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.

Kevin949 wrote:

The loss of strength isn't a big deal.

It is actually, it means they no longer wound T4 on 2's and no longer can adequately engage light vehicles.

The loss of 1 shot in exchange for the lower AP, that's a HUGE benefit dude. They just went from 15 shots that don't deny meq saves to 10 shots that DO deny their save.

-1 shot, -1 S, 12" range loss to go from AP4 to AP3 overall is not a huge benefit. In exchange for being able to better kill marines in the open (in an edition where cover saves are nigh ubiquitous) at shorter ranges, they're less effective than they were against marines in cover, they lose a huge amount of capability against vehicles (no longer able to effectively engage light vehicles with lower S, significantly decreased ability to hamper heavier vehicles with Gauss due to lower number of shots) and are significantly less effective against lighter infantry (lower RoF and Str), they have less mobility/defensive capabilities if they need it (no more turboboost and 3+ cover save) and they must be significantly closer to engage their enemies.

Also factor in the rumor that preferred enemy works in shooting in 6th edition and I hardly doubt you'll see them as being "nerfed" then.

That may be true, but for now all we have to go on is internet rumors for an edition rumored to be 9 or 10 months out.

Even still, if you don't see the advantage they got from going from AP4 to AP3 and assault instead of heavy...I don't know what to say.

Heavy vs Assault was never an issue, they could always move and fire their Gauss Cannons.

Gaining AP3 in this case isn't what people make of it, especially at the cost of Strength, Rate of Fire, Range, Mobility, and Versatility in an edition where cover saves are nigh-ubiquitous on properly set up tables. AP3 is a consistently over-value ability on units and results in units being consistently overcosted as a result, look at IG Stormtroopers, Eldar Dark Reapers, Vespids, etc.

Vaktathi wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

The loss of strength isn't a big deal.

It is actually, it means they no longer wound T4 on 2's and no longer can adequately engage light vehicles.

The loss of 1 shot in exchange for the lower AP, that's a HUGE benefit dude. They just went from 15 shots that don't deny meq saves to 10 shots that DO deny their save.

-1 shot, -1 S, 12" range loss to go from AP4 to AP3 overall is not a huge benefit. In exchange for being able to better kill marines in the open (in an edition where cover saves are nigh ubiquitous) at shorter ranges, they're less effective than they were against marines in cover, they lose a huge amount of capability against vehicles (no longer able to effectively engage light vehicles with lower S, significantly decreased ability to hamper heavier vehicles with Gauss due to lower number of shots) and are significantly less effective against lighter infantry (lower RoF and Str), they have less mobility/defensive capabilities if they need it (no more turboboost and 3+ cover save) and they must be significantly closer to engage their enemies.

Also factor in the rumor that preferred enemy works in shooting in 6th edition and I hardly doubt you'll see them as being "nerfed" then.

That may be true, but for now all we have to go on is internet rumors for an edition rumored to be 9 or 10 months out.

Even still, if you don't see the advantage they got from going from AP4 to AP3 and assault instead of heavy...I don't know what to say.

Heavy vs Assault was never an issue, they could always move and fire their Gauss Cannons.

Gaining AP3 in this case isn't what people make of it, especially at the cost of Strength, Rate of Fire, Range, Mobility, and Versatility in an edition where cover saves are nigh-ubiquitous on properly set up tables. AP3 is a consistently over-value ability on units and results in units being consistently overcosted as a result, look at IG Stormtroopers, Eldar Dark Reapers, Vespids, etc.

Wounding t4 on 3+ instead of 2+ isn't that big of a loss when all of those wounds won't give an armor save to 90+% of what is on the board as opposed to before when you were probably only denying 40% of what's on the board, at best, and wounding on a 2+ against a 3+ armor save is hardly better than wounding on a 3+ with no armor save. Math hammer it out all you want.

Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

Very true, we will just have to wait and see I suppose. But at least they can benefit from it in CC at the moment (yes I know that is not where they are supposed to be).

