As the 9th edition thread has now been closed, thought I'd start a new thread for the rumours and discussion on the new Necron Codex and releases.
So, what we know so far, as far as I recall:
Codex release in October
Confirmed new models:
The Silent King
Monolith
The Void Dragon
Scenery Kit
Lokhust Heavy Destroyer
Doomstalker
There is also what looks like a new single character model just behind and to the left of the Monolith on the leaked (and then officially released) Necron group photo from a while back.
Based on the recent Warhammer Community post here (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/28/beyond-indomitus-top-5-tips-for-expanding-your-necrons/) , sounds like the Skorpekh Destroyers are only going to be available as the easy to build versions in the starter sets for a while (it specifically mentions the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer as coming soon but just says you can get the Skorpekh Destroyers in the starter sets), I guess that also leaves the question over the Skorpekh Destroyer Lord as an individual release and whether the standard Lokhust Destroyers will get a new release (as they will be about the last remaining "green rod" model, it seems likely, possibly the same kit as the Heavy Destroyer).
Overread wrote: I think that aongle character model is the ranged or alternate weapon version of the new three legged destroyer models
I'm not sure, doesn't look quite right to me, and I get the impression that the Destroyers are going to be split into the ranged Lokhusts (floaty) and the close combat Skorpekhs (legs).
Article only specifically mentions lokhust heavy destroyer even showing picture. No word whatsoever about their lords. Only lords they mention is even more so than when in the presence of both their Lords for re-rolls on hit and wound rolls of 1. but there's already skorpek destroyer lord and destroyer lord. Risky business to start assuming there's another lord kit released when there's been no picture or even rumour of one.
Article only specifically mentions lokhust heavy destroyer even showing picture. No word whatsoever about their lords. Only lords they mention is even more so than when in the presence of both their Lords for re-rolls on hit and wound rolls of 1. but there's already skorpek destroyer lord and destroyer lord. Risky business to start assuming there's another lord kit released when there's been no picture or even rumour of one.
Ah yes, you're right, misread it and thought it was the Lord not the Heavy Destroyer.
The Canoptek Reanimator style machine with a gun (most likely a dual kit with the Reanimator)
Absolutely not a dual kit. While they look very similar, the Doomstalker is significantly bigger.
Why do you think that, has there been more info? Looking at the photo it seems to be on the same size base as the Reanimator (based on the nearby Plasmancer and Destroyer which I assume are on 32 and 50 mm bases) and therefore looks to be roughly the same size.
Given the substantial size differences I cannot see the canoptek reanimator and Canoptek Doomstalker being a dual kit. It would be like a Knight and dreadnought being a dual kit.
From what we know, there is also the as yet unidentified model from the big image that came out early on who was hiding behind the monolith. There are rumours of a Skorpekh cryptek model as well. We must presume that the destroyer Lord will get a revamp to bring them in line with the updated Lokhust Destroyers.
I'm still holding out hope for revamped flayed ones too.
The Canoptek Reanimator style machine with a gun (most likely a dual kit with the Reanimator)
Absolutely not a dual kit. While they look very similar, the Doomstalker is significantly bigger.
Necronmaniac05 wrote:Given the substantial size differences I cannot see the canoptek reanimator and Canoptek Doomstalker being a dual kit. It would be like a Knight and dreadnought being a dual kit.
From what we know, there is also the as yet unidentified model from the big image that came out early on who was hiding behind the monolith. There are rumours of a Skorpekh cryptek model as well. We must presume that the destroyer Lord will get a revamp to bring them in line with the updated Lokhust Destroyers.
I'm still holding out hope for revamped flayed ones too.
What picture are you guys basing this size difference off? Because from what I see.. there isn't any really, maybe different leg configuration change the height but the torso and faces etc look basically same.
GenRifDrake wrote: What picture are you guys basing this size difference off? Because from what I see.. there isn't any really, maybe different leg configuration change the height but the torso and faces etc look basically same.
Same here, looking at the GW version of the leaked photo, it looks like the upper leg section of the Doomstalker are more upright than the Reanimator which might add half an inch to an inch to the height, but other than that they appear to be the same size, and the models are so similar it would be odd if they just made a big and small version of almost exactly the same thing.
The walker with the cannon might look taller too beacuse the gun segment sticks way out of the top. I too figure it will be a duel kit with the reanimator push fit likely going into a getting started set.
The Canoptek Reanimator style machine with a gun (most likely a dual kit with the Reanimator)
Absolutely not a dual kit. While they look very similar, the Doomstalker is significantly bigger.
Necronmaniac05 wrote:Given the substantial size differences I cannot see the canoptek reanimator and Canoptek Doomstalker being a dual kit. It would be like a Knight and dreadnought being a dual kit.
From what we know, there is also the as yet unidentified model from the big image that came out early on who was hiding behind the monolith. There are rumours of a Skorpekh cryptek model as well. We must presume that the destroyer Lord will get a revamp to bring them in line with the updated Lokhust Destroyers.
I'm still holding out hope for revamped flayed ones too.
What picture are you guys basing this size difference off? Because from what I see.. there isn't any really, maybe different leg configuration change the height but the torso and faces etc look basically same.
This is the image we meant.
Spoiler:
Looks like some very big differences in just about every aspect. The head is way more inward. The legs are spread out more and longer and the base is way wider.
It is a different design, but it only look bigger on the first photo because of perspective distortion in the photo. Just the same as how the Silent King looks smaller because he is further back. Plius the cannon version is on a raised terrain feature
Even if it is not a duel kit, which would be surperising, they are clearly the same size classcand overallvdesign as each other.
Different base size sure but the leg configuration is different is why, could still easily be a dual-kit with such a similiar torso, just the Doomstalker has 1 leg configuration/setup, the Reanimator another and that'll dictate the base.
Having seen the second picture with the white background now, they are more different than I thought, and it's definitely a bigger base. I do have to agree that the Doomstalker looks bigger, the apparent thickness of the cables on the lower leg in the picture gives a clue, as I imagine they're actually a similar thickness. The painting gives a clue as well.
So yep, probably not a dual kit, unless the standard version of the Reanimator is larger than the ETB version, but don't believe GW has ever done that before (other than very slight differences).
Other option is that you can make both in the Doomstalker kit, and the reanimator version in Indomitus is a bit smaller for reasons.
Being slightly cynical, I'd sort of be hoping the codex completely re-does the reanimator, which doesn't seem on the cards.
Just seems a shame that such a cool model is reduced to "more expensive cryptek with no character defence".
Overread wrote: It is a different design, but it only look bigger on the first photo because of perspective distortion in the photo. Just the same as how the Silent King looks smaller because he is further back. Plius the cannon version is on a raised terrain feature
Even if it is not a duel kit, which would be surperising, they are clearly the same size classcand overallvdesign as each other.
The hip and leg structure is totally different, basically anything above the waist is similar at best, albeit shorter on the reanimator, the doomstalker has an extended torso with elevated plates and a shorter neck. There is no clear gun mount on reanimators chin either.
Add in the fact they're both easy to build and I'd hazard a guess they're almost a dead certain to be different kits.
They had them side by side in the video when the Doomstalker and Lokhust destroyers were initially unveiled. The Doomstalker is much taller than the reanimator.
GenRifDrake wrote: Different base size sure but the leg configuration is different is why, could still easily be a dual-kit with such a similiar torso, just the Doomstalker has 1 leg configuration/setup, the Reanimator another and that'll dictate the base.
Yes, clearly this is a dual kit where only the base, the legs, the torso, the head and the weapons are different and all of the remaining 0 pieces are shared between the models.
Sasori wrote: They had them side by side in the video when the Doomstalker and Lokhust destroyers were initially unveiled. The Doomstalker is much taller than the reanimator.
GenRifDrake wrote: Different base size sure but the leg configuration is different is why, could still easily be a dual-kit with such a similiar torso, just the Doomstalker has 1 leg configuration/setup, the Reanimator another and that'll dictate the base.
Yes, clearly this is a dual kit where only the base, the legs, the torso, the head and the weapons are different and all of the remaining 0 pieces are shared between the models.
Have an exalt.
Though I do believe the head actually is interchangeable
Sasori wrote: They had them side by side in the video when the Doomstalker and Lokhust destroyers were initially unveiled. The Doomstalker is much taller than the reanimator.
I found what you were talking about.
Spoiler:
Yep, that's it.
They've also already said that the Doomstalker is an Easy to build kit in the same article, I would not be suprised if many of the new units from the Necron range stay ETB permanently.
Article only specifically mentions lokhust heavy destroyer even showing picture. No word whatsoever about their lords. Only lords they mention is even more so than when in the presence of both their Lords for re-rolls on hit and wound rolls of 1. but there's already skorpek destroyer lord and destroyer lord. Risky business to start assuming there's another lord kit released when there's been no picture or even rumour of one.
Ah yes, you're right, misread it and thought it was the Lord not the Heavy Destroyer.
Whether of the Skorpekh or Lokhust variety, Destroyers work exceptionally well in conjunction with one another – even more so than when in the presence of both their Lords for re-rolls on hit and wound rolls of 1.
So Lokhust Destroyer Lords have been confirmed as the sentence is talking about Skorpekh and Lokhust variety of Destroyers.
Good job reading more than what was said. All it said destroyer lords plural. We already have 2 destroyer lords. That's like reading there's going to be light, medium, normal and heavy intercessors when intercessors were announced.
tneva82 wrote: Good job reading more than what was said. All it said destroyer lords plural. We already have 2 destroyer lords. That's like reading there's going to be light, medium, normal and heavy intercessors when intercessors were announced.
And what does the sentence say at the very beginning?
I think Lokhust destroyers is now just the name for the floating type of Destroyer, rather than a new type, though I would hope that GW would update all the old Destroyer types in one go, rather than having a mix of old and new styles, so I would think a Lokhust Destroyer Lord is likely, maybe even made out of the same kit as the Heavy Destroyer.
You're making an assumption that Lokhust isn't just the new name for the normal Destroyer, despite Lokhust obviously referring to the hover Destroyers.
lord_blackfang wrote: You're making an assumption that Lokhust isn't just the new name for the normal Destroyer, despite Lokhust obviously referring to the hover Destroyers.
No. I've always assumed that the 'normal' Destroyers would have their fluff retconned to make them Lokhust Destroyers. I use the term 'normal' Destroyers to differentiate them from the new models and rules, much as GW seems to be doing. So while the 'normal' Destroyer Lord has the fluff of a Lokhust Destroyer Lord, it has neither the new rules or model of the Lokhust Destroyer Lord.
Seeing there has been no official word of lokhust destroyer lord or new model or even rumour/leaked pic not quaranteed. Gw isn't bottomless pool of releases particularly for npc factions. This is already abnormal.
Only destroyer thing we know is coming is lokhust heavy destroyer. Non-heavy isn't quaranteed either.
And if you pull green rod arqument phasing out something in stages isn't uncommon at all for gw. Great finecast purge where faction gets all removed has been told to be sure many times already for example.
Since it appears that GW still has Destroyers in stock, it's to their advantage to keep quiet on any new Lokhust Destroyers until they're ready to be released. Personally I'm expecting the old Destroyers to go on Last Chance to Buy (if they don't just disappear) in late August or early October.
Ghaz wrote: Since it appears that GW still has Destroyers in stock, it's to their advantage to keep quiet on any new Lokhust Destroyers until they're ready to be released. Personally I'm expecting the old Destroyers to go on Last Chance to Buy (if they don't just disappear) in late August or early October.
Does any company pull a product due to be updated months before its updated?
So we'll have "Lokhust Destroyers", "Skorpekh Destroyers", and normal "Destroyers." But the "Lokhust" and normal destroyers will both be floaty-shooty-bois? Seems redundant.
chaos0xomega wrote: Per WarComs facebook comments, Lokhust Destroyers are not a replacement for the Destroyers we have now, but a separate unit entirely.
chaos0xomega wrote: Per WarComs facebook comments, Lokhust Destroyers are not a replacement for the Destroyers we have now, but a separate unit entirely.
BilboSwaggins wrote: So we'll have "Lokhust Destroyers", "Skorpekh Destroyers", and normal "Destroyers." But the "Lokhust" and normal destroyers will both be floaty-shooty-bois? Seems redundant.
That Warhammer Community facebook thread that references the precedent set by classic marines and primaris marines I think holds true for Necron destroyers or any legacy models/units for any faction for that matter. GW has no financial reason to just trash existing stock if they think they can sell it. As an example, GW is not trashing classic marine kits in favor of the updated and arguably superior rules wise Primaris versions. It is obvious on its face that GW is trying to sunset older kits in a way that doesn't anger longtime customers by instantly making their legacy models obsolete while at the same time giving those same customers a possibly compelling reason to buy the new kits.
Ghaz wrote: Since it appears that GW still has Destroyers in stock, it's to their advantage to keep quiet on any new Lokhust Destroyers until they're ready to be released. Personally I'm expecting the old Destroyers to go on Last Chance to Buy (if they don't just disappear) in late August or early October.
Does any company pull a product due to be updated months before its updated?
Warriors (and the Start Collecting box?) disappeared from the web store a few weeks before the Indomitus pre-order date.
WarCom is still technically correct (Lokhust Destroyers are not in the current codex but will be in the next, ergo new unit) even if they're just renamed old Destroyers.
lord_blackfang wrote: WarCom is still technically correct (Lokhust Destroyers are not in the current codex but will be in the next, ergo new unit) even if they're just renamed old Destroyers.
Yep, this exactly. These being an entirely new unit doesn't preclude the old unit from being removed.
I'm just wondering honestly if this means classic flavour destroyer lords are being given a gun, given the floating ones are being relegated to shooty destroyers now (Even though being a jump unit makes more sense for getting in fast, and stable tripod legs make more sense for bracing a gun.)
lord_blackfang wrote: You're making an assumption that Lokhust isn't just the new name for the normal Destroyer, despite Lokhust obviously referring to the hover Destroyers.
