.
1/ It's thematic
2/ You have no Titan allies so a beefed up DW formation replaces this option and the high points cost is the trade off.

It's a tough nut to crack but still doable. If there's arguments about them being too tough as a BTS you can point to AMTL titans, IG LR Companies and various other BTS options in other lists. 12Bms to break doesn't stop them being killed even with 4+ RA.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2016 1:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9283
Location: Manalapan, FL
yeah it's not undoable and also could be balanced by making them a larger points sink in the list such as if present requiring the chapter master ch then to be added there. It might be powerful but it can't be everywhere and expensive enough that you can't go crazy without having too few activations. The problem generally is not having an expensive but damn good formation, it's when you can pull more than one of those. I'm not sold on an addition via a new unit versus just more terminators however but that's a list design philosophy thing I have (upgrade TO new unit/add additional of same).

_________________
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: Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 992
jimmyzimms wrote:
could be balanced by (if present) requiring the chapter master ch then to be added there.


Cut/paraphrased, but I really rather like this idea. Thematic, potentially allow them two characters (Chapter Master and Chaplain, if the Chapter Master becomes required). Brutal, powerful but pricy.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 608
Location: Australia
SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.


Was just a way to try and entice people to take the Attack bikes instead of maxing out on normal

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
Strictly speaking, the VC is called "Blitzkrieg".

Will Fix

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.

True, but this helps us step away from the other lists at this point


SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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...


Dobbsy wrote:
Actually I think the Deathwing should stay 4-6 units for a couple of reasons.
1/ It's thematic
2/ You have no Titan allies so a beefed up DW formation replaces this option and the high points cost is the trade off.

It's a tough nut to crack but still doable. If there's arguments about them being too tough as a BTS you can point to AMTL titans, IG LR Companies and various other BTS options in other lists. 12Bms to break doesn't stop them being killed even with 4+ RA.

Doomkitten wrote:
jimmyzimms wrote:
could be balanced by (if present) requiring the chapter master ch then to be added there.


Cut/paraphrased, but I really rather like this idea. Thematic, potentially allow them two characters (Chapter Master and Chaplain, if the Chapter Master becomes required). Brutal, powerful but pricy.




I dropped this during the reaction of "Your list is bad and you should feel bad" I'm happy to put it back to being standard of 4 with the option of bumping back up to 6 for testing. I'm still a bit worried It may be a bit too strong with ATSKNF. I'm also not keen on having any option to have 2 characters in a single formation at this point for Marines
We can test all these options though, and that will help us with some Data :)
The option to upgrade to a 6formation of Termies will be back with the next release

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

Can bump back up, but then I'll be putting a freeze on changes for aircraft till we can start testing :) But that seems like a good place to start

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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)

We dan start there

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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...

The names can stay for now, but we'll do different tests with both versions


SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.

This can be easily done. The next release may take a bit this week, but look for a bit of format change as well

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.

It's a risk to run HFTF, where i agree with you that is would make for a more cinematic game, for a GT senario I do not want to be forcing people who have all air assault or Teleporting armies to start with one of their formations grounded.


SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.

Yep, good thinking. I'll price them somewhere between Imperial Navy ships and Marines without transport capacity


SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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.

Cheers

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


Yep, will get this in the mission statement

SpeakerToMachines wrote:
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"

Nope, this is different. Like the IF special rules certain parts have been removed to suit the playstyle of the list. Basically it's the same but we've removed the options for Drop pods completly


SpeakerToMachines wrote:
c/Achillies/Achilles

Can fix

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


Can also fix


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
jimmyzimms wrote:
yeah it's not undoable and also could be balanced by making them a larger points sink in the list such as if present requiring the chapter master ch then to be added there. It might be powerful but it can't be everywhere and expensive enough that you can't go crazy without having too few activations. The problem generally is not having an expensive but damn good formation, it's when you can pull more than one of those. I'm not sold on an addition via a new unit versus just more terminators however but that's a list design philosophy thing I have (upgrade TO new unit/add additional of same).

This is a reasonably good idea for a work around. You get to add +2 but with the Chapter Master and 0-1?? That way you get to have multiple DW formations but only one at 6 strong.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:05 am
Posts: 992
Dobbsy wrote:
This is a reasonably good idea for a work around. You get to add +2 but with the Chapter Master and 0-1?? That way you get to have multiple DW formations but only one at 6 strong.


