Dark Angels new codex is terrible

[Inquizitor_Palatis]

The new dark angels codex is horrible. it BARELY differs from the space marines codex and the hunt the fallen rule is even taken out, this was probly the worst 20 bucks i ever spent

[Brother_Ambrose]

I agree, I definately prefer using codex space marines with the old DA suppliment...

[MSguardsmen]

saw it at my last tournament. cant say i really hate it or support it. however some of the changes do make since.

like automatically getting frag and krak grenades (and paying for them). these are the best soldiers around so your going to supply them better.

however the dark angles did get quite a nerfing which i guess is good considering an average 3+ armour save and all the other stuff they can get.

[Brother_Ambrose]

The Dark Angels are still playable, but the Ultra Smurfs will mow you down...lol

The real complaint here is the damage done to the fluff. The "Hunt for the Fallen" rules were the best part of the old set-up, since it represented the obsesiveness of the Dark Angels to hunt the Fallen Angels. The fluff says that they would drop their other objective to hunt the Fallen, and consider that their sacred duty above all else, which makes a great deal of sense.

The "no allies" rule also made sense, as the Dark Angels were considered amongst the most secretive of the chapters. At the very least they should not be allowed to ally with the inquisition, as they try desperately to protect their secret from them. I will slap the first person I see using DA with Inquisition allies.

The wargear also suffered, as there used to be a few really fluffy pieces, such as the blades of reason, standards ect.

It really is a shame that GW nerfed this stuff. It makes the DA alot less fun, and more genaric. I could deal with the nerfings if they kept their fluff. They lost both, which is what makes the codex really substandard.

[experiment 626]

the thing i hate the most about the new DA 'dex is the whole layout - it's a pain in the @$$... the look is also very bland.
personally, the main thing i think they hit a bit too hard with the nerf stick was the IC's - there's very little customisation left in them aside from weapon options... but there's no little wargear add-ons to make your commander different from say my commander which is sad really.

however, while the DA's did get a pretty hard nerfing, they also gained a couple insanely good abilities too! (namely the combat squad rules)

cheers!

[r4wr89]

alas, you'd think that GW products would improve after the number of years, editions, and codices they've made. alas :|

but yes to combat squads!
-ant

[Templar Mikeel]

After reading the battle report using the new Dark Angels in last months WD, i thought it would be pretty scary to play them in a Recon game. Other than that I can't really say anything without the 'Dex.

[Brother_Ambrose]

The combat squads are not that good. A codex space marines chapter could do the exact same thing but better... The only good thing is it gives you an excuse to take razorbacks...

Originally Posted by Brother_Ambrose

The combat squads are not that good. A codex space marines chapter could do the exact same thing but better... The only good thing is it gives you an excuse to take razorbacks...

I'm not quite sure how a Codex: SM army could do the 'combat squad' rules. Could you specify how? Also, maybe i'm not seeing, but how does combat squads give you an excuse to take razorbacks?

[experiment 626]

Originally Posted by Lord Commander Erus

I'm not quite sure how a Codex: SM army could do the 'combat squad' rules. Could you specify how? Also, maybe i'm not seeing, but how does combat squads give you an excuse to take razorbacks?

well, you can have a 10 man tactical squad with say a lascannon & flamer. break the squad down into two 5 man combat squads. the 'squad' wit hthe lascannon stays put and snipes tanks, while the other 5 guys can now fit into the razorback and drive around flaming people!

and normal marines can min/max unlike DA's... the sons of the lion will still outnumber them *and* very crucially have a helluva lot more scoring units!

now if only gw would fix the assault cannon, most of the problems with marines would vanish...

cheers!

[Brother_Ambrose]

I'll explain how the smurfs do it better...

Take this squad for example.

10 Ultramarines Tactical Marines @206 points
1 Vet. Sarge w/ BP and Powerfist
1 Marine with Flamer
1 Marine with HB
10x Krak and Frag Grenades (to make it fair)

10 Dark Angel Tactical Marines @205 points
1 Vet. Sarge w/ BP and Powerfist
1 Marine with Flamer
1 Marine with HB
10x Krak and Frag Grenades

So DA save 1 point with that set-up. and they can split into 2 "Combat squads"

But lose the grenades, and the Smurfs are 176 points

Now, given the choice, wouldn't you rather just forget the useless grenades and buy 2 extra marines? I know I would.

I'd take 2x 6 man Smurf tacticals over 1 DA 10 man tactical that can split into 2 five man tacticals anyday.

Smurfs also have the option of taking 2 heavy weapons in their smal squads, whereas DA only ever get 1 and only if they take 10 men.

The Dark Angels only have more scoring units in huge games where you're using more than 3 tacticals... so the rule isn't really all that useful.

As for the Razorback, 626 got it right more or less, the only thing he missed is that it is the same price as a rhino, making it even more practical.