Ah, yes, heavy vs assault wasn't an issue PREVIOUSLY but it would be NOW since they are JI instead of JB.

What mobility and versatility? Destroyers couldn't move over 12" and still fire previously and they can't now. Sure they can't turbo-boost but seriously, why would you turbo-boost and lose out on a round of 15 str6 shots? Unless you REALLY didn't need those shots are you really put them in a bad spot, that was your [the players] fault. So they can't move 24" now, big whoop, there is so much more stuff now to make up for that tiny loss that it hardly matters. Versatility? If nothing, they're more versatile now. With armor reducing units abound, and the gauss rule still in effect, they're still effective against armor and with the lower AP they're much more dangerous to troops.

All I can say is that in the previous codex and in the games I have played I always wished that I had more low AP weapons because it was terribly disheartening to fire 15 shots, hit 10, wound 8 and watch only 1 or maybe 2 guys fall, if any! Keeping in mind, for me at least, I pretty much always played against a marine player. I have played against nids and tau as well and its' a very different story, of course, but I chalk it up to lack of experience with those armies more so than necrons having an advantage.

You have to understand, the codex is going more for synergy between units and rules rather than one unit standing out as an "OMG That's badass!" kind of a thing. Alone, destroyers are good but not amazing. But coupled with a triarch stalker for the twin link advantage they suddenly become amazing (just one example).

Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better

what about when termies became 3+ saves and got a cple points cheaper...

oh wait their marines, they cant meake them weaker...

Necrons troops were a tough all round option, then 5th edition nefed their firepower v vehicles, now new codex nerfs their saves... New codex should have brought them back up not kicked em while they were down.

5pts different for more reliable WBB and -1 Sv, what a nerf.

zacharia wrote:

Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better

what about when termies became 3+ saves and got a cple points cheaper...

oh wait their marines, they cant meake them weaker...

Necrons troops were a tough all round option, then 5th edition nefed their firepower v vehicles, now new codex nerfs their saves... New codex should have brought them back up not kicked em while they were down.

You do realize that 3+ and 4+ unignorable reanimation would mean that Necrons would have troop options with effectively 2+ saves for 15 points a pop, yes? And you don't see anything OP with that?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

zacharia wrote:

Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better

what about when termies became 3+ saves and got a cple points cheaper...

oh wait their marines, they cant meake them weaker...

Necrons troops were a tough all round option, then 5th edition nefed their firepower v vehicles, now new codex nerfs their saves... New codex should have brought them back up not kicked em while they were down.

You do realize that 3+ and 4+ unignorable reanimation would mean that Necrons would have troop options with effectively 2+ saves for 15 points a pop, yes? And you don't see anything OP with that?

Well that 4+ has a rather large caveat in that the unit can not be wiped out OR retreating to gain that roll. I wouldn't call it unignoreable (not a word).

Kevin949 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

zacharia wrote:

Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better

what about when termies became 3+ saves and got a cple points cheaper...

oh wait their marines, they cant meake them weaker...

Necrons troops were a tough all round option, then 5th edition nefed their firepower v vehicles, now new codex nerfs their saves... New codex should have brought them back up not kicked em while they were down.

You do realize that 3+ and 4+ unignorable reanimation would mean that Necrons would have troop options with effectively 2+ saves for 15 points a pop, yes? And you don't see anything OP with that?

Well that 4+ has a rather large caveat in that the unit can not be wiped out OR retreating to gain that roll. I wouldn't call it unignoreable (not a word).

You're not getting any 3+ saves if you're wiped out either.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unignorable

So I misspelt it, big deal. I'm not demanding that you write in Swedish, am I?

Det Necrons är inte svaga. Den ursprungliga författaren är felaktig.

Monster Rain wrote:Det Necrons är inte svaga. Den ursprungliga författaren är felaktig.

I'm pretty sure that's the general consensus, yes.

