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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the problem that a flyer unit that is not a knight, can put out knight levels of Dakka, with oath of moment, and all the stupidity that is SM buffs, for roughly 250pts.

You do know the thing (& the Ironstorm enhancements) all got a pts hike the other day, right?
Minimum cost, without the enhancements & the characters to put them on, is 260pts.

So no, it's not "roughly" 250 pts.
Nowhere even near that assuming you want all the bells & whistles the characters + enhancements provide.

Meanwhile, over in the GK list, the same unit (with no access to such buffs) is.... 265pts

ccs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the problem that a flyer unit that is not a knight, can put out knight levels of Dakka, with oath of moment, and all the stupidity that is SM buffs, for roughly 250pts.

You do know the thing (& the Ironstorm enhancements) all got a pts hike the other day, right?
Minimum cost, without the enhancements & the characters to put them on, is 260pts.

So no, it's not "roughly" 250 pts.
Nowhere even near that assuming you want all the bells & whistles the characters + enhancements provide.

Meanwhile, over in the GK list, the same unit (with no access to such buffs) is.... 265pts

Ok, my 250 was wrong. Are you going to address the main point of the argument? The stuff that thing puts out for 260, is still under-costed? Do you honestly believe 260 is an accurate cost for what this can do in a DA list?

What’s the full combo?
Because if it needs a character in the Stormraven, then it’s over 300 points minimum.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

ccs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the problem that a flyer unit that is not a knight, can put out knight levels of Dakka, with oath of moment, and all the stupidity that is SM buffs, for roughly 250pts.

You do know the thing (& the Ironstorm enhancements) all got a pts hike the other day, right?
Minimum cost, without the enhancements & the characters to put them on, is 260pts.

So no, it's not "roughly" 250 pts.
Nowhere even near that assuming you want all the bells & whistles the characters + enhancements provide.

Meanwhile, over in the GK list, the same unit (with no access to such buffs) is.... 265pts

Ok, my 250 was wrong. Are you going to address the main point of the argument? The stuff that thing puts out for 260, is still under-costed? Do you honestly believe 260 is an accurate cost for what this can do in a DA list?

Ironstorm with Stormraven is the most competitive Dark Angels list right now (different sites have different rates), but its still mid-tier in the big picture.

There are two points to taking the Stormraven Ironstorm as Dark Angels. Azrael gives you a free CP and you can take a Darkshroud to give some protection to the Stormraven. Each of those cost you points. The Stormraven has good dakka, but in Ironstorm you also take a Techmarine (95 points with the Enhancement) who grants Lethal Hits and then pop the Stratagem for Sustained/Critical HIts on 5s. People use the hover mode, so its really just a fast tank that drops a Redemptor on an objective and uses the Character enhancement and a Stratagem to boost damage.

So a Stormraven with the Techmarine and the Darkshroud is sitting at 470 points. Azrael is another 105 and the Redemptor is another 210. You can also invest in a Hellblaster brick to go in there, so the points really start to go up.

So I think its fine at 260 points.

^At 470 points it sounds a bit like one of those combos where it's better to take 2 of a unit rather then just the one with buffs.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^At 470 points it sounds a bit like one of those combos where it's better to take 2 of a unit rather then just the one with buffs.

Some folks certainly run two Stormravens, each carrying a Dreadnought. They still take a Darkshroud and the Lethal Hits Techmarine plus Azrael (for the CP). The Darkshroud and Lethal Hits Techmarine are 6" auras, so it is theoretically possible to jam all that together. The terrain would have to be quite open, and it would be hard to take two objectives. Now, with Twin Linked a Stormraven can certainly get work done without Lethal Hits, while damage reduction makes it survivable without the Darkshroud. You can only use the Sustained/Critical Hits Stratagem on one unit a turn, so there are diminishing returns on a second Stormraven. I suppose, though, there is redundancy.

