Dark Angels... Can they be competitive?

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.

**Puscifer**

You know the story... Awesome fluff, outstanding stuff in the DV box, but is all the hate on this book justified?

I played Dark Angels since Rogue Trader (when the army was all black), through 2nd Ed and then sold them off (The entire 3rd company plus elements of 1st and 2nd) in 3rd ed as the codex was really bad.

I love the new book, but can it be competitive in the meta we have now?

**Alphabet**

I have seen DA win local tournaments. But they aren't that strong on the main stage.

I also have a local DA player in my group, each week he has a completely different playstyle, Ravenwing, Deathwing, Tac squads. They are tought nut to crack 9/10 times and like you said , have awesome fluff.

**pax_imperialis**

I used to play them when i first got back into 40k in 6th, not having played since 3rd. I have to admit i really struggled, but i think unbound (much as i have bitched about it) will help alot. Their flyers are flat out terrible, like holy crap how did they manage that. If the nephilim got aa only str 8 missiles it would be fine, as it is its an air superiority fighter that cant take down any of the top flyers in the game, yet costs more.

I think with da they tried to make the first imperial 6th edition army ultra balanced, yet then threw balance out with all the subsequent codexes.

**Ailaros**

I've seen two DA lists do well.

The first is the salvo-bolter version where you have a couple of tac squads hiding behind an ADL and a 4++ self-repairing salvo land raider crusader murderbox. The list is had to kill being AV13/14 and marines behind an aegis, and the absurd volume of fire is pretty harsh to face off against. They can easily throw down a couple hundred bolter shots, which is enough to grind down even monstrous creatures and AV10 fliers. Backed up with a couple of tri-las preds or some drop pods/deathwing to handle the tougher stuff, and it's a hard list.

The other way I've seen it done decently well is with deathwing. Nothing really that surprising about it. You take a few squads vets with 4 combi-meltas and a meltagun (or plasmas) in a drop pod, and then a few squads of deathwing for your troops choices, and then your opponent is hit turn 1 with a simultaneous drop pod and deathwing assault, everything else is usually there by turn 2, and your opponent is reeling from the shock.

Plus, of course, you can always run a raider list.

So yeah, DA can be done in a strong manner. Just resist the temptation to go all deathwing or all ravenwing, and you can do fine.

**Davor**

Puscifer wrote:

I love the new book, but can it be competitive in the meta we have now?

Does it really matter? Here is what I tell people on the Bolter and Chainsword forum for Dark Angels.

Said this before, I will say it again.

We are Dark Angels. We play because we love the minis. We play because we love the fluff. We play because we love the play style. We don't need to win. We play because WE ARE DARK ANGELS.

You will get a lot of people saying NO, DA will not be good. Others will say yes.

All I can say is, who cares.

Here is the full post I made for someone saying that DA are not as powerful as others.

Said this before, I will say it again.

We are Dark Angels. We play because we love the minis. We play because we love the fluff. We play because we love the play style. We don't need to win. We play because WE ARE DARK ANGELS.

If you need to win with plastic toy soldiers, then Dark Angels are not for you. It's sad you spent so much time and money for an army that you are not happy with. I really don't know what to say to make it better for you. All I can think of is, just use your DA (if they are painted as DA) as "counts as" and use another codex.

Some advice? I use to CRY and COMPLAIN and WHINE and throw TANTRUMS when the DA got their 4th edition codex, and then when SM got their 5th edition codex my lib blew off. I felt betrayed and lied to by GW. After months of acting like a child throwing tantrums, I looked in the mirror. What did I see? A 35 year old male who is crying, complaining about PLASTIC TOY SOLDIERS. I said to myself what am I so worked up over this? I have become a miserable person. It's only toy soldiers. Either accept it or leave. So I accepted it. Why? Because I am stubborn. Maybe that is why I feel like I have DA blood through me. When other people told me to use the SM codex and I saw another DA player use the SM codex, I still stuck through my DA and Tyranids through 5th edition. (we all know how bad Nids were in 5th )

In the end, the thing is, I believe DA are not for you. DA is not an army for people who want to win. DA are for people who love the fluff, the minis and theme as I said before. You may as well cut your losses now and just go onto Space Marines, and either repaint your minis or just use them as "counts as".

