| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
 |
|
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/06 00:01:27
Subject: Dark Angel's assimilated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
I had this thought today after reading my DA codex, I'm thinking that the current codex for DA will be the last since they are so much like codex marines as far as build goes, and the only thing they have going for them is Deathwing and ravenwing, which could easily be done using a HQ character, while the thought is kind of depressing, it seems logical since all that really seperates them is the fluff.
|
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/06/06 10:45:09
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/06 01:27:16
Subject: Re:Dark Angel's assimiliated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Seaward wrote:It would make sense, yes, as the all-biker army and the all-Terminator army can be done by other codices now, and those, really, are the only things that the Dark Angels had to separate them from the pack.
Ya, and they lost all their fluff rules in 4e
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/06 01:29:39
Subject: Re:Dark Angel's assimiliated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Kanluwen wrote:Seaward wrote:It would make sense, yes, as the all-biker army and the all-Terminator army can be done by other codices now, and those, really, are the only things that the Dark Angels had to separate them from the pack.
And like I've said over and over and over and over and over and over whenever this topic gets brought up:
The whole reason that Dark Angels can be put into Space Marines is because Space Marines came after Dark Angels and the idea of "signature units" like the Sanguinary Guard, Wolf Guard, etc was not considered when creating Dark Angels.
The absolute closest that Dark Angels got was the Company Veterans, which really were just the same as the previous edition veterans. They went with the idea of "signature formations" for DA, but they kind of fethed the pooch with it.
Huh I did not know they came first.
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/06 02:06:32
Subject: Dark Angel's assimiliated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Nvs wrote:Should DA be merged with the SM codex? Only if SW, BA, BT, GK are as well.
Can be done quite easily and none of the codex, outside of fluff, truly warrant a unique codex. A few FOC swaps and changes to how units work (allow tacticals to have terminator armor for +XXX pts. Elite GK unit would get termy option as above and if you have a librarian HQ, they are troops just as an idea) would be enough to make any codex work.
The few things that wouldn't work and aren't shared between the marines (or easily transferable to the above mentioned system) really shouldn't exist in the first place as they're quite broken, quite stupid, and just don't make sense for a 40k army. Things like Dreadknights, Thunderwolf cavalry, and priests fall into this category.
Difference is however those factions have both unique rules for them and trully unique units (lone wolves, furioso dread, sword brethren, dreadknight as examples) wherein DA has no unique units, and no unique rules
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/07 02:52:40
Subject: Re:Dark Angel's assimilated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
im2randomghgh wrote:vonjankmon wrote:im2randomghgh wrote:
They are poster boys that require little-no skill to play. That's why six year olds who aren't even paying attention can sometimes beat seasoned players with their itty bitty toys.
Having this many ends up making the rules astartes-tailored.
Also, it prevents them from updating the xenos [also known as the armies that require skill, foresight, and are actually fun to play] codexes (who need it badly).
This cracked me up, I literally lol'ed for a second. Any T4 3+ save army is forgiving, it's the nature of the beast, and been that way since at least 2nd Ed when I started playing. Takes a truly talented player to make it excellent though. If marines were as good as you make them out to be every power gamer there was would play them. Frankly right now other than SW Razor/Long Fang spam any Marine army is my least feared opponent right now.
Seems like I've been saying this a lot recently but your opinion is not the truth, it could be close but no one is always right and sometimes when everyone disagrees with you it might be time to take a step back and reconsider, everyone else might not be right but never hurts to do a little bit of thinking and questioning of what you assume to be the truth, because you know what they say about assuming.
Armies that require more tactics than SM:
DE
Eldar
Tau
Necrons
SoB
Tyranids
CD
Yeah, that's just about all except for IG who just form a gunline and...shoot.
But generally, what do YOU think requires more tactics: an army that can destroy in just about every area, or an army that can only shoot but suck in melee (or vice versa)
....Necrons don't require much in way of tactics, and if you are not power gaming you can make an SM list that does require tactics and use of your head(drop pods can get interesting), and Nids can pretty much just run across the board and do what the orks do, what it comes down to quite frankly is the player, if the player is waac, then of course they will go as cheesey as possible, and since majority(at least around here) of players around here are SM players then it would only make sense that the same ratio would apply to waac players.
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/07 20:14:38
Subject: Re:Dark Angel's assimilated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Well my point is when you look at the Dark Angels Codex compared to Space Marines Codex there is nil for difference aside from interrogator chaplains(since deathwing are just termies with fearless, and ravenwing are just bikers) which tbh aren't worth it to me, now I wouldnt mind if matt ward did the troops in one as long as he stays the feth away from the badass fluff, however the difference between them and a standard codex chapter are pretty much nonexistent at this point.
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/07 20:18:44
Subject: Re:Dark Angel's assimilated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Seaward wrote:Wardragoon wrote:Well my point is when you look at the Dark Angels Codex compared to Space Marines Codex there is nil for difference aside from interrogator chaplains(since deathwing are just termies with fearless, and ravenwing are just bikers) which tbh aren't worth it to me, now I wouldnt mind if matt ward did the troops in one as long as he stays the feth away from the badass fluff, however the difference between them and a standard codex chapter are pretty much nonexistent at this point.
As has been repeated several times, that's because the Dark Angels Codex was the testbed for the ideas that would become Codex: Space Marines. If Dark Angels were to be released tomorrow, I have no doubt we'd see a great deal of variance.
Originally thats fine, but 4e was an opportunity for changing them up which GW did not take, hopefully they do so. But realistically idk how much DA earns GW now so it may not be as proffitable as they like to make a new codex+units as opposed to just throwing them into Codex SM, especially when you look at how people are just using the SM Codex for Dark Angels
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/07 20:54:39
Subject: Dark Angel's assimilated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
DAaddict wrote:
... Nevermind they could never do that.
Isn't that what was said about flying land raiders?
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/07 21:42:09
Subject: Re:Dark Angel's assimilated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
I never meant that we should fold all codex's into one, but I was just saying that DA could probably take it just fine, considering the minimal difference between them and the other codex chapters
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/08 01:05:37
Subject: Dark Angel's assimilated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
vonjankmon wrote:
Again to me this just seems like a "I don't play SM but do play a bunch of non SM armies so I want my toys and screw everyone else." I can understand wanting your toys, cause hell I do too  but it shouldn't be at the cost of other peoples enjoyment.
that is very much QFT
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/08 01:14:19
Subject: Re:Dark Angel's assimilated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Hell I'll try running Captain Stern with Mephiston, it makes plenty of sense
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/08 01:19:33
Subject: Dark Angel's assimilated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:We have a rare chance to suck even more fluff from Chaos. "Armies led by Abaddon the Despoiler are Chaos Marines. All tactical squads receive a handweapon. Also, you may not take any other upgrades of any sort cuz Chaos has to lose."
well thats if its written by a certain author whose name incites the neckbeards to wrath
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/08 01:23:57
Subject: Re:Dark Angel's assimilated into SM?
|
 |
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
im2randomghgh wrote:Wardragoon wrote:Hell I'll try running Captain Stern with Mephiston, it makes plenty of sense
Mephiston, Tigurius and Njal all together in a mega-deathstar librarian HQ choice squad, plus 3x retinue
o.0
'''
I think we call that division by zero
|
|
|
 |
|
|