Pre-Dark Angels Codex a Talonmaster would come along with the Enhancement for Advance and Shoot. A Ravenwing Command Squad can take that Enhancement and try to keep up with the Stormraven, but its more expensive. I run one with a full load-out of Azrael Hellblasters, a Techmarine and a Dreadnought to take one flanking objective in no-mans-land and try to utterly kill whatever could threaten them the next turn. The Darkshroud mitigates return fire while the Redemptor eats any charges. The points hike meant to the Stormraven was accompanied by a drop to the Hellblasters, so it works out for me.

All that to say, I think that Stormravens are good (I use one myself) and I was not surprised to see a points hike. I was also happy to see that they were not nerfed into the sun, given the win rates. Repulsor Executioners can be used in a similar fashion in Ironstorm, albeit slower and without the Redemptor Skip the Dishes/Uber service.

Azrael himself if what is breaking the stormravens then, not the actual units? That tracks. Who could have foreseen a SM leader unit breaking units with their aura? /s


And for the record, it's three stormravens, and a Dusk shroud giving them all cover, and azr, giving them lethal hits. With Hurricane bolters, frag missiles, twin assault cannons, and a ton of heavy bolters, plus squads of hellblasters or whatnot, it gets silly fast. It's not mid-tier. It's already sweeping tournaments.

"Three Stormravens".

So more than 250 pts.

 bullyboy wrote:
So, 4 posts on this new data slate change.
Is this a sign that 10th really isn’t that popular? Not sure everywhere else, but I know our group have barely played any games (maybe a few in the newness period but that has dropped off significantly)

Dakka is such a small community nowadays that you can't really base the game's popularity on how active it is.

It truly is a "boomer" forum in a sense, if you go on Reddit/Discord, the community is super active and thriving.

I watched a bit of video on Salute to see what was about and it struck me how it was a sparse sea of grey hair. I suspect Dakka is much the same.

Still, all this talk of GSC and I'm feeling like getting a box of them to finally get that demonic genestealer cult army from WD #116 going. Been meaning to get round to this since,well, the 90s.

People are definitely excited about the update locally. The game in general is more active and lively locally than its ever been.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Azrael himself if what is breaking the stormravens then, not the actual units? That tracks. Who could have foreseen a SM leader unit breaking units with their aura? /s


And for the record, it's three stormravens, and a Dusk shroud giving them all cover, and azr, giving them lethal hits. With Hurricane bolters, frag missiles, twin assault cannons, and a ton of heavy bolters, plus squads of hellblasters or whatnot, it gets silly fast. It's not mid-tier. It's already sweeping tournaments.

Have you met this list on the tabletop? Azrael does not have an aura. It’s a Techmarine with an Enhancement with an aura. Azrael just gives a CP.

A Stormraven list can win a tourney. So can many things. Doesn’t mean they get nerfed into oblivion.

Is the DA list an example of a case where GW have handicapped themselves a bit by not allowing for DA to have points tweaks to core Codex units? Maybe the Stormraven is a little more pricey for them than it is for - to pick an example at random - Iron Hands?

Someone mentioned the GK Stormraven is pricier than the core SM Stormraven - does it have any benefits that would make that make sense?

 Dysartes wrote:
Is the DA list an example of a case where GW have handicapped themselves a bit by not allowing for DA to have points tweaks to core Codex units? Maybe the Stormraven is a little more pricey for them than it is for - to pick an example at random - Iron Hands?

Someone mentioned the GK Stormraven is pricier than the core SM Stormraven - does it have any benefits that would make that make sense?

Not on the datasheet.

And allowing point tweaks means having to keep up with point tweaks. What generally happens is GW just forgets about all its variants and leaves random codexes strictly worse for no reason. It's definitely not something I'd like to go back to.

Honestly, Dark Angels Ironstorm is fine. Azreal himself is just so good he's going to feature in any list that calls itself Dark Angels. It's overall just a solid list taking advantage of the few good things in the DA codex, but its pretty on par with similar lists that put the buffs on a different set of units.

