Innes Wilson Dark Angels list

[aekold]

For everyone that is interested. Innes Wilson of the Scottish ETC/WTC team is currently playing with the following dark angels list.

 

Dark Angels Supreme Command Detachment

Azrael - 150

Ezekiel - 110

Asmodai - 110

Dark Angels Supreme Command Detachment

Sammael in Sableclaw - 200

Ravenwing Talonmaster - 188 ++Warlord

Ravenwing Talonmaster - 188

Ravenwing Apothecary, Plasma Talon - 60

Dark Angels Vanguard Detachment

Interrogator Chaplain, Boltgun - 80

5x Aggressor, Boltstorm Gauntlets, Fragstorm Grenade Launchers - 185

5x Aggressor, Boltstorm Gauntlets, Fragstorm Grenade Launchers - 185

5x Aggressor, Boltstorm Gauntlets, Fragstorm Grenade Launchers - 185

10x Deathwing Knights, Watcher in the Dark - 355

 

It is a very unothodox list which takes skill to play but I think that it is one of the more competitive lists that dark angels can put out there.

 

In the following podcast Innes talks about this list in depth.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/art-of-war-ep-39-36811990

 

I was wondering what my fellow dark angel players think about this list.

[Wrath of Bruinen]

Interesting list - thanks for sharing it here. It does a good job leveraging our strengths. But equally the omissions are interesting - no ancient with the FNP banner, and just the one bike to combined assault the deathwing knights. Looking forward to seeing how it performs

 

Edit: noticed the RW apothecary hiding there

Edited May 13, 2020 by TheWeepingAngel

[aekold]

The absence of a FNP banner is intrestring indeed.

 

If I would change anything about the list I would exchange ezekiel for inquisitor Greyfax. They both have 2 denies and Greyfax alwasys denies with +1 instead of just within 12" as ezekiel does. she also has access to a no overwatch power if really needed.

 

With the spare points I would give the int. chaplain a jumppack and thunderhammer.

[Hantheman]

Fascinating, but a ready reminder for me that competitive 40k is not for me.

[FarFromSam]

I'm running a very much similar list  and mid board control is where it's at with those aggressors.  The two Talon masters isn't my style at the moment, but i could see how it is fun.  I hope he does well, and I'm glad the list doesn't have 6 flyers.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

33 models only? Hats off!

[ValourousHeart]

I get what the list is going for, and I understand the environment that this list will be played in... but it just doesn't seem like it would be that much fun to play.  Personal preferences I guess.

 

Thanks for including the link to the podcast.  It was nice to hear them explain their thought process.

 

I find that characters are over priced and don't provide near the utility that non-character units provide.  Sure a captain and lieutenant giving a re-rolls improve the stuff around them.  And a chaplain giving counts as stationary is a huge boon to aggressors.  But those 3 characters by themselves without any units around them is a terrible use of those points.

 

I generally think that a character needs to buff 3 units to be worth it.  However I also think that buffing 4 units is better than buffing 3 units.  So I feel that an 8th character is in every conceivable way worse than a 4th squad.

[FarFromSam]

Half of the characters in this list aren't used to buff other units, rather, they buff other characters. Abuse of the character rules takes so much of the fun out of the game. Personally, I really miss the simplicity (ironic I know) of 7th. The idea of Trying to explain to a new player that his tank cant shoot my land speeder because there are scouts hiding out out of line of sight in ruins. Is gut wrenching, and the even larger problem of that rule being intentional and not fixed because it adds "Strategy"? Idk. It's a weird edition that gets a lot right, and still manages to feel really really wrong if you play certain types of players.

[ValourousHeart]

Half of the characters in this list aren't used to buff other units, rather, they buff other characters. Abuse of the character rules takes so much of the fun out of the game. Personally, I really miss the simplicity (ironic I know) of 7th. The idea of Trying to explain to a new player that his tank cant shoot my land speeder because there are scouts hiding out out of line of sight in ruins. Is gut wrenching, and the even larger problem of that rule being intentional and not fixed because it adds "Strategy"? Idk. It's a weird edition that gets a lot right, and still manages to feel really really wrong if you play certain types of players.

