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.

For starters, assume this is an average player with an average list. No "powergaming" or intended gimmicks.

In some recent posts I've been noticing that Dark Angels are sort of looked down on, often as a sub-par army. Is this meant jokingly, or am I actually playing an army that can be looked at as a handicap. I'd like to think I have the potential to build a powerful list, and that my mediocre list can at least stand up to most other lists without too much master strategy.

Then again, if my army is genuinely looked down on I can blame that if I lose

Make a more compelling argument. Start by listing what DA have that others marine armies don't and compare what they lack to what other armies have. Does another marine army have any similar special rules/units that do it better than DA?

When people say they are weak, they mean you can't take them to a Grand Tournament and win with them, their 'best' list is simply not as powerful as the 'best' lists that Eldar, Demons or Tau could put down.

However, given your criteria, of basically taking them to an average gaming club or store, where the players are not there just to win, I don't see them as any worse off than anyone else. Their core units (Tacs, Assaults, Devs) are no worse than those found in C:SM or C:BA, although they do favour a more restrained and/or static playstyle. Their unique units too are perfectly fine, Deathwing bringing some options other books can't reproduce (Venerable Land Raiders, anyone?) and Ravenwing Black Knights make White Scars cry with their excellent potential in shooting and CC. While I won't pretend all their units are brilliantly effective (the aircraft in particular are a bit lacking), they should be able to put up just as much of a fight in the setting you describe as anyone else.

Whatever you do, don't let this internet hyperbole put you off playing the Chapter, they are a very enjoyable and thematic army to play, and under competent command, should do just fine on the tabletop.

I'm not an expert in the DA codex, but wouldn't a DA army run using the codex: SM do mrost stuff better than the samebarmy done using the DA codex?

LordBlades wrote:
I'm not an expert in the DA codex, but wouldn't a DA army run using the codex: SM do mrost stuff better than the samebarmy done using the DA codex?

Yes and no. C:SM does get a lot of toys that would be nice to have in a DA army (and frankly we should have) like Thunderfires and Stormtalons, but at the same time, DA have some strengths SM can't match. As mentioned above, a Deathwing Dreadnought or Land Raider is tougher than an Iron Hands equivalent, a Ravenwing Black Knight squad is on pretty even terms with a grav-biker Command Squad (held as one of the better units in the book), and of course we do Terminators better than anyone else, especially with the Knights as an option. With the Banner of Devestation, we can pull off bolter-lines better than Imperial Fists, and things like the PFG are also very good.

The trick is realising that, while there are some things C:SM does better, there are just as many DA do well, and neither is better or worse on balance than the other. You have to play to the strengths of the book to get the best out of it, but that's no different to any other book.

Azrael in a 50-IG strong blob squad. 4+ invuln for everyone. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!?

 ChazSexington wrote:
Azrael in a 50-IG strong blob squad. 4+ invuln for everyone. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!?

Haha, I do know we have a handful of gimmicks like that. The other one I'm familiar with is a darkshroud flying behind a squad of russes, with a line of bullgryn in front of them. What did you say the cover save is on those tanks?

I've played them and played against them. Whilst perhaps not tier they can still be fun to play, and can still win games. The banner of devastation really lives up to it's name especially when used against a cc orientated army results can be hilarious. You'll be rolling ork army quantities of dice.

Fantome wrote:
I've played them and played against them. Whilst perhaps not tier they can still be fun to play, and can still win games. The banner of devastation really lives up to it's name especially when used against a cc orientated army results can be hilarious. You'll be rolling ork army quantities of dice.

I genuinely don't know if I like the standard or not. I've had games that I've tabled armies with it, and I've had games that the squad was the first squad wiped out, even with 2 storm shields and an apothecary protecting it. Not quite a glass cannon, but it draws a lot of fire.