No. I've always assumed that the 'normal' Destroyers would have their fluff retconned to make them Lokhust Destroyers. I use the term 'normal' Destroyers to differentiate them from the new models and rules, much as GW seems to be doing. So while the 'normal' Destroyer Lord has the fluff of a Lokhust Destroyer Lord, it has neither the new rules or model of the Lokhust Destroyer Lord.
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here- you're splitting the hair so fine, I think you've completely obliterated it.
If you think there will be a 'lokhust' destroyer lord to replace the current destroyer lord, just say that. If you're saying something else... I honestly have no idea what that might be.
Currently there isn't any evidence to suggest that will actually happen, however.
We've only been shown the single heavy locust.
Personally I'm expecting the old Destroyers to go on Last Chance to Buy (if they don't just disappear) in late August or early October.
Its weird, though. The monolith replacement isn't happening until October, and the current one is already gone.
Ghaz wrote: Personally I'm expecting the old Destroyers to go on Last Chance to Buy (if they don't just disappear) in late August or early October.
As long as they don’t dare do it in the middle, in September.
Yeah, brain fart on my part (doesn't August come between September and October this year? )
Dudeface wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote: Per WarComs facebook comments, Lokhust Destroyers are not a replacement for the Destroyers we have now, but a separate unit entirely.
The portal/crystals/green rods were all done by another company. They went for the option that no longer requires them to have to maintain stuff with the third party.
Kanluwen wrote: The portal/crystals/green rods were all done by another company. They went for the option that no longer requires them to have to maintain stuff with the third party.
it's for the best. The green rods never quite fit right, always looked a little tacky considering no other faction had them. The flash on them was a pain to clean off without gouging the rod and making it look bad. Replacements in different colors became harder to source for those of us with differing hobby skills. I like the newer design because now all I have to do is experiment with different paint colors.
now it could be the same weapon on the canoptek creature, like a laser or something. But, It would be interesting to see a cryptek for destroyers.
You know, I almost feel like GW is restructuring armies so that you can play specific themes. It's most noteable for marines, but it's starting to take shape with the Necrons.
It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.
EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model. Unless it's got something very weird going on behind it, it looks like it's a part of the background.
Sasori wrote: Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.
It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.
EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model.
I'm being honest with you, but I cannot "clearly" see that. Even blown up it looks very clearly to me to be a part of the model.
I don't see anything terrain connected in the image to the orb.
Sasori wrote: Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.
It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.
Sasori wrote: Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.
It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.
EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model.
I'm being honest with you, but I cannot "clearly" see that. Even blown up it looks very clearly to me to be a part of the model.
I don't see anything terrain connected in the image to the orb.
It just doesn't seem to line up with the model, it looks like it's further in the background.
I could be wrong, maybe blowing up the image is distorting it some but it does not appear to be on backplate of the model.
EDIT: I dunno, I'm waffleing back and forth on this. It would make sense ot be a part of the model, but the orb and circular plate below the orb seem very off from the model.
Either way, hopefully they reveal it before too long.
Looks like it's part of the model IMO, and I suspect the things on the arms are some enmitic style guns. Hard to tell though, but to me it doesn't look like the orb matches the lighting in the background.
Did some maths on the Canoptek Doomstalker - it looks like a full sized doomsday cannon on the back to me, and if it's a BS4+ doomsday cannon it's very cost effective at 130 points. Depends on how tough it is. Feels like I end up saying that a lot about Necrons, they're just super squishy because GW never gives us invulns.
Marshal Loss wrote: Pretty sure, from memory, they name dropped it as being a "Doomsday Blaster", so it's probably got a distinct profile.
They did, they also mentioned that it has to stand still for the full power if it, so it's likely going to have the two split profiles like the regular DD cannon.
Would be nice if it has some out of LOS capability though.
Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.
Eyjio wrote: Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.
Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.
I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.
changemod wrote: Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.
I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.
I don’t disagree, but your alternative is 3 heavy destroyers in that slot, which is less powerful on average and substantially easier to kill. Yes, it’s 120 points vs 180, but that extra 60 points gets you more toughness, wounds and quantum shielding, as well as 10 gauss flayers. It’s not that they’re good, it’s that all the alternative anti-tank is worse. I suspect it’ll be the same story with this thing - it’s canoptek, so bound to be BS4+, it’ll likely have random shots, and if heavy destroyers remain, it has to fit in an awkward gap of more deadly than 3 lascannons, and sufficiently tough that you wouldn’t just take the doomsday ark. It’s a tall order IMO, especially seeing that the other walker is both fragile and not especially deadly for 20 points fewer. My intuition for stats from appearance is T5 W8 3+ with a heavy d6 S10 AP-5 Dd3 gun, and if that’s the case, it won’t see play. We’ll see though.
I suspect the Lokhust destroyer thing we've seen is a replacement heavy destroyer/destroyer lord combi-kit, and that there is a smaller lokhust destroyers kit we haven't seen yet.
changemod wrote: Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.
I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.
I don’t disagree, but your alternative is 3 heavy destroyers in that slot, which is less powerful on average and substantially easier to kill. Yes, it’s 120 points vs 180, but that extra 60 points gets you more toughness, wounds and quantum shielding, as well as 10 gauss flayers. It’s not that they’re good, it’s that all the alternative anti-tank is worse. I suspect it’ll be the same story with this thing - it’s canoptek, so bound to be BS4+, it’ll likely have random shots, and if heavy destroyers remain, it has to fit in an awkward gap of more deadly than 3 lascannons, and sufficiently tough that you wouldn’t just take the doomsday ark. It’s a tall order IMO, especially seeing that the other walker is both fragile and not especially deadly for 20 points fewer. My intuition for stats from appearance is T5 W8 3+ with a heavy d6 S10 AP-5 Dd3 gun, and if that’s the case, it won’t see play. We’ll see though.
I honestly would be surprised if at least the gun isn't objectively better than the full sized doomsday cannon. Only because its A) a new gun and B) a new gun in the post 7th edition paradigm for weapons to be way too lethal.
But Necrons are also an NPC faction. So it could also be one of those things where you look at the rules for a few minutes and then ask why does it even exist and who thought this was a good unit.
Marshal Loss wrote: Pretty sure, from memory, they name dropped it as being a "Doomsday Blaster", so it's probably got a distinct profile.
They did, they also mentioned that it has to stand still for the full power if it, so it's likely going to have the two split profiles like the regular DD cannon.
Would be nice if it has some out of LOS capability though.
It points slightly downwards on a tall model.
That makes a non-LOS weapon seem unlikely to me.
Sasori wrote: Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.
It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.
EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model. Unless it's got something very weird going on behind it, it looks like it's a part of the background.
I agree and have thought the same thing from the start of the previews.
The orb is off center and the backplates on the model make it look like that couldn't be attached
Eyjio wrote: Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.
Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.
I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.
Eyjio wrote: Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.
Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.
I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.
So 4 shots underperforming?
Four shots is the required roll to match the output of a predator.
It has a 50% chance to fail to do that well before even rolling to hit, possibly even only getting one shot. The chance of overperforming instead does little to compensate for the painful hit to reliability.
Someone above said they still prefer it to heavy destroyers. I could maybe see that on an open field, but with fairly dense terrain I’d take the heavies any day of the week and make efforts to use their mobility to shield them better than other devastator-type units from enemy fire lanes. Still not ideal, but maybe this next codex will present something better.
Four shots is the required roll to match the output of a predator.
It has a 50% chance to fail to do that well before even rolling to hit, possibly even only getting one shot. The chance of overperforming instead does little to compensate for the painful hit to reliability.
Agreed.
I think blast should have also included a minimum number of shots when shooting at large targets (vehicles, MCs, etc) as well as 6-10 infantry.
So many AT weapons are still amazingly bad at that job, but shockingly good at heavy & medium infantry.
I'm honestly wondering if the new monolith with mini-death rays will be a better AT platform than the DDA.
Eyjio wrote: Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.
Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.
I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.
So 4 shots underperforming?
Four shots is the required roll to match the output of a predator.
It has a 50% chance to fail to do that well before even rolling to hit, possibly even only getting one shot. The chance of overperforming instead does little to compensate for the painful hit to reliability.
Someone above said they still prefer it to heavy destroyers. I could maybe see that on an open field, but with fairly dense terrain I’d take the heavies any day of the week and make efforts to use their mobility to shield them better than other devastator-type units from enemy fire lanes. Still not ideal, but maybe this next codex will present something better.
Predator does not shoot S10 -5 shots.
You DO know right that not every weapon has to have same shot amount to not underperform? Otherwise where's my 20 shot lascannons! Predator autocannon is btw 2d3 shots so can be shooting less than 4 as well and twin lascannon is 2 shots so dda is outperforming that one. And if you factor in sponsons as well dda has usefull other guns as well, flies and is significantly tougher. Comparing apples to oranges.
And again. You are literally claiming getting 4 shots IS UNDERPERFORMING! So anything short of 5 or 6 shots is underperforming. You are greedy fellow.
soviet13 wrote: I suspect the Lokhust destroyer thing we've seen is a replacement heavy destroyer/destroyer lord combi-kit, and that there is a smaller lokhust destroyers kit we haven't seen yet.
soviet13 wrote: I suspect the Lokhust destroyer thing we've seen is a replacement heavy destroyer/destroyer lord combi-kit, and that there is a smaller lokhust destroyers kit we haven't seen yet.
I think so.
The one we've seen is an ETB kit with only an alternate gun. No Lord option in it.
Eyjio wrote: Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.
Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.
I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.
So 4 shots underperforming?
Four shots is the required roll to match the output of a predator.
It has a 50% chance to fail to do that well before even rolling to hit, possibly even only getting one shot. The chance of overperforming instead does little to compensate for the painful hit to reliability.
Someone above said they still prefer it to heavy destroyers. I could maybe see that on an open field, but with fairly dense terrain I’d take the heavies any day of the week and make efforts to use their mobility to shield them better than other devastator-type units from enemy fire lanes. Still not ideal, but maybe this next codex will present something better.
Predator does not shoot S10 -5 shots.
You DO know right that not every weapon has to have same shot amount to not underperform? Otherwise where's my 20 shot lascannons! Predator autocannon is btw 2d3 shots so can be shooting less than 4 as well and twin lascannon is 2 shots so dda is outperforming that one. And if you factor in sponsons as well dda has usefull other guns as well, flies and is significantly tougher. Comparing apples to oranges.
And again. You are literally claiming getting 4 shots IS UNDERPERFORMING! So anything short of 5 or 6 shots is underperforming. You are greedy fellow.
What on earth are you talking about?
4 is baseline performance, anything lower fails to keep up. The anti-tank loadout for a predator is, I’m not sure why I have to specify, four lascannon shots.
S10 and AP-5 is essentially the same as S9 AP-4 against most vehicles and monsters you’d be taking lascannon equivalents to deal with.
And yeah, the vehicle that needs to stay still to fire properly has a squad of warriors worth of infantry guns you can shoot if your opponent wilfully approaches it. That’s... not really something I care about in a codex that only has two semi-workable anti-vehicle units, both of which still aren’t at all great in their role.
alextroy wrote: But Lascannons are S9 AP -3, which gives an not insignificant chance of a save for Sv 3+.
Well dev doctrine is universal to all marines turn 1, which is usually the most important turn for such units, although it is temporary. I also wouldn't exactly call a 6+ save significant.
Tiberius501 wrote: I thirst for leaks and rumours. Please won’t someone grant some leaks and rumours?!
The release in October means it'll take longer to get leaks unfortunately. Someone in a thread here apparently got something from one of the videos and doing software editing or whatever to read it. However that still wasn't a lot of info outside the fact that Crypteks are gonna get bunch of toys again.
The way they've previewed things suggests that we are getting more models before the codex releases. That said Indomitus being put into reprint has likely caused some issues and we also have to consider that everything else GW makes also wants its time. It might be that models are also coming around the same time as the books if not after.
It's hard to predict and GW might not be fully certain and be shifting dates around every so often
I think the fact that Lokhust Heavy Destroyers and the Canoptek Doomstalker are both listed under 'Indomitus set' in chapter approved 2020 strongly suggests they'll be out pre codex.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I think the fact that Lokhust Heavy Destroyers and the Canoptek Doomstalker are both listed under 'Indomitus set' in chapter approved 2020 strongly suggests they'll be out pre codex.
.
Well... not necessarily. Its important to keep in mind how long book publishing can take (and how far in advance of release the final version is set), and how thoroughly a full factory shutdown followed by lowered production could have fethed up GW's schedule.
We're kind of in the dark, since we don't know what the original schedule was or how the cascade of effects is affecting planned releases. Something like a third to half their range is currently out of stock (depending on what region you're ordering from) including necrons and even space marines, including basics like Intercessors and Impulsors (UK has intercessors as 'limited stock,' but they're gone in the US). Stuff that they'll want to sell with the codex releases. They may have pushed the codexes back just so they have time to bump stock on those ranges. You don't want to sell new codexes (which generally cause a sales spike in older models) when you lack older kits to sell. That leads to angry or discouraged customers buying less, which makes for a fiscally poor release month.
But if they're trying to push older kits back in the pipeline, they have to slow production on newer kits as well. So they may not come out before the relevant codex does either.
They've also got a lot of AoS, Underworlds, Warcry, etc releases to catch up on, which will probably eat a lot of August & September.
Sasori wrote: Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.
It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.
EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model.
I'm being honest with you, but I cannot "clearly" see that. Even blown up it looks very clearly to me to be a part of the model.
I don't see anything terrain connected in the image to the orb.
It just doesn't seem to line up with the model, it looks like it's further in the background.
I could be wrong, maybe blowing up the image is distorting it some but it does not appear to be on backplate of the model.
EDIT: I dunno, I'm waffleing back and forth on this. It would make sense ot be a part of the model, but the orb and circular plate below the orb seem very off from the model.
Either way, hopefully they reveal it before too long.
See I can see where you're coming from too though. I also could be wrong. I was trying to see if there were more pictures from a different angle. But I haven't found anything else. I'll let you know if I do.