 

The part that feels really wrong has less to do with GW and their intentions and more to do with tournament players and their exploitation of the game mechanics.

 

Example:  Someone shows up to a tournament with 6 Hive Tyrants. Not what GW had intended so the implement the rule of 3.  Effect?  Deathwing players and other heavy themed armies based on a limited selection of non-character, non-troop units are no longer viable above a certain point level because the hard cap on the number of units they can include in the army.  Tournament players on the other hand show up with 9 Deamon Princes or 6 flyers as a big middle finger to GW and the community at large.

 

That isn't an issue with GW rules, that is purely malice form tournament players toward the rest of the community.   The fault GW has in all of this is in whom they decided to listen to.  You can't make the game better by focusing on the group that is misbehaving and trying to make them behave.  That group has demonstrated that they will always misbehave.

[Berzul]

 

Half of the characters in this list aren't used to buff other units, rather, they buff other characters. Abuse of the character rules takes so much of the fun out of the game. Personally, I really miss the simplicity (ironic I know) of 7th. The idea of Trying to explain to a new player that his tank cant shoot my land speeder because there are scouts hiding out out of line of sight in ruins. Is gut wrenching, and the even larger problem of that rule being intentional and not fixed because it adds "Strategy"? Idk. It's a weird edition that gets a lot right, and still manages to feel really really wrong if you play certain types of players.

 

The part that feels really wrong has less to do with GW and their intentions and more to do with tournament players and their exploitation of the game mechanics.

 

Example:  Someone shows up to a tournament with 6 Hive Tyrants. Not what GW had intended so the implement the rule of 3.  Effect?  Deathwing players and other heavy themed armies based on a limited selection of non-character, non-troop units are no longer viable above a certain point level because the hard cap on the number of units they can include in the army.  Tournament players on the other hand show up with 9 Deamon Princes or 6 flyers as a big middle finger to GW and the community at large.

 

That isn't an issue with GW rules, that is purely malice form tournament players toward the rest of the community.   The fault GW has in all of this is in whom they decided to listen to.  You can't make the game better by focusing on the group that is misbehaving and trying to make them behave.  That group has demonstrated that they will always misbehave.

 

 

Thing is, the competitive circuit should regulate itself, or receive special regulation from GW to their own ends.

 

I think back to KT Arena. This clearly shows that you CAN produce a variant of your game, oriented to a specific sub-section of the players (the tournament players).

Any game as subject to as many particular variables as WH, should have a clearly defined line between competitive and casual play. I think to examples in other games, such as Dungeons and Dragons and the Adventurer's League. You have what is arguably one of the most freeform games in existence, but you set some clear guidelines of balance for regulated play.

 

Tournament communities already do this to an extent, by establishing their own scenarios, rules, requirements and other restrictions. GW would have no trouble in incorporating this logic in.

 

Of course... in causal play, you can just ignore these rules anyway. So, it still can work, to an extent.

[Skywrath]

Warning: Philosophical musing ahead, read at your own risk. (This is also mostly in response to the recent statement by Valorous Heart)

 

Compared to the other editions, would you say the 8th edition is fairly balanced? I only started in this one, but based of the impressions people have been giving, it does fairly well balance wise. However, I'd like to point out something - having imbalance in a game (for the short-term) is a good thing, as it encourages to be addressed in the future. The other consideration it's better that something is being done about it, contrary to World of Warcraft where everything in a competitive scenario isn't. (Yes a bit off topic, but probably the closest example I could think off). So then the question is this, would you rather have an imbalanced meta for the short term, or an imbalanced meta for the long term? I personally prefer the former of the latter. 