Are DA weak? Yep. Pretty dang weak. Ravenwing is basically your only option.
Their bikes are inferior to white scars (at least they get scout to somewhat compensate)
Their marines are inferior to ultras and crimsons and ironhands
Their terms are better overall but they are still over-costed terms - therefore crap.
- no centurions
-Black-knights are good but grav bikes are probably more useful overall being cheaper and having longer range.

If you do more skimming around the forum(s), you'll notice almost all armies are looked down upon when it comes to being competitive. Everything is sub-par when compared to what the Eldar (and Chaos Daemons, though they don't get the headlines like Eldar) can bring to the table. Tau are often thrown in as one of the power codecies, and they probably are, but they've come back to the pack a smidge from where they were in 6th.

All of that is just saying that one shouldn't allow other forum posters to fall out of love with their army of choice. If you're looking for positive talk on what the Dark Angels have to bring, I'm sure there are Dark Angels forums out there that would be helpful in that arena. I personally have a small ally contingent of Dark Angels that I sometimes run just to have access to a Power Field Generator on a bike. Power Field Generators are pretty freaking sweet...

 kingbobbito wrote:

Fantome wrote:
I've played them and played against them. Whilst perhaps not tier they can still be fun to play, and can still win games. The banner of devastation really lives up to it's name especially when used against a cc orientated army results can be hilarious. You'll be rolling ork army quantities of dice.

I genuinely don't know if I like the standard or not. I've had games that I've tabled armies with it, and I've had games that the squad was the first squad wiped out, even with 2 storm shields and an apothecary protecting it. Not quite a glass cannon, but it draws a lot of fire.

I run it with raven wing command squad and it's still super easy to wipe out. the 6" banner range is the real problem. Armies with a lot of templates and large blasts ruin you for trying to gain those 6" benefits. Then you are still only rolling str4 bolters - it's a lot of dice - but it really doesn't kill very much. The main reason I like playing DA is easy access to single units of land speeder typhoons. Lots of mobile shooting.

Dakka banner too stronk. Nerf pls Gmaes Wrokshop

In an "average gamer" setting, they aren't obviously underpowered. Basically equivalent to vanilla Space Marines. It's at tournaments where they really can't compete. DA have a few useful shenanigans that they can do (Banner, Darkshroud, Azrael's unit-wide 4++), but nothing on the level of what even vanilla SM can do (e.g., Tiggy Centstars).

Average game club, DA do fine, but at tournaments they can't stand up to other competitive lists. Codex to codex, I think SM are better, but I think with some tweak, added units, and price reduction, DA would be on par

 kingbobbito wrote:
For starters, assume this is an average player with an average list. No "powergaming" or intended gimmicks.

But what makes that codex work IS its gimmicks. I think DA are better than people give them credit for, especially as allies. Top Tier? no. Second Tier? Maybe the bottom of it. I will say I really like the DA codex and hope it doesn't change for awhile. I can play a decently strong list that no one can really whine about. Used right, there are some decently powerful tricks that a DA player can use and they have some beautiful models. It's putting the game on hard-mode without removing a chance at victory. We need some armies in that spot.

 Lobukia wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
For starters, assume this is an average player with an average list. No "powergaming" or intended gimmicks.

But what makes that codex work IS its gimmicks. I think DA are better than people give them credit for, especially as allies. Top Tier? no. Second Tier? Maybe the bottom of it. I will say I really like the DA codex and hope it doesn't change for awhile. I can play a decently strong list that no one can really whine about. Used right, there are some decently powerful tricks that a DA player can use and they have some beautiful models. It's putting the game on hard-mode without removing a chance at victory. We need some armies in that spot.

I see you post a lot - I take a look at your game records...are we really to believe that you win 98% of your games?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
For starters, assume this is an average player with an average list. No "powergaming" or intended gimmicks.