Monster Rain wrote:Det Necrons är inte svaga. Den ursprungliga författaren är felaktig.

Google Translate, eh? The worst part is, I actually had to translate that back into English to get WTF you were on about!

Im not certain why you would take destroyers now. There are better ways to kill troops and the fast attack could collapse a star with how weighty it is now with choices.

If you are going to take destroyers (why when even cheaper tomb blade template spam is available) then your getting a more focused unit, which is still a fraction as good at killing vehicles as scarabs for more points.

Kevin949 wrote:
Wounding t4 on 3+ instead of 2+ isn't that big of a loss when all of those wounds won't give an armor save to 90+% of what is on the board as opposed to before when you were probably only denying 40% of what's on the board, at best, and wounding on a 2+ against a 3+ armor save is hardly better than wounding on a 3+ with no armor save. Math hammer it out all you want.

There's lots of T4 units where AP3 vs AP4 isn't a meaningful difference anyway (orks, scouts, wracks, bloodletters, etc) and cover is hugely ubiquitous, and with cover factored in, their significantly less capable.

Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

Because the old S6 3 shot ones inflicted 25% more casualties against marines in cover than the new ones do and could do it 12" further away (e.g. from their deployment zone)

Ah, yes, heavy vs assault wasn't an issue PREVIOUSLY but it would be NOW since they are JI instead of JB.

Right, but effectively nothing changed in that regard.

What mobility and versatility? Destroyers couldn't move over 12" and still fire previously and they can't now.

Right but it meant they had a defense against stuff like battlecannons and the like even in the open if they needed it, and could redeploy to the other side of the board or out of line of sight far easier.

Sure they can't turbo-boost but seriously, why would you turbo-boost and lose out on a round of 15 str6 shots? Unless you REALLY didn't need those shots are you really put them in a bad spot, that was your [the players] fault.

Or there's an ordnance weapon around and that 3+ cover becomes *really* useful, something comes in from reserve that needs to be reacted to (get away from it or get to it), there's a threat on the other side of the board they need to engage because of something unforseen or went wrong, want to pull a last minute objective spoiler, or its Dawn of War and you want to get into a sweet firing position quickly and want a cover save to use against your opponents first turn of shooting?

So they can't move 24" now, big whoop,

See above.

there is so much more stuff now to make up for that tiny loss that it hardly matters.

I'm not arguing that there's a lot more, I'm making the point that Destroyers aren't as good as they used to be. The book as a whole is a lot better, but it's difficult to argue that Destroyers didn't get a nerf.

Versatility? If nothing, they're more versatile now. With armor reducing units abound, and the gauss rule still in effect, they're still effective against armor and with the lower AP they're much more dangerous to troops.

The *ONLY* thing they are more dangerous against is 3+sv troops in the open without a cover save at under 24". Against 6+/5+/4+/2+sv's, anything T4 or higher with the aformentioned saves, any vehicle, and anything 24-36" away, they're noticeably less effective.

You have to understand, the codex is going more for synergy between units and rules rather than one unit standing out as an "OMG That's badass!" kind of a thing. Alone, destroyers are good but not amazing. But coupled with a triarch stalker for the twin link advantage they suddenly become amazing (just one example).

That's requiring a 150pt unit to make them significantly more capable however.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Res orb now increases the RP to 4+...so no change. Except you can have ALOT of orbs now.

And necrons were always a slow ass army. They just made it consistent.

Also you roll after each phase not at the start of your turn

The Metal Tide wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Res orb now increases the RP to 4+...so no change. Except you can have ALOT of orbs now.

And necrons were always a slow ass army. They just made it consistent.

Also you roll after each phase not at the start of your turn

the rerolling after each phase is a very strong improvement. I played a test game earlier where the RP after shooting raised up enough to survive assault and get a nice counter assault, where I would have died if the RP was at start of turn.

I have high hopes for this codex. I think it will play out well.