Having played a few games with CSM since the update, I do have some thoughts:

Abaddon - I still think he's a little too expensive and should be 290ish. Not a big difference but over 300 is just a little too much for his resilience when held in lense against C'Tan, The Avatar and Primarchs who all sit in the same costing range. If they want to keep him at that price, I think he needs an extra pip of toughness or -1 damage or the ability to negate one attack per turn.. I think a FNP or half damage would be too much considering his damage output.

Lord of Discordant - still needs love.

Defilers - can really put things out but definitely still a little too expensive. I'd knock them down by 10-20pts.

Chosen - Probably still a little over priced for their general resilience. 3 wounds and their speed is great but they're ultimately only T4 with no ++. I think they were correctly priced pre-Jan at 120ish.

Terminators - I think should still be a point or two cheaper per model.

Otherwise I feel the army is generally in a better spot. Units that are not good beyond the above (Maulerfiends, Daemon Princes, some of the other characters) probably need rule changes or detachments to fit them better.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

ccs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the problem that a flyer unit that is not a knight, can put out knight levels of Dakka, with oath of moment, and all the stupidity that is SM buffs, for roughly 250pts.

You do know the thing (& the Ironstorm enhancements) all got a pts hike the other day, right?
Minimum cost, without the enhancements & the characters to put them on, is 260pts.

So no, it's not "roughly" 250 pts.
Nowhere even near that assuming you want all the bells & whistles the characters + enhancements provide.

Meanwhile, over in the GK list, the same unit (with no access to such buffs) is.... 265pts

Ok, my 250 was wrong. Are you going to address the main point of the argument? The stuff that thing puts out for 260, is still under-costed? Do you honestly believe 260 is an accurate cost for what this can do in a DA list?

Sorry I took so long to get back around to telling you you're still wrong, but I had important real life things to do.
Then I watched a few hours of NetFlix & built some more HH Marines....

The only "under-costing" I see on a Stormraven is that it's 5 points cheaper than one in a GK list. Or maybe the GK one is over-costed....
Personally I tend to believe that identical models should cost the same points where they appear in multiple forces.
But either way? "Eh".

The part you're really having an issue with is the cost/benefits of the enhancements from the detachment. And maybe the strats.
Without those? All you have is a fairly decent flying transport/fire platform. So yeah, 160 feels fine.
You should be asking if those enhancements & strats are costed correctly.

ccs wrote:
....The only "under-costing" I see on a Stormraven is that it's 5 points cheaper than one in a GK list. Or maybe the GK one is over-costed....
Personally I tend to believe that identical models should cost the same points where they appear in multiple forces.
But either way? "Eh".

The part you're really having an issue with is the cost/benefits of the enhancements from the detachment. And maybe the strats.
Without those? All you have is a fairly decent flying transport/fire platform. So yeah, 160 feels fine.
You should be asking if those enhancements & strats are costed correctly.

I agree on this point; almost no reason the same exact unit should have different point costs.

But, considering that the GK Stormraven gets no use from the GK army rule while SM Stormraven can take advantage of Oath...GK is most certainly over-costed. I'm anxious to see what rules GK get in their codex (assuming they're still getting one).

Loyalist chapters should be 100% standalone codexes, just like the Traitor legions. Them sharing datasheet and costs with the base book has always been a problem ever since i've played the game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Loyalist chapters should be 100% standalone codexes, just like the Traitor legions. Them sharing datasheet and costs with the base book has always been a problem ever since i've played the game.

Disagree.

There have been times where because loyalist had separate codexes units which should have been uniform ended up different because of codex creep and paradigm shifts over an edition.

One that comes to mind is when BA devestator squad were hands down better and cheeper them codex compliant ones due only to when the codexes dropped. But there are plenty of examples of similar things over the years.