But what makes that codex work IS its gimmicks. I think DA are better than people give them credit for, especially as allies. Top Tier? no. Second Tier? Maybe the bottom of it. I will say I really like the DA codex and hope it doesn't change for awhile. I can play a decently strong list that no one can really whine about. Used right, there are some decently powerful tricks that a DA player can use and they have some beautiful models. It's putting the game on hard-mode without removing a chance at victory. We need some armies in that spot.

I see you post a lot - I take a look at your game records...are we really to believe that you win 98% of your games?

Depending on what he runs, sure. Allies, RW with Libby spam do very well against most armies.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I see you post a lot - I take a look at your game records...are we really to believe that you win 98% of your games?

Well it'd be a really stupid and shallow thing to lie about. For one: it'd be just dumb to make up a W-L record... and I've kept it up to date since I started on Dakka Dakka. Second: there's about a dozen posters here know me and have played me in RL... I'm sure they'd out me pretty fast... in fact they'd probably enjoy it. I get a few PMs here and there with players asking for tactics and tips, so I keep the records there for that reason. I helped a few GT players make some lists that have done well for them too. Sorry if it looks pretentious, I don't mean it as such.

We play blind lists and random opponents for 40k days at my club. So maybe our "mini-tourney every time" format has skewed my results a bit. I also play in RTTs quite a bit and usually finish 3rd ish if there's about 20 players... so that pads my wins a bit too.

EDIT: Many of these armies I shelve for a year or more at a time... I've not ran Orks, IG, or Grey Hunters for quite awhile. The SM, chaos, DA, and 30K lists are my currrent rotation (I usually let my opponents choose which of my lists they want to face in club play, and often spot them an extra 10% after they've seen my list). My bike and daemon armies have been dropped to RTT play only, as they were just unbalanced in club play. Again, why I like the DA... people let me play them.

Back to DA: With light allies (say 25% of their points) they can be good. As the same (light allies) they can turn up an IG or SM:WS list to 11. For campaigns, club play, and such, they really are one of my favorites... though yeah, they could use a little tweak if looking at their anti-flyer efficiency. If you allow FW units, I really find them just right behind codex:SM in power.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
For starters, assume this is an average player with an average list. No "powergaming" or intended gimmicks.

But what makes that codex work IS its gimmicks. I think DA are better than people give them credit for, especially as allies. Top Tier? no. Second Tier? Maybe the bottom of it. I will say I really like the DA codex and hope it doesn't change for awhile. I can play a decently strong list that no one can really whine about. Used right, there are some decently powerful tricks that a DA player can use and they have some beautiful models. It's putting the game on hard-mode without removing a chance at victory. We need some armies in that spot.

I see you post a lot - I take a look at your game records...are we really to believe that you win 98% of your games?

Depending on what he runs, sure. Allies, RW with Libby spam do very well against most armies.

Heres an example of how 98% win rate is impossible.

In 5th I used to run a very non competitive crimson fists list with lots of tactical squads and dreadnoughts and preditors, vs my friends very competitive vulkan melta spam w razor spam. His army was superior to mine in every way. I still managed to win 2/5 games on average. Win ratios over that are really unbelievable. The dice play such a huge role it just seems pretty improbably nearing on impossible to win 60:1 in a dice game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
For starters, assume this is an average player with an average list. No "powergaming" or intended gimmicks.

But what makes that codex work IS its gimmicks. I think DA are better than people give them credit for, especially as allies. Top Tier? no. Second Tier? Maybe the bottom of it. I will say I really like the DA codex and hope it doesn't change for awhile. I can play a decently strong list that no one can really whine about. Used right, there are some decently powerful tricks that a DA player can use and they have some beautiful models. It's putting the game on hard-mode without removing a chance at victory. We need some armies in that spot.

I see you post a lot - I take a look at your game records...are we really to believe that you win 98% of your games?

Depending on what he runs, sure. Allies, RW with Libby spam do very well against most armies.

Heres an example of how 98% win rate is impossible.