Sasori wrote: Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.
It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.
EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model.
I'm being honest with you, but I cannot "clearly" see that. Even blown up it looks very clearly to me to be a part of the model.
I don't see anything terrain connected in the image to the orb.
It just doesn't seem to line up with the model, it looks like it's further in the background.
I could be wrong, maybe blowing up the image is distorting it some but it does not appear to be on backplate of the model.
EDIT: I dunno, I'm waffleing back and forth on this. It would make sense ot be a part of the model, but the orb and circular plate below the orb seem very off from the model.
Either way, hopefully they reveal it before too long.
See I can see where you're coming from too though. I also could be wrong. I was trying to see if there were more pictures from a different angle. But I haven't found anything else. I'll let you know if I do.
Since that image was published by Games Workshop on Warhammer Community you won't find any different angles.
I'm still holding out a vain hope for pariahs or flayed ones, even though there's been no previews of either. I know it's a long shot but with the new art and that mention of pariahs in the Necrons through the ages piece, I think it's within the realm of possibilities.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I think the fact that Lokhust Heavy Destroyers and the Canoptek Doomstalker are both listed under 'Indomitus set' in chapter approved 2020 strongly suggests they'll be out pre codex.
I'm expecting the 4 ETB kits to come out the same week a thenew starters, or the week after. "Expand your forces with these new models" sort of thing.
Sasori wrote: Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.
It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.
Here's a better pic ...
The more I stare at this, the more I'm thinking it has to be the ranged variant of the Skorpehk. I still cannot tell if that orb is part of it or not, but I do see the piece of terrain the other poster was talking about and I find myself in doubt now. too.
IMHO, the ranged variant of the Skorpekh should be the Lokhust, just like the close combat variant of the Lokhust should be the Skorpekh. With two different types of Destroyers, they need to do something to keep them distinct from each other. The sole exceptions should be the Lords, with the Skorpekh Lord with it's Enmitic Annihilator and the Lokhust Lord with some sort of Hyperphase weapon.
Who knows, maybe the mystery model is a Lokhust Destroyer Lord ...
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page. Love the misspelling with Dias instead of Dais...
As others have said, hoping we might see some new models before the Codex, technically no reason why new models for existing things couldn't be released (Warriors, Monolith etc.), guess the only issue would be if they had new weapons options. Even releasing completely new stuff would be possible with rules in the box these days.
Guess GW might like to stick to its usual thing of dumping everything over the course of a couple of weeks, but at the moment there's a slightly weird situation that the Necrons are getting a bit of a push from Indomitus, but a number of their main sets (including their core troops) have gone out of production.
On another note, an awful lot of the new Necron range seems to be ETB, wondering if we might see another version of Conquest when the current Mortal Realms run ends.
Couple of things: GW is currently recruiting for a published writer to work in it's part works division so it is safe to say more Conquest style publications are coming. Of course these could also be like the previous legends series or even new merch like statues etc
The articles like "expand your army" on WHC are blatantly written from before this current crisis as they are referencing models out of stock for months.
I think indomitus was planned for release later in the year but GW wants it out in case we see more retail shutdowns again. That's why we have a comparably long wait for the codexes.
alextroy wrote: But Lascannons are S9 AP -3, which gives an not insignificant chance of a save for Sv 3+.
Well dev doctrine is universal to all marines turn 1, which is usually the most important turn for such units, although it is temporary. I also wouldn't exactly call a 6+ save significant.
A 6+ vs no save at all is very very significant. 16% chance vs 0% is huge!
alextroy wrote: But Lascannons are S9 AP -3, which gives an not insignificant chance of a save for Sv 3+.
Well dev doctrine is universal to all marines turn 1, which is usually the most important turn for such units, although it is temporary. I also wouldn't exactly call a 6+ save significant.
A 6+ vs no save at all is very very significant. 16% chance vs 0% is huge!
I also find it amusing that all Lascannons are Marine Lascannons in Devastator Doctrine. It’s like the Guard don’t use Lascannons.
alextroy wrote: I also find it amusing that all Lascannons are Marine Lascannons in Devastator Doctrine. It’s like the Guard don’t use Lascannons.
I mean... they very rarely do? When was the last time you saw any guard list take lascannons, outside of a fluffy game? They're not very good for guard compared to Leman Russ variants, plasma spam, etc.
130 points seems pretty solid for the Doomstalker. While it's BS4+, notably it doesn't degrade.
The Gauss Destructor is interesting to say the least... 1 Shot at min 3 Damage is pretty decent, and has the ability to do significantly more. It's just one shot a piece though.
The Enmitic weapon seems pretty bad. If it was damage 2 I'd consider it, but just -1 AP D1 and it's not even strength 8 doesn't seem very good.
cuda1179 wrote: Liking the looks of the Lokhust Heavy Destroyers. The Gauss Destructor looks nasty. Definitely different from a normal heavy destroyer.
Logic stands that these are the "normal" heavy destroyers now.
Sasori wrote: 130 points seems pretty solid for the Doomstalker. While it's BS4+, notably it doesn't degrade.
The Gauss Destructor is interesting to say the least... 1 Shot at min 3 Damage is pretty decent, and has the ability to do significantly more. It's just one shot a piece though.
The Enmitic weapon seems pretty bad. If it was damage 2 I'd consider it, but just -1 AP D1 and it's not even strength 8 doesn't seem very good.
Where did you find those photos? Is that a WD entry or the codex itself?
Sasori wrote: 130 points seems pretty solid for the Doomstalker. While it's BS4+, notably it doesn't degrade.
The Gauss Destructor is interesting to say the least... 1 Shot at min 3 Damage is pretty decent, and has the ability to do significantly more. It's just one shot a piece though.
The Enmitic weapon seems pretty bad. If it was damage 2 I'd consider it, but just -1 AP D1 and it's not even strength 8 doesn't seem very good.
Where did you find those photos? Is that a WD entry or the codex itself?
They were leaked by somebody in the Necron Discord.
Sasori wrote: 130 points seems pretty solid for the Doomstalker. While it's BS4+, notably it doesn't degrade.
The Gauss Destructor is interesting to say the least... 1 Shot at min 3 Damage is pretty decent, and has the ability to do significantly more. It's just one shot a piece though.
The Enmitic weapon seems pretty bad. If it was damage 2 I'd consider it, but just -1 AP D1 and it's not even strength 8 doesn't seem very good.
Where did you find those photos? Is that a WD entry or the codex itself?
They were leaked by somebody in the Necron Discord.
as a fellow pheron can you share the discord link?
Sasori wrote: 130 points seems pretty solid for the Doomstalker. While it's BS4+, notably it doesn't degrade.
The Gauss Destructor is interesting to say the least... 1 Shot at min 3 Damage is pretty decent, and has the ability to do significantly more. It's just one shot a piece though.
The Enmitic weapon seems pretty bad. If it was damage 2 I'd consider it, but just -1 AP D1 and it's not even strength 8 doesn't seem very good.
Where did you find those photos? Is that a WD entry or the codex itself?
They were leaked by somebody in the Necron Discord.
as a fellow pheron can you share the discord link?
Seems odd that none of those have Blast.
On the other hand, that does mean the Doomstalker can fire its big gun at its feet to ward off pesky assault units.
Sasori wrote: 130 points seems pretty solid for the Doomstalker. While it's BS4+, notably it doesn't degrade.
The Gauss Destructor is interesting to say the least... 1 Shot at min 3 Damage is pretty decent, and has the ability to do significantly more. It's just one shot a piece though.
The Enmitic weapon seems pretty bad. If it was damage 2 I'd consider it, but just -1 AP D1 and it's not even strength 8 doesn't seem very good.
Are there still Heavy Destroyers, or are they replaced by Lokhust destroyers?
Sasori wrote: 130 points seems pretty solid for the Doomstalker. While it's BS4+, notably it doesn't degrade.
The Gauss Destructor is interesting to say the least... 1 Shot at min 3 Damage is pretty decent, and has the ability to do significantly more. It's just one shot a piece though.
The Enmitic weapon seems pretty bad. If it was damage 2 I'd consider it, but just -1 AP D1 and it's not even strength 8 doesn't seem very good.
Where did you find those photos? Is that a WD entry or the codex itself?
They were leaked by somebody in the Necron Discord.
as a fellow pheron can you share the discord link?
Sasori wrote: 130 points seems pretty solid for the Doomstalker. While it's BS4+, notably it doesn't degrade.
The Gauss Destructor is interesting to say the least... 1 Shot at min 3 Damage is pretty decent, and has the ability to do significantly more. It's just one shot a piece though.
The Enmitic weapon seems pretty bad. If it was damage 2 I'd consider it, but just -1 AP D1 and it's not even strength 8 doesn't seem very good.
Where did you find those photos? Is that a WD entry or the codex itself?
They were leaked by somebody in the Necron Discord.
as a fellow pheron can you share the discord link?
Oguhmek wrote: Ugh, still with the D6 shots, D6 damage sillyness. Haven’t they got any feedback from the playtesters that it sucks?
The random number of shots is not as big of a deal with 9th edition rules.
None of the weapons are blast, so it does seem like it matters. 1 to 36 Damage is a pretty high variance.
The Doomsday cannon on the DDA is Blast, so it can get a little more slack when targeting infantry.
I'm honestly a little puzzled by the Doomstalker. Its the same role as the DDA, with a major overlap in stats. Its shorter range, but has the same limitations. It has a 5++, but no quantum shield, 2 less wounds, and no living metal. Its Canoptek rather than vehicle, so can't use Damage Control Override (which can override the DDA's degrading BS), and yet can't use Repair Subroutines to fake RP, because its a single model unit (can't be used if it isn't on the table).
Maybe it has a significantly lower points cost to go with the 3 less Power cost, but at the moment, beyond a cooler model, I don't know why this thing exists. Edit, ah. Forgot this was in the CA2020. 50 points is a reasonable savings. Still not sure why its a sawn-off shotgun version of an existing unit, though.
Not sold on the Lokhust either. It traded 2 move for an extra wound, but a S7 anti-infantry gun isn't exactly calling out to me. People weren't terribly enthused about the particle shredder to my knowledge, and this seems worse in most cases.
The even more bigger gauss weapon is... ok? Average 6 damage isn't bad, but 1 shot on what looks to be a fairly expensive platform (70 vs 40 for a heavy destroyer). Eh. If it could be mixed into normal destroyer units like the current heavy destroyer, maybe. Solo these things are big targets for the possibility that they might hit.
Oguhmek wrote: Ugh, still with the D6 shots, D6 damage sillyness. Haven’t they got any feedback from the playtesters that it sucks?
The random number of shots is not as big of a deal with 9th edition rules.
None of the weapons are blast, so it does seem like it matters. 1 to 36 Damage is a pretty high variance.
The Doomsday cannon on the DDA is Blast, so it can get a little more slack when targeting infantry.
I'm honestly a little puzzled by the Doomstalker. Its the same role as the DDA, with a major overlap in stats. Its shorter range, but has the same limitations. It has a 5++, but no quantum shield, 2 less wounds, and no living metal. Its Canoptek rather than vehicle, so can't use Damage Control Override (which can override the DDA's degrading BS), and yet can't use Repair Subroutines to fake RP, because its a single model unit (can't be used if it isn't on the table).
Maybe it has a significantly lower points cost to go with the 3 less Power cost, but at the moment, beyond a cooler model, I don't know why this thing exists.
Not sold on the Lokhust either. It traded 2 move for an extra wound, but a S7 anti-infantry gun isn't exactly calling out to me. People weren't terribly enthused about the particle shredder to my knowledge, and this seems worse in most cases.
The even more bigger gauss weapon is... ok? Average 6 damage isn't bad, but 1 shot on what looks to be a fairly expensive platform. Eh. If it could be mixed into normal destroyer units like the current heavy destroyer, maybe. Solo these things are big targets for the possibility that they might hit.
The Stalker is 130 and the Lokhust are 70 each.
The stalker looks worth it to me. It doesn't need damage control override, since it's BS never degrades and it can be buffed by MWBD to get 3+ now. While it doesn't have QS, the Invuln save more than makes up for it, and it also has a better base save at 3+ which helps some.
48' means you never have to reall move and the lack of blast means it can fire it's weapon in CC which Is a pretty big deal since it's much more likely to end up in CC than the DDA.
Yeah, I just got my indomitus stuff this weekend and hadn't taken a real look at the points book yet.
I really don't like the Lokhust compared to the current Heavy Destroyers. Average damage of 6 is very questionably worth the cost of almost 2 heavy Ds.
And with the Stalker at the lower points, I guess the question is 'why does the DDA exist?' They're just too similar for both to have a point.
Voss wrote: Yeah, I just got my indomitus stuff this weekend and hadn't taken a real look at the points book yet.
I really don't like the Lokhust compared to the current Heavy Destroyers. Average damage of 6 is very questionably worth the cost of almost 2 heavy Ds.
And with the Stalker at the lower points, I guess the question is 'why does the DDA exist?' They're just too similar for both to have a point.
I mean I'd seriously consider bringing both in a vehicle meta. That's 6 doomsday cannons for 930 pts. I can't imagine many tank armies that would be happy to run into that. Knights might as well not even get on the table.
Voss wrote: Yeah, I just got my indomitus stuff this weekend and hadn't taken a real look at the points book yet.
I really don't like the Lokhust compared to the current Heavy Destroyers. Average damage of 6 is very questionably worth the cost of almost 2 heavy Ds.
And with the Stalker at the lower points, I guess the question is 'why does the DDA exist?' They're just too similar for both to have a point.
I mean I'd seriously consider bringing both in a vehicle meta. That's 6 doomsday cannons for 930 pts. I can't imagine many tank armies that would be happy to run into that. Knights might as well not even get on the table.
Standing still in this edition where taking AND keeping Objectives is pretty much a given and Obscuring sceneries are more frequent is a VERY BAD drawback to have
Voss wrote: Yeah, I just got my indomitus stuff this weekend and hadn't taken a real look at the points book yet.