 

As for the "malice" of the competitive players, you would find a fair amount of people in this world without a moral centre. Not saying they (the competitive players) don't have one, but perhaps less of one. Take all the people that want the the first position of any given thing - do they have any qualms about bending or breaking the rules to come out on top? Unfortunately for them, that also provides the answer - they passively are the ones that point out the issue in the first place, by their actions. So from that perspective, we should be thanking them, as they inadvertently sow the seeds of their own "destruction". You could probably draw a parallel between how broken something is, and how fast it's going to get fixed. As for their actions that impact the play-style of other players, then the counter-argument I give you is this:

 

Would it be better to have a balanced meta overall, rather than have one faction *cough IH cough* dominating everything?  

 

TLDR: Discovery requires experimentation.

 

On the topic of the list, I actually had a 1k list that was very very similar to this in terms of core components. Very curious to see how well this upscaled version does competitively.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Skywrath

[Berzul]

I don't think it is about balance. At least, not directly, and in the sense of the meta.

 

What is balance, in the context of this game? I'd propose that it is the fairly equivalent set of conditions for the game, for all players involved. A board that provides equivalent cover for each side; armies that have equivalent cost-to-power attached to them, and a fairly equivalent power-by-composition in them; a rule set that does not provide any one player, army or unit, with a specific advantage or edge, without providing a counter to it to the rest.

 

In competition, balance is key. It is essential to fair play, along with other elements such as unbiased judges, clear and transparent rules, and a safe environment for play. Balance, however, is measured on a game-by-game basis. Each game must be fair. Each game must be balanced. Otherwise, their is no point in playing.

 

In casual play, balance is also key, but it works differently. Balance is about a zero sum game of fun and enjoyment. An unbalanced match can be offset by turning the tables on the next one. Unlike tournament play, not much is really at risk, here. You play for fun, or to write a narrative, or to test a unit, army or strategy, or to teach someone the game, or for any other of the many reasons there are to just have fun and enjoy the game. You might even enjoy playing the constant underdog. Playing against better and stronger armies, with an "unfair" advantage over you. Or you might not, but, might enjoy seeing your friends live through the thrill of an amazing match in which their armies shine through their great abilities, played out in a wonderful strategy, and with incredible rolls to add the cherry on top of that amazing hobby sundae that is a well fought victory. And, should one side be completely trampled, you might come to an agreement about how to better "balance" the game by unbalancing one side in favor of the other, so that both parties can find some joy from the experience of playing.

 

Balance, then, is about making the game fun, per the expectations and desires of all the parties involved; and, it will be hard for one company to make a game that fits the criteria for both systems of play. It will always be easier for each group of players to set the rules for their own systems, so that their conditions provide the "balance" that is required to make the experience enjoyable.

 

As a side note, we must always remember that a game that is as complex and varied as WH will always be tough to "balance". In order to provide balance, you can either go the route of equivalence (make the units equivalent, regardless of their differences), or the route of equality (make the units equal, as in, the same unit, such as it happens in Chess, for instance). Equivalence brings variety and progression, though it means that player skill is compounded with army composition, units availability, and rule sets as a whole. Equality means that player skill is all that matters, in the end, but that also means stagnation (or risk of it, at least... Chess is still huge, even centuries since it was designed).

 

By going the route of varied equivalence, GW makes it harder on itself to "balance" the game. Specially when the focus of balance changes when you put the lens over two such different camps of players (tournament players, and casual players). That shift also brings some evolution, as the change in how the game is played once the rules are written, forces the company to revise the rules. Thing is, revisions and change are not, by themselves, a good thing, when done for the sake of balancing the game for the "wrong" crowd.

 

Not saying tournament players, or casual players, are "wrong" in their approach to the game, but rather in the sense that if you want balance for one camp, it will be wrong to try and manage that by looking at how the game is played by the other camp.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Berzul

[Hantheman]

I will say if you don't play tournaments, it's a waste of energy getting annoyed at the nature of competitive lists. The whole purpose of them is to try to break the game, to find a way to win. And thats how they enjoy the game. Doesn't mean anyone else has to play them.

[Berzul]

I don't think "annoyed" is truly the sentiment, here.

[ValourousHeart]

As for the "malice" of the competitive players, you would find a fair amount of people in this world without a moral centre.