Having it almost certainly be the BTS is also rather appropriate. It's a lot of risk tied up in that unit, for the reward of a unit that very likely mashes up any formation it drops upon. The 6-strong formation could become an explicit upgrade option that adds two terminator/Deathwing Knight stands to /any/ formation that includes a DA supreme commander, which by nature means it's a 0-1 option that can then be really quite fighty.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Of course, another simple option is to just add only 1 unit with the Chapter Master bringing the total to 5 units. It keeps the ATSKNF BM issue to as much of a minimum for an upgrade as possible., while still increasing the unit strength.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9283
Location: Manalapan, FL
Ah interesting. Chapter master as a unit, not a character, eh? kinda like that conceptually. we fall into traps of taking common conventions and building them up to be rules, oftentimes. I can see how adding punch in units/lists can also use reduced flexibility to to provide spin.

_________________
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: Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2541
Location: UK
Do they always hang around with terminators? It's been a long time but don't remember that being the case, Azrael wasn't in terminator armour. Not that he needed it with that watcher dude he had caddying for him.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 608
Location: Australia
Interesting thoughts.
But with the next release, which i should be releasing by the end of the week, I'll just be putting back the old upgrade to bump up to 6 Terminators.

Prior to testing I do not want to lock the chapter Master into any formation, nor do i think this should be the list that has double character options for formations.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:54 am
Posts: 2
ok played a game today.

thoughts -
nothing jumped out for myself or opponent as being out right crazy but few thing made me scratch my chin.

Building a list. I found it terribly restrictive and a bit odd. Why does this chapter (which follows the codex mostly) have weird take x to get access to y?
The majority of the fighting force of Dark Angels is still marines, but to field them I have to take something else first. To field Land Raiders i first need to take Predators?
Can it go to the more open style of the other adeptus astartes style and have a more open plan and put restricted items in the Max 1/3rd bracket.

The tacticals/Dev Plasma AT shooting being better than a Missile is a little off? should it be 30cm AP4+/AT6+
Gives a trade in range for better AP.

The Nephalim fighters did well. have alot of shots though. will do some comparisons.

Looking forward to the Terminators going up to 6.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:49 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2541
Location: UK
Back in the day plasma was definitely better than a krak missile. Don't remember it's range though.

In this list the range is a fairly big negative so dont think we'd see many devs or tacs if they only got a pip on AP for trade. If that's considered a reasonable drawback (worse devs) then fair enough but IMO you don't see enough of them in the codex list as it is, considering they are supposed to be the most numerous troops.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 608
Location: Australia
BBDave wrote:
ok played a game today.

thoughts -
nothing jumped out for myself or opponent as being out right crazy but few thing made me scratch my chin.

Building a list. I found it terribly restrictive and a bit odd. Why does this chapter (which follows the codex mostly) have weird take x to get access to y?
The majority of the fighting force of Dark Angels is still marines, but to field them I have to take something else first. To field Land Raiders i first need to take Predators?
Can it go to the more open style of the other adeptus astartes style and have a more open plan and put restricted items in the Max 1/3rd bracket.

The tacticals/Dev Plasma AT shooting being better than a Missile is a little off? should it be 30cm AP4+/AT6+
Gives a trade in range for better AP.

The Nephalim fighters did well. have alot of shots though. will do some comparisons.

Looking forward to the Terminators going up to 6.



Hi Dave, thanks for giving the list a run. I hope to see some full reports from you in the Future
Just a few points

I'm happy and am thinking about loosening the choice restrictions a bit in the next update. But not to a full open style of the other Marine lists. The basic idea here was to have the Ravenwing or Deathwing featured heavily in hunting the fallen. As most normal Marines do not know the full secrets of the Order. The standard Marine list can be used to play Dark Angels following a more codex approach.

I will probably keep the same structure for now, but will set the choices for Ravenwing to unlocking 2 RW Support and 1 Line company
Deathwing unlocking 2 Line company and 1 Ironwing Support
Ironwing unlocking 2 Ironwing Support and 1 Line Company


Thoughts?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dark Angels v1.1 The long slog to NetEA
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:54 am
Posts: 2
well 3 options per core would allow for some flexibility and would be an improvement.

I would have have thought good design would be allowing the player to play the list the way they want to, not just saying this is it and it only really makes 1 or 2 types of armies.

Most of the time it will still include deathwing and ravenwing elements (i still think the ironwing is a bit meh, it only got a small mention once and isnt in the main codex) but would let someone field a battle company and support in the dark angels form.

friend was writing up the battle report so might be up later this week.


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, 7, 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