I really don't like the Lokhust compared to the current Heavy Destroyers. Average damage of 6 is very questionably worth the cost of almost 2 heavy Ds.
And with the Stalker at the lower points, I guess the question is 'why does the DDA exist?' They're just too similar for both to have a point.
I mean I'd seriously consider bringing both in a vehicle meta. That's 6 doomsday cannons for 930 pts. I can't imagine many tank armies that would be happy to run into that. Knights might as well not even get on the table.
Standing still in this edition where taking AND keeping Objectives is pretty much a given and Obscuring sceneries are more frequent is a VERY BAD drawback to have
For half your army, the other half can swamp the board. Especially when you look at the new Nihilakh dynasty trait, which gives everything obsec. Ob Sec scarabs and wraiths plus 6 doomsday cannons in the back sounds spicy to me.
It's very hard to predict. First off GW hasn't removed them from sale which suggests that if there is an update for them, it is a long long way off.
At the same time the glow-rod using canoptek from Forgeworld has been removed from sale (stalker - though I emailed them it is coming back). now this could be removing the glow rod and adding a new weapon attachment to it or just upgrading its price (the other multi-leg unit which is basically the same is £10 more expensive at present).
IT might be that he destroyers end up like the Lictor and Pyrovore for Tyranids - something that clearly is intended to be updated, just "not yet" and left out for a while.
Necrons already got a lot of new toys and even if the destroyers are not updated, Necrons will have a great force with a lot of modern sculpts with many options to pick from.
Overread wrote: It's very hard to predict. First off GW hasn't removed them from sale which suggests that if there is an update for them, it is a long long way off.
At the same time the glow-rod using canoptek from Forgeworld has been removed from sale (stalker - though I emailed them it is coming back). now this could be removing the glow rod and adding a new weapon attachment to it or just upgrading its price (the other multi-leg unit which is basically the same is £10 more expensive at present).
IT might be that he destroyers end up like the Lictor and Pyrovore for Tyranids - something that clearly is intended to be updated, just "not yet" and left out for a while.
Necrons already got a lot of new toys and even if the destroyers are not updated, Necrons will have a great force with a lot of modern sculpts with many options to pick from.
They could be holding off on discontinuing them until their replacements go on sale in October (or earlier) to clear out old stock.
Overread wrote: It's very hard to predict. First off GW hasn't removed them from sale which suggests that if there is an update for them, it is a long long way off.
At the same time the glow-rod using canoptek from Forgeworld has been removed from sale (stalker - though I emailed them it is coming back). now this could be removing the glow rod and adding a new weapon attachment to it or just upgrading its price (the other multi-leg unit which is basically the same is £10 more expensive at present).
IT might be that he destroyers end up like the Lictor and Pyrovore for Tyranids - something that clearly is intended to be updated, just "not yet" and left out for a while.
Necrons already got a lot of new toys and even if the destroyers are not updated, Necrons will have a great force with a lot of modern sculpts with many options to pick from.
They could be holding off on discontinuing them until their replacements go on sale in October (or earlier) to clear out old stock.
What old stock? Cause there isn't any on our side of the pond.
There's still some destroyers and heavy destroyer upgrade packs in the UK. Thing is if they announced it was getting new sculpts the remaining stock would likely dry up from those who want to form complete units of the same aesthetic design and from fans (and scalpers)
That said they are still selling the old codex; which is surprising considering we know there is a new one out in October. Heck even the old Cryptek has hung around in finecast!
Overread wrote: There's still some destroyers and heavy destroyer upgrade packs in the UK. Thing is if they announced it was getting new sculpts the remaining stock would likely dry up from those who want to form complete units of the same aesthetic design and from fans (and scalpers)
That said they are still selling the old codex; which is surprising considering we know there is a new one out in October. Heck even the old Cryptek has hung around in finecast!
I mean It's not unheard of for GW to keep old models when they have an updated version made of them. AdMech still has two Enginseer models avalible, the new-ish plastic version and the antediluvian metal one.
Overread wrote: It's very hard to predict. First off GW hasn't removed them from sale which suggests that if there is an update for them, it is a long long way off.
At the same time the glow-rod using canoptek from Forgeworld has been removed from sale (stalker - though I emailed them it is coming back). now this could be removing the glow rod and adding a new weapon attachment to it or just upgrading its price (the other multi-leg unit which is basically the same is £10 more expensive at present).
IT might be that he destroyers end up like the Lictor and Pyrovore for Tyranids - something that clearly is intended to be updated, just "not yet" and left out for a while.
Necrons already got a lot of new toys and even if the destroyers are not updated, Necrons will have a great force with a lot of modern sculpts with many options to pick from.
They could be holding off on discontinuing them until their replacements go on sale in October (or earlier) to clear out old stock.
What old stock? Cause there isn't any on our side of the pond.
Probably has to do with the upgrade packs too. The Destroyer Lord upgrade pack is still in stock on the US site, and I've seen the Heavy one pop in and out of stock. Maybe once all the destroyers + Dlord and Heavy D upgrade packs are gone then they will remove them from the store.
Grabbed these from Facebook, 9th edition assembly guides reveal some new stats (icons in the stat lines too - edit: as pointed out, these are covered in the free rules PDF):
Gareth40K wrote: Grabbed these from Facebook, 9th edition assembly guides reveal some new stats (icons in the stat lines too, maybe because the assembly guides are multilingual usually?):
Spyders being potentially good, I never thought we'd see the day. Buffs to lychguard and praetorians are really nice too, a reason to take rods of covenant. Rod Praetorians just became tasty little primaris hunters.
And that would be a good explanation as to why the easy to build kits have disappeared... And I'm not sure I like the black along with the silver and brass Szarekhan colors.
And that would be a good explanation as to why the easy to build kits have disappeared... And I'm not sure I like the black along with the silver and brass Szarekhan colors.
I actually like them a lot, I feel like it gives the army a more "regal" vibe to them, if that makes any sense. I gather a lot of folks do not like the new Necron lore (What, post 5th?) and prefer the old days when they were just mindless terminators. But I really, really dig this ancient egypt living/dead robots thing they've had going on for a few editions now. The only think I didn't like was the majority silver color, even though when I bought a necron army 4 years ago I did, admittedly paint them silver....
I'm having a brain fart. That datasheet says 4PL for 2 models on the LHD does't it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Gareth40K wrote: Grabbed these from Facebook, 9th edition assembly guides reveal some new stats (icons in the stat lines too, maybe because the assembly guides are multilingual usually? This would save them printing the same stat line multiple times in the assembly guide, as the letters are usually different in different languages):
I like the Szarekhan dynasty's silver and brass scheme, I just don't know if I like the black body on the Spyder (and most likely the other Canopteks) along with the silver and brass scheme. Personally neither of them hold a candle to the blood red Novokh dynasty's scheme...
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm having a brain fart. That datasheet says 4PL for 2 models on the LHD does't it?
No. It's 4PL for one, 8PL for two and 12PL for three.
Oguhmek wrote: Ugh, still with the D6 shots, D6 damage sillyness. Haven’t they got any feedback from the playtesters that it sucks?
The random number of shots is not as big of a deal with 9th edition rules.
How's so? A) that d6 is not blast if that's what you refer b) you domt shoot d6 s10 -4 dd6 at hordes anyway unless you have won the game at which point nothing matters
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Yeah, I just got my indomitus stuff this weekend and hadn't taken a real look at the points book yet.
I really don't like the Lokhust compared to the current Heavy Destroyers. Average damage of 6 is very questionably worth the cost of almost 2 heavy Ds.
And with the Stalker at the lower points, I guess the question is 'why does the DDA exist?' They're just too similar for both to have a point.
Tougher, better guns, more manouverable when you need(los is a thing).
For 130 pts price bracket i'm looking at triarch stalkers. Mobile at which is what necrons need more
cuda1179 wrote: Liking the looks of the Lokhust Heavy Destroyers. The Gauss Destructor looks nasty. Definitely different from a normal heavy destroyer.
Logic stands that these are the "normal" heavy destroyers now.
I wonder if the only way to use the current heavy destroyers will be in fast attack as upgrades to normal destroyers.
Oh nice! Lychguard getting 3 attacks each now is nice, Praetorians getting the same and 2 dmg on their staves is super nice and I’ll have to get some with the Silent King. And damn! The spider looks juicy now! Them buffs are sah good!
Gareth40K wrote: Grabbed these from Facebook, 9th edition assembly guides reveal some new stats (icons in the stat lines too, maybe because the assembly guides are multilingual usually? This would save them printing the same stat line multiple times in the assembly guide, as the letters are usually different in different languages):
The rules pdf mentioned these (page 8), they're the new thing. Basically they decided that making an extra page for each language was costing them money, so they decided to put a 'condensed data sheet' with icons to reduce how much space profiles took up in assembly instructions. It also drops the rules text, so you can't get by just buying the kit, you need the relevant publication.
Interesting, though. Rods of the Covenant are suddenly a lot better, even if the voidblade still gives a bonus attack. Particle caster getting a second shot helps a bit, but the gun was a little add on to the extra melee punch.
Woo for spyder buff: 2 wounds, extra attack, claws with strength bonus, better AP and fixed 2 damage instead of d3. Feels like a mini distraction carnifex.
Not sure what's going on with that gun though. Was a pair of particle beamers, and now 'they' are presumable one gun with 6 shots, but less range and strength.
Voss wrote: Interesting, though. Rods of the Covenant are suddenly a lot better, even if the voidblade still gives a bonus attack. Particle caster getting a second shot helps a bit, but the gun was a little add on to the extra melee punch.
Guess who just built 10 void blades
Gun is particularly dodgy because you don't neccessarily WANT to shoot it unless you have secondary target to shoot least you shoot yourself out of charge...Often enough doesn't require more than 1-2 casualties to increase range by 1".
Regarding the old destroyers - Darren Latham, miniatures designer at GW, just posted a WIP video of regular destroyers for his personal Necron army on Instagram. So I don’t expect them to be replaced anytime soon. As for the heavy one or the destroyer lord however, my instincts tells me that those will be replaced by the new models we’ve seen, but this is just pure speculation at the moment.
"Lokhust Heavy Destroyers" have the choice between a multi-shot autocannon type weapon and a single shot antitank weapon. Same as current Destroyers/Heavy Destroyers, they're just all called "heavy" now.
It doesn't really solve anything, and we've known this information since they were first officially revealed in June. We just didn't have the statline until yesterday.
The Enmitic weapon does not come anywhere close to fulfilling what the regular Gauss Cannon does and does not answer what is happening to the regular non-heavy destroyers.
"Lokhust Heavy Destroyers" have the choice between a multi-shot autocannon type weapon and a single shot antitank weapon. Same as current Destroyers/Heavy Destroyers, they're just all called "heavy" now.
Voss wrote: Interesting, though. Rods of the Covenant are suddenly a lot better, even if the voidblade still gives a bonus attack. Particle caster getting a second shot helps a bit, but the gun was a little add on to the extra melee punch.
Guess who just built 10 void blades
Gun is particularly dodgy because you don't neccessarily WANT to shoot it unless you have secondary target to shoot least you shoot yourself out of charge...Often enough doesn't require more than 1-2 casualties to increase range by 1".
I have 10 with rods, however I also have 9 heavy Destroyers and 12 normal Destroyers
Part of me hopes both are still in the new book, but honestly I'd settle for the normal ones sticking around and the heavy going away and I could just up'armor my current heavy D's and use them as lohkust HD
jspyd3rx wrote: Hopefully more to these leaks. I'm assuming they're from white Dwarf?
There's some coming from new reboxed models; others might be from the codex (it might have an October release, but at the same time that might just be a major delay as GW pushes other thingsin first so stock might already be out in the wild for it).
jspyd3rx wrote: Hopefully more to these leaks. I'm assuming they're from white Dwarf?
There's some coming from new reboxed models; others might be from the codex (it might have an October release, but at the same time that might just be a major delay as GW pushes other thingsin first so stock might already be out in the wild for it).
Or seeing these are easy to build models...they are from ebt boxes
Sasori wrote: It's very likely an oversight, the marine datasheets don't have any special rules as well.
Not sure, but my FLGSGW rep told him that they're trying to remove special rules from non-character models in order to make the game more streamlined and simple.
Sasori wrote: It's very likely an oversight, the marine datasheets don't have any special rules as well.
Not sure, but my FLGSGW rep told him that they're trying to remove special rules from non-character models in order to make the game more streamlined and simple.
Sounds like nonsense. The only thing in Indomitus that doesn't have at least two special rules are the Bladeguard, and their one is a pointer to Angels of Death, which is actually a list of four special rules.
The Invader should at least have that, or its somehow a Primaris Bike unit that doesn't have 'And They Shall Know No Fear', Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault or Combat Doctrines. And everything but Bolter Discipline is relevant to that model (though admittedly ATSKNF is only rarely relevant for a max unit)
Yeah, looks like these are the summary rules from the assembly guide, in super-compact form (hence the language agnostic symbols) so no army-wide rules at all. Like the Necron dudes not having Reanimation Protocols/Living Metal.
Mr_Rose wrote: Yeah, looks like these are the summary rules from the assembly guide, in super-compact form (hence the language agnostic symbols) so no army-wide rules at all. Like the Necron dudes not having Reanimation Protocols/Living Metal.
Thats true for the Praetorians and Spyder. Not for the ETB stuff (lokhust, Doomstalker, Invader, Firestorm).
The Condensed Datasheets in assembly guides just have symbols and stat values. The other four have too much text to be them (and S/T/W/etc), but not enough to be complete, final codex entries. Its actually very strange... they have the edges of the unit picture and description in a sidebar, like the Edge of Silence booklet for Indomitus, but are obviously missing rules that should be present in between wargear options and Keywords. The 'Abilities' block just isn't there.
Oguhmek wrote: Regarding the old destroyers - Darren Latham, miniatures designer at GW, just posted a WIP video of regular destroyers for his personal Necron army on Instagram. So I don’t expect them to be replaced anytime soon. As for the heavy one or the destroyer lord however, my instincts tells me that those will be replaced by the new models we’ve seen, but this is just pure speculation at the moment.