In 5th I used to run a very non competitive crimson fists list with lots of tactical squads and dreadnoughts and preditors, vs my friends very competitive vulkan melta spam w razor spam. His army was superior to mine in every way. I still managed to win 2/5 games on average. Win ratios over that are really unbelievable. The dice play such a huge role it just seems pretty improbably nearing on impossible to win 60:1 in a dice game.

Please see my prior post above, I ninja'd in on you. We also play 2.5k matches, so the random dice-bite gets diluted a bit. Let's not make this about my W-L and stay on topic?

DA: I think RW gets overlooked, because its very good, just WS handle the meta better right now. If you have a CSM heavy local meta, I suppose the Knights would get stronger there. I highly recommend IG or Tau (even just the troops) as allies for a DA force if you want to make them more durable in club play. For GTs its going to be an uphill battle.

I could go on for a bit. I'll start by saying that while I've only been playing 40k for 2.5 years, I played Dark Angels religiously (hehe) for 2 of those. Dark Angels will always have a place in my heart. Now that that's out of the way, I hate the army. I had about 6-7k points and I sold them all to padd my Eldar. Our bikes are overcosted compared to C:SM who do almost everything ours do, except they pay a Character tax for scout. Our terminators are expensive, yeah they can be customized unlike C:SM but I didn't think that was quite worth it. Our cool unique units weren't great, like the Landspeeder Vengeance could have been amazing if either it didn't have Gets Hot (Its supposed to be ancient plasma tech right?) Or if Gets Hot worked a little differently than it does now. The flyers, the fighter is better vs infantry and the bomber is better vs flyers! The codex doesn't have the cool things C:SM has but that's a whole different debate.

I'm probably a total baby, and maybe even I don't know how to play a power armor army, but I really really just couldn't win games, and no matter how much I liked the army and I like painting them, 40k wasn't fun for me when I couldn't ever win. So I sold em all, bought a lot more Eldar and I'm super happy now, and I don't even trounce my friends, they're fun fair close games.

tl;dr I think Dark Angels are underpowered, but that's just me and probably how I played them.

There's potential, but a few things need to be fixed:
1. Their Tacticals get nothing special compared to Grey Hunters and Blood Angels. Then again, why are you playing Dark Angels if you're gonna bother with Tacticals? Before someone says the Dakka Banner, remember that Bikers exist.
2. Their Bikes and Terminators need to be brought in line with the parent codex. Their Terminators are NOT worth 4 more points for what is essentially Chapter Tactics. People have been arguing forever that Terminators aren't even worth 40 points (which is something I completely agree with. 35 points is more appropriate). Not to mention they can't take two Heavy Weapons at minimum, but that's a Terminator problem as a whole. Ravenwing is less badly costed, but it can be fixed.
3. Their flyers suck.

 kingbobbito wrote:
For starters, assume this is an average player with an average list. No "powergaming" or intended gimmicks.

 Paradigm wrote:
When people say they are weak, they mean you can't take them to a Grand Tournament and win with them, their 'best' list is simply not as powerful as the 'best' lists that Eldar, Demons or Tau could put down.

Right. If your definition is average player with average list, then no, DA aren't really handicapping. If you're a powergamer, though, a straight DA list would definitely be a handicap, as you can't make the most powerful unit combinations with just that codex (or anything particularly close to the most). If you're not worried about winning a game of 40k as easily as possible, then no, don't worry about DA.

And why are people even talking about win-loss ratios? They're completely meaningless.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's potential, but a few things need to be fixed:
1. Their Tacticals get nothing special compared to Grey Hunters and Blood Angels. Then again, why are you playing Dark Angels if you're gonna bother with Tacticals? Before someone says the Dakka Banner, remember that Bikers exist.
2. Their Bikes and Terminators need to be brought in line with the parent codex. Their Terminators are NOT worth 4 more points for what is essentially Chapter Tactics. People have been arguing forever that Terminators aren't even worth 40 points (which is something I completely agree with. 35 points is more appropriate). Not to mention they can't take two Heavy Weapons at minimum, but that's a Terminator problem as a whole. Ravenwing is less badly costed, but it can be fixed.
3. Their flyers suck.