I've glanced over the codex now, and I have to say, I like it. I love the new units, I love that my friend finds scarabs absolutely terrifying now, and I really like the alterations to some of their rules. It should be an interesting army to go up against.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

zacharia wrote:

Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better

what about when termies became 3+ saves and got a cple points cheaper...

oh wait their marines, they cant meake them weaker...

Necrons troops were a tough all round option, then 5th edition nefed their firepower v vehicles, now new codex nerfs their saves... New codex should have brought them back up not kicked em while they were down.

You do realize that 3+ and 4+ unignorable reanimation would mean that Necrons would have troop options with effectively 2+ saves for 15 points a pop, yes? And you don't see anything OP with that?

Well that 4+ has a rather large caveat in that the unit can not be wiped out OR retreating to gain that roll. I wouldn't call it unignoreable (not a word).

You're not getting any 3+ saves if you're wiped out either.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unignorable

So I misspelt it, big deal. I'm not demanding that you write in Swedish, am I?

Let me preface by saying I wasn't digging at you about that word, Firefox just didn't recognize it as a word. Secondly, you'd get the 3+ before they're wiped unless its an AP2 massive weapon.

Kevin949 wrote: Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

You seem to have no clue how the rules work. The rulebook specifically states that any piece of terrain that has a boarder is considered Area Terrain, and Area Terrain is ALWAYS a 4+. The pre-game terrain discussion if for determining what is dangerous, unpassable etc. You DO NOT get to decide what save terrain gives in this edition and if you are you are doing it wrong. So basically every damn thing in this edition gets a 4+

And heres a little math for you on old vs new destroyers shooting marines in cover.

Old: 15 shots hitting on 3s, that means 10 are going to hit. Wounding on 2s, 8 are going to wound. 3+ armor save means 3 die.

New: 10 shots hitting on 3s, that means 7 are going to hit. Wounding on 3s, that means 4 are going to wound. 4+ cover save means 2 die.

Add this to the fact that the reduction in strength and shots gives them MUCH less vehicle threatening power and its clear that they are much worse than before. And don't give me that "well you should twin link them with a Triach Stalker" crap. The destroyer unit already cost 200 points! I should not need to use another 150 point unit to make a 200 f'ing point unit not suck!. 350 points of firepower and you will still not kill that marine squad. Case closed.

StormStrikr wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

You seem to have no clue how the rules work. The rulebook specifically states that any piece of terrain that has a boarder is considered Area Terrain, and Area Terrain is ALWAYS a 4+. The pre-game terrain discussion if for determining what is dangerous, unpassable etc. You DO NOT get to decide what save terrain gives in this edition and if you are you are doing it wrong. So basically every damn thing in this edition gets a 4+

Except for buildings. And fences. And barricades. And a ton of other stuff that you're clearly ignoring, along with a huge part of the community, creating the cover save fest that is the current meta.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Except for buildings. And fences. And barricades. And a ton of other stuff that you're clearly ignoring, along with a huge part of the community, creating the cover save fest that is the current meta.

Fences and Barricades should not have a boarder on the bottom then. I have modeled terrain as such so they will not count as area terrain, but if they have a boarder, they are area terrain.

I didn't have a lot of nerdy friends growing up, as I didn't really meet any people with similar interests of mine until halfway through high school. I always kind of assumed that nerds were smarter than average people, which is why our hobbies were always viewed with disdain by our peers. At least, that's what I thought until I started reading nerd related boards on the internet (40K, MtG, D&D, etc.) The fact that there are intelligent nerds and fething moron nerds should have been obvious to me from the start, and I feel like an absolute idiot for never realizing it.

The amount of disdain that a lot of 40K players show for things often referred to as "Mathhammer" - basic discrete probability that usually gets taught in middle school, and simple statistical analysis - is absolutely astounding. The propensity to say that Unit X is broken because it has some flashy abilities (a 2+ save, a high S weapon!) or complain that something is "nerfed" because its stats got reduced (let's all ignore a 30% point reduction) leaves me utterly flabbergasted.