Damn. Really puts a dampener on the Destroyer Cult theme if normal Destroyers don't get new models and the Heavy is just an ETB.
Oguhmek wrote: Regarding the old destroyers - Darren Latham, miniatures designer at GW, just posted a WIP video of regular destroyers for his personal Necron army on Instagram. So I don’t expect them to be replaced anytime soon. As for the heavy one or the destroyer lord however, my instincts tells me that those will be replaced by the new models we’ve seen, but this is just pure speculation at the moment.
Damn. Really puts a dampener on the Destroyer Cult theme if normal Destroyers don't get new models and the Heavy is just an ETB.
Really? Getting new options and not losing anything seems like a benefit for the Destroyer Cult theme, not a loss.
Oguhmek wrote: Regarding the old destroyers - Darren Latham, miniatures designer at GW, just posted a WIP video of regular destroyers for his personal Necron army on Instagram. So I don’t expect them to be replaced anytime soon. As for the heavy one or the destroyer lord however, my instincts tells me that those will be replaced by the new models we’ve seen, but this is just pure speculation at the moment.
Damn. Really puts a dampener on the Destroyer Cult theme if normal Destroyers don't get new models and the Heavy is just an ETB.
Really? Getting new options and not losing anything seems like a benefit for the Destroyer Cult theme, not a loss.
It's not great for those who don't want to be running 20 year old models.
Oguhmek wrote: Regarding the old destroyers - Darren Latham, miniatures designer at GW, just posted a WIP video of regular destroyers for his personal Necron army on Instagram. So I don’t expect them to be replaced anytime soon. As for the heavy one or the destroyer lord however, my instincts tells me that those will be replaced by the new models we’ve seen, but this is just pure speculation at the moment.
Damn. Really puts a dampener on the Destroyer Cult theme if normal Destroyers don't get new models and the Heavy is just an ETB.
Really? Getting new options and not losing anything seems like a benefit for the Destroyer Cult theme, not a loss.
It's not great for those who don't want to be running 20 year old models.
Oguhmek wrote: Regarding the old destroyers - Darren Latham, miniatures designer at GW, just posted a WIP video of regular destroyers for his personal Necron army on Instagram. So I don’t expect them to be replaced anytime soon. As for the heavy one or the destroyer lord however, my instincts tells me that those will be replaced by the new models we’ve seen, but this is just pure speculation at the moment.
Damn. Really puts a dampener on the Destroyer Cult theme if normal Destroyers don't get new models and the Heavy is just an ETB.
Really? Getting new options and not losing anything seems like a benefit for the Destroyer Cult theme, not a loss.
It's not great for those who don't want to be running 20 year old models.
But its better than a staple of existing collections getting stamped out of existence for basically no reason.
An update would have been nice, sure. But given GW's non-answers on Destroyers, this seems the best possible result.
Necrons are getting a lot, even buffs to existing units. Updates can still happen in the future.
Oguhmek wrote: Regarding the old destroyers - Darren Latham, miniatures designer at GW, just posted a WIP video of regular destroyers for his personal Necron army on Instagram. So I don’t expect them to be replaced anytime soon. As for the heavy one or the destroyer lord however, my instincts tells me that those will be replaced by the new models we’ve seen, but this is just pure speculation at the moment.
Damn. Really puts a dampener on the Destroyer Cult theme if normal Destroyers don't get new models and the Heavy is just an ETB.
Really? Getting new options and not losing anything seems like a benefit for the Destroyer Cult theme, not a loss.
It's not great for those who don't want to be running 20 year old models.
2002 release, not quite there yet.
c. 20 year release*
In any case, I'll still hold out hope. For all we know DL may simply have had those lying around and didn't want to waste them; leaving any units with green rods still on sale is a bit of a bizarre decision from GW if this is the way they've decided to do it.
Mr_Rose wrote: Yeah, looks like these are the summary rules from the assembly guide, in super-compact form (hence the language agnostic symbols) so no army-wide rules at all. Like the Necron dudes not having Reanimation Protocols/Living Metal.
Thats true for the Praetorians and Spyder. Not for the ETB stuff (lokhust, Doomstalker, Invader, Firestorm).
The Condensed Datasheets in assembly guides just have symbols and stat values. The other four have too much text to be them (and S/T/W/etc), but not enough to be complete, final codex entries. Its actually very strange... they have the edges of the unit picture and description in a sidebar, like the Edge of Silence booklet for Indomitus, but are obviously missing rules that should be present in between wargear options and Keywords. The 'Abilities' block just isn't there.
Those units were rumored to be in Indomitus, so maybe the leaked photos are from prior to their removal. Either way I'm betting those are not from a finalized codex, way too much dead space and the layout is off.
Mr_Rose wrote: Yeah, looks like these are the summary rules from the assembly guide, in super-compact form (hence the language agnostic symbols) so no army-wide rules at all. Like the Necron dudes not having Reanimation Protocols/Living Metal.
Thats true for the Praetorians and Spyder. Not for the ETB stuff (lokhust, Doomstalker, Invader, Firestorm).
The Condensed Datasheets in assembly guides just have symbols and stat values. The other four have too much text to be them (and S/T/W/etc), but not enough to be complete, final codex entries. Its actually very strange... they have the edges of the unit picture and description in a sidebar, like the Edge of Silence booklet for Indomitus, but are obviously missing rules that should be present in between wargear options and Keywords. The 'Abilities' block just isn't there.
Those units were rumored to be in Indomitus, so maybe the leaked photos are from prior to their removal. Either way I'm betting those are not from a finalized codex, way too much dead space and the layout is off.
Or it could be a later boxed set that includes both (for whatever reason) and these are the quick rules from that set’s guide/fluff book. But yeah, pretty definitely not a codex unless they’re going really strange in a bad way.
Mr_Rose wrote: Yeah, looks like these are the summary rules from the assembly guide, in super-compact form (hence the language agnostic symbols) so no army-wide rules at all. Like the Necron dudes not having Reanimation Protocols/Living Metal.
Thats true for the Praetorians and Spyder. Not for the ETB stuff (lokhust, Doomstalker, Invader, Firestorm).
The Condensed Datasheets in assembly guides just have symbols and stat values. The other four have too much text to be them (and S/T/W/etc), but not enough to be complete, final codex entries. Its actually very strange... they have the edges of the unit picture and description in a sidebar, like the Edge of Silence booklet for Indomitus, but are obviously missing rules that should be present in between wargear options and Keywords. The 'Abilities' block just isn't there.
Those units were rumored to be in Indomitus, so maybe the leaked photos are from prior to their removal. Either way I'm betting those are not from a finalized codex, way too much dead space and the layout is off.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. A leak of an early draft version
The layout, the weird points in CA2020 as part of the 'Indomitus Set,' it makes sense if these pages are just... leftovers.
Mr_Rose wrote: Yeah, looks like these are the summary rules from the assembly guide, in super-compact form (hence the language agnostic symbols) so no army-wide rules at all. Like the Necron dudes not having Reanimation Protocols/Living Metal.
Thats true for the Praetorians and Spyder. Not for the ETB stuff (lokhust, Doomstalker, Invader, Firestorm).
The Condensed Datasheets in assembly guides just have symbols and stat values. The other four have too much text to be them (and S/T/W/etc), but not enough to be complete, final codex entries. Its actually very strange... they have the edges of the unit picture and description in a sidebar, like the Edge of Silence booklet for Indomitus, but are obviously missing rules that should be present in between wargear options and Keywords. The 'Abilities' block just isn't there.
Those units were rumored to be in Indomitus, so maybe the leaked photos are from prior to their removal. Either way I'm betting those are not from a finalized codex, way too much dead space and the layout is off.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. A leak of an early draft version
The layout, the weird points in CA2020 as part of the 'Indomitus Set,' it makes sense if these pages are just... leftovers.
I sure hope so. The Enmitic weapon makes zero sense.... It just fulfills no purpose.
The layout, the weird points in CA2020 as part of the 'Indomitus Set,' it makes sense if these pages are just... leftovers.
I sure hope so. The Enmitic weapon makes zero sense.... It just fulfills no purpose.
Well... don't hope too hard. 'Draft' doesn't mean the weapons have different stats in the final version.
Though if they are, consider that the Skorpekh lord's enmitic weapon is actually worse, so if they are different, there is a chance it could be in the wrong direction.
The layout, the weird points in CA2020 as part of the 'Indomitus Set,' it makes sense if these pages are just... leftovers.
I sure hope so. The Enmitic weapon makes zero sense.... It just fulfills no purpose.
Well... don't hope too hard. 'Draft' doesn't mean the weapons have different stats in the final version.
Though if they are, consider that the Skorpekh lord's enmitic weapon is actually worse, so if they are different, there is a chance it could be in the wrong direction.
Yeah, but at least I can understand that since the Skorpekh lord is primarily a CC unit with a small shooting bonus.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So we've resigned ourselves to the reality that the basic Destroyer kit isn't getting replaced?
Resigned isn't quite the right word. Just no real indications that it is.
Between GW staffer using them in a new army project and still being listed in the webstore (the monolith, by contrast, is gone completely, and we know that's getting replaced), signs point to it carrying on.
Voss wrote: Between GW staffer using them in a new army project...
That said, GW have printed Codices that omit pictures of new models that haven't been revealed, even if they're coming out a few weeks after the Codex comes out, so it's possible that the GW staffer wasn't allowed to use/wasn't given access to the new models because GW are still petrified of previewing stuff.
Oguhmek wrote: Regarding the old destroyers - Darren Latham, miniatures designer at GW, just posted a WIP video of regular destroyers for his personal Necron army on Instagram. So I don’t expect them to be replaced anytime soon. As for the heavy one or the destroyer lord however, my instincts tells me that those will be replaced by the new models we’ve seen, but this is just pure speculation at the moment.
Damn. Really puts a dampener on the Destroyer Cult theme if normal Destroyers don't get new models and the Heavy is just an ETB.
Really? Getting new options and not losing anything seems like a benefit for the Destroyer Cult theme, not a loss.
It's not great for those who don't want to be running 20 year old models.
At least you don't get price hike. Like ig players clamoring for new troops. New models nice but from 22.5 pounds for 10 you would go 32.5 or higher...
In any case, I'll still hold out hope. For all we know DL may simply have had those lying around and didn't want to waste them; leaving any units with green rods still on sale is a bit of a bizarre decision from GW if this is the way they've decided to do it.
Not really. Unlike what many seem to believe instant replacement of what they are replacing isn't all at once generally. This is already like twice as big release for npc faction. Expecting even more is optimistic
Uh, yeah, really. This isn't about "instant replacement", it's about how many units are left still using the old plastic rods. As it currently stands based off what remains on the webstore the only units would be an old Lord, the Destroyer Lord, and Destroyers (heavy & normal). Given the Heavies are clearly being replaced I don't think it is at all unreasonable to avoid declaring Destroyers' hopes of a revamps dead just yet and a GW staff member building old Destroyers on his instagram is far from proof that they're remaining. Replacing them must have been on their radar; we'll see what happens.
I am not sure why people are assuming heavy destroyers are going away. Why would GW all of a sudden take heavy destroyers out? Especially considering there is a difference between them rules wise, I can see why you would want to take the new ones or the old ones in games. My advice is... don't make assumptions. Heavy destroyers will still be around. Just because a new unit comes out does not mean a unit will disappear suddenly out of the codex.
Tastyfish wrote: My brother got a box of destroyers recently, the green rods have been replaced with grey plastic ones.
A photo says a thousand words - can we see!
It'd be a photo of three leadbelcher destroyers! I've asked him and apparently they came with both plain grey and the traditional green rods on separate sprues.
The box was unmarked and didn't include instructions at all...
Crusaderobr wrote: I am not sure why people are assuming heavy destroyers are going away. Why would GW all of a sudden take heavy destroyers out? Especially considering there is a difference between them rules wise, I can see why you would want to take the new ones or the old ones in games. My advice is... don't make assumptions. Heavy destroyers will still be around. Just because a new unit comes out does not mean a unit will disappear suddenly out of the codex.
Yes, why would anyone assume Heavy Destroyers are being replaced by Lokhust Heavy Destroyers with a nearly identical gun and stats? Because GW have surely never replaced an old kit with a new one and added a weapon option to encourage purchases of the new variant before. I mean, imagine if exactly that had just happened with an iconic unit from the very same codex or something… or even two of them. Especially if doing so would remove the need to maintain a contract with a third-party supplier for a tiny, fiddly component that looks out-of-place next to the aesthetic they’ve chosen for this edition.
The only question imho is what’s happening with regular Destroyers since we’ve seen no rumours or previews of a potential replacement.
Crusaderobr wrote: I am not sure why people are assuming heavy destroyers are going away. Why would GW all of a sudden take heavy destroyers out? Especially considering there is a difference between them rules wise, I can see why you would want to take the new ones or the old ones in games. My advice is... don't make assumptions. Heavy destroyers will still be around. Just because a new unit comes out does not mean a unit will disappear suddenly out of the codex.
The fact that Heavy Destroyers are a green rod fine cast upgrade kit would be the main reason.
While I"m not sure if the regular destroyers are sticking around, there is almost a 0% that regular Heavy destroyers are sticking around. They are being replaced by the Lokhust Heavy Destroyers, with the original likely being just Lokhust Destroyers.
I'm imagining at some point the regular destroyer kit will be replaced, but replacing the heavy destroyer kit now means getting rid of both the green rods and metal/finecast gun. That sounds like a no-brainer to do.
Shipping the regular destroyers with grey plastic rods sounds like a half-measure at best, if true.
This reminds me very much of the fairly recent redesign of the crisis suits - broadsides got their own kit distinct from the crisis suits, and then crisis suits got their own update (can't remember if it was at the same time, I think I remember they were done at different times).