 

@Skywrath I think you are wrong about most of the world being without a morale center.  I think what you mean is that different cultures align their morale compasses along different axis.  But this is not really the place run down that rabbit hole.

 

For this conversation I was using malice to mean "wrongful intention."

 

The issue wasn't the person who said 6 Hive Tyrants sounds like a fun army to play, I'm going to try it out at this tournament.  That person was trying something new in a new edition.  I did the same thing, I just picked a different unit to theme my army around.  As we all know GW released the rule of 3 after that Hive Tyrant incident.

 

We then got someone saying "Stupid GW, they missed this one.  Screw the Rule of 3, I'm going to run 9 Deamon Princes!"  Now you might not think that Malice is the right word to describe that person's intentions.  But you will have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to convince anyone that the intention of the 9 DP list wasn't to subvert the Rule of 3.

 

To bring this back to Space Marines, how does the Rule of 3 affect the Space Marine codex and supplements?  Could I run 3 Imperial Fist aggressor squads, 3 Iron Hand aggressor squads, 3 Ultramarines aggressor squads, 3 Salamanders aggressor squads.  Once I do that for all the named chapters with supplements, could I then add 3 units of aggressors using a custom chapter?  How many custom chapters could I do this with?

 

At what point would you think that I'm starting to get unacceptably close to malice end of the good intentions / bad intentions spectrum?

 

 

The whole purpose of them is to try to break the game, to find a way to win.

 

Is the world cup supposed to break the game of football/soccer?  Is the superbowl supposed to break the game of American football?  Is the World Series supposed to break the game of baseball?

 

All of these sports put a limit on the number of players that can dress for a game.  If one of the teams showed up with twice the allowed number of players, do you think the officials would accept it because half were wearing blue and yellow and the other half were wearing yellow and blue?

[bigtrouble]

armies that have equivalent cost-to-power attached to them

 

Hate to be all Captain Obvious, but isn’t this the main problem with comparing competitive WH to other games? It’s not chess, the sides are never evenly matched. The game designers add in so many complex interactions that would drive even die-hard game theorists completely bonkers trying to model. Maybe we could simplify all units to a standard point cost involving some cool and good formula of expected value of damage given vs. taken, but that, I think, takes the unique wargameiness out of it. The whole point of competitive WH, and high level competition in general, is to purposefully seek an edge or imbalance that you can take advantage of. It’s a competition of the mind as much as it is dice, after all.

 

You make good points about balancing for elements that can swing a game outside list choices, (there needs to be some remedy for turn choice, etc.), but I think it always remains up to the participants in this game to ensure that the playing field is level, whether that be agreed upon tournament rules or discussions on set and setting for friendly matches. Fairness is not inherent in the rules, just as fairness is never assumed on a battlefield. To me there is some value to that as well.

[Berzul]

Well, yeah. I absolutely agree. Which is why I insist that fairness, and the responsibility to ensure it, goes to the organizers of the event in a competitive environment, or the players themselves in a casual one. Because, again agreeing with you here, this game simply cannot be made balanced in the way Chess is.

 

If we dive deeper, I think we could balance the game through what I think are three kinds of elements:

 

1) Scenario structure

2) Army composition

3) Unit stats

 

Any of which are mostly important in a competitive setting. In a casual one, balance might be achieved in many other ways, many of which would, at the same time, be unbalanced. I could describe it akin to balancing an unbalanced table, by stacking extra paper under one leg. At the same time, I could describe balancing a competitive game as akin to just cutting the longer leg shorter. That is to say, in one, you bring in new imbalances that compensate the original imbalances, and in the other you just cut the game in a different way to ensure everyone is the same.

 

On the subject of malice in the game, I do not think that there is malice in a tournament player. There is competitiveness. A desire to win, and the motivation to do so. Malice can exist in one who cheats against the established rules, but there cannot be called malice to simply use the rules as they best suit you. In a tournament, you are there to win. Be it Warhammer, or whatever other contest, game or sport. Sportsmanlike conduct means you are respectful, and do not cheat, but it does not mean you deny yourself a clear tactic, ridiculous though it may be against the fluff, the lore, or the narrative of the game played, just for the sake of the narrative.