Agree 100% with this, only instead of reducing terminator costs, how about improving the rules for terminator armour to actually make them worth the 40+ points per. I still think base terminator armour should add +1 wound, have a 4++, and ignore Unwieldy.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's potential, but a few things need to be fixed:
1. Their Tacticals get nothing special compared to Grey Hunters and Blood Angels. Then again, why are you playing Dark Angels if you're gonna bother with Tacticals? Before someone says the Dakka Banner, remember that Bikers exist.
2. Their Bikes and Terminators need to be brought in line with the parent codex. Their Terminators are NOT worth 4 more points for what is essentially Chapter Tactics. People have been arguing forever that Terminators aren't even worth 40 points (which is something I completely agree with. 35 points is more appropriate). Not to mention they can't take two Heavy Weapons at minimum, but that's a Terminator problem as a whole. Ravenwing is less badly costed, but it can be fixed.
3. Their flyers suck.

Agree 100% with this, only instead of reducing terminator costs, how about improving the rules for terminator armour to actually make them worth the 40+ points per. I still think base terminator armour should add +1 wound, have a 4++, and ignore Unwieldy.

I've always thought +1 wound or +1 T would be good for TDA

The problem with terminators is that for their points they produce less firepower and are less survivable than a tactical squad. They're better in assault (of course) but they don't have the mobility to get there.

Making them better at assault won't make them worth their points. Firepower and durability should be the concern. Two heavies at five man would be a start towards improving their firepower. Some sort of FnP innate might help with durability although it's still not great. In the broader scheme making storm bolters salvo 3/2 would improve their basic weapon. Grey Knights in power armour would be hit by it, but GW didn't care when making psycannon salvo. Chaos terminators still have their combi-weapon options.

I've been playing this army since I split DV boxset and got hooked on the GW wallet rape scheme. There are times where I've looked at my marines and said "WHY?! WHY are you so weak when compared to everything else?" However, I got out of that mindset a long time ago.

The reason why we're looked down is that there's no overly broken combination of powerful units. We don't have any major cheese and the way I've got victories was by playing the mission and trying to make lists that worked well with each other. Sometimes, it required allies. Other times it was just smart playing. I feel that a lot of people look at the power lists and think that because Dark Angels can't bring the same domination as Army X then they suck. They don't. It just takes a different approach.

With that said, there are some units/things/rules which are absurd. I love our flier's look. It looks like a cool model. However, I do not like how it plays in the army. I do not like how it's tailored as anti air but fails when put to that task. It's expensive point wise and there's no real point ever bringing one. If they change the missiles to include a S8 AP2 option, armorbane or just reduce the point value (even by 20 points), I'd buy another and field both all the time. Another thing I'd hope for would be to give pistols to apothecaries, make Azrael have an AP2 weapon, give our landspeeder vengence model either longer range, better armor, or lower cost as it doesn't make any sense to field ever, and finally make it so that there's a point to bringing a one time use bomb for the Talon. It's expensive for an odd gimmick that is way too specific of a situation.

OH and the relic cloak that we can buy for almost the price of a a TAC squad. It's so expensive for no real use.


/rant

the dark angels codex is a 6th edition codex written for a 5th edition brb thats being forced to play in a 7th edition brb.

really sit down and read the thing and pretend its 5th edition again and you can see the arguement is compelling. you have a very strong army then with lots of good cc hitters, exceptional fast attacks, and while their usr's ae garbadge and their warlord traits mediocre they have lots of redeeming qualities.

jump forward two editions and the story is the polar opposite. the dark angels are horrible under evolved compared to their counterpart books or even xens books.

we need a serious overhaul to be tournament ready or for tangling with strong xenos armies but we arent defenseless.