Where are the Heavy destroyer and canoptek walker data sheets from? it seems odd to me that the units have no special rules, surely they aren’t codex pics.
Guyver 3 wrote: Where are the Heavy destroyer and canoptek walker data sheets from? it seems odd to me that the units have no special rules, surely they aren’t codex pics.
We don't know. Best guess is from a draft version of Indomitus or a draft Indomitus expansion booklet.
Guyver 3 wrote: Where are the Heavy destroyer and canoptek walker data sheets from? it seems odd to me that the units have no special rules, surely they aren’t codex pics.
Again, that looks a lot like entries from a campaign box set booklet. But I could definitely be wrong.
Crusaderobr wrote: I am not sure why people are assuming heavy destroyers are going away. Why would GW all of a sudden take heavy destroyers out? Especially considering there is a difference between them rules wise, I can see why you would want to take the new ones or the old ones in games. My advice is... don't make assumptions. Heavy destroyers will still be around. Just because a new unit comes out does not mean a unit will disappear suddenly out of the codex.
The fact that Heavy Destroyers are a green rod fine cast upgrade kit would be the main reason.
While I"m not sure if the regular destroyers are sticking around, there is almost a 0% that regular Heavy destroyers are sticking around. They are being replaced by the Lokhust Heavy Destroyers, with the original likely being just Lokhust Destroyers.
Ok well like I said that is your assumption to make. I still find it highly unlikely they will remove heavy destroyers just because a new different unit comes out. I guess well see who was right when the time comes. You could have just said " I think they are removing heavy destroyers out of the necron codex " saying something has a 0% chance is a pretty silly statement to make, and honestly doesn't make much sense, since you don't need to bring math into the equation to make a simple assumption like you have.
Removing heavy destroyers would be a dick move by GW, taking away models that people bought, painted, payed for with money and have been using for years is just daft. Plus like I said, there is room for both.
Crusaderobr wrote: Ok well like I said that is your assumption to make. I still find it highly unlikely they will remove heavy destroyers just because a new different unit comes out.
Is it a different unit? Or is it the same unit with a different name and updated models?
Crusaderobr wrote: Ok well like I said that is your assumption to make. I still find it highly unlikely they will remove heavy destroyers just because a new different unit comes out.
Is it a different unit? Or is it the same unit with a different name and updated models?
One could argue either case, but in my opinion, it is a different unit. Higher points cost, different statline, different name, 2 different guns. This is just my opinion though, yours may be different, and that is fine. I would be very surprised and a little irritated at GW if regular heavy destroyers all of a sudden disappeared out of the 9th edition codex. My friend regularly plays with 6-9 of them depending on the game. I am sure others play them as well.
Crusaderobr wrote: Ok well like I said that is your assumption to make. I still find it highly unlikely they will remove heavy destroyers just because a new different unit comes out.
Is it a different unit? Or is it the same unit with a different name and updated models?
Well let's see. Different point cost, different weapons, different stat line, GW saying it is new unit.
Crusaderobr wrote: I am not sure why people are assuming heavy destroyers are going away. Why would GW all of a sudden take heavy destroyers out? Especially considering there is a difference between them rules wise, I can see why you would want to take the new ones or the old ones in games. My advice is... don't make assumptions. Heavy destroyers will still be around. Just because a new unit comes out does not mean a unit will disappear suddenly out of the codex.
The fact that Heavy Destroyers are a green rod fine cast upgrade kit would be the main reason.
While I"m not sure if the regular destroyers are sticking around, there is almost a 0% that regular Heavy destroyers are sticking around. They are being replaced by the Lokhust Heavy Destroyers, with the original likely being just Lokhust Destroyers.
Ok well like I said that is your assumption to make. I still find it highly unlikely they will remove heavy destroyers just because a new different unit comes out. I guess well see who was right when the time comes. You could have just said " I think they are removing heavy destroyers out of the necron codex " saying something has a 0% chance is a pretty silly statement to make, and honestly doesn't make much sense, since you don't need to bring math into the equation to make a simple assumption like you have.
Removing heavy destroyers would be a dick move by GW, taking away models that people bought, painted, payed for with money and have been using for years is just daft. Plus like I said, there is room for both.
Do you really think it's more likely that GW keeps producing a kit that has both green rods and finecast (both of which GW is clearly trying to remove from it's model lineups), instead of just replacing it with the new plastic kit with an almost identical name, purpose and slot in the force org?
This is pretty typical on how GW does things, and it would not be the first or the last model to suffer this fate.
The green rod theory does hold some weight.
The Cnoptys tomb stalker is No longer Available, and it used green rods.
Such a bummer because i was hoping to get one for my fledgling necron army.
Crusaderobr wrote: Ok well like I said that is your assumption to make. I still find it highly unlikely they will remove heavy destroyers just because a new different unit comes out.
Is it a different unit? Or is it the same unit with a different name and updated models?
Well let's see. Different point cost, different weapons, different stat line, GW saying it is new unit.
None of those prevent GW from giving them the background fluff of the normal Destroyers and doing away with the old models.
Crusaderobr wrote: I am not sure why people are assuming heavy destroyers are going away. Why would GW all of a sudden take heavy destroyers out? Especially considering there is a difference between them rules wise, I can see why you would want to take the new ones or the old ones in games. My advice is... don't make assumptions. Heavy destroyers will still be around. Just because a new unit comes out does not mean a unit will disappear suddenly out of the codex.
The fact that Heavy Destroyers are a green rod fine cast upgrade kit would be the main reason.
While I"m not sure if the regular destroyers are sticking around, there is almost a 0% that regular Heavy destroyers are sticking around. They are being replaced by the Lokhust Heavy Destroyers, with the original likely being just Lokhust Destroyers.
Ok well like I said that is your assumption to make. I still find it highly unlikely they will remove heavy destroyers just because a new different unit comes out. I guess well see who was right when the time comes. You could have just said " I think they are removing heavy destroyers out of the necron codex " saying something has a 0% chance is a pretty silly statement to make, and honestly doesn't make much sense, since you don't need to bring math into the equation to make a simple assumption like you have.
Removing heavy destroyers would be a dick move by GW, taking away models that people bought, painted, payed for with money and have been using for years is just daft. Plus like I said, there is room for both.
Legends seems to indicate otherwise as several old models have been retired already, though I think we'll still see Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers, just with noticeably different models (again, thinking Tau Crisis suits vs. Broadside suits).
EnTyme wrote: That's not an opinion, it's an assumption.
It is both an opinion and an assumption. What is your point?
"The new stats are better than the old ones" is an opinion. "The new stats are for a completely different unit" is an assumption.
Ok? So that useless bit of information is helpful to the discussion how? Do you have an opinion/assumption on heavy destroyers and the new models GW just released or are you going to sit back and tell people who post on this forum that a sentence they type about this subject is an opinion or assumption based on your opinion? If so that is really annoying, and your not contributing to the discussion very well.
gorgon wrote: Again, that looks a lot like entries from a campaign box set booklet. But I could definitely be wrong.
That's what I've been thinking, an Indomitus expansion that contains all the EZ2B kits that are coming out.
It might be. Take a look at the pics in the Starter set and Recruitment articles from today and yesterday.
The pics of the starter sets includes the Necron Warrior datasheet, and lacks its abilities (reroll 1s on RP and Reanimation Protocols). The 'Abilities' section between Wargear options and Keywords is just gone, just like our 4 mystery datasheets.
So they were either intended for these sets at some point, or there will be an EZ Build 'expansion box(es)' that contains some or all of them.
Speaking of kits, now that we're a couple of weeks post launch of Indomitus, do we have any inclination of when kits will begin to roll out?
Given that we know there are still missing reveals for Space Marines (Land Speeder, Heavy Intecessors, Heavy Captain, Rumored replacement for the Vindicator) is it safe to assume that there are also unrevealed Necron kits beyond the (shooty Reapers)?
Togusa wrote: Speaking of kits, now that we're a couple of weeks post launch of Indomitus, do we have any inclination of when kits will begin to roll out?
When the Codex comes out is the safest bet. November will be expensive.
Togusa wrote: Given that we know there are still missing reveals for Space Marines (Land Speeder, Heavy Intecessors, Heavy Captain, Rumored replacement for the Vindicator) is it safe to assume that there are also unrevealed Necron kits beyond the (shooty Reapers)?
I very much hope so. They need to show replacements for Destroyers.
Togusa wrote: Speaking of kits, now that we're a couple of weeks post launch of Indomitus, do we have any inclination of when kits will begin to roll out?
When the Codex comes out is the safest bet. November will be expensive.
Togusa wrote: Given that we know there are still missing reveals for Space Marines (Land Speeder, Heavy Intecessors, Heavy Captain, Rumored replacement for the Vindicator) is it safe to assume that there are also unrevealed Necron kits beyond the (shooty Reapers)?
I very much hope so. They need to show replacements for Destroyers.
I was hoping they'd roll stuff out a lot sooner than November. For example they make it seem like the full bladeguard kit could go up for preorder within two weeks.
Also, I would really like to see either Grimaldis or Helbrect get primerized soon. BT, CF were the only chapters that didn't get a prime character during last years codex event.
Togusa wrote: Speaking of kits, now that we're a couple of weeks post launch of Indomitus, do we have any inclination of when kits will begin to roll out?
When the Codex comes out is the safest bet. November will be expensive.
Togusa wrote: Given that we know there are still missing reveals for Space Marines (Land Speeder, Heavy Intecessors, Heavy Captain, Rumored replacement for the Vindicator) is it safe to assume that there are also unrevealed Necron kits beyond the (shooty Reapers)?
I very much hope so. They need to show replacements for Destroyers.
I was hoping they'd roll stuff out a lot sooner than November. For example they make it seem like the full bladeguard kit could go up for preorder within two weeks.
Also, I would really like to see either Grimaldis or Helbrect get primerized soon. BT, CF were the only chapters that didn't get a prime character during last years codex event.
I'd be surprised if any Post Indomitus stuff come out any earlier than October or November. We have so much slated for release that was teased before 9th was revealed.
*The whole Lumineth army
*Mega gargants for AOS *Two Warcry warbands
*The last two Underworlds teams
Some of the above have confirmed release dates, but I imagine most of them will come out before the new space marines and necron
I now wouldn't be surprised if they squeezed in the stuff they've 'officially' shown off. (And that includes the primaris biker chaplain, who's tagged as 'Indomitus adjacent' with points in CA2020).
A follow-up 'Indomitus expansion' release in between the fantasy stuff, around August/September divide. It would ease some of the pressure of doing two codex releases (with quite a few big miniature releases each) in the same month.
Also the Bladeguard multipart, which got mentioned as:
These glorious warriors will soon be available in a separate, multipart kit all their own. If you’re chomping at the bit to add a unit or two into your army, you won’t have long to wait!
The codexes were not announced as 'soon,' simply October, with the tanks and monolith implied to go along with those (and of course, the fuzzy land speeder, the King, the Dragon and the fuzzy thing behind the monolith)
Add in GW's tendency not to show things off too long before release..
Togusa wrote: Speaking of kits, now that we're a couple of weeks post launch of Indomitus, do we have any inclination of when kits will begin to roll out?
Given that we know there are still missing reveals for Space Marines (Land Speeder, Heavy Intecessors, Heavy Captain, Rumored replacement for the Vindicator) is it safe to assume that there are also unrevealed Necron kits beyond the (shooty Reapers)?
Probably October. More often then not, the codex comes out the first week of releases. October 3 at the earliest, but likely October 10.
Togusa wrote: Speaking of kits, now that we're a couple of weeks post launch of Indomitus, do we have any inclination of when kits will begin to roll out?
When the Codex comes out is the safest bet. November will be expensive.
Togusa wrote: Given that we know there are still missing reveals for Space Marines (Land Speeder, Heavy Intecessors, Heavy Captain, Rumored replacement for the Vindicator) is it safe to assume that there are also unrevealed Necron kits beyond the (shooty Reapers)?
I very much hope so. They need to show replacements for Destroyers.
I was hoping they'd roll stuff out a lot sooner than November. For example they make it seem like the full bladeguard kit could go up for preorder within two weeks.
Also, I would really like to see either Grimaldis or Helbrect get primerized soon. BT, CF were the only chapters that didn't get a prime character during last years codex event.
They only showed off the blade guard this early because the picture leaked. Given that there are alternate weapon options in the kit, they would need to release point costs and rules as well, which would logically be in the codex.
The 4 etb kits I do hope are coming soon, since they do have point costs given in CA.
If there was a vindicator replacement, I would have expected it to be listed in the sm codex table of contents.
If there was a vindicator replacement, I would have expected it to be listed in the sm codex table of contents.
That could just be the Gladiator Lancer
Alternatively, you could build a Gladiator Lancer – an anti-tank sniper that’s ideal for chewing through your opponents’ most durable war machines and monsters.
Though I'm not clear what 'AT sniper' means in this context- the gun barrel isn't familiar to me- but it could be a 'normal' version of the 'heavy laser destructor' on the Repulsor Executioner
though the Valiant seems a more direct role in replacing the Vindicator
You just saw the Gladiator Valiant – a short-ranged armour hunter that uses twin las-talons and multi-meltas to scrap armour and heavy infantry alike.
Not one big gun, but uber-dedicated to short ranged AT.
And of course the Reaper is just anti-infantry out the wazoo (tempest bolters, which look like 4 heavy bolters each, though I guess they could be bolt rifle version of hurricane bolters, and 2 twin heavy onslaughts). Hopefully they won't make the mistake they made with the LR Punisher, and make the anti-infantry tank competitive for AT just by volume of fire.
Togusa wrote: Speaking of kits, now that we're a couple of weeks post launch of Indomitus, do we have any inclination of when kits will begin to roll out?
When the Codex comes out is the safest bet. November will be expensive.
Togusa wrote: Given that we know there are still missing reveals for Space Marines (Land Speeder, Heavy Intecessors, Heavy Captain, Rumored replacement for the Vindicator) is it safe to assume that there are also unrevealed Necron kits beyond the (shooty Reapers)?