Nothing wrong with that. These are your minis. This is your time and money. Play what makes fun for you. If you are not having fun then you need to change something.

**Puscifer**

Ailaros wrote:
I've seen two DA lists do well.

The first is the salvo-bolter version where you have a couple of tac squads hiding behind an ADL and a 4++ self-repairing salvo land raider crusader murderbox. The list is had to kill being AV13/14 and marines behind an aegis, and the absurd volume of fire is pretty harsh to face off against. They can easily throw down a couple hundred bolter shots, which is enough to grind down even monstrous creatures and AV10 fliers. Backed up with a couple of tri-las preds or some drop pods/deathwing to handle the tougher stuff, and it's a hard list.

The other way I've seen it done decently well is with deathwing. Nothing really that surprising about it. You take a few squads vets with 4 combi-meltas and a meltagun (or plasmas) in a drop pod, and then a few squads of deathwing for your troops choices, and then your opponent is hit turn 1 with a simultaneous drop pod and deathwing assault, everything else is usually there by turn 2, and your opponent is reeling from the shock.

Plus, of course, you can always run a raider list.

So yeah, DA can be done in a strong manner. Just resist the temptation to go all deathwing or all ravenwing, and you can do fine.

I never tried the Dakka Banner list. Might have a look at that.

I played Deathwing when 6th ed dropped and it was much fun until Tau and Eldar came out and I got hosed 9 games out of 10. Was still great vs Drakespam.

That's the thing, I'd want to go either Greenwing, Deathwing or Ravenwing.

I've not played Greenwing since 3rd ed and never played Ravenwing.

**VanHallan**

I agree with Davor. I don't understand people that want to base their money and time around whether or not a list is 'competitive' when the rule set changes so frequently and unpredicatably that any intelligent person SHOULD be able to see what a trap this thinking is from a mile away.

I understand that you don't want to get your ass kicked every game either, but this IS a dice game. Anything can happen in any game. Odds can be towards or away from your favor, but that's all they really are are odds.

When I got back in the hobby i read soooo much stuff on this site trying to build the "best' list. Guess what? its a waste of time and the 'best' list is based on the opinion of people and like i said the rules are always changing anyways.

I decided i was going to build the army i wanted to build and now i have a couple friends that want to play FOR FUN. That's what its about. Friends playing FOR FUN. This isn't geopolitics people. Build want you WANT to build and enjoy it,

The building and painting of an army is rewarding in and of itself and I think people that do it for competitve reasons are doing it wrong. Its like the musicians that argue over who is best or who can play fastest. Who cares?

**Puscifer**

VanHallan wrote:
I agree with Davor. I don't understand people that want to base their money and time around whether or not a list is 'competitive' when the rule set changes so frequently and unpredicatably that any intelligent person SHOULD be able to see what a trap this thinking is from a mile away.

I understand that you don't want to get your ass kicked every game either, but this IS a dice game. Anything can happen in any game. Odds can be towards or away from your favor, but that's all they really are are odds.

When I got back in the hobby i read soooo much stuff on this site trying to build the "best' list. Guess what? its a waste of time and the 'best' list is based on the opinion of people and like i said the rules are always changing anyways.

I decided i was going to build the army i wanted to build and now i have a couple friends that want to play FOR FUN. That's what its about. Friends playing FOR FUN. This isn't geopolitics people. Build want you WANT to build and enjoy it,

The building and painting of an army is rewarding in and of itself and I think people that do it for competitve reasons are doing it wrong. Its like the musicians that argue over who is best or who can play fastest. Who cares?

I'm not bothered about winning Tourneys.

I'm talking about winning just one or two games in a very competitive Tau, Chaos and Eldar filled Meta.

I'm also not looking to start a Dark Angel army right now. My friend has one and he wanted to know where he was going wrong. I'm just learning up on them in 6th.

**VanHallan**

I hear ya. I don't have enough experience to tell you about that to be honest. I can tell you I played my MOST competitive game against an eldar player with my blood angels. maybe the player just sucked at the game, but i assure you I had less experience playing.