However, I still feel the DA are at a disadvantage, since they are very limited in their options. They don't have a wargear section, just options you can take... or they just tell you what they come with, or they don't have the option at all. it's annoying...it feels more like my Empire army book for fantasy then like codex: space marines, which is not a good thing. Like I said before, I prefer the only way of using codex DA as a suplement to Codex Space Marines. They were over powered though, and i suppose they needed a nerfing...however, if they're going to nerf the DA (and the Templars for that matter) they need to nerf ALL marines.

[experiment 626]

Originally Posted by Brother_Ambrose

However, I still feel the DA are at a disadvantage, since they are very limited in their options. They don't have a wargear section, just options you can take... or they just tell you what they come with, or they don't have the option at all. it's annoying...it feels more like my Empire army book for fantasy then like codex: space marines, which is not a good thing. Like I said before, I prefer the only way of using codex DA as a suplement to Codex Space Marines. They were over powered though, and i suppose they needed a nerfing...however, if they're going to nerf the DA (and the Templars for that matter) they need to nerf ALL marines.

well therin lies the real problem; codex: space marine was botched horribly and thus when they went to fix the other major chapter and rectify certain mistakes, it made the imbalances in codex: space marines all the more glaring!!!

however, i still firmly believe that the DA's combat squads rules will win you games! wereas a codex marine army needs 2 FOC solts to get those small min/maxed squads, the DA's can escentially get 4!!!
in missions where scoring units are the only factor, the DA's have the monopoly as they can field more units than anyone - even more than the guard! (god how i hate facing ravenwing squads now!)

some things though really went too far;
- IC's and their total lack of custumisation
- assault squads losing the flamer option
- higher priced weapon upgrades (imo, only plasma should cost an arm and a leg because it's really just that good!)
- higher priced sergeant options... (the power fist needed a pts increase, but not the power toy!)

overall there's just as many 'good' changes as there are 'bad' changes. the fact that the basic marine codex gave everything and took nothing away is the real kicker...

cheers!

[Brother_Ambrose]

thats what I meant though... Dark Angels are ok compaired to ther armies, but not compaired to other marines...

[experiment 626]

Originally Posted by Brother_Ambrose

thats what I meant though... Dark Angels are ok compaired to ther armies, but not compaired to other marines...

well, gw admits that the smurf codex was a failure, but because it doesn't inform new gamers about the weapons details and such!
(in other words, it's an excuse and they can't bring themselves to say that 'well yes, we totally fethed up the rules with that one')

so the smurf codex is going to be replaced and it's format will follow that of codex: eldar & codex: dark angels...
all the new codices actually will follow the new format sadly.

cheers!

[Brother_Ambrose]

thats ****!

[MSguardsmen]

well whatever happened to giving out descriptions about a unit or squad. for instance look at the high elves army book. they have some extremely detailed stuff for every unit. why cant we have that? heck the most the guard has is a paragraph for the ratlings and barely anything for the sentinel

[experiment 626]

Originally Posted by MSguardsmen

well whatever happened to giving out descriptions about a unit or squad. for instance look at the high elves army book. they have some extremely detailed stuff for every unit. why cant we have that? heck the most the guard has is a paragraph for the ratlings and barely anything for the sentinel

the unit descriptions/backgorund & special rules are now all included on the specific squad page...

this way they can keep the army list itself confined to half a dozen pages and have more room for background/modeling and other stuff.
(as an example, the eldar list is only 9 out of 83 pages in the codex!)

cheers!

[masterofweirdness]

Originally Posted by experiment 626

the unit descriptions/backgorund & special rules are now all included on the specific squad page...

this way they can keep the army list itself confined to half a dozen pages and have more room for background/modeling and other stuff.
(as an example, the eldar list is only 9 out of 83 pages in the codex!)

cheers!

Ah, but, I think this is a good thing. This means more short stories, cool art, a nicely painted models to drool over.

Although this idea of not having a wargear page is sucky. I think a central wargear page is a VERY good idea.

Anyways... when are they going to redo the SM codex... as you guys hint? And, umm, how was it a "total failure"... mind you, I don't play 40k a lot, but I quite like the traits system... honestly, I think putting heavy weapons in a tactical squad is stupid, cleanse and purify is much nicer.

[experiment 626]

Originally Posted by masterofweirdness

Ah, but, I think this is a good thing. This means more short stories, cool art, a nicely painted models to drool over.

Although this idea of not having a wargear page is sucky. I think a central wargear page is a VERY good idea.

Anyways... when are they going to redo the SM codex... as you guys hint? And, umm, how was it a "total failure"... mind you, I don't play 40k a lot, but I quite like the traits system... honestly, I think putting heavy weapons in a tactical squad is stupid, cleanse and purify is much nicer.

from Fabulous on the astro forums & yahoo group;

"I attended both of Jervis's seminars at Adepticon and both were fairly
disappointing. He was on full 3 month 'lockdown' mode at wouldn't
commit to revealing absolutely anything, even as a tongue-in-cheek
reference.

That said, what he could talk about was his role in games workshop and
the overall direction the company is moving with regards to its games.

Jervis is now the product and hobby strategist for GW. While this
doesn't mean he runs any of the rules design teams for any of the 3
core games, it does mean he is responsible for making sure the overall
design of the games stays on a specific course.

This new focus imposed by Jervis on the teams means that the core
rulebook and the codices/army books are now specifically targeted for
pickup games of 1,500/2,000 points (for 40K/Warhammer respectively.

That means sub-army lists and any other wacky rules (like Kill Team)
will no longer be found in the core rules/codices. Any interesting
sub-divisions of the game instead will be brought out as an
'expansion' (such as Cities of Death).

While Jervis naturally wouldn't go into any details about future
expansions, this is the catch-all term for any and all ways that GW
will present different ways to play the core games. If GW wants to
release campaign rules for their games, they'll put it in a campaign
expansion book. If they want to release a small battle game (like
'Kill Team') they'll put those rules into an expansion, etc.

Basically they want to make it clear to the consumer that the core
rules are written and balanced for a specific style of game, and while
expansions can alter this formula it would be clear that you were
using the expansion set/rules in that case.

Another fairly big change (IMO) is the decision that all current
armies that have a codex/army book will be supported by the company on
timely basis indefinitely. That means no current armies will go away
(inlcuding Dark Eldar and Chaos Dwarves, according to Jervis) and they
will all start recieving much more regular releases (no more 8 year
gap between Ork codices in the future).

The downside of this new mantra is that GW will be much more careful
about releasing new armies, as when they do so they are committing to
supporting those armies indefinitely. That also means that we will no
longer see army sub-lists (like Eldar Craftworld lists, etc) as they
have become to numerous for GW to continue to support.

So as for the future of Kroot Mercs, LatD, Feral Orks, etc, while
Jervis DID NOT say anything specific about these army types, I am
pretty darn certain that you won't be seeing any updated rules ever
for these armies.

The only real hope for these armies is either: They include some of
the units in the updated version of the parent codex (like the
possibility of adding some Feral Ork units into the next Ork codex) or
GW decides to make these armies into a full codex release that will
then be supported indefinitely. You will definitely not see a 'Feral
Ork' sub-army list included in the new Ork codex; those days are now gone.

GW is trying to get to a point where all the codices/army books are
fairly balanced at their base point levels (1,500 points for 40k,
2,000 points for Warhammer) and part of that process is eliminating
some of the fringe choices that allow players to make wacky powerful
armies.

The Dark Angel codex was, to paraphrase Jervis, a way to show the
games designers the principles he was trying to hold them to. In many
ways the Dark Angels codex is the blueprint for the future of 40k.

I also asked him if a trait/doctrine system was still in the games
designers 'toolboxes' (specifically in relation to a possible Chaos
codex revision). He responded that the goal of a new Chaos codex would
be to incorporate everything into a single army list and, if that
wasn't possible, other options (such as traits/doctrines) would then
be explored. I then asked if seperate codices were a possibility for a
Chaos update, and he said that if they did decide to split them into
seperate codices the company would be committing to keeping those
armies around as a seperate entity indefinitely, meaning it would be a
decision they would only do after very, very careful consideration.

Finally, he also commented that the SM codex was considered a failure
within the company because as the codex most commonly purchased by new
players, it fails to properly introduce them into the hobby (as it
doesn't have the weapon diagrams like the new DA codex does). That
gives GW a reason to 'fast track' a new version of the codex into
production. When and if this new SM codex is released Jervis said that
it will likely incorporate many of the new concepts found within the
DA codex.

Now, exactly what a 'fast track' is for a codex is anyones guess. . ."

hope it helps,
cheers!

[masterofweirdness]

God save us... thats all I can say at that...

I mean, umm... I bought the Space Marine Codex, and it did a FINE job of introducing me to the game... that and DoW.

While maybe, from a business standpoint, GW's direction will be a good thing, right now, I don't think that it is a good idea, AT all. And, I don't want to buy a new codex in 2 years just because my Space Marine Codex is a "failure". I'll probably convert them into Chaos Space Marines

[Killermoose]

I hope that if they do a new SM 'dex, they sort out the traits! It claims in the book that they are simply to add interest to your army, not to make it better. However, seeing as people can sit down and take all the traits that will make their army brilliant, and then simply take the drawbacks for the units they won't be using anyway, it means that you play some really nasty forces, with no actual background for the army at all!

I've got nothing against traits, I just think they need to have some more thought put into them.

[boundy]

indeed as i am new and have recently bought my codex it isnt as helpful as it could be to newbies like myself however i have nothing against it.................for now

[masterofweirdness]

Okay, I'm sorry for derailing this topic, but, seriously, we need to get back on topic of how bad the DA codex is (or isn't). BOT.

And the trait system does need some more balancing, I'd agree.