I very much hope so. They need to show replacements for Destroyers.
I was hoping they'd roll stuff out a lot sooner than November. For example they make it seem like the full bladeguard kit could go up for preorder within two weeks.
Also, I would really like to see either Grimaldis or Helbrect get primerized soon. BT, CF were the only chapters that didn't get a prime character during last years codex event.
They only showed off the blade guard this early because the picture leaked. Given that there are alternate weapon options in the kit, they would need to release point costs and rules as well, which would logically be in the codex.
The 4 etb kits I do hope are coming soon, since they do have point costs given in CA.
If there was a vindicator replacement, I would have expected it to be listed in the sm codex table of contents.
You mean the one we have only seen like, blurry pics of?
EnTyme wrote: That's not an opinion, it's an assumption.
It is both an opinion and an assumption. What is your point?
"The new stats are better than the old ones" is an opinion. "The new stats are for a completely different unit" is an assumption.
Well gw is backing those who says it's new unit. They referred it as new unit. So if you think it's replacement model for same unit(despite different stats etc. That's like saying repulsor is replacement of land raider) you are disagreeing with gw. You know. The company that made it.
Togusa wrote: Speaking of kits, now that we're a couple of weeks post launch of Indomitus, do we have any inclination of when kits will begin to roll out?
Given that we know there are still missing reveals for Space Marines (Land Speeder, Heavy Intecessors, Heavy Captain, Rumored replacement for the Vindicator) is it safe to assume that there are also unrevealed Necron kits beyond the (shooty Reapers)?
Probably October. More often then not, the codex comes out the first week of releases. October 3 at the earliest, but likely October 10.
October 3 would be preorder date. So 10th is earlest you get codex at hand. For gw preorder date is what counts so latest october releases would be at hand would be 7.11
Togusa wrote: Speaking of kits, now that we're a couple of weeks post launch of Indomitus, do we have any inclination of when kits will begin to roll out?
Given that we know there are still missing reveals for Space Marines (Land Speeder, Heavy Intecessors, Heavy Captain, Rumored replacement for the Vindicator) is it safe to assume that there are also unrevealed Necron kits beyond the (shooty Reapers)?
Probably October. More often then not, the codex comes out the first week of releases. October 3 at the earliest, but likely October 10.
October 3 would be preorder date. So 10th is earlest you get codex at hand. For gw preorder date is what counts so latest october releases would be at hand would be 7.11
There is *potential* for the preorders to start in September (hence why I said the 3rd at the earliest), but I agree, the 10th is the most likely date.
Togusa wrote: Speaking of kits, now that we're a couple of weeks post launch of Indomitus, do we have any inclination of when kits will begin to roll out?
Given that we know there are still missing reveals for Space Marines (Land Speeder, Heavy Intecessors, Heavy Captain, Rumored replacement for the Vindicator) is it safe to assume that there are also unrevealed Necron kits beyond the (shooty Reapers)?
Probably October. More often then not, the codex comes out the first week of releases. October 3 at the earliest, but likely October 10.
October 3 would be preorder date. So 10th is earlest you get codex at hand. For gw preorder date is what counts so latest october releases would be at hand would be 7.11
There is *potential* for the preorders to start in September (hence why I said the 3rd at the earliest), but I agree, the 10th is the most likely date.
Eeeh...No. That\s what I was saying. For GW it's the PREORDER date that defines what month it is. If it would be be preorder on september they would have said codex comes in september.
For GW october release dates are preorders in 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th, 31th. Preorders on those are october releases. If they say something comes in october it comes to preorder on THOSE days. Not week before. Not week later.
You can see how GW said with orks codex comes in october and it was on very last weekend of october for preorders and in store in november. People got angry calling GW liars etc despite them holding to their word in system that's been on for years.
That's why I knew sisters for example would not come to stores 7.3 when they said rest of sisters are coming march. If you check dates you see the reason.
Now does this make sense for us gamers? Not really. For us it's the day we can get the product on our hands that's most interesting. But it is what it is and keeping in mind how GW works you can avoid getting dissapointed like many ork players got and can have better idea of exact timeframe you can get it when GW says month it releases something. Just check what saturday's fall to said month and you know exactly which days preorders start at earliest and by latest. There's no "maybe preorders come on week before" wondering. You can discard automatically false days.
Tastyfish wrote: I'd also expect marines out first - with at least a few weeks of releases before the Necrons come out.
Yep, that sounds likely, so Necron's first release could well be pre-order 31st October (which would be annoying as I should be off work the first week of November so was hoping they would be out by then) but fingers crossed it's a bit earlier, would be surprised if they drop before Space Marines though.
Though less likely for main cash cow(40k) than AOS where they are more likely to do more player pleasing things(better cheaper app, free warscrolls on net, not endless amount of models to one faction etc)
Also they didn't have many models (if anything other than endless spells?).
I think the size of this release is going to make that logistically complicated.
Necrons have at least 8 new kits that have been previewed (excluding things like Skorpehk Lords, Reanimators and the Plasmancer which might be Indomitus exclusive for a little while and the things that made it into the starters) and we know for marines there's at least one other unit that's been leaked but not formally revealed.
Though I guess a paired release might be interesting - though a lot of people are going to be fuming if they do. It likely means that Indomitus and the starter sets are going be the only place for a lot of the new units.
16+ new Necron and Marine releases, plus the new characters for other armies at around 4 new kits a week would cover at least a month or so. Plus there's Warcry and AoS to fit in.
I reckon most of the things will be out by Christmas (apart from Indomitus limited exlcusive characters), but we're going to be talking a Impulsor timeframe.
Thankfully, the manuals included in all three Starter Sets feature some suggested additions for the collections in the boxes. Not only that, but as an added bonus, they also include the full datasheets for these new units as well as an extra mission designed with their inclusion in mind! They may not be available just yet, but keep an eye out for the Primaris Invader ATV, the Primaris Firestrike Servo-turret, the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer and Canoptek Doomstalker, as they’re all coming soon!
The 4 Etbs are likely one wave, likely the week after the starters drop. Possibly they will throw some specialist games stuff up at the same time.
The codex releases can go one of 2 ways. There are 5 Saturdays in october so they could do one codex the first weekend and model releases the following weeks mixed with smaller stuff, then the second the last weekend of October and repeat the process. Or they could do an interleaved release with. OTH codexes coming out at the same time with a handful of kits, and following weeks a mix of marine and necron models together.
The Particle weapon is a flat buff, and the new Gauss weapon is now better vs everything but T8. More wounds and the flat 3 damage in CC is really nice.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "... they also include the full datasheets for these new units..."
Heh. 'Full'.
Yeah, I don't know what's up with that. They've obviously got abilities cut. WarCom just being clueless, I guess.
---
The stalker changes are weird. Lower strength, but more attacks, mostly. More reliable CC (but still only 3 attacks, so whatever). Increased ranged on the dispersed heat ray.
Change to the twin heavy gauss cannon means even if they old heavy destroyers stick around, they're quite different. 3 shots at S7.
A lot of assumptions for what works and what doesn't for necrons are going to have be set on fire.
Odd how they changed the HGC to S7 D3 damage.
It was always a Lascannon equivalent prior to this, but now its more of a plasma cannon equivalent, which is just odd.
Not sure I like that change.
I guess they changed it to make the new Lokhust variants more appealing.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I don't think Stalkers should be combat monsters or anything but would A4 really have killed GW?
At least you're WS3/BS3. Daemon Engines are still stuck at 4/4.
Maulerfiends already have 4 attacks though (so both Land damage at the same average of 2 hits), but since Lashers are basically mandatory (LOL what Magna Cutters) it is a lot more than that.
It looks like the Heavy Destroyers just got the same treatment Tau Broadsides did. They went from anti-tank hotness to somewhat mid-tier heavy shooting.
For some reason, I'm kind of okay with this depending on what other changes are made. If I can have 6 heavy Destroyers flying around with that profile it will wreck a Primaris unit for sure. I can actually see a Destroyer heavy army being useful. 3x6 Destroyers/heavy destroyers and 3x3 Lokhurst heavy destroyers. Add in a destroyer Lord and you have a VERY mobile fire base.
cuda1179 wrote: It looks like the Heavy Destroyers just got the same treatment Tau Broadsides did. They went from anti-tank hotness to somewhat mid-tier heavy shooting.
For some reason, I'm kind of okay with this depending on what other changes are made. If I can have 6 heavy Destroyers flying around with that profile it will wreck a Primaris unit for sure. I can actually see a Destroyer heavy army being useful. 3x6 Destroyers/heavy destroyers and 3x3 Lokhurst heavy destroyers. Add in a destroyer Lord and you have a VERY mobile fire base.
I'm having a hard time deciding between X + either a Nihilakh Scarab outrider or a Szarekhan Lokhurst spearhead
With all these units looking much better with these rules tweaks, I’m stumped now with how I want to build my armies. I guess I’ll just have to buy everything.
cuda1179 wrote: It looks like the Heavy Destroyers just got the same treatment Tau Broadsides did. They went from anti-tank hotness to somewhat mid-tier heavy shooting.
For some reason, I'm kind of okay with this depending on what other changes are made. If I can have 6 heavy Destroyers flying around with that profile it will wreck a Primaris unit for sure. I can actually see a Destroyer heavy army being useful. 3x6 Destroyers/heavy destroyers and 3x3 Lokhurst heavy destroyers. Add in a destroyer Lord and you have a VERY mobile fire base.
I don't think heavy destroyers will exist as they once were. Lokhust is the variety of destroyer on an anti grav platform, so put that word in front of "heavy destroyer" and suddenly they don't exist any more.
The three barreled twin guns on the stalker changing doesn’t necessarily mean the single barrelled weapon on heavy destroyers is, if they still exist as “medium” destroyers.
cuda1179 wrote: It looks like the Heavy Destroyers just got the same treatment Tau Broadsides did. They went from anti-tank hotness to somewhat mid-tier heavy shooting.
changemod wrote: The three barreled twin guns on the stalker changing doesn’t necessarily mean the single barrelled weapon on heavy destroyers is, if they still exist as “medium” destroyers.
These two posts confuse me; we’ve seen the anti-tank version of the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer; it’s S10 AP-4 D3d3
So yes we know it’s still a thing and also it’s very clearly still an AT powerhouse; better even, given the superior average and maximum damage.
cuda1179 wrote: It looks like the Heavy Destroyers just got the same treatment Tau Broadsides did. They went from anti-tank hotness to somewhat mid-tier heavy shooting.
changemod wrote: The three barreled twin guns on the stalker changing doesn’t necessarily mean the single barrelled weapon on heavy destroyers is, if they still exist as “medium” destroyers.
These two posts confuse me; we’ve seen the anti-tank version of the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer; it’s S10 AP-4 D3d3
So yes we know it’s still a thing and also it’s very clearly still an AT powerhouse; better even, given the superior average and maximum damage.
I’m saying that in the event the “normal” heavy destroyer still exists, that’s still no guarantee it’s single barreled gun would have its profile changed the way the many-barreled gun of the triarch stalker was.
cuda1179 wrote: It looks like the Heavy Destroyers just got the same treatment Tau Broadsides did. They went from anti-tank hotness to somewhat mid-tier heavy shooting.
changemod wrote: The three barreled twin guns on the stalker changing doesn’t necessarily mean the single barrelled weapon on heavy destroyers is, if they still exist as “medium” destroyers.
These two posts confuse me; we’ve seen the anti-tank version of the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer; it’s S10 AP-4 D3d3
So yes we know it’s still a thing and also it’s very clearly still an AT powerhouse; better even, given the superior average and maximum damage.
I’m saying that in the event the “normal” heavy destroyer still exists, that’s still no guarantee it’s single barreled gun would have its profile changed the way the many-barreled gun of the triarch stalker was.
Ah, thank you for the clarification. That makes more sense.
That said, if it does exist unchanged, do you not feel like it would be totally outclassed by the Lokhust version?
If I had to guess, normal destroyers will stay largely unchanged, and the original heavy destroyer will become a normal destroyer with an optional special weapon. That makes room for the new lokhust destroyer to be the big heavy destroyer without invalidating everyone's existing original small heavy destroyers.
I'd would agree that the likely thing they go with is old destroyers will go legends but can be reasonably proxied as the lokhust. And the lokhust is basically both combined into one unit that essentially fills the same role if a bit differently. But the ETB will be the only entry in the lokhust destroyer line.
Tiberius501 wrote: With all these units looking much better with these rules tweaks, I’m stumped now with how I want to build my armies. I guess I’ll just have to buy everything.
Its had the opposite effect on me. I'm on pause (except basing) for my necron project until the codex drops. Too many unknowns and a lot of changes.
BrotherGecko wrote: I'd would agree that the likely thing they go with is old destroyers will go legends but can be reasonably proxied as the lokhust. And the lokhust is basically both combined into one unit that essentially fills the same role if a bit differently. But the ETB will be the only entry in the lokhust destroyer line.
Except lokhust heavy destroyer does only job of heavy destroyer and isn't even all that better while being softer and so far less mobile. Nothrng even close to reqular destroyer role has been shown
BrotherGecko wrote: I'd would agree that the likely thing they go with is old destroyers will go legends but can be reasonably proxied as the lokhust. And the lokhust is basically both combined into one unit that essentially fills the same role if a bit differently. But the ETB will be the only entry in the lokhust destroyer line.
Except lokhust heavy destroyer does only job of heavy destroyer and isn't even all that better while being softer and so far less mobile. Nothrng even close to reqular destroyer role has been shown
Being better or not doesn't matter, but the destroyers role is elite infantry and light vehicle hunting, which we've just seen the stalker is becoming very good at and other units also fill that role pretty well.
I know there is a want for normal destroyers but I don't think there is a need for them when there are other options.
The new heavy destroyer has two weapons, the second weapon looks more in line with what the regular destroyers used. I hope regular ones still exist as I used them heavily since 4th edition.
zanzibarthefirst wrote: The new heavy destroyer has two weapons, the second weapon looks more in line with what the regular destroyers used. I hope regular ones still exist as I used them heavily since 4th edition.
