Thats good because for heresy-online that never happened. We didn't start the forum till after the GW ones had gone kapput so no advertising there at all for us.
Meh, it must have just been the general exodus of GW Forum Members when they closed, like a plague of the uneducated masses- :lol:
My only concern about the DA army is its lack of ap2. You can pack it in obviously, but you do pay more for it. That doesn't mean that it can't be overcome by a decent combined arms approach, played well by a competant general, and looking at the list it seems to me the obvious approach and aim of the list. The list plays very differently to codex marines, so direct comparisions don't mean much. The only way to know for sure is for people to use them in a competative environment and see how they do. IMO the list has potential, but definately has some paper, sissors, stone style opposition that will give the list and uphill struggle from the off.
Agreed on the AP 2. As I said before, the same happened to Eldar- their AP 2 was severely curtailed- forcing them to take the other route of mutliple shot AP 4+. Instead of burning MEq without a save, Eldar/DA must force enough saves to cause the same damage.
This has the side effect of making them better against hordes like Orks, IG, Nids, etc. than they where before.
Have to disagree about the inability to compare with Codex SM.
Even though DA and BT are stand alone Codex's now- they will always look to Codex SM as a 'parent' list, a benchmark.
First of all you have the die-hards- the people who will play DA because they love DA, the same kind of people that still play White Scars or Raven Guard...unfortunately these people are exceptionally rare.
Then you have those that like DA but will still look back to the SM Codex- to see if they can better reflect their army style whilst still using the DA colour scheme and background. This isn't just about powergaming- a lot is to do with the removal of flexibility and variety in unit and wargear choice.
These people are in the majority.
Then you have the power gamers, WAAC'ers etc.
The only way to know for sure is for people to use them in a competative environment and see how they do. IMO the list has potential, but definately has some paper, sissors, stone style opposition that will give the list and uphill struggle from the off.
I have, and they performed as I expected- you have to work your balls off to scrape a draw against MEq- (against a balanced Chaos list).
And get your ass handed to you by power lists (facing the BA army of doom- 10 DC with Chappie, 3 6xman las/plas, 3 Pred Annihilator, Fury Libby, Assault Squad).
I've yet to try them against GEq or Skimmer Armies- hopefully they'll do better.
I'd put DA at a power level on a par with IG, Cult Chaos armies. Competitive in friendly games.
Above Witch Hunters, Daemon Hunters, Orks, BT.
Below IW's, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, SM's.
This is not necessarily a bad thing- I'd like the IG and DA to be the benchmark that all future Codex's are balanced against.
But for the forseeable future the majority of armies and players will be more competitive than every new release- and I don't think GW has the commitment to watch the gamer backlash as each army is nerfed, with older armies raising in power by comparison.
If GW had released Codex SM's in this format- I'd have no 'better' Codex to compare to when writing a list.