It was just fun to play a fun game. I've played and lost every single game so far with my blood angels. I finally decided to get serious about finishing my IF army and going back at it with them.

But what I have noticed over the course of my losses is that players that obsess over having the best possible list are like the guitar players that will invest in a TON of gear to get the sound they want but WONT invest the time in taking lessons and practicing so that they can actually be good at playing.

Sorry i always reference musical stuff if it doesnt make sense. To me it just perverts the experience of the hobby to look at things in those terms and I know not everyone sees things that way but thats what I've found makes my life more enjoyable as it relates to 40k.

**Davor**

Puscifer wrote:

I'm not bothered about winning Tourneys.

I'm talking about winning just one or two games in a very competitive Tau, Chaos and Eldar filled Meta.

Nice to know that you don't care about winning tourneys that can help in telling you what you need to know.

I'm also not looking to start a Dark Angel army right now. My friend has one and he wanted to know where he was going wrong. I'm just learning up on them in 6th.

Would have been nice to know that DA wasn't for you. When I read it, I thought you were playing DA and complaining/not happy about them. This changes everything then. We are not mind readers and don't know what you are thinking. Yes DA can win. It all depends on your friends play style. We don't know what his play style is, so really can't be of any help right now.

**Puscifer**

Oh no, I was very happy with my Deathwing.

They hosed every army I played against, until Tau and Eldar showed up.

I had to sell them as I was moving house and they pretty much covered my moving costs.

**ciaotym**

DA is my first army (of seven now - I'm too scattered but have some really cool paint jobs...). I play for fun and lose too much, but still have fun. All these armies are competitive if you play for fun - kinda depends how obsessive your opponent is. I take pictures of the battles, so into Jervis' 'model's eye view'. Just don't have the coin to lay out for Terminator armor in my size...

**Chumbalaya**

I've played DA for as long as I've been playing 40k. I love them to death, but they always fething suck!

The only halfway decent way to run DA is built around the Banner of Devastation. Either RW bikes with bolters aplenty or LRCs protected by PFGs. You also have ally shenanigans with IG and other marines, but generally there are better options for them to ally with.

That said, DA are edition-proof because we're never good, so take some solace in that.

**ionusx**

Chumbalaya wrote:
I've played DA for as long as I've been playing 40k. I love them to death, but they always fething suck!

The only halfway decent way to run DA is built around the Banner of Devastation. Either RW bikes with bolters aplenty or LRCs protected by PFGs. You also have ally shenanigans with IG and other marines, but generally there are better options for them to ally with.

That said, DA are edition-proof because we're never good, so take some solace in that.

well to be fair, we suck less than ever before now, which is nice.

my thinking with the DA codex as it stands right now is that the DA codex was written a long time in advance. it was perhaps written shortly before 6th dropped and then playtested the f!ck out of. and then they released it along with any other 6th edition codecies out up till that point (idk what was out at that time i wasnt playing 40k or even watching it then). and then they got told to rush production and later codcies either werent playtested for balance (tau, eldar), or have been so poorly written that there wasnt time to fix them and do them justice (scions, tyranids). the knight was probably playtested and written by a seperate team who did apocalypse and escalation which makes it more "sensible". and im thinking that GW's admin has backed off a bit which is why IG got some love that it needed. 7th is the oddball; if we can assume its true, well lets hope the rmors of CC getting fixed are also true. if that happens then maybe this isn't so bad. and if GW has actually backed off then BA, and Orks might actually be fun armies to play. maybe not the best; but fun armies none the less (and really if anyones playing orks now its for sh!ts n giggles, not competitiveness).

i think DA players are the serious, older, half-brother to ork players. were more grown up, we still have fun and enjoy ourselves, and we cant take a joke. whereas with the orks their as happy as a pig in s--t all the time and are often are very, very, silly

i mean seriously, you can argue till the cows come home but the dark angels have some of the best if not the best looking space marines on the field; period and its always a blast when they tee off with you.

**Puscifer**

Lol at the Ork reference.

We have an Ork player in my Meta and the guy just can't be beaten. He's been playing Orks since 2nd ed and has at least 20,000 points of them including FW stuff.