You are bleeding Bring them down with too many spiders. Can't have more then six, imho.
And you need higher priority stuff for your opponent's AT to shoot at, otherwise that's already 12 points with low effort. But as dangerous melee threats with no Invul and no QS, they are already a juicy target. So it's probably best to stay with three, and max. two other vehicles for giving up a total of 12 points, with 6 of them being hard to achieve.
Regarding the comparison to Praetorians, Spiders have the <DYNASTY> keyword, so there is quite a bit there to improve them further, and T5 or T6 is quite a bit of difference with more S5 and S6 shots getting thrown around.
The only dynasty that really does much for spyders IMO is the custom obsec + 6" move one; that does do a tremendous amount to boost their threat and utility. The others seem pretty minor.
T5 vs T6 is significant vs some stuff, but I think it pretty much balances out with having RPs that have a chance of working and having more bodies to split fire into. Against almost all weapons, equal points of praetorians have very close to equivalent survivability to spyders.
Got to try necrons though only small crusade games(2) and due to nature of beast some rules like protocols didn't get(my crusade force has skorpek lord as sole hq so noble for example.).
T5 a2 immortals were sweet vs orks. Funny enough guns didn't do anything. Rp was overall worse but 23-35 pl games are where old style was at it's best. Praetorians put extra attack to good use. Missed the old timesplinter relic(went for living metal heals 2). Stalker was scary as hell with new stats. The flat 3 ended up killing warboss first game(then died as it struct in death)
Auto wound stratagem was nice security. Otherwise didn't have much of chance to try new stratagems.
epaemil wrote: So Praetorians are good even without any buffs? Can they be used as a sort of independent ganking unit?
They had crusade buffs but none mattered here(obsec, Well no objectives to contest. Didn't get charged so free overwatch pointless nor got to use reroll battleshock). With orks with mostly s4-5 ap0 they pretty much shrugged off all they threw and 40 attacks was nasty enough hitting on 2+ with stratagem made short work and really you average 7 w2 marines anyway.
So far in 9e they have been great. Do wish i had rods though. But i assembled with void blades pre leaks but at least it's not total junk.
Biggest worry i have is heavy bolter spam if that becomes popular
epaemil wrote: So Praetorians are good even without any buffs? Can they be used as a sort of independent ganking unit?
Yes - they have fly keyword so they can gank over walls and such. They have really good shooting too now that it's 2 damage. Plus they do get a lot out of some protocols. For killing meq they are probably our best unit. They aren't bad at all vs anything popular ether. The only thing they are missing is "core".
Yeah. Weird turn of events that Necrons now have too many viable melee units to fit into a list.
Everything apart from Ophidian Destroyers varies from great to ok.
On an unrelated note, looking forward to the new FW book. Hopefully the Tomb Stalker/Sentinel and Acantrites become useful too. Such cool models.
I would use the radiation custom trait on a Spyder heavy army. They are then wounding even Custodes and Aggressors on 2's. Lack of any inherent damage mitigating rules does hurt them though so like several things in the dex, they are overpriced.
Cynista wrote: I would use the radiation custom trait on a Spyder heavy army. They are then wounding even Custodes and Aggressors on 2's. Lack of any inherent damage mitigating rules does hurt them though so like several things in the dex, they are overpriced.
60 points for 6 wounds 3+ t6 with 5 Str 8 ap-3 attacks at flat 2....its not overpriced. It's just a 3+ save can be completely ignored. T6 is usually a decent spot for toughness though. It's more rock paper scissors than anything. Which...That is 40k!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
epaemil wrote: What's wrong with Ophydian destroyers? Sure they're a bit squishy I think they could be a good harassing unit
Damage wise I think they are second to none. They will straight roll over things BUT defensively they are utterly pathetic. t4 3 W and a 4+ save? They got looks going for them which is enough for me to get 2 kits on preorder.
They're not just squishy, they're absurdly squishy. That's the problem. Even in Novokh they only have a ~65% chance of making their charge (with the reroll), and if they don't, they just die. So that's a 35% chance to just do nothing. And even if they do make it in, they die the next round.
Cynista wrote: I would use the radiation custom trait on a Spyder heavy army. They are then wounding even Custodes and Aggressors on 2's. Lack of any inherent damage mitigating rules does hurt them though so like several things in the dex, they are overpriced.
60 points for 6 wounds 3+ t6 with 5 Str 8 ap-3 attacks at flat 2....its not overpriced.
Ophydians are more expensive than, and about as durable, as a Flayed One. However, Flayed Ones have really good stratagems (-1 to be hit and fight again) .
Ophydians are also costed the same as Skorpekh Destroyers, which have +1T and +1 Sv over them.
Edit: If the Ophydian -1 to be hit ability was in every phase, not just during combat, I would like them a lot more. At that point they would be a melee Tomb Blade, but as they are now, I would take more Skorpekh every time.
Their damage output makes them worth experimenting with at least!
+1 S too, which actually makes a huge difference as going from S4 to S5 is a big breakpoint for lots of stuff. Ophydians get 6 attacks at S4, 4 of them -3 2D, 2 of them -1 1D. Skorpekhs get 4 S5 -3 2D. It's not actually all that different.
And they also don't have access to the -1 to wound strat that Skorpekhs get; -1T and not getting -1W is a massive, huge difference in durability.
Cynista wrote: I would use the radiation custom trait on a Spyder heavy army. They are then wounding even Custodes and Aggressors on 2's. Lack of any inherent damage mitigating rules does hurt them though so like several things in the dex, they are overpriced.
60 points for 6 wounds 3+ t6 with 5 Str 8 ap-3 attacks at flat 2....its not overpriced.
Yes it is and I mentioned why.
How overpriced immortals then are? Less t, more points per wound.
Spyders are about right price-wise for that they offer IMO. The trouble is just that what they offer is hard to use well. You have to use them really carefully or they'll just be a waste. Slow, short-ranged models without overwhelming durability tend to be a tough sell in 40k. Especially when they also give up secondary points like candy.
RAW it does stack, but I think it's 99% likely to be unintended and just a drafting error; they forgot to do the usual "-2LD if within 3" of any FLAYED ONE units" thing.
In the meantime I guess you could have some lols with psychomancers and the deceiver's power combined with flayed ones, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CKO wrote: Don't Ophydians have a -1 to hit in cc, if so that increases their durability.
Yes, but their durability in CC isn't the issue. If the -1 to hit was for shooting too they might be interesting.
Ophydians pretty much wont have to worry about CC durability since theyre either gonna melt whatever they charged or get shot off the board.
That -1 to hit being in both shooting/melee would have been nice, but just melee is kinda meh.
Vineheart01 wrote: Ophydians pretty much wont have to worry about CC durability since theyre either gonna melt whatever they charged or get shot off the board.
That -1 to hit being in both shooting/melee would have been nice, but just melee is kinda meh.
If they are str 4 I don't think they will melt units as skorpekh destroyers do. Do they have 4 hyperphase thresher attacks and 2 ophydian claws each?
Xyxel wrote: Two units of Flayed Ones in range of the same enemy unit generate -4 to Ld? Does this aura stack?
Unless it specifically says it stacks, the same rule does not.
Quote? There's such rule for aura's specifically. So far haven't seen anything for non-aura and feels odd anyway to have rule separately for aura and non-aura ability.
epaemil wrote: What's wrong with Ophydian destroyers? Sure they're a bit squishy I think they could be a good harassing unit
Damage wise I think they are second to none. They will straight roll over things BUT defensively they are utterly pathetic. t4 3 W and a 4+ save? They got looks going for them which is enough for me to get 2 kits on preorder.
What about if you add a Chronomancer to give them a 5++ and let them reroll Charge rolls?
epaemil wrote: What's wrong with Ophydian destroyers? Sure they're a bit squishy I think they could be a good harassing unit
Damage wise I think they are second to none. They will straight roll over things BUT defensively they are utterly pathetic. t4 3 W and a 4+ save? They got looks going for them which is enough for me to get 2 kits on preorder.
What about if you add a Chronomancer to give them a 5++ and let them reroll Charge rolls?
Then you can't Deep Strike them-that happens in the Command Phase, if I recall correctly, which is BEFORE they'd be on the table.
epaemil wrote: What's wrong with Ophydian destroyers? Sure they're a bit squishy I think they could be a good harassing unit
Damage wise I think they are second to none. They will straight roll over things BUT defensively they are utterly pathetic. t4 3 W and a 4+ save? They got looks going for them which is enough for me to get 2 kits on preorder.
What about if you add a Chronomancer to give them a 5++ and let them reroll Charge rolls?
Then you can't Deep Strike them-that happens in the Command Phase, if I recall correctly, which is BEFORE they'd be on the table.
Ophydian's with the -1 toughness dynastic tradition is good if you know how to use their 10-inch movement to protect them using terrain or keeping them in combat. The average player will not be able to get the most out of this unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ophydian's with the -1 toughness dynastic tradition is good if you know how to use their 10-inch movement to protect them using terrain or keeping them in combat. The average player will not be able to get the most out of this unit.
epaemil wrote: What's wrong with Ophydian destroyers? Sure they're a bit squishy I think they could be a good harassing unit
Damage wise I think they are second to none. They will straight roll over things BUT defensively they are utterly pathetic. t4 3 W and a 4+ save? They got looks going for them which is enough for me to get 2 kits on preorder.
What about if you add a Chronomancer to give them a 5++ and let them reroll Charge rolls?
Then you can't Deep Strike them-that happens in the Command Phase, if I recall correctly, which is BEFORE they'd be on the table.
So can you not just start them on the table?
Which leads to their fragility problem-T4 4+ is not a good defensive statline, even with three wounds each.
For reference, to kill one ODestroyer, it would take...
Half a Helverin (3.375 S7 AP-1 D3 shots at BS 3+)
7 IG Mortars (24 S4 AP0 D1 shots at BS 4+)
7 Rapid-Firing Intercessors without Doctrines (13.5 S4 AP-1 D1 shots at BS 3+)
epaemil wrote: What's wrong with Ophydian destroyers? Sure they're a bit squishy I think they could be a good harassing unit
Damage wise I think they are second to none. They will straight roll over things BUT defensively they are utterly pathetic. t4 3 W and a 4+ save? They got looks going for them which is enough for me to get 2 kits on preorder.
What about if you add a Chronomancer to give them a 5++ and let them reroll Charge rolls?
Then you can't Deep Strike them-that happens in the Command Phase, if I recall correctly, which is BEFORE they'd be on the table.
So can you not just start them on the table?
Which leads to their fragility problem-T4 4+ is not a good defensive statline, even with three wounds each.
For reference, to kill one ODestroyer, it would take...
Half a Helverin (3.375 S7 AP-1 D3 shots at BS 3+)
7 IG Mortars (24 S4 AP0 D1 shots at BS 4+)
7 Rapid-Firing Intercessors without Doctrines (13.5 S4 AP-1 D1 shots at BS 3+)
Well, the durability aspect was precisely why I suggested the Chronomancer.
However, going by your list, it seems there may nevertheless be sufficient weapons capable of threatening them with just AP-1.
Welp, I guess I'll chalk them up as another unit I have no reason to buy.
The rule writers clearly just didn't have a clue on how to differentiate them from skorpekhs. So they just made them the same as skorpekhs, but with a squishier profile and very slightly more offense.
Seems like a classic case of model designers and rules writers not being on the same page.
Main problem with Ophydians is they are competing at the same price point as both Skorpekhs and Wraiths. Both of those require little setup and can just do what they do.
I think if the Whip Body was -1 to both shooting and melee, these guys would probably be a great choice. Then it'd be a higher risk and higher reward unit.
That being said, they look ace so I'm going to pick up a unit of them for sure and give them a try anyway. They may work pretty well starting on the table with the 6' pre game move and then a Chronometron on them.
.Night Scythe can carry <DYNASTY> CORE INFANTRY, <DYNASTY> INFANTRY CHARACTERS, and, interestingly DYNASTIC AGENT INFANTRY, i.e. Praetorians or named characters without a dynasty. So I guess you could put Szeras, Trazyn, Anrakyr, etc in one if you wanted to.
Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters. Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.
Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)
So as mediocre as I think Flayed Ones are, I was just thinking about how they interact with the radiation dynasty code and I like it. Unlike some other units that wouldn't benefit much from it, Flayed Ones would now:
Wound Aggressors and Custodes on 4's
Wound Marines on 3's
Wound Guardsmen on 2's
Just wish they kept Shred. Makes this combo even better
Yeah, but enough to give up obsec on everything? The way 9th is structured, I have a hard time seeing how any other choice can possibly compare to that.
CKO wrote: Ophydian's with the -1 toughness dynastic tradition is good if you know how to use their 10-inch movement to protect them using terrain or keeping them in combat. The average player will not be able to get the most out of this unit.
The problem is they're the same cost as the other 2 units that share the same role: Wraiths and Skorpekhs. Wraiths are faster and more durable and get fall back and charge as well as their very useful movement buffs from their pseudo-Fly rules. They're not as good in combat but still not completely terrible. Skorpekhs are slightly slower but more durable and hit hard enough to be scary. Ophydians just don't really offer anything the other 2 near-identical options do at least as well. If you Deep Strike them you either make the charge or die because T4, W3 4+ save is not a defensive profile you want to rely on. If you start them on the board they're slightly faster Skorpekhs without the durability.
This is the problem with comments like "they're good if you know how to use them". That applies equally to the other units that are just better to start with. If you know how to use Ophydians you can use exactly the same tactics to keep Skorpekhs alive too, so the question becomes which unit is better and the answer is most likely Skorpekhs because they aren't so easy to just delete with relatively light, common shooting.
It's annoying because I love the models but it feels like GW had no real idea what role they wanted them to have in the army.
Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.
Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)
Its not intended that characters can embark on their faction transport ? Are you serious ?? Every faction with a transport can do that. Lokhust lords can also embark. They couldnt in 8th (they were destroyer lords), but now they can. Still not intended ??
Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.
Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)
Its not intended that characters can embark on their faction transport ? Are you serious ?? Every faction with a transport can do that. Lokhust lords can also embark. They couldnt in 8th (they were destroyer lords), but now they can. Still not intended ??
If you re-read his post, you will see that he relates this specificly to the large size of the model, not the fact that he's a character.
Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.
Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)
Its not intended that characters can embark on their faction transport ? Are you serious ?? Every faction with a transport can do that. Lokhust lords can also embark. They couldnt in 8th (they were destroyer lords), but now they can. Still not intended ??
If you re-read his post, you will see that he relates this specificly to the large size of the model, not the fact that he's a character.
Scale is irrelevant. Many models in 40k are not the right size. Try fitting 10 SM in a rhino. Vehicles in general should be a lot bigger.
Regarding Ophydian Destroyers, they don't seem very impressive in and of themselves, but what about using them to convert a Destroyer Lord? Seems like it could give you a fun design, without having to use the rather outdated D. Lord kit.
Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.
Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)
Its not intended that characters can embark on their faction transport ? Are you serious ?? Every faction with a transport can do that. Lokhust lords can also embark. They couldnt in 8th (they were destroyer lords), but now they can. Still not intended ??
If you re-read his post, you will see that he relates this specificly to the large size of the model, not the fact that he's a character.
Scale is irrelevant. Many models in 40k are not the right size. Try fitting 10 SM in a rhino. Vehicles in general should be a lot bigger.
Same for most buildings.
That said its also the design. The Rhino is basically a box on tracks so what goes in doesn't matter. The Ark has very specifically got warriors in rank and file down its spine. Now whilst its easy to see those replaced with immortals or such its harder to visually see where a Skorpek lord could fit let alone ride in such a vehicle.
Skorpek on ghost ark suffers from 1/6 chance of dying up the moment GA dies. No way to put anything cheap there as backup. 6 slinger or crypteks are about cheapest sacrificial lambs.
Its ridiculous how limited ghost arks are when it comes to units which can embark on them. Skorpekh lords fit, but not immortals. Lokhust lords fit, but no deathmarks. You would need to lose some warriors, to be able to embark them in a ghost ark, with some infantry characters.
Something I'm going to try(maybe 2nd game. first game will be next week. Well 1st and 2nd were actually on tuesday for small crusade games) is 10 lychguard and night scythe. If I can keep night scythe alive for turn 2 it's pretty much automatic charge. Problem of course is keeping scythe alive but at least unit isn't dead and can just come out of reserves normally...
Too bad don't have warscythe lychguard so have to go with sword version
edit: Put flier into reserves. 3CP for stratagegic reserves, 1CP for stratagem. As long as there's enemy within 15" of table edge on turn 2 you can do 6" charge roll. Costs money for +3" charge roll but lol. And then you have flier flying around
vipoid wrote: What are people's thoughts regarding the different Crypteks?
I think I would just take a Technomancer and a Chrono one. The Techno could help get more warriors back on foot, helping me contest that important objective in 9th where the scoring is mainly progressive. The Chrono one help keep my important units such as Destroyers live longer.
Other variants don't seem to do good enough buff or damage.
The "no obsec for you" could be sweet though to deny opponent from scoring primaries. Especially with "all units obsec" dynasties. Park one model near objective, shut down obsec, haha.
I hated the three-arm design of the skorpekh Lord.
A friend of mine made a tail with his 3-D-Printer for me to make him look more scorpion like.
Thought you guys would like it.
Will post again after finished painting if you want.
I love the idea (I don't care for the 3-arm design myself), and you're right in that it would help Skorpekhs look more like their namesake. My only concern is that tail doesn't look quite the right scale for the rest of the model.
If it was 3D printed, would it be possible to make one that was a bit thinner, perhaps with more of the vertebrae to maintain the length?
I think Doom Scythes might be our best anti-tank option now. Their damage output for their points is as good as anything else, plus they don't use up a contested battlefield roll slot.
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: I think Doom Scythes might be our best anti-tank option now. Their damage output for their points is as good as anything else, plus they don't use up a contested battlefield roll slot.
Trouble with those. Expensive, super soft, can't do much regarding objectives. 9e is about scoring vp's more than killing enemy so any unit that doesn't contribute to objectives needs to be really good at the killing then.
This includes the secondary weapons of each, but no bonuses for being within 12".
So Lokhusts are the most efficient, followed very closely by Doom Scythes, then a decent step behind are DDAs and Doomstalkers. The LHD and DS are also much more reliable, with fixed numbers of shots and less swingy damage.
The less efficient options here are a lot more durable, but also a lot less mobile.
LHDs are the weakest, although they can hide.
The Doom Scythe has incredible mobility, enabling it to get shots on Artillery behind LOS blockers, or assassinate characters, but it can't score objectives.
I think it's actually a pretty balanced list of options, with the best choice largely depending on how much terrain you're playing with.
Personally I'll be going with Doom Scythes as I've found long range units that don't move struggle to hit ideal targets in 9th, and I hate how swingy D6 shots D6 damage are.
EDIT: A Death Ray Monolith does 0.031 damage per point which is better than I thought, putting it between a DDA and a Doomstalker.
Looks like you don't remove excess damage from overkill. Causing 20 damage to russ isn't particularly useful so for example DDA doesn't cause 3.5*2/3*2/3*3.5 damage in practice. More like 5.14 damage vs W12 model.
Similarly pylon vs baneblade doesn't average 31 damage More like tad under 20.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberius501 wrote: How do the Triarch Stalkers hold up for anti-tank with those other units?
I’m curious what the best option for low point games would be for an anti-tank option in an all rounder list.
Big help those have is move and shoot plus versatility of heat ray. I have had that go on my crusade and so far been doing it's job well enough.
And of course now with melta bonus once you get within 12" it's sweet. Low shot count is bummer but command reroll helps and the "automatic wound for hit" reduces some variance as well.
Inv saves are annoying to face though.
But for small point I would take it. Unit that can do multiple roles is valuable and units that have to sit back and stand still are less valuable. You don't want big chunk of your army stand still just shooting. Gives opponent often easy targets what to take out. The units trying to score vp's! Take them out, your DDA/whatever can blow stuff up but can't win the game.
Ah thanks, @tneva82. Yeah I was wondering because I’m making a crusade roster haha, so that’s good to know. I was tossing up between a Triarch Stalker or a Doomstalker since they’re the same power.
An army full of multi purpose units is probably going to be the best bet in 9th
Triarch Stalkers
CCB Skorpekh Lord (although to a lesser extent than others)
Praetorians
Tomb Sentinel
Would all sit well in an objective focussed TAC list
Also I'm thinking the only way I can think of Ophydians being good is as backup to an initial push by Skorpekh Destroyers and Lord. Or just a Lord with some Scarabs. Deep Strike them in after you make contact with other units and they'll get the buff from the Lord
Looks like you don't remove excess damage from overkill. Causing 20 damage to russ isn't particularly useful so for example DDA doesn't cause 3.5*2/3*2/3*3.5 damage in practice. More like 5.14 damage vs W12 model.
Similarly pylon vs baneblade doesn't average 31 damage More like tad under 20.
Not sure what you are on about here, the possibility of overkill has no real impact on the maths I was showing. The important question is "how much damage am I going to inflict on a tank per point spent on this unit?". None of the listed units are likely to do more than 12 wounds in the units sizes they come in so it's irrelevent. A DDA does 5.44 wounds to a Russ because that's the average, overkill is nothing to do with it.
Tiberius501 wrote:How do the Triarch Stalkers hold up for anti-tank with those other units?
I’m curious what the best option for low point games would be for an anti-tank option in an all rounder list.
Stalkers are 0.022 damage per point outside of melta range, so they are quite low compared to the other options, but they are an all rounder and not dedicated anti tank.
Yeah I have no idea why the Doomsday Blaster and the Doomsday Cannon have identical stats. Which designer decided that Necrons need two units where you get to channel your inner Clint Eastwood?
I guess it's nice that you get the option because the Walkers look awesome and I hate the Doomsday Arc model, but still...
So let's see:
3x Canoptek Doomstalker = 420 (blaze it)
1x Technomancer with Canoptek Control Node = 90 (1 CP - Thrall of the Silent King WL trait)
1x Cryptothralls = 40
550 gives you a pretty nice package. With Thrall of the Silent King to increase the aura size, you can spread out the Walkers 19". That should give you decent firing lanes.
The Cryptothralls can raise a banner T1, and then can go do whatever depending on table setup and opposing list.
On the other hand, hilariously the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer is still <INFANTRY>. So move through walls and cover are both available. They don't need a babysitter (I guess you would need to take 9 to make the Lokhust Destroyer Lord viable, lol), they are mobile... would one unit of three be enough in a vehicle-light meta?
One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.
But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?
EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.
I always forget that they don't degrade, and they have 10" movement in a pinch.
If you take three, each one essentially costs 170 when factoring in the cost for the Technomancer. Arks are 190 with two more hitpoints, two inches more movement, <FLY> and better secondary weapons. They don't explode on 5s, but they degrade normally. Always 4++ is a wash compared to QS, but QS can be boosted to 4++ for 1 CP (on one unit, obviously). And Arks can deploy all over the table without the need to check ranges with their babysitter.
So I guess overall verdict:
Slight advantage to Arks, but not enough to make the Stalker unuseable. But you need to all-in on Stalkers with 3 + Technomancer. Any other combination will be decidedly less effective.
/edit: Silent King can buff Praetorians with his MWBD.
Tiberius501 wrote: One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.
But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?
EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.
They can't get or benefit from any code. They can benefit from Szarekhs Auras though.
The 4+ on it's own is not quite as good as QS, but it's still really good, since a 4++ is for the most part going to be the best you can get in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Acehilator wrote: I always forget that they don't degrade, and they have 10" movement in a pinch.
If you take three, each one essentially costs 170 when factoring in the cost for the Technomancer. Arks are 190 with two more hitpoints, two inches more movement, <FLY> and better secondary weapons. They don't explode on 5s, but they degrade normally. Always 4++ is a wash compared to QS, but QS can be boosted to 4++ for 1 CP (on one unit, obviously). And Arks they can deploy all over the table without the need to check ranges with their babysitter.
So I guess overall verdict:
Slight advantage to Arks, but not enough to make the Stalker unuseable. But you need to all-in on Stalkers with 3 + Technomancer. Any other combination will be decidedly less effective.
The Stratagem is also very good for Doomstalkers. For Arks you really need to be using the Flayer Arrays to get your points out of them as well, so you are moving a lot more in my opinion. They are much more independent though.
vipoid wrote: What are people's thoughts regarding the different Crypteks?
So many possibilities. The only garbo option is the psychomancer IMO. D-
Chrono is a great defensive buffer with that 5++ on demand (I wish it was just +1 to save though) Decent ability upgrade for halving charge/advance rolls for target unit within 18" (Should be 24) He gets a B- for me cost is a little high too IMO - he has 1 Melee attack.
Technomancers is a boss. Canoptec buffer to the max (+1 to hit aura in all phases). Several good upgrade abilities. A++
Plasmamancer is a decent mortal wound generator for cheap that can't be denied cause they aren't psychic. B+
Psycho is definitely the stinker of the 4. He's close to being awesome but falls flat on his face.
If he had a 24" reach he'd be awesome, as none of his abilities are incredibly powerful just niche useful. But at 12" its gonna be difficult to ever get him in range of a unit that any of his abilities actually matter, except denying overwatch. And i dont think a 70ish point model purely to deny overwatch is worth it (except against tau maybe but thats listtailoring territory) Of course none of the crypteks are anything to write home about outside of their ability, so if their ability isnt that great...they suck lol.
Tiberius501 wrote: One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.
But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?
EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.
No matter how it maths out the 4++ has a very strong psychological element. Who shoots at a 4++ when they can shoot at things with a 5++?
Tiberius501 wrote: One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.
But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?
EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.
No matter how it maths out the 4++ has a very strong psychological element. Who shoots at a 4++ when they can shoot at things with a 5++?
People who need the 4++ dead more than the 5++.
While you should take advantage of an opponent's mistakes, you shouldn't rely on them making mistakes.
Its basically in distraction carnifex territory. 140pts for a T6 12W 3+/4++ model thats lethal if left alone is prime distraction territory. Its cheap enough and durable enough that nobody is going to WANT to take it out, because unless luck is against the necron player odds are that thing is gonna eat a lot more points worth of shooting to kill than its worth. Aside from simply failing every 4++ and the opponent getting high damage rolls each time i dont see it dying that quick w/o 2x its points in stuff shooting at it.
Maybe its the ork in me but if i can force you to spend a third of your army to kill something that cost me ~125pts, i'll LET you do that because so much of my army is now unscathed as you spent so much trying to get rid of that one model. And part of the reason its so deadly isnt even in its own cost, its the cryptek around it giving it a 3+ BS. Which can just mosey on over to other stuff once it blows up, no value lost.
Tbh i was expecting the doomstalker to be around 200pts. When i saw it was 140 i was quite baffled.
Acehilator wrote: I always forget that they don't degrade, and they have 10" movement in a pinch.
If you take three, each one essentially costs 170 when factoring in the cost for the Technomancer. Arks are 190 with two more hitpoints, two inches more movement, <FLY> and better secondary weapons. They don't explode on 5s, but they degrade normally. Always 4++ is a wash compared to QS, but QS can be boosted to 4++ for 1 CP (on one unit, obviously). And Arks can deploy all over the table without the need to check ranges with their babysitter.
So I guess overall verdict:
Slight advantage to Arks, but not enough to make the Stalker unuseable. But you need to all-in on Stalkers with 3 + Technomancer. Any other combination will be decidedly less effective.