 Nevelon wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Loyalist chapters should be 100% standalone codexes, just like the Traitor legions. Them sharing datasheet and costs with the base book has always been a problem ever since i've played the game.

Disagree.

There have been times where because loyalist had separate codexes units which should have been uniform ended up different because of codex creep and paradigm shifts over an edition.

One that comes to mind is when BA devestator squad were hands down better and cheeper them codex compliant ones due only to when the codexes dropped. But there are plenty of examples of similar things over the years.

Just because GW did something poorly in the past does not mean they shouldn't use a better framework now.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Loyalist chapters should be 100% standalone codexes, just like the Traitor legions. Them sharing datasheet and costs with the base book has always been a problem ever since i've played the game.

Disagree.

There have been times where because loyalist had separate codexes units which should have been uniform ended up different because of codex creep and paradigm shifts over an edition.

One that comes to mind is when BA devestator squad were hands down better and cheeper them codex compliant ones due only to when the codexes dropped. But there are plenty of examples of similar things over the years.

Just because GW did something poorly in the past does not mean they shouldn't use a better framework now.

I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.

 Nevelon wrote:

I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.

they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).

Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.

There was a lot of things added when Intercessors showed up, that feels like unneeded bloat. "Close combat weapons" for one. Who needed to be told that a model with no melee weapon hits for it's strength, at a set number of attacks?

Who was that put in for?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.

they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).

Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.

The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.

 alextroy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.

they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).

Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.

The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.

Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.

they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).

Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.

The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.

Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.

Um, no they don't. They might get different bonuses in different detachments (and also have access to different stratagems, character enhancements, etc.), but the unit's rules don't change at all. And having different rules for different detachments is the whole point of the detachment system.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Spoiler:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.

they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).

Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.

The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.

Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.

ZergSmasher said it first, but this is simply not true. An Intercessor in Detachment X always has the exact same rules regardless if the Chapter the detachment uses (i.e. what chapter specific units are in the detachment as well). The only thing the special chapters have is a few detachments that give detachment rules not available to other chapters.

Lets do 6 Boyz datasheets! One for each Kultur!

 alextroy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Spoiler:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.

they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).

Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.

The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.

Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.

ZergSmasher said it first, but this is simply not true. An Intercessor in Detachment X always has the exact same rules regardless if the Chapter the detachment uses (i.e. what chapter specific units are in the detachment as well). The only thing the special chapters have is a few detachments that give detachment rules not available to other chapters.

Forgive the objection, but I don't understand the quibble on this point. Surely it could be argued that a Blood Angels Assault intercessor, is superior to say, one of the Imperial Fists? Are you arguing that the model irrespective of allegiance is no different? Because I think that is also wrongly argued. What is the point of taking one chapter over another chapter if all the models are exactly the same? You cannot pretend that a Intercessor squad of one faction is the same as another, when they have built in differences depending on color. Salamander Flame Aggressors are just BETTER than IF Flame Aggressors.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Spoiler:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.

they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).

Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.

The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.

Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.

ZergSmasher said it first, but this is simply not true. An Intercessor in Detachment X always has the exact same rules regardless if the Chapter the detachment uses (i.e. what chapter specific units are in the detachment as well). The only thing the special chapters have is a few detachments that give detachment rules not available to other chapters.

Forgive the objection, but I don't understand the quibble on this point. Surely it could be argued that a Blood Angels Assault intercessor, is superior to say, one of the Imperial Fists? Are you arguing that the model irrespective of allegiance is no different? Because I think that is also wrongly argued. What is the point of taking one chapter over another chapter if all the models are exactly the same? You cannot pretend that a Intercessor squad of one faction is the same as another, when they have built in differences depending on color. Salamander Flame Aggressors are just BETTER than IF Flame Aggressors.

They don’t have built in differences any more, just different detachment options and even then only for the more divergent chapters.

Salamander and IF Flame Aggressors are identical this edition.