 

I guess some nobility or moral value can be found in handicapping yourself to safeguard the narrative, but not doing so does not cause you to betray your morals.

[Hantheman]

 

 

 

The whole purpose of them is to try to break the game, to find a way to win.

 

Is the world cup supposed to break the game of football/soccer?  Is the superbowl supposed to break the game of American football?  Is the World Series supposed to break the game of baseball?

 

All of these sports put a limit on the number of players that can dress for a game.  If one of the teams showed up with twice the allowed number of players, do you think the officials would accept it because half were wearing blue and yellow and the other half were wearing yellow and blue?

 

 

But you're using a terrible example of people breaking the rules in a sports tournament to win. Competitive wahammer isn't about breaking the rules, it's about finding the inherent balance issues, finding the best value for points and pushing it to its legal limits. It's why the top players change amries regualrly, to find whatever else is busted and use it.

[Isual]

I will say if you don't play tournaments, it's a waste of energy getting annoyed at the nature of competitive lists. The whole purpose of them is to try to break the game, to find a way to win. And thats how they enjoy the game. Doesn't mean anyone else has to play them.

 

The problem I see is that GW tends more and more to watch the tournaments for balancing. They see someone breaking the game with one thing and nerf it to the ground, even if that was the only thing keeping a particular faction over water.

Often this issues are not a problem in smaller communities becaus people just stop playing "that guy" after a while, they are just tournament specific. Many units are no probelm at all if played in nonabusive lists, but become a problem if they are. If your base for balancing is the "breaking the game" mindset you make stuff unplayable for the "normal" player just to please your tournament crowd (sadly the loudest of players and therefore the most heard).

 

Tournaments are overall just a very small part of all WH players, but at the current state they shape the rules for everyone even if they are opreating at totally different starting conditions (for example ITC-Missions).

My personal problem is that I like a well balanced game. I am not fluffy enought to play pure narrative and not competitive enought to play meta lists. But I still get hit by the aftershock of some people abusing the rules at their events.

 

Enought rambling for today, this are just my 2 cents.

 

PS: has anyone listened to the paywall part of this episode? I don't like this army concept so I see no point in paying money for me, but maybe someone els has a opinion on that part to share.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Isual

[Berzul]

Well, you do have to look at it from GWs perspective, as a company, as well.

 

Tournaments may be fewer in player count than gaming groups, but they are well organized, highly publicized, hobby expanding events. A small tournament will, in most cases, generate more promotion for the game, than any well balanced and consistent gaming group, gathering on the regular for private games. The tournaments move sponsors, make noise, and create awareness for the brand. Meanwhile, private groups playing at their local store are a bit more of a captive audience. They (usually) won't promote or push your product outside their own social circle of players.

 

So, GW probably finds itself in the position of wanting to keep tournaments, and tournament organizers, happy and well taken care of. With a lot of attention and consideration. Because, these people provide something that individual players outside of the competitive circuit usually do not.

 

Now, it is easier to make a casual player happy, because casual players will mod the game to suit their needs, play style and preference. Us casual players will pay one game with power levels, another with points. One game with 2 players on one side and 1 on the other, the next as a 1vs1. We will experiment with alternated turns, custom flyer rules, non-forced successor traits, and what have you. We don't care, in a sense. We will play the game as we like.

 

Tournaments? That's another story... they are based on and clear, equal, and transparent rules. So, balance is a lot harder to ensure, and a lot more critical to the enjoyment of those playing. Adding a competitive element will do that, because competition is pointless if it is not fair. The consequence of this is that tournaments, then, get the more focus. They are the ones considered when measuring the "balance" of the game.

 

Now, this does not mean that the following isn't true, or could not be implemented:

 

1) Causal players can, and in fact do, push the product as much or more than tournaments. I have seen (and in fact, have run for over 4 years now) casual play events that mobilize a LOT of players, and create a lot of hype, noise and marketing for local stores, even reaching out to people who do not yet know of the game to find new players.