I understand people have collections with normal destroyers in but if they vanish rules wise you just suddenly landed yourself a large unit of lokhust heavy destroyers, look at it that way.
zanzibarthefirst wrote: The new heavy destroyer has two weapons, the second weapon looks more in line with what the regular destroyers used. I hope regular ones still exist as I used them heavily since 4th edition.
I understand people have collections with normal destroyers in but if they vanish rules wise you just suddenly landed yourself a large unit of lokhust heavy destroyers, look at it that way.
True, It’s just a shame that the lokhusts appear to be a poorer version that the old destroyers.
zanzibarthefirst wrote: The new heavy destroyer has two weapons, the second weapon looks more in line with what the regular destroyers used. I hope regular ones still exist as I used them heavily since 4th edition.
It's not even close to same. It's weapon you use to tickle grots. Destroyers were wasted firing grots. This emitec whatever you are wasting shooting at what destroyers were fired a'
Emetic isn’t a great replacement for anything in my book, should Definatly have been damage 2 but I don’t think anyone will build it that way especially as the new gauss is so good!!
Average 6 wounds per unsaved wound instead of d6 is an insane boost.
4w on the unit is also very nice. Only the points cost will decide if it’s worth it as the old heavy destroyers (Maybe going to legends) are still nicely priced.
Dam3d3 is nice yes. Heavy destroyers more accurate, more mobile(lokust is static guntower) and 40pts vs 70. Old hd actually outperforms vs russ. Even more on move
Being better or not doesn't matter, but the destroyers role is elite infantry and light vehicle hunting, which we've just seen the stalker is becoming very good at and other units also fill that role pretty well.
I know there is a want for normal destroyers but I don't think there is a need for them when there are other options.
Add to this both the new Heavy Destroyer and (moreso?) the Doomstalker are more dedicated AV choices. Turns the stalker into a mid-range heavy shooting platform which is nice because it's potentially more useful with its reroll ability? Soften up some heavier infantry before Immortals or Warriors follow up.
Obsidorox wrote: If I had to guess, normal destroyers will stay largely unchanged, and the original heavy destroyer will become a normal destroyer with an optional special weapon. That makes room for the new lokhust destroyer to be the big heavy destroyer without invalidating everyone's existing original small heavy destroyers.
Obsidorox wrote: If I had to guess, normal destroyers will stay largely unchanged, and the original heavy destroyer will become a normal destroyer with an optional special weapon. That makes room for the new lokhust destroyer to be the big heavy destroyer without invalidating everyone's existing original small heavy destroyers.
This is what I think will happen.
I think this would very likely be the case if it wasn't for the fact that the current Heavy Destroyer is a Finecast upgrade kit with a green rod. I see no compelling reason why they would keep it around and not send it to legends.
They seem to still be selling all those kits tho. The things we know are getting replaced have all been pulled already. Based on that, I think a few green rods will hang around a bit longer.
Not to bring into the discussion all the 'we added an adjective so we get to make this better' weapons that primaris already have like bolters autocannons heavy stubbers etc.
What are the odds that ANY of this makes it to the rest of the game prior to the long codex slog? My money's on at least another 6 months of space marines feeling like they're playing a completely different edition of the game where you get better weapons, special formation bonuses for going monofaction, customizable subfaction traits where you get to pick the stuff from any chapter you want, and better versions of standard core rules like Gets Hot, Reroll to hit auras, Melta, etc.
What rumours? That they're going to 12"? That appears to be happening to a lot of flamer-type weapons, likely to avoid the stupidity of flamers being unable to fire overwatch at anything over 8" away despite the units they're firing at literally getting closer.
the_scotsman wrote: My money's on at least another 6 months of space marines feeling like they're playing a completely different edition of the game where you get better weapons, special formation bonuses for going monofaction, customizable subfaction traits where you get to pick the stuff from any chapter you want, and better versions of standard core rules like Gets Hot, Reroll to hit auras, Melta, etc.
You're acting as if other armies won't get changes as well? We know Necrons are up alongside Marines.
Yes other armies get them. Eventually. Maybe sisters have another codex with updated weapons in 2030!
And of course if you are not loyalist marine you are NPC and thus get appropriate treatment. For example necron leaks so far have been decidedly underwhelming.
What rumours? That they're going to 12"? That appears to be happening to a lot of flamer-type weapons, likely to avoid the stupidity of flamers being unable to fire overwatch at anything over 8" away despite the units they're firing at literally getting closer.
the_scotsman wrote: My money's on at least another 6 months of space marines feeling like they're playing a completely different edition of the game where you get better weapons, special formation bonuses for going monofaction, customizable subfaction traits where you get to pick the stuff from any chapter you want, and better versions of standard core rules like Gets Hot, Reroll to hit auras, Melta, etc.
You're acting as if other armies won't get changes as well? We know Necrons are up alongside Marines.
Hey, when you experience one of your factions getting to play for a year and a half where the only free thing you get for showing up is "your warlord gets a 6+ FNP" and your opponent gets chapter traits, custom warlord trait, free relic and your only strat is "reroll 1 die once per phase" you get to know what kind of "balance" to expect from a codex release schedule.
If you play Admech+Space Marines you didn't have to deal with that gak, but it fething sucked to be across the table from people who just took it for granted that they should get to have all that free gak against you. heck, my second game of 9th I was playing an opponent who got to pick custom chapter traits while still getting all the relics, wl traits, strats and gak from the subfaction he wanted, his chapter trait was vastly superior to mine, and still when I said what my trait was he was like "oh, but that's only on infantry right, your vehicles and patriarch doesn't get a 6++" as if that was a cool and perfectly balanced thing.
So yeah, I'm acting like other factions won't get that stuff. I played through 7th with 5 different armies, and at the close of the edition, 1/5 had the "decurion superformation" thing that was the big 'oh everyone will get this eventually just let me play with mine even though you don't get one I'm sure GW will update everyone soon!' of that edition.
Also, it's almost like you could give space marines MORE EXPENSIVE versions of those weapons if they're going to be better. Or, I dunno, maybe base melee weaponry on your core stats, and give space marines better core stats to represent them being better with that weapon. Like an intercessor could have 4A S8 Ap-3 Dd3 hitting on 4s with a power fist while a guard sergeant could have 2A S6 AP-3 Dd3 hitting on 5s. that could be a good way to represent that.
Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?
Well yeah, but that's why their strength is based on the model's base profile. Marines are S4 rather than S3 to represent that difference. The weapon getting a Strength bonus generally implies something about the weapon contributing to its greater power.
I'm not super worked up about it personally, but it does seem like an odd new direction for melee weapons.
Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?
Well yeah, but that's why their strength is based on the model's base profile. Marines are S4 rather than S3 to represent that difference. The weapon getting a Strength bonus generally implies something about the weapon contributing to its greater power.
I'm not super worked up about it personally, but it does seem like an odd new direction for melee weapons.
It's also really bad practice for the same piece of wargear to have multiple versions of rules. Players can't rely on their own memory during games, slowing things down.
I expect this will be changed for everyone eventually; curious if it's going to happen quickly or very slowly.
Tiberius501 wrote: I would imagine all power swords will become S+1, they aren’t called Astartes powerswords like the chainswords are.
If the marine codex drops and GW puts out some kind of FAQ pass going
"All Melta (and fusion) guns are now D6+2 damage while in melta range"
"All Gets Hot effects now go off on a natural roll of 1"
"All Heavy Bolters are now damage 2"
"All Power Swords and equivalent weapons are now S+1"
"All Power Fists and equivalent weapons are now Damage 2"
"All Chainfists and equivalent weapons are now Damage D3"
"All Storm Shields are now +1 to normal Save rolls and a 4++ Invuln Save"
"All Terminators now get +1 wound"
then...let's see...
....Harlequins get an unneeded buff (fusion pistols). Custodes get a kind of side-grade with the storm shields. Heavy Bolters become 100% better autocannons but that only affects a couple of oddball units that choose between those weapons like HWTs and Sentinels, I don't see that creating a new power option for anyone. Howling Banshees get a needed buff. Crusaders get what is probably an overall nerf. Sisters get a big, big buff, probably putting them in the top competitive tier. Guard get an overall buff but are currently kind of underpowered so Flamers/Melta getting better for them is a good thing. Tank commanders with MM and Demolishers might be a little problematic? Maybe? They're pretty pricy for their defensive profile.
GK and DG terminators I can DEFINITELY see being a balance problem. Terminator-equivalents like MANz and Aberrants feel even shittier. Bladeguard ironically are INSTANTLY obsoleted by new sexy terminators.
It's definitely a huge balance splash that will almost certainly result in the "haves" like GK, DG, SM and BA getting even stronger, while the Have-Nots like Drukhari and GSC suffer even more.
Assuming of course GW don't go the route of just...giving SM better stuff and "maybe eveyone gets the new toys when you buy your 40$ codex, maybe, enjoy continuing to pay the same price as SM for your shittier stuff"
Admittedly the most "theorized" of the bunch, but the weapon that the Invictor Warsuit had that was previously a heavy bolter got changed to 1 shot, S5 AP-1, Damage 2.
People are currently extrapolating off of that to assume that Heavy Bolters are changing to be damage 2, but not changing to be 1 shot, and the Invictor will have some kind of "Light Heavy Bolter" or maybe "Heavy Heavy Bolt Pistol" because primaris marines needed their 19th unique bolt weapon.
Tiberius501 wrote: I would imagine all power swords will become S+1, they aren’t called Astartes powerswords like the chainswords are.
They aren't called anything on the sheet. They could always change it in the unit entry to be a "Terminator Power Sword" in the actual Codex just to screw everyone else.
Tiberius501 wrote: I would imagine all power swords will become S+1, they aren’t called Astartes powerswords like the chainswords are.
If that's the case then wouldn't this be a buff for some Xenos like Howling Banshees?
It definitely would be.
IF they do it like that.
I find that to be a bigger "if" than some people do, evidently. Given that, for example, GW just put out brand new rules for Storm Shields for the new primaris stuff, and chose not to even change the rules for storm shields in the very same codex.
Tiberius501 wrote: I would imagine all power swords will become S+1, they aren’t called Astartes powerswords like the chainswords are.
If that's the case then wouldn't this be a buff for some Xenos like Howling Banshees?
It definitely would be.
IF they do it like that.
I find that to be a bigger "if" than some people do, evidently. Given that, for example, GW just put out brand new rules for Storm Shields for the new primaris stuff, and chose not to even change the rules for storm shields in the very same codex.
Tiberius501 wrote: I would imagine all power swords will become S+1, they aren’t called Astartes powerswords like the chainswords are.
If that's the case then wouldn't this be a buff for some Xenos like Howling Banshees?
It definitely would be.
IF they do it like that.
I find that to be a bigger "if" than some people do, evidently. Given that, for example, GW just put out brand new rules for Storm Shields for the new primaris stuff, and chose not to even change the rules for storm shields in the very same codex.
The codex that's getting released in October?
No sorry, easy mistake to make, the one they came out with like 6 months before quarantine. Not Marines 3.0 upcoming in october. I mean the fully legal space marine codex that had like 6 months of use time that marine players also had to pay twice as much to get as a normal codex because of the supplements.
You can argue the merits of complaining about the treatment space marines are getting but you can't argue it isn't justified. The sheer volume of rules they can stack to inflict damage is insane. I watched a game by tabletop titans it was Ultramarines v necrons.
He had 6 aggressors with fragstorm grenade launchers with an ability allowing them to shoot again if they died. The number of times the necrons killed 1 aggressor but subsequently then lost two or more warriors was insane. On one occasion the necron player lost 6 warriors to kill 2 aggressors. Six warriors, in the necron shooting phase! All because of a combination of the blast rule, re rolling hits and wounds of 1 and the ability to shoot again on a 4+ when they die. Necrons had nothing like it.
Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?
Well yeah, but that's why their strength is based on the model's base profile. Marines are S4 rather than S3 to represent that difference. The weapon getting a Strength bonus generally implies something about the weapon contributing to its greater power.
I'm not super worked up about it personally, but it does seem like an odd new direction for melee weapons.
It's also really bad practice for the same piece of wargear to have multiple versions of rules. Players can't rely on their own memory during games, slowing things down.
I expect this will be changed for everyone eventually; curious if it's going to happen quickly or very slowly.
It's been for melta weapons for year so. And usual for gw. As gw said check datasheets. Long live bespoken rules players demanded rather than universal.
Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?
Why are they superior in the hand of someone monumentally stronger than your average human but only if this someone is a follower of the Imperium rather than a follower of Chaos???
Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?
Why are they superior in the hand of someone monumentally stronger than your average human but only if this someone is a follower of the Imperium rather than a follower of Chaos???
Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?
Why are they superior in the hand of someone monumentally stronger than your average human but only if this someone is a follower of the Imperium rather than a follower of Chaos???
Do we even know if Chaos Terminators aren't getting the same changes or are you just trying to meet your whine quota?
Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?
Why are they superior in the hand of someone monumentally stronger than your average human but only if this someone is a follower of the Imperium rather than a follower of Chaos???
Do we even know if Chaos Terminators aren't getting the same changes or are you just trying to meet your whine quota?
We currently have no evidence that they are getting the same changes. This has some people concerned.
Calling such concern a "whine" isn't helping matters, Jack.
Why would these not be superior in the hands of someone monumentally stronger than your average human?
Why are they superior in the hand of someone monumentally stronger than your average human but only if this someone is a follower of the Imperium rather than a follower of Chaos???
Do we even know if Chaos Terminators aren't getting the same changes or are you just trying to meet your whine quota?
Do you have any evidence they would get? Same wargear name? How does current chaos meltas work? Meltas got changed in marine codex 2.0. Seen any errataes to change that elsewhere?
Historically GW doesn't alter wargear rules via errata's to match others so even at best case you are looking at changes when new codex comes. So for sisters for example more like 2030.
