Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Dark Angels(7E)

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

Not sure if anyone's still looking at this anymore, but the FAQ has the amendment to Lion's Roar/Wrath (FAQ says Wrath, and whilst the weapon is listed as Roar, it mentions Wrath in the flavour text too) making the plasma profile One-Use Only again.

Model lists?[edit]

I'm unaware of the wiki's position on model list sections at the end of tactics articles. Will someone plz enlighten me as to the wiki's stance on this? Vasari Vorastra Kultorask (talk) 18:22, 31st July 2015 (GMT)

Update allies section?[edit]

Seeing as the Cult Mechanicus are a separate force from Skitarii they should really be added shouldn't they? What about Harlequins and Eldar Corsairs? I also think the chaos bit needs to be added to for completeness's sake. I'm sure a more in-depth look into Tyranid potential would be appreciated rather than just deeming them to be inferior to the Orks under all practical circumstances (which cannot be true!) Anyone willing to help me with this? --Vasari Vorastra Kultorask (talk) 18:16, 31st July 2015 (GMT)

Preferred Enemy vs Khorne Daemonkin[edit]

Got a rules conundrum: Khorne Daemonkin isn't covered under "Chaos Space Marines" as it is a separate and distinct faction so would Dark Angels get any bonus against them? One might argue that certain units in in the KD codex "are" Chaos Space Marines by virtue of their name but if you want to go down that route then your opponent could go picking and choosing through the chaos marine codex: cultists? Nope they aren't "Space Marines", and neither are tanks or daemon engines.

One other route would to be to say that the unit: "Chaos Space Marines" is all it ever applied to. But that would wreck pretty much the Dark Angels main advantage. Plus if you compare that to PE (Orks) then since there is no unit specifically called "Orks" then the rule is useless. But by contrast PE (Daemons) should be able to apply to any model with the "Daemon" rule not just "Chaos Daemons". Preferred Enemy always seems to be sweeping and inclusive and not as specific as just one thing.

I guess the easiest explanation would be to just run with it... Dark Angels gain no advantage over any unit from Khorne Daemonkin, that the inner circle has no means of dealing with Khorne nutballs any better than anyone else.

Anyone got any insight on this? Is it meant to count anything that could possibly be described as " Chaos Space Marines"? --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I would define a Chaos Space Marine as just that. Daemonic possession short of full blown ascension wouldn't disqualify them. So the khorne chaos space marines and berserkers from Khorne Daemonkin could be counted as viable targets for the Dark Angel bonus but the daemons no. That's how I'd do it. VVK, 12:34, 31st July 2015 (GMT)

How do we handle 7th edition codex changes?[edit]

How do we want to handle Dark Angels in the transtition between 7th edition changes being rumored/leaked? In the long term, this question is moot, but at some point, the tactics is weird mix between 6th edition codex ported into 7th and 7th edition rumors/leaks. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

At some point we need to rip out all references to Standards of Devastation, other than lamenting its loss and probably even that. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Digital vs Paper copies[edit]

Right, does anyone actually own two different versions of the codex just to compare them? My print copy definitely says that Relic Blades are two handed AP3 weapons in both the armoury section and the back page rules summary, but some people keep changing it to AP1 specialist, unwieldy. Now based on the early rules leaks from the iPad version, it might have given it a different profile, though it sounds like it was confused/jumbled with the servo-arm which is the next entry. But the print says exactly what it does and can't be changed short of a FAQ--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should get rid of the LOYALIST ALL CAPS SHIT AFTER EACH FALLEN RELATED CROSSING OUT People are here to read about the crunch, and this crap looks messy as hell. By all means keep the crossing out, if perhaps a bit more sparingly, and maybe just one ALL CAPS in the "why play Dark Angels" section.

Can Anyone Add on to Tactics?[edit]

Curious of what and how much one can add to the tactic page? Nothing huge of course but rather some offering advice or other tactics.

  • Anyone can edit since it's a public wiki, so in terms of quality control you'd have everyone else keeping you right or cleaning things up where necessary. If you're looking for specific guidelines just look at what's already on the page and you'll get a feel for what's right. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Cleaned up a little bit here and there, hopefully no rage bannned hah but on the note of characters, would it be wise to go in depth for non named characters weapons, armors, builds etc.? --ClassyDave (talk)
      • If you want to, just don't go so far as to start netlisting by adding points values or obvious items. If you have an opinion of a particular FOC choice per se then just have at it, but if you're going to create a new Tactic that requires specific options, builds or unit combinations then create a new entry in "Tactics" at the bottom of the page. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ravenwing Banner Only Effects Command Squad Now?[edit]

Fellow brothers, I fear Ravenwing Standard got nerfed this edition. From the book codex, (pg 153) the Ravenwing banner stats "Friendly units with Dark Angels Faction within 12" of a model equipped with the Ravenwing banner re-roll failed Morale checks, Pinning tests, and Fear tests. In addition, all friendly models with the Ravenwing special rule in the same UNIT as this banner automatically pass I tests when attempting to Hit & Run and roll one additional dice..." Going RAW it looks like only the black knights command squad benefit from the Hit & Run and additional dice roll. Wanted to see if the ebook is any different because this is a pretty big nerf and didn't want to change the banner section yet.

Checked the ebook. It says "Friendly units with the Dark Angels Faction within 12" of a model equipped with the Ravenwing Company Banner..." under the entry, so I'd blame the proofreading. 04:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Should we change it? I mean this really shakes it up for Ravenwing as while units with 12" get those failed re-roll Ld tests, the Ravenwing bonuses only affecting the banner squad will shake things up. And trying to ask GW won't be helpful considering they give two answers in two days. Also added the rest of the banner description to show everything.

Noob edits[edit]

Hey, I'm the guy who messed with the thunderhawk advice, you know, the bit that days take two CADS for Azrael too. The rulebook says you can only take one Lord Of War per army, regardless of detachments (unless allowed via a formation). Since the Inner Circle formation lets you take him WITHOUT being a LOW, its better and game legal. Unless you prove me wrong, I'll keep editing it. Thank you.

Challenge accepted noob,
First: Where in the book does it say that you can only take one Lord of War per army? I've got the book in front of me right now and from what I can see, it only refers to the "Battlefield role" of Lord of War a couple of times in the text in the same context as HQ, Troops and all the rest, there is also nothing in the restrictions section of "Choosing your Army" and even says that you can find a selection of some "...units in some Codexes and in Warhammer 40,000 Escalation. But for the record, nothing in Escalation says that you can only take a single choice either, simply saying that the LoW unit takes up the LoW slot (just like everything else). Yes, Escalation throws on the Lord of War as a sort of separate detachment, but escalation no longer makes up the core ruleset, and has been overruled by the 7th Ed rulebook which has placed LoW as its own slot within the Combined Arms Detachment, and I've already provided a page reference saying that any number of detachments can be taken in any combination, so that's one Lord of War slot per combined arms detachment. Are you certain you haven't confused "Lord of War" with "Warlord"? They are not the same thing.
Second By your own logic, that means that Imperial Knight armies are screwed, because they consist of a Detachment of Lord of War slots, which isn't a "Formation" but a Force Organisation Chart. You might try to weasel out of this by saying that it is somehow an exception because they have more slots that normal, but in reality they are no different than any other FOC and there is no particular exception made for them, they just simply have more LoW slots. Again as mentioned, you can have any number of detachments, with your available choices dictated by the slots available plus any other restrictions. (In this case, Imperial Knight detachments can only be filled by units of the Imperial Knight Faction). This becomes more relevant if you were to take Knights as Allies... does that mean you also sacrifice your own Lord of War slot in order to take a Knight detachment? No it doesn't.
Third Azrael doesn't stop being a Lord of War just because you take him in a Lion's Blade formation. His battlefield role always remains the same, he simply doesn't take up a "slot". This becomes particularly important when you get rules interactions with certain types of roles, such as Heavy Support or HQ where mission rules require you to put certain units in reserve or give objectives for destroying them. Their respective roles always remain the same unless stated otherwise, being put into a formation doesn't change that. So any limits on Lord of War would have to apply even then... but again, no they don't.
Fourth Adepticon put in an artificial 0-1 restriction on Lords of War in their tournament guidance this year. Why would they do that if such a restriction was already present in the BRB?
Fifth strikethroughs are not acceptable edits on this site unless you are trying to be funny, but on a tactics page it's just annoying.
In your own words, unless you can prove me wrong, I'll keep editing it. Thank you (and I'll be waiting for page numbers) --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. Looking back I realized that the way I handled that wasnt the most mature. I always operated under the assumption that there can only be one lord if war slot per army, regardless of detachments. Oh well, I'll give it a rest. Also just a note, the strikethrough was just meant to change the way the trick is presented, not ignore it altogether. Again, my apologies.
To give you some credit, having a Lions Blade and a CAD is still perfectly legal. I should apologise for my harshness as well as I probably came across with a hint of uber-rage a bit more than I would have liked. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Its cool, no hard feelings.