/edit: Silent King can buff Praetorians with his MWBD.
IDK if it is fair to assume the cost of the techomancer a wash in the comparsion. He will be resurrecting an infantry a turn as well at best case plus he is a character that can secure objectives like (gather intel) ect. Doomsday archs are indeed more independent but the degrading issue is a problem. If you manage to make use of the doom stalker stratagem/overwatch ability - it is a clear win for doomstalker IMO. In any case. In larger games I will take 3 of each ofc.
Tiberius501 wrote: One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.
But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?
EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.
No matter how it maths out the 4++ has a very strong psychological element. Who shoots at a 4++ when they can shoot at things with a 5++?
People who need the 4++ dead more than the 5++.
While you should take advantage of an opponent's mistakes, you shouldn't rely on them making mistakes.
It's not necessarily a mistake. If you shoot at the 4++ and they made all the saves on 4's then it was a mistake lol. Things like that happen in a game and it can fluster and opponent.
What are people thinking about warriors vs gauss immortals? I was originally back on the warrior hype train, but after actually doing the math, immortals come out better value for points against almost everything.
That reroll 1s on RP looks tasty until you realize it only brings back 1.16 additional warriors per twenty destroyed. The only places immortals don't clearly outperform their 25% points premium is shooting extreme chaff (T3 6+ or worse) and when getting shot by S6-7, ap 2 or more weapons. Meanwhile, they're *double* as durable against S4 -1AP, and the extra attack makes them much better in combat too, though still not great.
I can see taking warriors if you take a 20 blob with a rez orb, or maybe with the 12" assault 2 weapon if advancing is a big deal to you. But mathwise, 7 immortals just seems better than 10 warriors with the 24" gun in the vast majority of circumstances, even if you can't find the points to take all 10.
yukishiro1 wrote: What are people thinking about warriors vs gauss immortals? I was originally back on the warrior hype train, but after actually doing the math, immortals come out better value for points against almost everything.
That reroll 1s on RP looks tasty until you realize it only brings back 1.16 additional warriors per twenty destroyed. The only places immortals don't clearly outperform their 25% points premium is shooting extreme chaff (T3 6+ or worse) and when getting shot by S6-7, ap 2 or more weapons. Meanwhile, they're *double* as durable against S4 -1AP, and the extra attack makes them much better in combat too, though still not great.
I can see taking warriors if you take a 20 blob with a rez orb, or maybe with the 12" assault 2 weapon if advancing is a big deal to you. But mathwise, 7 immortals just seems better than 10 warriors with the 24" gun in the vast majority of circumstances, even if you can't find the points to take all 10.
IMO, warriors seem better to use as front line objective cappers, as you can have them in large blobs to sit on objectives better. Immortals are nice for actual dmg output as your units of 10 with gauss will shred.
Tiberius501 wrote: One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.
But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?
EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.
No matter how it maths out the 4++ has a very strong psychological element. Who shoots at a 4++ when they can shoot at things with a 5++?
People who need the 4++ dead more than the 5++.
While you should take advantage of an opponent's mistakes, you shouldn't rely on them making mistakes.
It's not necessarily a mistake. If you shoot at the 4++ and they made all the saves on 4's then it was a mistake lol. Things like that happen in a game and it can fluster and opponent.
Just because it didn't work out doesn't mean it was a mistake.
yukishiro1 wrote: What are people thinking about warriors vs gauss immortals? I was originally back on the warrior hype train, but after actually doing the math, immortals come out better value for points against almost everything.
That reroll 1s on RP looks tasty until you realize it only brings back 1.16 additional warriors per twenty destroyed. The only places immortals don't clearly outperform their 25% points premium is shooting extreme chaff (T3 6+ or worse) and when getting shot by S6-7, ap 2 or more weapons. Meanwhile, they're *double* as durable against S4 -1AP, and the extra attack makes them much better in combat too, though still not great.
I can see taking warriors if you take a 20 blob with a rez orb, or maybe with the 12" assault 2 weapon if advancing is a big deal to you. But mathwise, 7 immortals just seems better than 10 warriors with the 24" gun in the vast majority of circumstances, even if you can't find the points to take all 10.
IMO, warriors seem better to use as front line objective cappers, as you can have them in large blobs to sit on objectives better. Immortals are nice for actual dmg output as your units of 10 with gauss will shred.
In general yes but warriors with reapers actually outdamage immortals quite a bit per point. ESP with the 6's to hit autowound stratagem. on 40 shots that has a lot of damage potential.
Well if you have an Technomancer as babysitter for three Doomstalkers, he is probably not going to do much resurrecting. I would rather maximize his positioning in regards to the Stalkers, than try to keep him in range of a blob of Warriors.
Regarding Crypteks:
Technomancer: A
Canoptek Control Node as buffbot for Stalkers or Spyders is amazing, Canoptek Cloak as a support unit for Skorpekhs is too.
Chronomancer: B
Targeted 5++ is great, especially for Warriors, or Spyders. Entropic Lance for the lolz.
Psychomancer: B
Potentially gamewinning abilities on decent chances to succeed. Interrupt actions, turn off ObSec, deny Overwatch (that ability also includes Fight last, which would be very powerful on its own), that's three very strong abilities. Only the charge reduction is pants. But if he would have more than 12" range on those abilites, it would be broken.
Plasmancer: D
If Living Lightning had more range maybe, but with 6" on that you are mostly doing 1.5MW per turn that are not targetable. That's really not great. For 25 you can add the Cryptek Arcana for a targetable pseudo Smite, but then we are talking about 95 points for about 3 MW/turn. If you local meta only consists of Terminators maybe, but otherwise, in such a crowded slot, any combination of the other Crypteks is better.
Tiberius501 wrote: One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.
But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?
EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.
No matter how it maths out the 4++ has a very strong psychological element. Who shoots at a 4++ when they can shoot at things with a 5++?
People who need the 4++ dead more than the 5++.
While you should take advantage of an opponent's mistakes, you shouldn't rely on them making mistakes.
It's not necessarily a mistake. If you shoot at the 4++ and they made all the saves on 4's then it was a mistake lol. Things like that happen in a game and it can fluster and opponent.
Just because it didn't work out doesn't mean it was a mistake.
It certainly is if you knew going into a proposition that you had a lower risk option and took the higher. It all depends on game state.
Warriors also get 1d3 models back from Rites as opposed to 1 Immortal. The GA can also restore 1d3 (or 1d6 with a stratagem) Warriors back to a unit.
A lot our force multiplies have 'better' benefits for Warriors than Immortals, at least on the face of it.
EDIT: On that note though, how do people feel about Tomb Blades? I'm planning to try a list including a unit of 9, backed by an orb-toting CCB. You can get the damage AND defensive profile of 2 Immortals per 1 Tomb Blade, while costing less (or very slightly more) than the equivalent number of Immortals per wound.
Acehilator wrote: Well if you have an Technomancer as babysitter for three Doomstalkers, he is probably not going to do much resurrecting. I would rather maximize his positioning in regards to the Stalkers, than try to keep him in range of a blob of Warriors.
Regarding Crypteks:
Technomancer: A
Canoptek Control Node as buffbot for Stalkers or Spyders is amazing, Canoptek Cloak as a support unit for Skorpekhs is too.
Chronomancer: B
Targeted 5++ is great, especially for Warriors, or Spyders. Entropic Lance for the lolz.
Psychomancer: B
Potentially gamewinning abilities on decent chances to succeed. Interrupt actions, turn off ObSec, deny Overwatch (that ability also includes Fight last, which would be very powerful on its own), that's three very strong abilities. Only the charge reduction is pants. But if he would have more than 12" range on those abilites, it would be broken.
Plasmancer: D
If Living Lightning had more range maybe, but with 6" on that you are mostly doing 1.5MW per turn that are not targetable. That's really not great. For 25 you can add the Cryptek Arcana for a targetable pseudo Smite, but then we are talking about 95 points for about 3 MW/turn. If you local meta only consists of Terminators maybe, but otherwise, in such a crowded slot, any combination of the other Crypteks is better.
Have you considered death marks and immortals? They are happy in the backfeild and can't be ignored ether. Also - I feel like this build takes the middle of the table with cryptec in range of most everything.
Xenomancers wrote: In general yes but warriors with reapers actually outdamage immortals quite a bit per point. ESP with the 6's to hit autowound stratagem. on 40 shots that has a lot of damage potential.
Only within 12", though. Getting 20 warriors within 12" is not easy, and if you are that close, the extra attack on the immortals is likely to become relevant.
But I agree, the reaper is the interesting choice on warriors, as is the 20 man unit size. If you're going to take a unit of 10 flayers, I think you may as well take immortals instead.
Death Marks are a trap. The gun is still only one damage, and when using their special stratagem they only hit on 3s (or if you move them to get LoS to a juicy target). If you play on planet bowling ball, sure. Otherwise, no.
Xenomancers wrote: In general yes but warriors with reapers actually outdamage immortals quite a bit per point. ESP with the 6's to hit autowound stratagem. on 40 shots that has a lot of damage potential.
Only within 12", though. Getting 20 warriors within 12" is not easy, and if you are that close, the extra attack on the immortals is likely to become relevant.
But I agree, the reaper is the interesting choice on warriors, as is the 20 man unit size. If you're going to take a unit of 10 flayers, I think you may as well take immortals instead.
Agreed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Acehilator wrote: Death Marks are a trap. The gun is still only one damage, and when using their special stratagem they only hit on 3s (or if you move them to get LoS to a juicy target). If you play on planet bowling ball, sure. Otherwise, no.
It's 1 shot that does a mortal wound on a 6 and they hit on 2's and are core. I think they are pretty phenomenal. They can threaten most characters in single turn. MWBD is a thing too. You can move them around and hit on 2's.
Reanimation is great on them too. They are certainly not a trap. They might not be auto include but they are more than just playable.
Reapers are for when you utilize ways to teleport the warriors up to get the entire squad in range.
i.e. any of the stratagems to warp them in or the Veil of Darkness.
if you try to footslog reapers your opponent is gonna laugh at you
This is best case scenario, hitting on 2s vs T4 without an Invul. And they can barely kill the most basic stuff, only high value target would be the Chief Apothecary.
Captain/Chaplain no matter which version = nope.
Regarding Warriors with Reapers, either teleport shenanigans or custom dynasty with 6" move.
Deathmarks need a full squad of 10 to actually threaten anything but the weakest characters, and that's a lot of points and bodies to do that.
Combine say 5 of them with stuff that does splash or targeted MWs, however - the upgraded psychomancer with the targeted smite, deceiver's mind war power, the tesla strat, or the c'tan power that does the splash wounds on a 4+ - and they start to become interesting.
This is best case scenario, hitting on 2s vs T4 without an Invul. And they can barely kill the most basic stuff, only high value target would be the Chief Apothecary.
Captain/Chaplain no matter which version = nope.
Regarding Warriors with Reapers, either teleport shenanigans or custom dynasty with 6" move.
Averaging 5 damage means essentially half the time you kill it and half the time you don't. Tip the odds in your favor...take 20. Now you can kill almost any character in the open or at the very least alter their game plans. There are other options too - plasmamancer and ctans can put wounds on characters too. Realistically you kill the opponents characters and you win the game. Viable strategy IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberius501 wrote: Are warriors with reapers just better than flayers? Or can you make use of flayers?
I don't see much use for flayers. Unless you are running a warrior horde of some kind. Mephrite warriors with flayers are probably the best at it.
There's no way you're going to be able to get 20 deathmarks able to shoot a character your opponent cares about. Even 10 is pushing it. They need to be combined with other stuff that can put MWs on characters IMO, otherwise they're just going to be ineffective.
yukishiro1 wrote: There's no way you're going to be able to get 20 deathmarks able to shoot a character your opponent cares about. Even 10 is pushing it. They need to be combined with other stuff that can put MWs on characters IMO, otherwise they're just going to be ineffective.
I don't want to take over the thread with the "are deathmarks good" discussion and tactics for using them. Lets just agree that they can kill characters pretty easy if they are visable. They aren't bad shoot at anything really. Pretty comparable to gauss immortals all things considered.
Deathmarks do have the advantage of native deep-strike and an intercept stratagem, that can be used while on or off the board.
Their usefulness comes from being annoying for the opponent -- though I think that Flayed Ones are a better irritant as they cost less for a unit of 10.
You could hold Deathmarks in units of 5 to drop on home objectives and take pot-shots, and perform actions when nothing is in range. That would be my preferred use in say, an aggressive, forward-moving list.
Yeah I like a unit of 5 as an annoyance, that's a small enough footprint that you can bring it down lots of useful places, whether using the strat or not.
If Warriors are just there for Battalion tax and are taking backfield objectives then flayers are absolutely fine, in fact they are better. If Warriors are 50% of your army and you are pushing them up the board with dedicated support, then yeah Reapers are better.
But if you're taking them as a tax to hold backfield objectives, immortals are almost always just better at that.
There doesn't seem a huge role for the flayers on warriors as a result. Except maybe 10 and 10 in a big unit of 20, since you probably can't get all 20 within 12".
Tiberius501 wrote: One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.
But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?
.
Pretty same yes. 4+ 3+(since opponent not rolling 5+ is same odds as you rolling 3+) is same as 3+ 4+. Qs is better only if he was rolling 2+ to wound or would be wounding 3+ or better and have ap-1. 4++ better vs s6 or less ap2 weapons.
If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?
After the unit has concluded its attacks (the latter). E.G. you get shot by a Tactical Squad: they fire their bolters, missile launcher, and flamer - everything they've got - before you roll RP. Rinse & repeat
If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?
We dont know. GW cant write rules properly. It doesnt say "after a unit finished all of its attacks", instead it simply says "after it makes it attacks".
When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?
They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?
Drakmord wrote: When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?
They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?
That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.
If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?
We dont know. GW cant write rules properly. It doesnt say "after a unit finished all of its attacks", instead it simply says "after it makes it attacks".
Drakmord wrote: When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?
They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?
That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.
I wouldn't worry too much about building around RP. Having more board control is a lot more important.
If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?
We dont know. GW cant write rules properly. It doesnt say "after a unit finished all of its attacks", instead it simply says "after it makes it attacks".
"After a unit makes its attacks" would presume that its made all of its attacks and that the game state has moved to the stage after the unit has completed its last attack. If it was after each attack with a different weapon it would specifically say so.
Drakmord wrote: When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?
They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?
That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.
By ObSec +1, I meant that they count as two units rather than one when running into another ObSec unit.
Having 5 Nihilakh Warriors on an objective and 5 regular tac marines get within range, the Nihilakh Warriors maintain control of the objective by counting as an additional unit, right? The verbiage is that each model with that rule that already has ObSec, counts as an additional model.
I was curious as to how relevant that specific interaction is -- will having more Troops to leverage that interaction on objectives be more useful than the general, normal ObSec that the rest of my army now has?
CKO wrote: Ophydian's with the -1 toughness dynastic tradition is good if you know how to use their 10-inch movement to protect them using terrain or keeping them in combat. The average player will not be able to get the most out of this unit.
The problem is they're the same cost as the other 2 units that share the same role: Wraiths and Skorpekhs. Wraiths are faster and more durable and get fall back and charge as well as their very useful movement buffs from their pseudo-Fly rules. They're not as good in combat but still not completely terrible. Skorpekhs are slightly slower but more durable and hit hard enough to be scary. Ophydians just don't really offer anything the other 2 near-identical options do at least as well. If you Deep Strike them you either make the charge or die because T4, W3 4+ save is not a defensive profile you want to rely on. If you start them on the board they're slightly faster Skorpekhs without the durability.
This is the problem with comments like "they're good if you know how to use them". That applies equally to the other units that are just better to start with. If you know how to use Ophydians you can use exactly the same tactics to keep Skorpekhs alive too, so the question becomes which unit is better and the answer is most likely Skorpekhs because they aren't so easy to just delete with relatively light, common shooting.
It's annoying because I love the models but it feels like GW had no real idea what role they wanted them to have in the army.
I am defending the Ophydian Destroyers, I like the unit most people are dismissing it. We have to take player skill into consideration with our analysis of units. A competitive player and a casual player will get different results if they use these units. I think the Skorpekh unit is easier to use due to its toughness and 3+ save but the Ophydian Destroyers has a purpose.
Ophydian's extra movement is huge because it is a cc unit, 2 inches could mean a 7-inch charge vs a 9-inch charge. Ophidians also have 17 attacks with the chance of exploding 6's vs 11 attacks by the Skorpekhs. With the -1 to hit hordes will hate this unit hitting on 5's. The true purpose of this unit is that they can tunnel up and kill those small units that people like to keep on objectives, you have access to +1 to charge dynasties to make them more effective. A small investment of 105 points for a unit that can pop up and kill stuff is good. ( AP 4 Novokh AP 2 Claws for hordes)
With all that said it still gets a B ish grade. 8 inch charges are not guaranteed and most players have a hard time protecting units
Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.
Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)
Its not intended that characters can embark on their faction transport ? Are you serious ?? Every faction with a transport can do that. Lokhust lords can also embark. They couldnt in 8th (they were destroyer lords), but now they can. Still not intended ??
If you re-read his post, you will see that he relates this specificly to the large size of the model, not the fact that he's a character.
Scale is irrelevant. Many models in 40k are not the right size. Try fitting 10 SM in a rhino. Vehicles in general should be a lot bigger.
Oh I'm happy with it, I'm saying he wasn't, and you didn't address it. Just don't throw the wrong explanation at the guy with Are you serious??'s in it. It gets vitriolic in here easily enough as it is already.
Drakmord wrote: When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?
They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?
That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.
Specifically the necron custom dynasty that gives obsec says they count as 2 models if facing another obsec.
Thats what he meant.
Drakmord wrote: When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?
They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?
That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.
Specifically the necron custom dynasty that gives obsec says they count as 2 models if facing another obsec.
Thats what he meant.
This isn't how Obsec or that obsec trait works. If you have 10 Obsec Models, and an opponent has 1 Obsec Model and 11 non Obsec models in range of the objective, they will control the objective. Obsec doesn't compare how many obsec models vs obsec. It compares if there is any obsec models in range. if you both have any number of obsec, then it moves to just how many total models are in range.
The custom dynasty doesn't double how many models you count for obsec, because that doesn't matter, it just counts as double for control of the objective.
CKO wrote: Wait, I am confused so 10 warriors don't count as 20 models?
Okay, let me try to explain this again.
For Objective secured, it doesn't matter how many models you have. If you both have at least 1 model with Obsec in range of the objective it then moves to how many models foro each player are in range for determining control. This is when the already objective secured clause of the rule kicks in, it then counts you as double for control of the objective. So if you have 5 Warriors and they have 6 models, you would then control it.
CKO wrote: Wait, I am confused so 10 warriors don't count as 20 models?
Okay, let me try to explain this again.
For Objective secured, it doesn't matter how many models you have. If you both have at least 1 model with Obsec in range of the objective it then moves to how many models foro each player are in range for determining control. This is when the already objective secured clause of the rule kicks in, it then counts you as double for control of the objective. So if you have 5 Warriors and they have 6 models, you would then control it.
It was never questioned how Objective Secured works, or how the custom Dynasty / Nihilakh work -- the question was, does the improved ObSec given to Warriors and Immortals, by those dynastic rules, become impactful enough to build your list with an emphasis on Troops?
I don't think I can make the question any more clear than this, but if I'm not there yet, it's not worth devoting more posts or page-count to.
I'm weirdly liking Hexmarks as backfield harassers. They seem like lictors. They are infantry as well so still can perform actions.
For that role I first looked at deathmarks but they don't have a large shot volume. Flayed ones are an option but you risk failing the urge and are limited to CC.
Two for 150pts seems like a good investment for engage, homer, and other secondaries.
Drakmord wrote: When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?
They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?
That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.
Specifically the necron custom dynasty that gives obsec says they count as 2 models if facing another obsec. Thats what he meant.
This isn't how Obsec or that obsec trait works. If you have 10 Obsec Models, and an opponent has 1 Obsec Model and 11 non Obsec models in range of the objective, they will control the objective. Obsec doesn't compare how many obsec models vs obsec. It compares if there is any obsec models in range. if you both have any number of obsec, then it moves to just how many total models are in range.
The custom dynasty doesn't double how many models you count for obsec, because that doesn't matter, it just counts as double for control of the objective.
We are not discussing how obsec works, we are discussing the necron specific trait that triggers when its obsec vs obsec....
Under the Dynastic Traditions, Eternal Conquerors reads "Units with this code have the Objective Secured ability (see the Warhammer 40,000 Core book). if a model in such a unit already has this ability, that model counts as one additional model when determining control of an objective marker"
Technically yes its not referring to when it faces other obsec. But that is the ONLY time that bolded bit actually comes into play, so its easier to just say obsec vs obsec.
So our troops count as 2 models if theyre trying to take control of an objective with this code. And if the enemy unit doesnt have obsec, doesnt matter how many there are we get it. If they do, we control it with 2 warriors even if they have 3 obsec troops near it, as we'd count as having 4.
Drakmord wrote: When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?
They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?
That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.
Specifically the necron custom dynasty that gives obsec says they count as 2 models if facing another obsec.
Thats what he meant.
This isn't how Obsec or that obsec trait works. If you have 10 Obsec Models, and an opponent has 1 Obsec Model and 11 non Obsec models in range of the objective, they will control the objective. Obsec doesn't compare how many obsec models vs obsec. It compares if there is any obsec models in range. if you both have any number of obsec, then it moves to just how many total models are in range.
The custom dynasty doesn't double how many models you count for obsec, because that doesn't matter, it just counts as double for control of the objective.
We are not discussing how obsec works, we are discussing the necron specific trait that triggers when its obsec vs obsec....
Under the Dynastic Traditions, Eternal Conquerors reads "Units with this code have the Objective Secured ability (see the Warhammer 40,000 Core book). if a model in such a unit already has this ability, that model counts as one additional model when determining control of an objective marker"
Technically yes its not referring to when it faces other obsec. But that is the ONLY time that bolded bit actually comes into play, so its easier to just say obsec vs obsec.
So our troops count as 2 models if theyre trying to take control of an objective with this code. And if the enemy unit doesnt have obsec, doesnt matter how many there are we get it. If they do, we control it with 2 warriors even if they have 3 obsec troops near it, as we'd count as having 4.
A lot of people misunderstand how obsec works, this happens all the time in games. When you said Obsec Vs Obsec, I needed to be clear, since that is how a lot of people actually thinks it works.
CKO wrote: Wait, I am confused so 10 warriors don't count as 20 models?
Okay, let me try to explain this again.
For Objective secured, it doesn't matter how many models you have. If you both have at least 1 model with Obsec in range of the objective it then moves to how many models foro each player are in range for determining control. This is when the already objective secured clause of the rule kicks in, it then counts you as double for control of the objective. So if you have 5 Warriors and they have 6 models, you would then control it.
It was never questioned how Objective Secured works, or how the custom Dynasty / Nihilakh work -- the question was, does the improved ObSec given to Warriors and Immortals, by those dynastic rules, become impactful enough to build your list with an emphasis on Troops?
I don't think I can make the question any more clear than this, but if I'm not there yet, it's not worth devoting more posts or page-count to.
As I mentioned in my post to Vineheart01 A lot of people don't understand how obsec works, and they way you put it in your first post sounded like the incorrect interruption, so I wanted to ensure that anyone reading it was not confused.
I also responded to your post about the MSU style gameplay in my first post quoting you.
buddha wrote: I'm weirdly liking Hexmarks as backfield harassers. They seem like lictors. They are infantry as well so still can perform actions.
For that role I first looked at deathmarks but they don't have a large shot volume. Flayed ones are an option but you risk failing the urge and are limited to CC.
Two for 150pts seems like a good investment for engage, homer, and other secondaries.
Thoughts?
I like these too, and they also get Ethereal Interception like Deathmarks. I wonder how they compare to Flayed Ones if they both flub on the drop -- say the FO fail their charge or the Hexmark doesn't clear off the objective? Both units are cheap so its not so big of a deal, and the Hexmark at least gets to do some damage, while FO either charge or don't.
I am considering buying a hexmark too, but I don't think you take one to try to clear stuff off objectives, only the very weakest of squads will get wiped by one. What he does do is counter repentia, acolytes, retributors, etc - anything with 1W, T5 or less and a bad save - that relies on coming out of reserves then attacking before dying. Against melee stuff, if you position intelligently you can even bring him in in a place where they have to charge him - so they not only eat his initial volley from the strat, they eat it again on overwatch unless they have a way to turn it off.
buddha wrote: I'm weirdly liking Hexmarks as backfield harassers. They seem like lictors. They are infantry as well so still can perform actions.
For that role I first looked at deathmarks but they don't have a large shot volume. Flayed ones are an option but you risk failing the urge and are limited to CC.
6 weak shots vs 5 slightly killier shots. 6 shots isn't that large shot volume either. Especially when your damage output sucks
I am defending the Ophydian Destroyers, I like the unit most people are dismissing it. We have to take player skill into consideration with our analysis of units. A competitive player and a casual player will get different results if they use these units. I think the Skorpekh unit is easier to use due to its toughness and 3+ save but the Ophydian Destroyers has a purpose.
On the bolded part - again, this applies to all units and is also very difficult to quantify. I'm always wary when people invoke the "git gud" argument because it's not usually backed up by any solid, useful reasoning. On top of that 40k isn't exactly the most tactically complex game so skill difference is often not as important as the difference in power between units. If a unit is just worse than other options, or doesn't fill a niche well no amount of player skill helps it. My primary problem with Ophydians is the lack of durability if they fail that DS charge. Pretty much any army can easily wipe a unit with the Ophydian's defensive profile without much problem so you really need to make that charge.
Ophydian's extra movement is huge because it is a cc unit, 2 inches could mean a 7-inch charge vs a 9-inch charge. Ophidians also have 17 attacks with the chance of exploding 6's vs 11 attacks by the Skorpekhs. With the -1 to hit hordes will hate this unit hitting on 5's. The true purpose of this unit is that they can tunnel up and kill those small units that people like to keep on objectives, you have access to +1 to charge dynasties to make them more effective. A small investment of 105 points for a unit that can pop up and kill stuff is good. ( AP 4 Novokh AP 2 Claws for hordes)
With all that said it still gets a B ish grade. 8 inch charges are not guaranteed and most players have a hard time protecting units
Speaking of player skill, DS is a lot more difficult in 9th if you're playing with the smaller board sizes. It's become quite easy to screen out backfield objective campers simply because the board is small enough that you can often zone out an entire deployment zone without too much effort. Relying on that to make a unit work is a recipe for disaster and then you're back to footslogging across the board at which point the difference in movement between Skorpekhs and Ophydians becomes less of a problem. 2 momvement phases plus an Advance in T1 is going to be enough to get most assault units into a threatening position.
The weapon options are also a bit annoying to me. Units that have two weapons that are each good against different targets are often inefficient because regardless of your target one will be sub-optimal. On top of that, it looks like Flayed Ones, Praetorians and Lychguard are pretty decent melee options for Necrons as well, so I'm not sure where Ophydians fit.
Ophidian Destroyers fit nowhere. 105 points is too much for a throwaway unit. An 8" charge out of DS is still terrible, especially with the new rule being forced to reroll both dice on the Charge reroll. They are also rather large models on large bases. Just no.
If you want something with DS for secondary/action shenanigans, five Flayed Ones for 65 points are hard to beat. The Hexmark is even easier to hide, but 10 points more and a character (which excludes him from some actions).
buddha wrote: I'm weirdly liking Hexmarks as backfield harassers. They seem like lictors. They are infantry as well so still can perform actions.
For that role I first looked at deathmarks but they don't have a large shot volume. Flayed ones are an option but you risk failing the urge and are limited to CC.
6 weak shots vs 5 slightly killier shots. 6 shots isn't that large shot volume either. Especially when your damage output sucks
I think if we start to see a shift from Power armor, these may actually see play. If Sisters start popping up more, they may seem play. They are somewhat decent against Harlequins already.
It could end up being a good piece of tech, but if the meta shifts it won't be used.
Yeah, it is weird it can't ignore look out sir. It wouldn't even be particularly powerful if it could; 6 S6 -1 1D hits aren't going to kill anything, though it could help snipe a last wound or two off something I guess.
The kelemorph is powerful because it has 2D and because it gets extra shots per hit, not per kill.
Vineheart01 wrote: i swear the hexmark was initially revealed as a character sniper. But i dont see such a rule anywhere.
Yeah, it seems more of a chaff / MSU killer than a character killer. Which makes sense, I suppose; Deathmarks already fill the assassin role.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, it is weird it can't ignore look out sir. It wouldn't even be particularly powerful if it could; 6 S6 -1 1D hits aren't going to kill anything, though it could help snipe a last wound or two off something I guess.
The kelemorph is powerful because it has 2D and because it gets extra shots per hit, not per kill.
Against T4 and T3 single wound models it's quite dangerous. If you are planning on using the Hexmark to kill multi-wound models you're using it wrong. Unfortunately, this also means that the Hexmark isn't that efficient against marines, as apparently even non-primaris gets 2W. You can still probably use it to remove some Devastators or something but its not as great as it would have been if marines were still 1W. Good thing Marines aren't the only other army in the game I guess.
Expensive? he costs 75pts for a 6-12shot S6 AP1 18" character protected hitting on 2 with rerolls.
Thats significantly better per point than the 5-6 warriors he costs.
Vineheart01 wrote: Expensive? he costs 75pts for a 6-12shot S6 AP1 18" character protected hitting on 2 with rerolls. Thats significantly better per point than the 5-6 warriors he costs.
Don't forget the super accurate overwatch he gets, meaning that he has some level of charge protection in addition to his not too shabby CC profile. The Hexmark has one job and he's really good at doing it. Don't use him for stuff he isn't meant to kill.
He's a character? I didn't even notice. Not sure how that's going to help him though, as ideally you'd want him behind enemy lines to threaten heavy weapons squads and the like. I guess drop in a unit of flayed ones to screen him and act as an even greater charge deterrent?
Vineheart01 wrote: Expensive? he costs 75pts for a 6-12shot S6 AP1 18" character protected hitting on 2 with rerolls.
Thats significantly better per point than the 5-6 warriors he costs.
Compared to the royal warden I'd say he needs to drop some points. Royal warden shoots better and has a great aura. These 2 units are kinda in competition for best suicide veil character. Hexmark might actually be winning this competion even though I consider him a worse unit for the cost because he is an elite choice. I really can't wait to use the doom stalker stratagem...
Vineheart01 wrote: Expensive? he costs 75pts for a 6-12shot S6 AP1 18" character protected hitting on 2 with rerolls.
Thats significantly better per point than the 5-6 warriors he costs.
Compared to the royal warden I'd say he needs to drop some points. Royal warden shoots better and has a great aura.
Not really?
The Royal Warden is BS3+ that gets no rerolls and can suffer from modifiers. The Relic Gauss Blaster is a good gun, but its more efficient against high armor, multi-wound models than single wound models, which is what the Hexmark is designed to kill.
They both have very different ideal targets and roles. You're comparing apples and oranges here.
Vineheart01 wrote: Expensive? he costs 75pts for a 6-12shot S6 AP1 18" character protected hitting on 2 with rerolls.
Thats significantly better per point than the 5-6 warriors he costs.
Compared to the royal warden I'd say he needs to drop some points. Royal warden shoots better and has a great aura.
Not really?
The Royal Warden is BS3+ that gets no rerolls and can suffer from modifiers. The Relic Gauss Blaster is a good gun, but its more efficient against high armor, multi-wound models than single wound models, which is what the Hexmark is designed to kill.
They both have very different ideal targets and roles. You're comparing apples and oranges here.
Perhaps, I am liking the hexmark more now that I look at him.
Royal Warden stock has gone down significantly, imho. Army wide Fall back and shoot for one turn + defensive Veil should be enough. Shame that he is an HQ.
/edit: If your local meta is full of meta chasers, the Hexmark is obviously pretty good against Harlequins. Kills three Troupe guys/gals per shooting phase, and on Overwatch lol.
Royal warden is an HQ choice, Hexmark is an elite.
Hexmark can be added to any army w/o any real thought to it, the Warden takes a highly contested slot.
And the Warden does not shoot better lol. Personally, i think the Warden is kinda crap except for his fallback aura. If the Warden was an elite i'd justify that comparison, as it would be utility vs pure offense.
Also yeah the hexmark is a character. Meaning he can drop behind a blob of warriors (18" guns are not that short) and give off Protocol auras, since its literally any character long as the noble is on the table.
Drakmord wrote: When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?
To answer your original question, yes, since Necrons can easily get access to objective secured on everything, they can now field unorthodox troopless lists quite effectively and is the direction I plan to take the army initially. Specially ones best around our other shooty core unit, tomb blades and really abusing the 6" pre game move.
Outrider List
Spoiler:
9cp. All Objective Secured. 6"pre-game move. Outrider Detachment.
Contesting objectives should be trivial for the above spoilered list in the early turns, with 12 wraiths, 12 scarabs, 18 tomb blades all zipping around with 6" pre move to grab objectives. The partcile beamer is a real winner on the tomb blade, coming in 5pts cheaper. The trifecta of characters should mulch some opponents with a C'tan Void Dragon, an extremely tank enduring will Voidreaper Catacomb Command Barge and the Skorpekh Lord. The above list lacks serious ranged anti-tank, hence the void dragon over the nightbringer, but really it just needs to crack open transports on objectives and play the mission. If my opponent wants to gunline a few vehicles on the backfield then fine, they can do that.
On the hexmark discussion - I assume the main two points of using him over other deep striking options are:
1) You really want something to drop Gaunlet of Conflagration to clean out a horde blob alongside his pistols.
2) You want to deep strike a character to spread command protocols on turn X.
Royal Warden suffers greatly from being an HQ in a list that is already too stuffed full of HQs that serve a buffing role. He should not take up a slot in any detachment with a NOBLE, and crypteks should probably just be two free per NOBLE too, instead of paying for the first one.
Slipspace wrote: On the bolded part - again, this applies to all units and is also very difficult to quantify. I'm always wary when people invoke the "git gud" argument because it's not usually backed up by any solid, useful reasoning. On top of that 40k isn't exactly the most tactically complex game so skill difference is often not as important as the difference in power between units. If a unit is just worse than other options, or doesn't fill a niche well no amount of player skill helps it. My primary problem with Ophydians is the lack of durability if they fail that DS charge. Pretty much any army can easily wipe a unit with the Ophydian's defensive profile without much problem so you really need to make that charge.
I am a firm believer in the "git gud" argument. I believe in player progress and getting the most out of your units. Every unit in a codex is not going to have an A grade like the Nightbringer. All players should try to "git betta" or you will find yourself constantly blaming your units for the lost. You are correct 40k isn't a tactically complex game but winning requires tactical skills.
I plan on doing strategic videos to show how every unit such as Ophydian Destroyers and Hexmark Destroyers can be used. Will those videos convince people to buy those units maybe not but at least you will know their purpose and most people will be surprised at how efficient some units are.
The part that is in bolded sets a false narrative. Do you know how most players compare options? They look at the stat-line and the weapon profile maybe the rules than judge. Units are like players, your army list is the team, and you are the coach. Some coaches can get more out of there players than others this is the same with 40k. Now some units get a D or F grade and I don't care who the coach is thanks GW!
Slipspace wrote: Speaking of player skill, DS is a lot more difficult in 9th if you're playing with the smaller board sizes. It's become quite easy to screen out backfield objective campers simply because the board is small enough that you can often zone out an entire deployment zone without too much effort. Relying on that to make a unit work is a recipe for disaster and then you're back to footslogging across the board at which point the difference in movement between Skorpekhs and Ophydians becomes less of a problem. 2 momvement phases plus an Advance in T1 is going to be enough to get most assault units into a threatening position.
This is your opinion on deep striking units in general, flayed ones have the same issue right? Extra movement is extra movement, add 2 inches to any unit and see if it will change the community's opinion on that unit.
Slipspace wrote: The weapon options are also a bit annoying to me. Units that have two weapons that are each good against different targets are often inefficient because regardless of your target one will be sub-optimal. On top of that, it looks like Flayed Ones, Praetorians and Lychguard are pretty decent melee options for Necrons as well, so I'm not sure where Ophydians fit.
The cup is half full my friend. Units that have two weapons are always more efficient. Do you like that the Nightbringer has 2 different types of attacks? What about the Skorpekh Lord? Ophydians 6 extra attacks is the equivalent of 2 flayed ones. They fit if you want them to fit. They are a deep striking unit that delivers's Skorpekh Destroyer damage or have enough extra attacks to deal with horde units.
This post is about me defending units who have a B grade. B grade units have weaknesses you have to overcome them. If you don't like that weakness use another option. When you become a better player B units will become viable options for your list. I agree with Slipspace about the majority of the stuff he said about the Ophydians (Except the downplaying of the 10 inch movement and the extra 2 attacks), I believe in players more than powerful units.
I feel that letter grading units is very reductive when trying to advise other players on how good or bad something is.
Saying that a unit is a "B" does not tell you anything about how that unit works -- but you know it's a "B," relative to whatever on the list is an "A." But why is it an "A?" Because everything else on the list "isn't"? There usually are no bounds set within which the letter grades make sense.
If the goal is to show that a unit excels in certain areas, statistical damage output AND use cases are both very useful. Examples of both abound in this thread alone (a Hexmark with a gauntlet sounds really funny and I want to try that at least once) .
With Ophydians, they face tremendous competition in their FOC slot and their general battlefield role. Wraiths are cheaper, faster, and more durable. Praetorians are also cheaper with a better defensive profile, and while they are a bit slower, they have a unique offensive Stratagem to call on and benefit from a good ranged attack as well.
Honestly they remind me of Acanthrites: an interesting offensive profile on a unit that is not well positioned to make use of it.
I think the gimmick of ophydians is their Deep Strike.
Unless I'm mistaken, Wraiths and Praetorians both lost that ability
I am thinking I'll try dropping them in with Flayed Ones and/or a Hexmark, because having that kinda threat pop into being somewhere and then have a large threat bubble from somewhere on a different front to your guns sounds interesting at least.
Regarding the grading system, I guess that's true. But on the other hand, it's a quick information about the viability of a unit/model in the broadest sense, most useful to newer players or people switching armies, or extending their collection. Detailed information about why someone might have given a certain unit a certain grade can normally be found out in minutes, in this day and age.
S: autoinclude or damn near it
A: always useful if taken, plug&play for most lists, requiring little support
B: generally useful, needs list synergies and/or has drawbacks to overcome
C: can be useful if build around it, needs either serious synergies, or has serious drawbacks that can not be circumvented
D and worse: degrees of not worth taking unless for the lolz
Regarding the Royal Warden, I honestly don't get why it is an HQ choice. It's a glorified Immortal with a somewhat decent aura.
Also, on a more petty note, it bugs me that the Royal Warden has 3 attacks but can't get a melee weapon even through a relic; meanwhile Crypteks actually have some half-decent melee weapons but are stuck with 1 attack each.
IHateNids wrote: I think the gimmick of ophydians is their Deep Strike.
Unless I'm mistaken, Wraiths and Praetorians both lost that ability
I am thinking I'll try dropping them in with Flayed Ones and/or a Hexmark, because having that kinda threat pop into being somewhere and then have a large threat bubble from somewhere on a different front to your guns sounds interesting at least.
It would be nice if they had an Ophydian Lord too, but there is something to treating them as Flayed Ones with special weapons.
Drakmord wrote: I feel that letter grading units is very reductive when trying to advise other players on how good or bad something is.
Saying that a unit is a "B" does not tell you anything about how that unit works -- but you know it's a "B," relative to whatever on the list is an "A." But why is it an "A?" Because everything else on the list "isn't"? There usually are no bounds set within which the letter grades make sense.
If the goal is to show that a unit excels in certain areas, statistical damage output AND use cases are both very useful. Examples of both abound in this thread alone (a Hexmark with a gauntlet sounds really funny and I want to try that at least once) .
With Ophydians, they face tremendous competition in their FOC slot and their general battlefield role. Wraiths are cheaper, faster, and more durable. Praetorians are also cheaper with a better defensive profile, and while they are a bit slower, they have a unique offensive Stratagem to call on and benefit from a good ranged attack as well.
Honestly they remind me of Acanthrites: an interesting offensive profile on a unit that is not well positioned to make use of it.
I agree with you on grading units. I think I have a method that will work with my videos, I will be consistent with my criteria and grades. It will generate conversation as some people will feel different about the units. Stats play a role in the grade but it is not the only part.
The primary problem with ophidians is they are a unit that seems designed to charge from reserves, in a book that has no way to get better than an 8" rerollable charge, which is only 65% and therefore not enough to rely on. The other problem is they have a very inefficient split attack profile, with one making S6 4AP 3D attacks, two making S4 3AP 2D attacks, and then all three making more S4 1AP 1D attacks. This means that no matter what you target, some portion of your attacks are going to be ineffective.
They don't kill hordes as well as flayed ones. They don't kill mid-T mid-wound targets as well as skorpekhs. And they don't kill tough stuff very well at all, certainly not as well as spyders. And they evaporate to even basic S4 bolters.
It's a really tough ask to make something like that work. Especially when you have a number of other options in the book that do any particular niche better. They're like a super finicky generalist, and that's not a promising profile in 40k.
vipoid wrote: Regarding the Royal Warden, I honestly don't get why it is an HQ choice. It's a glorified Immortal with a somewhat decent aura.
Also, on a more petty note, it bugs me that the Royal Warden has 3 attacks but can't get a melee weapon even through a relic; meanwhile Crypteks actually have some half-decent melee weapons but are stuck with 1 attack each.
Yeah, for whatever reason GW seem fine with giving Techmarines and even Big Meks ample amounts of attacks with weapon options, but for Necrons, where their technology is far beyond both, are hampered for some bizarre reason in terms of having any reasonable defense or offense in CC. I guess part of it is being both the "psykers/wizards" of the faction as well as the tech-guys, but for the ones who are partly responsible for the bodies they inhabit, they would chosen more sturdy or dangerous forms.
Slipspace wrote: On the bolded part - again, this applies to all units and is also very difficult to quantify. I'm always wary when people invoke the "git gud" argument because it's not usually backed up by any solid, useful reasoning. On top of that 40k isn't exactly the most tactically complex game so skill difference is often not as important as the difference in power between units. If a unit is just worse than other options, or doesn't fill a niche well no amount of player skill helps it. My primary problem with Ophydians is the lack of durability if they fail that DS charge. Pretty much any army can easily wipe a unit with the Ophydian's defensive profile without much problem so you really need to make that charge.
I am a firm believer in the "git gud" argument. I believe in player progress and getting the most out of your units. Every unit in a codex is not going to have an A grade like the Nightbringer. All players should try to "git betta" or you will find yourself constantly blaming your units for the lost. You are correct 40k isn't a tactically complex game but winning requires tactical skills.
So you "git good". So does opponent except he has better unit.
You are basically just aiming noob smashing. But the moment you go out of noob opponents you lose.
If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?
After the unit has concluded its attacks (the latter). E.G. you get shot by a Tactical Squad: they fire their bolters, missile launcher, and flamer - everything they've got - before you roll RP. Rinse & repeat
Is there a condition where "each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes it's attacks...", it makes more attacks in that phase? It is a contradiction in terms.
Edit: also, what's up with the hyperspace hunter key word on the hexmark?
If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?
After the unit has concluded its attacks (the latter). E.G. you get shot by a Tactical Squad: they fire their bolters, missile launcher, and flamer - everything they've got - before you roll RP. Rinse & repeat
Is there a condition where "each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes it's attacks...", it makes more attacks in that phase? It is a contradiction in terms.
Edit: also, what's up with the hyperspace hunter key word on the hexmark?
If an enemy unit gets to then fight again in any way after it has performed it’s normal bunch, namely the type you’re talking about where it specifically says it’s a new bunch of attacks, you roll RP before they make the second lot of attacks then again after the second, to my understanding.
The Hyperspace Hunter keyword is on Hexmarks and the new Hexmarks destroyer dude. Allows them both to take advantage of a strat and maybe some other abilities I’m not aware of.
Slipspace wrote: On the bolded part - again, this applies to all units and is also very difficult to quantify. I'm always wary when people invoke the "git gud" argument because it's not usually backed up by any solid, useful reasoning. On top of that 40k isn't exactly the most tactically complex game so skill difference is often not as important as the difference in power between units. If a unit is just worse than other options, or doesn't fill a niche well no amount of player skill helps it. My primary problem with Ophydians is the lack of durability if they fail that DS charge. Pretty much any army can easily wipe a unit with the Ophydian's defensive profile without much problem so you really need to make that charge.
I am a firm believer in the "git gud" argument. I believe in player progress and getting the most out of your units. Every unit in a codex is not going to have an A grade like the Nightbringer. All players should try to "git betta" or you will find yourself constantly blaming your units for the lost. You are correct 40k isn't a tactically complex game but winning requires tactical skills.
So you "git good". So does opponent except he has better unit.
You are basically just aiming noob smashing. But the moment you go out of noob opponents you lose.
That's basically the point I was trying to make, just done more succinctly
The thing with the lack of tactical depth is that the above remains true in many more scenarios than for a more tactically complex game. Take the DS example I gave. There's not really much player skill in carefully measuring out 9" exclusion zones when you know your opponent can Deep Strike and the smaller board sizes make it even easier to zone out opponents. That's why I pointed that out as a problem with trying to DS Ophydians. It's not really a skill to block them, just an item on a checklist so you're relying either on playing someone who doesn't know about such a basic skill or whose army can't zone out well, which is a pretty bad list in 9th edition given the importance of board control.
Again, I'd love to be wrong about Ophydians because I love the models but I just can't see them fitting in anywhere very well with their current statline and what we know about the options available to them in the Codex.
tneva82 wrote: So you "git good". So does opponent except he has better unit.
You are basically just aiming noob smashing. But the moment you go out of noob opponents you lose
Both armies will have good units, example we have the Nightbringer and Spyders. As far as wins and loses are concerned I am a very hard opponent, regardless of my opponents skill level.
Slipspace wrote: That's basically the point I was trying to make, just done more succinctly
The thing with the lack of tactical depth is that the above remains true in many more scenarios than for a more tactically complex game. Take the DS example I gave. There's not really much player skill in carefully measuring out 9" exclusion zones when you know your opponent can Deep Strike and the smaller board sizes make it even easier to zone out opponents. That's why I pointed that out as a problem with trying to DS Ophydians. It's not really a skill to block them, just an item on a checklist so you're relying either on playing someone who doesn't know about such a basic skill or whose army can't zone out well, which is a pretty bad list in 9th edition given the importance of board control.
Again, I'd love to be wrong about Ophydians because I love the models but I just can't see them fitting in anywhere very well with their current statline and what we know about the options available to them in the Codex.
The reason why my response don't have alot of tactical depth is due to the fact I don't want to type an essay and it be dismissed easily. I could write 3 paragraphs worth of information and someone would follow it up with they can die to bolters so they suck! In this case I have repeatedly told everyone what makes them different but people are to focus on durability and deep striking.
Oddly enough, protecting your units by using their mobility or terrain requires player skill. If you don't have a place to DS, than land in a safe spot where next turn you can use their 10 inch movement to easily get the charge. Do you think they are worried about the believed to be horrible Ophydians when Nightbringer or a unit of 3 spyders are about to be in cc? This type of stuff makes more sense with a visual display thus the reason why I will be making videos.
The reason why my response don't have alot of tactical depth is due to the fact I don't want to type an essay and it be dismissed easily. I could write 3 paragraphs worth of information and someone would follow it up with they can die to bolters so they suck! In this case I have repeatedly told everyone what makes them different but people are to focus on durability and deep striking.
Oddly enough, protecting your units by using their mobility or terrain requires player skill. If you don't have a place to DS, than land in a safe spot where next turn you can use their 10 inch movement to easily get the charge. Do you think they are worried about the believed to be horrible Ophydians when Nightbringer or a unit of 3 spyders are about to be in cc? This type of stuff makes more sense with a visual display thus the reason why I will be making videos.
Ok here is the thing, let's say your opponent is a moron and doesn't screen an important unit and you can DS close you still have a 9" charge to make or they die. Now you can choose your dynasty so this is an 8" charge and spend a command point to reroll, ok so 65% of the time they make it. That still leaves 35% of the time they do absolutely nothing and die to a light breeze. Now let's say your opponent has played a few games before and knows how to screen, your deepstrike can only threaten fodder if it can even land behind the enemy. You then mention that in these situations you DS them somewhere "safe", there won't be safe places for them in the enemy deployment zone or in the mid-field cause all it takes to threaten this unit is bolters and LOS, which leaves you with your deployment zone which is not where you want your melee unit as it's still going to die moving up the field.
Now you mention target saturation with Nightbringer and spyders, yes that will help(I would hope there are other units in the list). But the weapons that are going to target those units aren't the same that are going to shred the Ophydians. Heavy weapons will target those units and light fire from basic troops is all that is needed to handle t4 4+..
CKO wrote: The reason why my response don't have alot of tactical depth is due to the fact I don't want to type an essay and it be dismissed easily.
Uhhh, sure
CKO wrote: This type of stuff makes more sense with a visual display thus the reason why I will be making videos.
Making up hypothetical situations in which Ophydians might conceivably be okay yet are still inferior to other choices isn't exactly a compelling argument. Your entire "if you're a good player you're going to be able to use them well" shtick is, to put it mildly, a little tiresome. Decisions are not made in a vacuum.
Ophydians aren't a bad unit. Anybody who says they're just "bad" is wrong. They do good damage, are fast, and can DS. Unfortunately they're competing against two units that have similar maneuvrability, do similar amounts of damage, but are far more durable. The people saying that they're outclassed by other choices are clearly correct. DS is not really impactful on a dedicated melee unit without being able to reliably make the charge. Yes, you could take the +1 to charge trait, but then you're ignoring far better abilities that will be more widely beneficial across an army. And this argument about how if you're a good player you're going to be able to use them well is just stupid. Ultimately the increased durability of Skorpekhs & Wraiths makes them easier to use & more reliable on the tabletop. It's really that simple.
Ophydians need a rework from the ground up. Even if they drop to let's say 25 points they would not be worth taking unless you build your entire list to revolve around them. I wonder if GW is willing to move on from their BS "datasheets are set in stone" stance.
Magic Eightball says no, so I guess for Ophydians it's better luck in 10th edition.
Acehilator wrote: Ophydians need a rework from the ground up. Even if they drop to let's say 25 points they would not be worth taking unless you build your entire list to revolve around them. I wonder if GW is willing to move on from their BS "datasheets are set in stone" stance.
Magic Eightball says no, so I guess for Ophydians it's better luck in 10th edition.
The ability to advance and charge would help them greatly.
We have a ton of deadly melee units, most of which are pure dedicated melee.
Not a single one has adv+charge or innate reroll charge. So weird. Ophydians are the ones that make the most sense to get those abilities since theyre supposed to be pretty quick.
Even though it bugs me when pure melee units dont have such a rule in general.
We have a ton of deadly melee units, most of which are pure dedicated melee.
Not a single one has adv+charge or innate reroll charge. So weird. Ophydians are the ones that make the most sense to get those abilities since theyre supposed to be pretty quick.
Even though it bugs me when pure melee units dont have such a rule in general.
It would really make sense for them. Advance charge rules can be dangerous in a stratagem because one unit can be too good to have such an ability. Ophydians though...I can't imagine they don't advance ever.
It's a real pity the re-roll charges warlord trait only works on CORE. That would have been extremely helpful here. But yeah, something like that would really help Ophydians.
I'm not super sold on ophidians either, but I don't think the +1T and +1Sv of the Skorpekhs actually makes that much difference. Both units are going to evaporate to heavy weapons if they're exposed.
Acehilator wrote: Ophidian Destroyers fit nowhere. 105 points is too much for a throwaway unit. An 8" charge out of DS is still terrible, especially with the new rule being forced to reroll both dice on the Charge reroll. They are also rather large models on large bases. Just no.
If you want something with DS for secondary/action shenanigans, five Flayed Ones for 65 points are hard to beat. The Hexmark is even easier to hide, but 10 points more and a character (which excludes him from some actions).
I disagree. I think the Ophidians are odd for sure but they definitely have practical uses, albeit very specific.
There simplest use isn't a through away unit, it's a 3 man units that threaten the enemy backfield considering they can DS and even DS again late game. The strongest relic in the book continues to be the veil, but we only get that once.
They definitely are a miss if your looking for a large unit leading the charge, wraiths IMO beat out both skorpehks and Ophidians for that matter. It's hilarious how many folks I keep hearing disregarding wraiths now despite their new 35ppm cost lol. They are for sure the fastest, most flexible and most durable with basically the same quality attacks plus the heroic intervention strat that is nuts.
I think folks need to look at them (Ophidians) as a single unit or 3 tossed into armies for tactical flexibility. 105pts for 9 t4 4+ wounds is not that bad, 9 flayed ones or 9 warriors would cost 117 and are slower even after you alternate deploy them, and much harder to hide/fit anyway.
i'm the type that if the unit isnt auto-lose bad and looks cool, i get it anyway and try to make it work.
Ophydians fall under that category. ~110pts for a distraction isnt a bad idea, just specific.
still think they could use some buffing but unless they literally do nothing (like the sulfur hounds for admech) i'll use them.
Honestly I see more flexibility from them then skorpehks. Most of the games I have seen the skorpehks impress in were with the previous version of reanimation protocols. Currently, they lose out to wraiths as vanguard fighting unit and IMO they REALLY lose out next to praetorians. Most of my lists have a harder time justifying skorpehks if anything.
If Ophydians had the FLY keyword or the wraith's phasing ability they would be an auto include. Necrons need fast jump infantry to perform actions for secondaries and we basically only have Praetorians for it and they don't get any dynasty bonuses.
I think if you really want to use Ophydians they certainly have some utility, they are just undercooked. It's funny how the community can think of a hundred different rules or strats that would fix them already.
As they currently are, I'd only use them as support for Skorpekh's with a Lord. Deep strike them in as the second wave
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: I'm not super sold on ophidians either, but I don't think the +1T and +1Sv of the Skorpekhs actually makes that much difference. Both units are going to evaporate to heavy weapons if they're exposed.
The problem with ophidians is that they die even to good old S4 AP-1 bolter fire, i.e. the most common kind of gun in the game right now. Skorpekhs take less than *half* the damage that ophidians take from this profile.
Also, skorpekhs have a -1 to wound strat, which works against both shooting and melee. This COMPLETELY changes things. Skorpekhs with -1 to wound are essentially immune to S4 fire, for example, and make even anti-tank pretty inefficient for killing them, as even a multi-melta or lascannon is only wounding on 4s.
For those objecting to invulnerable saves on Eldar units based on movement, can I ask how you would suggest improving the resilience of elite Eldar units to put them more in line with Marines?
vipoid wrote: For those objecting to invulnerable saves on Eldar units based on movement, can I ask how you would suggest improving the resilience of elite Eldar units to put them more in line with Marines?
I wouldn't put eldar durability on part with marines. I would give them more ability to strike first.
Advance and charge like harlequins can as standard part of battle focus. I'd also increase the base move of most eldar units by 1 or 2. I'd also increase the range on shuriken weapons...never understood why the more advanced race has shorter range weapons. SC should just be assault 2 24" with Avenger being 30" with 3 shots.
Acehilator wrote: Ophydians need a rework from the ground up. Even if they drop to let's say 25 points they would not be worth taking unless you build your entire list to revolve around them. I wonder if GW is willing to move on from their BS "datasheets are set in stone" stance.
Magic Eightball says no, so I guess for Ophydians it's better luck in 10th edition.
I would auto take a squad of them at 25 points each. They would be incredibly good at that price point.
vipoid wrote: For those objecting to invulnerable saves on Eldar units based on movement, can I ask how you would suggest improving the resilience of elite Eldar units to put them more in line with Marines?
I wouldn't put eldar durability on part with marines. I would give them more ability to strike first.
Advance and charge like harlequins can as standard part of battle focus. I'd also increase the base move of most eldar units by 1 or 2. I'd also increase the range on shuriken weapons...never understood why the more advanced race has shorter range weapons. SC should just be assault 2 24" with Avenger being 30" with 3 shots.
Stuff like that IMO is how you fix eldar.
I agree, every army doesn't need to be as Durable as SM, especially not an army based around T3. There are plenty of other knobs and dials to turn for them.
Acehilator wrote: Ophydians need a rework from the ground up. Even if they drop to let's say 25 points they would not be worth taking unless you build your entire list to revolve around them. I wonder if GW is willing to move on from their BS "datasheets are set in stone" stance.
25 point Ophydians would be wildly undercosted for how much damage and speed that unit puts out. 18 Ophydians for 450 would be ridiculous.
Lets not kid ourselves, Ophydians might fair worst in direct comparisons to Wraiths and Skorpekhs in many situations, but they are an extremely high damage unit.
Acehilator wrote: Ophydians need a rework from the ground up. Even if they drop to let's say 25 points they would not be worth taking unless you build your entire list to revolve around them. I wonder if GW is willing to move on from their BS "datasheets are set in stone" stance.
25 point Ophydians would be wildly undercosted for how much damage and speed that unit puts out. 18 Ophydians for 450 would be ridiculous.
Lets not kid ourselves, Ophydians might fair worst in direct comparisons to Wraiths and Skorpekhs in many situations, but they are an extremely high damage unit.
Their damage is indeed nutts. Has anyone does a legit comparison with damage per point vs varying toughness/save units? My money would probably be on Opyhdians being the highest damage per point option in the dex. That or Reaper warriors.
Praetorians could be contenders. Good shooting and good melee. Tbh I don't think 25 point Ophydians would be any better than 25 point Praetorians are, and nobody is saying they are OP
vipoid wrote: For those objecting to invulnerable saves on Eldar units based on movement, can I ask how you would suggest improving the resilience of elite Eldar units to put them more in line with Marines?
I wouldn't put eldar durability on part with marines. I would give them more ability to strike first.
Advance and charge like harlequins can as standard part of battle focus. I'd also increase the base move of most eldar units by 1 or 2. I'd also increase the range on shuriken weapons...never understood why the more advanced race has shorter range weapons. SC should just be assault 2 24" with Avenger being 30" with 3 shots.
Stuff like that IMO is how you fix eldar.
I think I somehow posted that question in the wrong thread. Not quite sure how I managed that.
Cynista wrote: Praetorians could be contenders. Good shooting and good melee. Tbh I don't think 25 point Ophydians would be any better than 25 point Praetorians are, and nobody is saying they are OP
If you combine shooting and melee. You are probably right. That is 4 str 5 ap-3 flat 2 damage attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: LOL no prob Vipoid.
Any news on release dates for Monolith? Hexmark? Ophydians?
Their damage really isn't "nuts." People need to run the math rather than eyeballing it. For example, against MEQ, skorpekhs do MORE damage than ophydians (5.02 vs 4.88). Skorpekhs also perform better against T5, and far better against T8, which opyidians really can't scratch.
Ophydians do much better than skorpekhs against 1W trash, obviously. But flayed ones do even better than ophydians - 8 flayed ones (1 point less) kill 11.11 GEQ, compared to ophidians' 8.13.
If Ophydians were S5 like skorpekhs, or if you could give all 3 reap-blades, they'd be a real choice mathematically. But they aren't, and you can't, so they really don't have any role that either flayed ones or skorpekhs don't fulfil better 95% of the time.
yukishiro1 wrote: Their damage really isn't "nuts." People need to run the math rather than eyeballing it. For example, against MEQ, skorpekhs do MORE damage than ophydians (5.02 vs 4.88). Skorpekhs also perform better against T5, and far better against T8, which opyidians really can't scratch.
Ophydians do much better than skorpekhs against 1W trash, obviously. But flayed ones do even better than ophydians - 8 flayed ones (1 point less) kill 11.11 GEQ, compared to ophidians' 8.13.
If Ophydians were S5 like skorpekhs, or if you could give all 3 reap-blades, they'd be a real choice mathematically. But they aren't, and you can't, so they really don't have any role that either flayed ones or skorpekhs don't fulfil better 95% of the time.
Yes, people should run the math...
Against MEQ (T4/3+/2W),
Skorpekh Destroyers (unit of 3): 3 attacks at S7 -4AP 3D
8 attacks at S5 -3AP 2D
Normal:
1.56 unsaved wounds at 3 damage
3.46 unsaved wounds at 2 damage
Rad-Wreathed:
1.94 unsaved wounds at 3 damage
3.46 unsaved wounds at 2 damage
Ophydian Destroyers (unit of 3): 3 attacks at S6 -4AP 3D
8 attacks at S4 -3AP 2D
6 attacks at S4 -1AP 1D
Normal:
1.94 unsaved wounds at 3 damage
2.59 unsaved wounds at 2 damage
1.17 unsaved wounds at 1 damage
Rad-Wreathed:
2.43 unsaved wounds at 3 damage
3.46 unsaved wounds at 2 damage
1.56 unsaved wounda at 1 damage
From this, it's pretty easy to say Ophydian do MORE damage to MEQ, even without Rad-Wreathed. I'm sure we can find plenty of scenarios where one unit is better than the other, but I wouldn't write this unit off so easily though.
I feel like people are misunderstanding me. I am going to go back and re-read what I said to make sure I wasn't misleading anyone.
CKO wrote: I am defending the Ophydian Destroyers, I like the unit most people are dismissing it.
When did I say it was better than Skorpekh Destroyers or Wraiths? When did I say DS and charging was a good tactic? I like the unit is not saying the unit is flawless.
CKO wrote: We have to take player skill into consideration with our analysis of units. A competitive player and a casual player will get different results if they use these units.
I get so much whenever I mention player skill. Is there a problem with there being a difference between the guy that flys across the country participating in Grand Tournaments and the guy who plays every other week with a beer in his hand? I am not saying one person has extreme intellect capable of making extraordinary precise decisions to win every game and the other player is incapable of doing this, I am saying one has more experience and puts more effort into the game. Hell, some people can care less about the game or the outcome they just want to have fun and roll the dice. Depending on the response to this post, I may never use the word skill again it is a trigger word in this forum.
CKO wrote: I think the Skorpekh unit is easier to use due to its toughness and 3+ save but the Ophydian Destroyers has a purpose.
I even admitted that Skorpekh destroyers are easier to use therefore better! I said Ophydians have a purpose with their DS ability, and others agree with that point.
CKO wrote: Ophydian's extra movement is huge because it is a cc unit, 2 inches could mean a 7-inch charge vs a 9-inch charge. Ophidians also have 17 attacks with the chance of exploding 6's vs 11 attacks by the Skorpekhs. With the -1 to hit hordes will hate this unit hitting on 5's. The true purpose of this unit is that they can tunnel up and kill those small units that people like to keep on objectives, you have access to +1 to charge dynasties to make them more effective. A small investment of 105 points for a unit that can pop up and kill stuff is good. ( AP 4 Novokh AP 2 Claws for hordes)
This is their purpose, I think Red Corsair agrees with me.
Red Corsair wrote: I disagree. I think the Ophidians are odd for sure but they definitely have practical uses, albeit very specific.
There simplest use isn't a through away unit, it's a 3 man units that threaten the enemy backfield considering they can DS and even DS again late game. The strongest relic in the book continues to be the veil, but we only get that once.
I think folks need to look at them (Ophidians) as a single unit or 3 tossed into armies for tactical flexibility. 105pts for 9 t4 4+ wounds is not that bad, 9 flayed ones or 9 warriors would cost 117 and are slower even after you alternate deploy them, and much harder to hide/fit anyway.
Do you think it is a coincidence that we both mentioned the ability to pop up for 105 points is at a minimum viable due to flexibility?
CKO wrote: With all that said it still gets a B ish grade. 8 inch charges are not guaranteed and most players have a hard time protecting units
I gave it a slightly above average unit grade. Why do I feel like I am being attacked because of that? A unit that can potentially kill 5 Primaris marines in one charge is never bad especially when they cost only 5 more points than the marines. I know they have a difficult 8-9 inch charge if you deep strike them and they can die to bolter fire I posted it. Identifying the weakness of the unit doesn't end my evaluation of a unit it is part of it
I didn't glorify the unit I simply was telling people its purpose. I agree, an extra rule such as fly or can charge after advancing would be nice but we have to take what we can get.
From this, it's pretty easy to say Ophydian do MORE damage to MEQ, even without Rad-Wreathed. I'm sure we can find plenty of scenarios where one unit is better than the other, but I wouldn't write this unit off so easily though.
But they don't. MEQ have two wounds. Skorpekhs come out very marginally ahead, though it's effectively equal. The point is that, contrary to the claims of others in the thread, they actually don't do much more damage than skorpekhs against hardly anything except 1W models. The difference is very marginal against other profiles, except for the ones that skorpekhs are significantly better at, namely T5 and T8.
If you want to talk about rad-wreathed go for it, I can't imagine why I'd ever, ever take it as opposed to ob-sec on everything. But if you want to run things that way they are less clearly worse than skorpekhs.
Obviously against 1W targets Ophydians do more damage, as I noted above. But again, flayed ones do even more.
From this, it's pretty easy to say Ophydian do MORE damage to MEQ, even without Rad-Wreathed. I'm sure we can find plenty of scenarios where one unit is better than the other, but I wouldn't write this unit off so easily though.
But they don't. MEQ have two wounds. Skorpekhs come out very marginally ahead, though it's effectively equal. The point is that, contrary to the claims of others in the thread, they actually don't do much more damage than skorpekhs against hardly anything except 1W models. The difference is very marginal against other profiles, except for the ones that skorpekhs are significantly better at, namely T5 and T8.
If you want to talk about rad-wreathed go for it, I can't imagine why I'd ever, ever take it as opposed to ob-sec on everything. But if you want to run things that way they are less clearly worse than skorpekhs.
Obviously against 1W targets Ophydians do more damage, as I noted above. But again, flayed ones do even more.
Skorpekh do 5.02 that do 2 damage or more, so around 5 MEQ dead. Ophydian do 4.53, so also around 5 MEQ dead as well (depending how you round it). And an additional wound from their other attack. Of course, these are all averages so it's not perfect.
Well, if you're thinking of running melee units, people tend to look at Novokh as the go to dynasty. I'd argue that the 6" free move and Rad-Wreathed would be better, which is why I mentioned it.
In 9th every army needs both shooting and melee, you're going to flop pretty hard without significant ability to do both. I think ob-sec on all + 6" movement is the clear competitive choice right now, with maybe an argument to be made for sautekh in certain lists for the good characters.
But I am fine with saying ophydians and skorpekhs are essentially equal in terms of damage output vs MEQ, in fact that was my point. They aren't the crazy damage dealers people are making them out to be. They're more or less the same as skorpekhs against most of the things you'd want to run them into, while being much, much squishier.
What's everyone's thoughts on the best C'tan power to choose?
Been building lists with the Nightbringer and haven't come to a conclusion about what ability I should go for.
I've been leaning towards either Antimatter Meteor or Sky of falling stars.
I was leaning towards meteor for the consistent 3 mws but I just realized you don't need LOS for falling stars so now I'm leaning in that direction. What does the Hive Mind think?
Probably transdimensional thunderbolt, just because it's always useful. Especially since the bounce can hit characters, who are already terrified of your gaze.
Falling stars is kinda junk against MSU / vehicle lists, and anti-matter meteor isn't targetable which really limits its effectiveness.
Cosmic fire is great as a swap if you get into melee with a blob, but I probably wouldn't take it from the start.
yukishiro1 wrote: In 9th every army needs both shooting and melee, you're going to flop pretty hard without significant ability to do both. I think ob-sec on all + 6" movement is the clear competitive choice right now, with maybe an argument to be made for sautekh in certain lists for the good characters.
But I am fine with saying ophydians and skorpekhs are essentially equal in terms of damage output vs MEQ, in fact that was my point. They aren't the crazy damage dealers people are making them out to be. They're more or less the same as skorpekhs against most of the things you'd want to run them into, while being much, much squishier.
Yeah, I agree that ObSec/6" will be the go-to. With how restricting protocols are, I'm tempted to just give it up and run 2 different dynasties. ObSec/6" in one, and Rad-Wreathed/6" in another. Rad-Wreathed is just interesting because of the breakpoints on our fast, melee units. Wraiths wound MEQ on 2s and Scarabs wound GEQ on 3s.
And I don't plan on running either of those units, to be honest. Wraiths just seem like the all around balanced option at 35ppm. Less killy, but better survivability, mobility, and fall back and charge. And with the free 6" move, they're almost guaranteed to land a charge first turn.
Forgoing protocols is 100% interesting. You can probably ditch Nobles while you are at it and just run a Skorpekh Lord and a bunch of Crypteks.
But Mephrit and Novokh are not be underestimated. The latter might be really interesting for people who are playing in harder local metas or are in parts of the world where tournaments are happening. You got to be prepared for Harlequins, and your average Necron list won't be.
Since the DDA and the new Doomstalker are super swingy in their shots and damage, what would be a fair change to make them more consistent? I know GW won't change them anytime soon but could there be a fair change for them so they'd be more fun to play with and against in casual games?
I am planning on trying out one blob of 5, maybe 6 skorpekhs and a lord, because the -1 to wound stratagem is amazing and the lord is a pain to get rid of with the -1D trait and living metal, but I don't think more than one unit of them makes a lot of sense. The -1 to wound stratagem is what makes them work, and you can only do that on one thing a phase.
I am torn on wraiths, because they don't actually really much only hitting on 4s, and at that point, I feel like scarabs can do a similar role for half the points.
epaemil wrote: Since the DDA and the new Doomstalker are super swingy in their shots and damage, what would be a fair change to make them more consistent? I know GW won't change them anytime soon but could there be a fair change for them so they'd be more fun to play with and against in casual games?
I really thought they were changing DDA to 2D3 or D3+3, similar to how they handled the Doomscythe.
Doomscythe went from D3 shots D6 damage to 3 shots D3+3 damage.
epaemil wrote: Since the DDA and the new Doomstalker are super swingy in their shots and damage, what would be a fair change to make them more consistent? I know GW won't change them anytime soon but could there be a fair change for them so they'd be more fun to play with and against in casual games?
For just playing garagehammer with mates? Flat 3 shots, flat 3 damage. Actually comes out slightly worse in both cases mathematically, but addresses the frustration.
Acehilator wrote: Forgoing protocols is 100% interesting. You can probably ditch Nobles while you are at it and just run a Skorpekh Lord and a bunch of Crypteks.
This is exactly what I'm going to do. Well, probably only one Skorpekh Lord and one Cryptek. I'm tempted by the CCB because it looks excellent at 150 points, but then it has to be the Warlord which is irritating
At first I thought they sounded good. However, on reflection, it seems like they're still pretty bad on the units you'd want them for. Especially since you're hoping that your opponent kills enough models to make the Orb worthwhile (e.g. you need at least 3 dead Destroyers to get even even a single one back on average dice), but not enough to just kill the entire unit. Seems pretty awkward in terms of timing.
IMO, the big edge up Wraiths have on every other melee unit is how consistent they are at getting into CC on turn 1. The deployment gap is <= 24" (varies), and wraiths have base 12" move + 6" free + 1" (if running protocols). With 19" move, you're only looking at a 5" charge to get into the enemy deployment zone when the gap is 24".
They won't be killing as much as our other options (unit of 3 kills 2.66 MEQ), but they'll be tying things up in the enemy deployment zone, while the rest of your army takes mid field.
Though, my current list/strat in progress is a 20 warrior reaper bomb with Technomancer to give the follow up Canoptek (wraiths/scarabs) units +1 to hit. It'll be a lot for your opponent to deal with on turn 1.
Rez Orb (with Orb of Eternity upgrade) is autoinclude when running 2x 20 Warriors (or 2x 10 Immortals) and upwards. You are going to be able to use it on one of those units in T2/T3. If not, you are either winning comfortably or got stomped, and the 30 points invested in something else wouldn't have changed anything either.
If you want to bring a Destroyer back, buy the Cryptek Arcana (pretty much also autoinclude when running Destroyers).
Anyone know what the point of the canoptek cloak is for the technomancer? Since he can only res core units, none of them are particularly fast. The fast units tend to be the canoptek units but they would prefer the cryptek to take the control node.
So I'm just wondering is this a wargear that has a bitching cool model but will never see any play? Or am I missing something?
A rez orb is good if you take a 20-man warrior or flayed one squad, otherwise I am not sold on them. You only need to raise 3 warriors to make your points back, which is 8.5 warriors or 9 flayed ones dead, which is realistic with a 20 man squad, but not with any 10-man squad.
The relic is interesting primarily because it opens up 10 man squads as worth using it on, which means you can rez lycheguard. If for some weird reason you actually take a 10-man lycheguard squad, and if you assume 1CP = 25 points, using it on a squad that's lost 4 or more models will break even, which starts to feel plausible.
I still don't think it's very good except if you run a 20-man squad though. And even then, there's a solid argument for just taking more stuff and having more flexibility.
yukishiro1 wrote: A rez orb is good if you take a 20-man warrior or flayed one squad, otherwise I am not sold on them. You only need to raise 3 warriors to make your points back, which is 8.5 warriors or 9 flayed ones dead, which is realistic with a 20 man squad, but not with any 10-man squad.
The relic is interesting primarily because it opens up 10 man squads as worth using it on, which means you can rez lycheguard. If for some weird reason you actually take a 10-man lycheguard squad, and if you assume 1CP = 25 points, using it on a squad that's lost 4 or more models will break even, which starts to feel plausible.
I still don't think it's very good except if you run a 20-man squad though. And even then, there's a solid argument for just taking more stuff and having more flexibility.
The thing is, Warriors are the models I have the least interest in bringing back. So if that's all Resurrection Orbs can be expected to help with, I'd rather just ditch them entirely and instead put those points towards units that are actually useful.
We'd be looking seriously at the res orb if Lychguard were better, like d3 warscythes & 5++ or something. Because then you'd have a valuable target to use it on
If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?
After the unit has concluded its attacks (the latter). E.G. you get shot by a Tactical Squad: they fire their bolters, missile launcher, and flamer - everything they've got - before you roll RP. Rinse & repeat
Is there a condition where "each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes it's attacks...", it makes more attacks in that phase? It is a contradiction in terms.
Edit: also, what's up with the hyperspace hunter key word on the hexmark?
If an enemy unit gets to then fight again in any way after it has performed it’s normal bunch, namely the type you’re talking about where it specifically says it’s a new bunch of attacks, you roll RP before they make the second lot of attacks then again after the second, to my understanding.
The Hyperspace Hunter keyword is on Hexmarks and the new Hexmarks destroyer dude. Allows them both to take advantage of a strat and maybe some other abilities I’m not aware of.
That's a good point... I'd think that may need clarity. But that's an edge case. In general I don't think it is at all confusing.
Unfortunately, paying 3CP to take something that doesn't get dynasty bonuses, has no invuln save, and has 0 AP on its shots is...well...yeah. You're going to make somebody's eradicators very, very happy.
Well, at least it not just us this time. I know that Necrons 8th Ed outright said it itself, and I am not sure if anyone else's did, silver linings I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Follow-up thought, can you still take a LoW in a Supreme Command? Thinking a bunch of extra nobles or crypteks and a Monolith?
Well, at least it not just us this time. I know that Necrons 8th Ed outright said it itself, and I am not sure if anyone else's did, silver linings I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Follow-up thought, can you still take a LoW in a Supreme Command? Thinking a bunch of extra nobles or crypteks and a Monolith?
Nope because Supreme Command changed to be only 1 slot (hq or low) and its restricted to Primarchs, Daemon Primarchs, or Supreme Commanders.
So we can run Silent King easily enough but not the other LoWs.
Its mega stupid. Probably one of the biggest things about 9th that pisses me off. GW seems to think LoWs are insanely powerful and need built in nerf rules to prevent them from being ridiculous. When in fact 90% of them are hot garbage even w/o the extra taxes GW puts on them.
You could run 1 Obelisk, 1 Monolith and the Silent King. Silent King gives you CP back from the detachment. And then your Monolith gives away the Titanic-killing secondary objective VPs.
I don't like it because it doesn't do well against -1 bolters and eradicators melta shots. If you get to them quickly and tie them down it can work. If they deploy properly with screens you will have a hard time dealing with anti-tank weapons which are good against both of your wraiths and spyder units.
yukishiro1 wrote: A rez orb is good if you take a 20-man warrior or flayed one squad, otherwise I am not sold on them. You only need to raise 3 warriors to make your points back, which is 8.5 warriors or 9 flayed ones dead, which is realistic with a 20 man squad, but not with any 10-man squad.
The relic is interesting primarily because it opens up 10 man squads as worth using it on, which means you can rez lycheguard. If for some weird reason you actually take a 10-man lycheguard squad, and if you assume 1CP = 25 points, using it on a squad that's lost 4 or more models will break even, which starts to feel plausible.
I still don't think it's very good except if you run a 20-man squad though. And even then, there's a solid argument for just taking more stuff and having more flexibility.
The thing is, Warriors are the models I have the least interest in bringing back. So if that's all Resurrection Orbs can be expected to help with, I'd rather just ditch them entirely and instead put those points towards units that are actually useful.
Use it for destroyers instead. If you resurrect just one that's enough to cover the orb's cost, and statistically speaking you need 4 dead destroyers to get at least one back.
If you use a reanimator you'll get more back.
Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll wrote: You could run 1 Obelisk, 1 Monolith and the Silent King. Silent King gives you CP back from the detachment. And then your Monolith gives away the Titanic-killing secondary objective VPs.
Unfortunately he doesnt. Thats a Knight-specific thing only to refund the superheavy cp.
Like i said, 90% of the LoWs are blocked by an insanely high tax for no reason.
Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll wrote: You could run 1 Obelisk, 1 Monolith and the Silent King. Silent King gives you CP back from the detachment. And then your Monolith gives away the Titanic-killing secondary objective VPs.
Unfortunately he doesnt. Thats a Knight-specific thing only to refund the superheavy cp.
Like i said, 90% of the LoWs are blocked by an insanely high tax for no reason.
Doesnt he give you CP for taking him as a Supreme Commander?
IHateNids wrote: Doesnt he give you CP for taking him as a Supreme Commander?
He gives +3 CP for being the Warlord, and he has to be the Warlord anyways because of the Royal Court special rule.
Regarding dropping troops, not worth it imho. You need objective sitters and units for actions anyways. If you are not hot on troops, take 3x 5 Immortals and call it a day.
Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll wrote: You could run 1 Obelisk, 1 Monolith and the Silent King. Silent King gives you CP back from the detachment. And then your Monolith gives away the Titanic-killing secondary objective VPs.
Red Corsair wrote: So I can't be the only person thinking of dropping our troops entirely right?
With the obsec trait I am not really seeing much point in battalions for that reason. Too expensive on the requirements.
Obsec + 6" pregame move and just field all the gravy lol.
This is absolutely an option! Our codex is full of synergy and buffs and you will have extra points to make the list gel even better if you go that route.
yukishiro1 wrote: A rez orb is good if you take a 20-man warrior or flayed one squad, otherwise I am not sold on them. You only need to raise 3 warriors to make your points back, which is 8.5 warriors or 9 flayed ones dead, which is realistic with a 20 man squad, but not with any 10-man squad.
The relic is interesting primarily because it opens up 10 man squads as worth using it on, which means you can rez lycheguard. If for some weird reason you actually take a 10-man lycheguard squad, and if you assume 1CP = 25 points, using it on a squad that's lost 4 or more models will break even, which starts to feel plausible.
I still don't think it's very good except if you run a 20-man squad though. And even then, there's a solid argument for just taking more stuff and having more flexibility.
The thing is, Warriors are the models I have the least interest in bringing back. So if that's all Resurrection Orbs can be expected to help with, I'd rather just ditch them entirely and instead put those points towards units that are actually useful.
Use it for destroyers instead. If you resurrect just one that's enough to cover the orb's cost, and statistically speaking you need 4 dead destroyers to get at least one back.
Surely it's 3 Destroyers to average one back, unless they've gone up in wounds?
Regardless, my original point was that 3-4 dead destroyers translates to losing most of the unit. In that case, isn't it more likely that your opponent will just finish it off before your turn?
I think he was under the impression that taking the SK would refund your CP, which isn't how it works. You only get the refund (for a patrol, bat or brigade) when you take the Silent King in a Supreme Command Detachment, which is a 1-unit detachment, not if you take him in any other super-heavy detachment.
Regardless, my original point was that 3-4 dead destroyers translates to losing most of the unit. In that case, isn't it more likely that your opponent will just finish it off before your turn?
Yeah, and why it isn't worth taking an orb except to use on big warrior/flayed one blobs. Also keep in mind that anything 3W or more will get wiped out typically without a single one of them rezzing normally, from plink damage. So it's not only riskier to try rezzing that unit, it'll also evaporate a lot more quickly than a 20-man blob, which realistically cannot be wiped in a single volley and therefore will actually be more like a 26-man blob for the amount of damage they'd need to do to kill it before you can use your rez orb.
whenever I mention player skill. Is there a problem with there being a difference between the guy that flys across the country participating in Grand Tournaments and the guy who plays every other week with a beer in his hand? I am not saying one person has extreme intellect capable of making extraordinary precise decisions to win every game and the other player is incapable of doing this, I am saying one has more experience and puts more effort into the game. Hell, some people can care less about the game or the outcome they just want to have fun and roll the dice. Depending on the response to this post, I may never use the word skill again it is a trigger word in this forum.