 

2) Tournaments are still insular in nature, as they require a level of investment in the game that can usually only be achieved by hardcore players. Meaning, a tournament might create marketing opportunities for the game, but the tolerance threshold for new players is higher in the competitive scene than in the casual one.

 

3) Tournaments could (and I say they should) receive a rule set of their own, that corresponds to their competitive nature, while allowing the casual players their own formal and official set of standards, backed and refined by GW directly.

[Isual]

@Berzul 

I mostly aggree on you point 3, i think that could be a good idea... even if its a unlikely one.

 

But I disaggree on the publicity effect of tournements, at least from my own experience. The only tournaments i have been to were held in a schools gym or alike with the only non participants beeing some unlucky girlfriends/wives of players. In recent times some events, prime example being LVO, started streaming their games.

But imho they have a long way to go to make that streams even remotely intresting. I mean, I am a 40k player myself and most of the time i head no idea whats going on. The camera is either to close to see the whole table, or to far away to identify any units for example... but actually I don't want to open that can of worms, we are offtopic enought. 
I just want to conlude that in my opinion most 40k streams atm are as exciting as watching paint dry (on miniatures of course). If you want we could discuss this issue in another topic ;).

 

However, I am not a fan of house rules and would like a set of rules I, as a non competitive non narative somewhat middleground player, can use without tinkering myself and have a good game.

[Berzul]

Well, experiences may differ, I guess. Over here the local tournaments, although few in number and small in size, actually have worked to expand the total number of people playing the game. And even people unaware of the game that I have come into contact from time to time will have a much more memorable notion of the game through tournaments and events, than from causal play. That is to say, they will remember the existence of a competitive group, but will have no real memory of who plays the game from outside their immediate circle.

 

Playing behind closed doors does not expand the game. Playing under a publicized structure of promotion, does.

 

This, of course, and again, does NOT mean that competitiveness is the determining factor. Events are. It just so happens that most events are competitive. But not all. For instance, I run online narrative campaigns in my country. Over 50 players at a time, playing over the span of months. Ive done it 5 times already, with the first try numbering at around 25 players, and the current one numbering over 50. That is 100% expansion of the player base! And it DOES include people that didn't know the game getting introduced to it by friends, through the campaigns.

 

Its more players than I ever did manage to connect when just playing off matches at my local store.

[oldmanlee]

It's an interesting list for sure but outside of itc format not sure how well it would do in chapter approved missions

[Grand Master Raziel]

Back in the 3rd - 4th edition days, I used to go to the GW store in the Buckland Hills mall in Manchester CT to get in my 40K fix. There uses to be this guy who played a starcannon-spam Eldar army who would go trolling for newbie kids with their Space Marine armies so he could club baby seals, so to speak.

 

The point of this little anecdote is to illustrate that if there's an exploit to be had in the rules, there are people who will take advantage of it. Tournaments, at least, are an environment where the expectation is clear. They also shed light on these exploits, and GW has lately become responsive enough to do something about them in a timely fashion. Without tournaments, the exploits would just remain, and jackasses like the guy above would be clubbing seals at LGSes across the country with little hope the exploits would get fixed.

That said, I think the Supreme Command detachment offers little of value to the game, and I'd like to see it get shifted to Narrative Play only. 

 

As for the list itself, if the Interrogator Chaplain were dropped, Azzy, Zeke, Sammy, and the 2 TMs could fit in one Supreme Command, Asmodai could be the HQ of the Vanguard, and you could then include a Deathwing Ancient with the FNP Flag and the additional + 1 attack bubble. The additional resilience and damage output seems like it'd be worth losing 1 CP from the build.

[Gederas]

That said, I think the Supreme Command detachment offers little of value to the game, and I'd like to see it get shifted to Narrative Play only.

It's for armies where you have Lord of War that get army abilities, so you can include them without them not getting them, like a Super-Heavy Auxiliary detachment would.

 

At least, that's the intention :lol: