Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

personally, i think the lokhust heavy destroyer is a joke.
One gun has nowhere near the rate of fire to make that statline any good for its price
The other is slightly stronger than the heavy gauss cannon, for around twice the price (currently anyway, assuming regular heavy destroyers dont go up in points in the new codex).
I'd much rather have 2 heavy destroyers than 1 lokhust heavy destroyer.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
personally, i think the lokhust heavy destroyer is a joke.
One gun has nowhere near the rate of fire to make that statline any good for its price
The other is slightly stronger than the heavy gauss cannon, for around twice the price (currently anyway, assuming regular heavy destroyers dont go up in points in the new codex).
I'd much rather have 2 heavy destroyers than 1 lokhust heavy destroyer.

I would bet money on the current Heavy Destroyer being completely replaced by this new one - it is called the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer after all and GW just confirmed that Lokhusts are the floaty shooty Destroyers. That's sad, because I felt that Heavy Destroyers finally became viable with their points drop in the last CA for 8th edition but this new one just seems bad. The Enmitic gun us a travesty of rules design - decent fire rate, mediocre strength and terrible AP with only D1 makes it weird in all the wrong ways. The anti-tank gun is OK but still suffers from being single shot.

entirely possible. Lets hope not.

Ive been having people say that gun is rude because its consistent 5-7 damage while a D6 can easily roll a 1-2. They fail to realize that hes TWICE the price, so its actually less efficient as you have 1 shot that could flub instead of 2 to at least get some damage through and your damage average if they both wound is still about the same, but more swingy in both directions.
Single D6 damage shots are never that great. Multiples tend to delete things, its why the Morkanaut is actually a threat because 3D3 S8 Ap3 D6 damage shots tends to delete stuff even with a bad result that still at least did some damage.

i just dont get the enmitic gun at all. What is it supposed to fire at? Nowhere near the rate of fire to deal with horde, not enough AP or damage to deal with marines or vehicles. If Blast worked on a per-die basis i could see this being pretty good against medium sized squads, but its per attack not die so the blast rule actually does nothing until its 11+ models.

Unless it miraculously changes in the codex (which iirc has never happened) i dont see it ever making its points back.

The new Heavy Gauss Cannon or whatever is going to be ideal for blasting repulsors, (Non shield dome impulsors), guard vehicles, and space marine outriders.

Generally, if its a vehicle, or relies on just wounds, and doesn't have an invuln, that gun is its kryptonite. Assuming they're squads of 1-3 still, 3 shots with rerolls from EP, its a crazy amount of damage output, earning back points in 1-2 turns at good range, with great mobility.

The Enmitic Exterminator has the blast rule which means its role is to kill screen units. I don't think the option is bad but there are better choices in the Necron army. We have gauss weaponry with -2 AP and str 5 meaning it will wound marines on a 3+ just like the Enmitic Exterminator. The Enmitic Exterminator is for horde armies however the main problem is going to be its point cost. Why spend that much for Enmitic Exterminators with -1 AP weapons that wound marines on a 3+, when all of our troop choices can do the same thing with their gauss weapon except its -2 AP? If your local meta has t3 hordes or Orks it might be a great option 27 shots re-rolling 1's wounding on 2's (not the t4 Orks though) is .

The Doom Scythe is most likely going to be cheaper than a unit of 3 Lokhust Heavy Destoyers and be able to fire 3 str 12 -4 AP 3+D3 shots and 10 tesla shots! I love the Gauss Destroyer option as it is a true anti-tank monster! It is capable of destroying vehicles with ease but with 3 dice bad things can and will happen! The re-rolls that are built into the kit help a lot but you better keep that re-roll on stand by for the wound roll. Invulnerable saves against this unit will make you cry!

Kinda sad that the Lokhust HD isn't looking great, I found the fat destroyer model to be really funny, so I was hoping they were good. plus, good long range weaponry has always been something Necrons needed. I almost wonder if it's going to have 2+ ballistic or some sort of special rule, because it's looking a little underwhelming on the gameplay front. Idk, one can hope.

 CKO wrote:
The Enmitic Exterminator has the blast rule which means its role is to kill screen units. I don't think the option is bad but there are better choices in the Necron army.

How many 11+ model units you actually see? Those　have gone extinct worse than mammoths did.

You will still see 30 ork boys, 30 plaguebearers, 30 cultists, 20 poxwalkers, 30 gaunts because they have obsec.

You won't because removing those units will generally be trivial (maybe the Nurgle a bit harder), and they give up an easy 15 VP in secondary objectives. Build your army to deny your opponent easy secondary objectives.

People just like complaining

punisher357 wrote:
People just like complaining

This is so true, I am coming back to 40k, and every time I post something that I believe is good information there are negative comments that follow closely behind. I am starting to understand that in forums negativity is to be expected and I should do my best to keep a positive attitude!

With that positive energy, I am always looking at our new units trying to find a role for them. The new Lokhust Destroyer's best target is actually the new Space Marine units. -4 AP will ignore both Eradicators and Outrider's save and 3D3 damage will kill them easily. Three shots that hit on 3's (re-rolling ones), str 10 (wounding on 2's) -4 AP (ignore saves), and 3d3 damage that auto kills them. (3 shots 3 models) The gun is 36 inches with 8 fly movement which means if you play it correctly Eradicators and Aggressor Squads are to slow! This unit just gained a rolled against nearly every Marine list while maintaining its role as anti-tank! If you want to isn't there a new dynasty rule that has re-roll 1 wound roll?

What do you guys think?

 CKO wrote:

punisher357 wrote:
People just like complaining

This is so true, I am coming back to 40k, and every time I post something that I believe is good information there are negative comments that follow closely behind. I am starting to understand that in forums negativity is to be expected and I should do my best to keep a positive attitude!

With that positive energy, I am always looking at our new units trying to find a role for them. The new Lokhust Destroyer's best target is actually the new Space Marine units. -4 AP will ignore both Eradicators and Outrider's save and 3D3 damage will kill them easily. Three shots that hit on 3's (re-rolling ones), str 10 (wounding on 2's) -4 AP (ignore saves), and 3d3 damage that auto kills them. (3 shots 3 models) The gun is 36 inches with 8 fly movement which means if you play it correctly Eradicators and Aggressor Squads are to slow! This unit just gained a rolled against nearly every Marine list while maintaining its role as anti-tank! If you want to isn't there a new dynasty rule that has re-roll 1 wound roll?

What do you guys think?

Do they get to ignore Heavy? If not, then that's 4+ to hit.

 nintura wrote:

 CKO wrote:

punisher357 wrote:
People just like complaining

This is so true, I am coming back to 40k, and every time I post something that I believe is good information there are negative comments that follow closely behind. I am starting to understand that in forums negativity is to be expected and I should do my best to keep a positive attitude!

With that positive energy, I am always looking at our new units trying to find a role for them. The new Lokhust Destroyer's best target is actually the new Space Marine units. -4 AP will ignore both Eradicators and Outrider's save and 3D3 damage will kill them easily. Three shots that hit on 3's (re-rolling ones), str 10 (wounding on 2's) -4 AP (ignore saves), and 3d3 damage that auto kills them. (3 shots 3 models) The gun is 36 inches with 8 fly movement which means if you play it correctly Eradicators and Aggressor Squads are to slow! This unit just gained a rolled against nearly every Marine list while maintaining its role as anti-tank! If you want to isn't there a new dynasty rule that has re-roll 1 wound roll?

What do you guys think?

Do they get to ignore Heavy? If not, then that's 4+ to hit.

I am almost 100% sure they will get the repulsor platform rule to ignore the heavy penalty as they have had previously.

That being said I don't think most Gravis Armor is a good target for these, as Lokhust are nearly double the cost or more on a per model basis.

 Sasori wrote:
I am almost 100% sure they will get the repulsor platform rule to ignore the heavy penalty as they have had previously.

That being said I don't think most Gravis Armor is a good target for these, as Lokhust are nearly double the cost or more on a per model basis.

The weapon statically kills eradicators, outriders, and aggressors with ease. Can you elaborate on the point per model basis thing? Are you saying a unit has to equal or be cheaper than what it is killing to be considered a good unit? Example eradicators are (I believe) 120 points so the unit attempting to kill it must be 120 points or lower to be considered a good unit. I don't know if anyone is capable of beating marines in that scenario.

 CKO wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I am almost 100% sure they will get the repulsor platform rule to ignore the heavy penalty as they have had previously.

That being said I don't think most Gravis Armor is a good target for these, as Lokhust are nearly double the cost or more on a per model basis.

The weapon statically kills eradicators, outriders, and aggressors with ease. Can you elaborate on the point per model basis thing? Are you saying a unit has to equal or be cheaper than what it is killing to be considered a good unit? Example eradicators are (I believe) 120 points so the unit attempting to kill it must be 120 points or lower to be considered a good unit. I don't know if anyone is capable of beating marines in that scenario.

Thing　is you are paying　70 pts(assuming price stays　same) for　1　shot that gets past to wound only about 2/3 times. So you　spend 5 turns　to kill 3.

Plus means you aren't shooting vehicles which are even better target.

tneva82 wrote:
Thing　is you are paying　70 pts(assuming price stays　same) for　1　shot that gets past to wound only about 2/3 times. So you　spend 5 turns　to kill 3.

Plus means you aren't shooting vehicles which are even better target.

Lokhust Destroyers hit on 3's that equals 2 hits. It is str 10 which means they wound on 2's and with -4 AP, 3d3 damage that equals a dead multi-wound gravis marine. The Lokhust Destroyer gets to re-roll 1's to hit and can get re-roll 1's to wound with a Scorpekh Lord or the new dynasty which tilts the numbers in your favor even more. Yes, it cost 210 points but is it capable of earning those points back, quickly after 2 turns! Certain armies pay more for certain things, we pay more for units that have long-range and we also pay for re-animation protocol. Comparing weapons and point cost is a tricky formula that sometimes I think only GW understands.

I'm not sure I'd go nuts about it - but yes, if you take 3, you would hope to kill 2 Gravis models a turn. Which is quite respectable. We seem to be in this strange world where if a model isn't wracking up a 100% return in a go its a bit meh - but that will hopefully change. And if Gravis units become more expensive (hope springs eternal), the expected return on these goes up.

The downside will remain on the defensive stats - but RP might help.

Anyone else catch the wording on the Doomstalker from the article?

The gun is more powerful the futher away we are.

Reckon we'll get similar treatment on the DDA?

 IHateNids wrote:
Anyone else catch the wording on the Doomstalker from the article?

The gun is more powerful the futher away we are.

Reckon we'll get similar treatment on the DDA?

The stats that have appeared for the gun already in the wild show that it has a low power 24inch range and a high power 48inch range option for firing its main gun. Though the latter can only be fired only if it has also not moved that turn. So as opposed to it "getting stronger the further away the enemy is" it more has an option for a higher power shot that can fire further; but which has no (unless the codex changes it) minimum range. So you can fire full power right close up provided you didn't move.

So the fluff text is sort of right and sort of not right. At least unless the main book stats are different or introduce other abilities.

 Overread wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
Anyone else catch the wording on the Doomstalker from the article?

The gun is more powerful the futher away we are.

Reckon we'll get similar treatment on the DDA?

The stats that have appeared for the gun already in the wild show that it has a low power 24inch range and a high power 48inch range option for firing its main gun. Though the latter can only be fired only if it has also not moved that turn. So as opposed to it "getting stronger the further away the enemy is" it more has an option for a higher power shot that can fire further; but which has no (unless the codex changes it) minimum range. So you can fire full power right close up provided you didn't move.

So the fluff text is sort of right and sort of not right. At least unless the main book stats are different or introduce other abilities.

There could be some special rules we are missing for the Stalker though. Remember we didn't get any special rules for the weapons or the units for both the Lokhust and Stalker. The Enmitic weapon wasn't even revealed to have blast until the article.

Or could be yet another wc article mistake. If i got pound for each i would have army or two already

We'll see.

Yep we likely will find out this coming weekend as that tends to be when "guy flipping through a book" videos happen and leaks also start to happen. And for certain in 2 weeks when it all releases

 Overread wrote:
Yep we likely will find out this coming weekend as that tends to be when "guy flipping through a book" videos happen and leaks also start to happen. And for certain in 2 weeks when it all releases

Yeah, we'll get man reads book this Saturday. I also suspect that we'll have major leaks throughout the week.

I’m never sure if I want to look at leaks and reviews or if I want to wait until I can read it myself. On the one hand it’s cool seeing it all. On the other if kinda makes the book feel less exciting when it turns up lol.

 Overread wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
Anyone else catch the wording on the Doomstalker from the article?

The gun is more powerful the futher away we are.

Reckon we'll get similar treatment on the DDA?

The stats that have appeared for the gun already in the wild show that it has a low power 24inch range and a high power 48inch range option for firing its main gun. Though the latter can only be fired only if it has also not moved that turn. So as opposed to it "getting stronger the further away the enemy is" it more has an option for a higher power shot that can fire further; but which has no (unless the codex changes it) minimum range. So you can fire full power right close up provided you didn't move.

So the fluff text is sort of right and sort of not right. At least unless the main book stats are different or introduce other abilities.

It's worth noting that those stats were likely from the unreleased starter set rules and it could well be that they've completely changed the way the gun works in the Codex. Judging by the WHC article it looks like that's the case. Obviously a large dose of salt is required as this is a WHC preview and therefore often no more than 50% accurate, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Doomsday Blaster stats are completely different to what we've seen so far. I hope that carries over to the DDA. I hate how the most technologically advanced race in the galaxy apparently hasn't mastered the art of having separate power sources for moving and shooting.

So RP got a massive nerf which is super disappointing and not at all what they were saying. But the Void Dragon looks awesome.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
So RP got a massive nerf which is super disappointing and not at all what they were saying. But the Void Dragon looks awesome.

Share the details, all we know is that you get a RP roll after each attack.

 Ghaz wrote:

Never Mind!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/28/codex-necrons-new-rules-and-units/

new RP is both insane and totally worthless.

Warriors? Bonkers. 4+ after each attack reroll 1s means theyre gonna be difficult to remove with a single unit's attacks.
Skorps? Freaking joke. Need 3 successful results to get 1 back and its likely the entire squad dies if more than 1 dies to increase the odds of getting that many successes.

This is of course innate viewpoints, theres potential wargear/strats that may make this considerably better for multiwound models.

Also lack of using it against psykers or ability mortals, which makes me think they simply "forgot" that can happen not intended it to sneak through.

I don't understand the last paragraph of reanimation protocal; is it saying you keep re-rolling until no one is reanimated?

No its keep spending successes from the "success pool" to revive until you cannot revive anymore.

If you have 6 warriors that died you roll 6 dice. Lets say 3 succeeded, so you put those in a "pool" of successful tests.
You spend 1 to stand a warrior up in the restrictions mentioned. Remove 1 die.
You spend another to stand a second warrior up. Remove 1 die.
Etc etc.
You are now out of dice in the "pool" so nobody else stands up.

Similarly if you have 2 successes on a Skorp and need 3, you lose those 2 successes and the Skorp doesnt stand up.

its written extremely messily. GW has been writing in literal "1 at a time" mindsets and it gets really annoying.