The effectiveness of 3E vs. 5.5E Necrons can and should be debated, but I see precious few people in threads here and elsewhere using the very basic mathematical tools we have to use as evidence for their claims.

StormStrikr wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Except for buildings. And fences. And barricades. And a ton of other stuff that you're clearly ignoring, along with a huge part of the community, creating the cover save fest that is the current meta.

Fences and Barricades should not have a boarder on the bottom then. I have modeled terrain as such so they will not count as area terrain, but if they have a boarder, they are area terrain.

No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

Well that is how the rules are written. And GW specifically says to play read as written in tourniment play. Does this make sense that it having a base means it is area terrain? Not really. But that is how the rules are written and you dont get to ignore it just because you think its silly. Believe me I share this frustration but this is how it is. period.

StormStrikr wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

Well that is how the rules are written. And GW specifically says to play read as written in tourniment play. Does this make sense that it having a base means it is area terrain? Not really. But that is how the rules are written and you dont get to ignore it just because you think its silly. Believe me I share this frustration but this is how it is. period.

BRB page 13 wrote:You should discuss all such terrain features with your opponent before the game and agree exactly what everything counts as and where the boundaries of terrain features lie. When the game is underway, it will be harder to discuss it quite so impartially.

What you're claiming to be the truth is, in fact, NOT "how it is". It is area terrain if you define it as such before the game starts. Full stop.

Ostrakon wrote:I didn't have a lot of nerdy friends growing up, as I didn't really meet any people with similar interests of mine until halfway through high school. I always kind of assumed that nerds were smarter than average people, which is why our hobbies were always viewed with disdain by our peers. At least, that's what I thought until I started reading nerd related boards on the internet (40K, MtG, D&D, etc.) The fact that there are intelligent nerds and fething moron nerds should have been obvious to me from the start, and I feel like an absolute idiot for never realizing it.

The amount of disdain that a lot of 40K players show for things often referred to as "Mathhammer" - basic discrete probability that usually gets taught in middle school, and simple statistical analysis - is absolutely astounding. The propensity to say that Unit X is broken because it has some flashy abilities (a 2+ save, a high S weapon!) or complain that something is "nerfed" because its stats got reduced (let's all ignore a 30% point reduction) leaves me utterly flabbergasted.

The effectiveness of 3E vs. 5.5E Necrons can and should be debated, but I see precious few people in threads here and elsewhere using the very basic mathematical tools we have to use as evidence for their claims.

Hear, hear. or is it hear hear.... or Here hear, or Hear here... Damnit (wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear)

Hear, Hear!

I like leonard. he makes me feel smart.

I think it is probably best to speak with opponents as to what terrain is before a game starts. Even if you think the rules clearly state something, best to double check just in case.

CpatTom wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:I didn't have a lot of nerdy friends growing up, as I didn't really meet any people with similar interests of mine until halfway through high school. I always kind of assumed that nerds were smarter than average people, which is why our hobbies were always viewed with disdain by our peers. At least, that's what I thought until I started reading nerd related boards on the internet (40K, MtG, D&D, etc.) The fact that there are intelligent nerds and fething moron nerds should have been obvious to me from the start, and I feel like an absolute idiot for never realizing it.

The amount of disdain that a lot of 40K players show for things often referred to as "Mathhammer" - basic discrete probability that usually gets taught in middle school, and simple statistical analysis - is absolutely astounding. The propensity to say that Unit X is broken because it has some flashy abilities (a 2+ save, a high S weapon!) or complain that something is "nerfed" because its stats got reduced (let's all ignore a 30% point reduction) leaves me utterly flabbergasted.

The effectiveness of 3E vs. 5.5E Necrons can and should be debated, but I see precious few people in threads here and elsewhere using the very basic mathematical tools we have to use as evidence for their claims.

Hear, hear. or is it hear hear.... or Here hear, or Hear here... Damnit (wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear)

Hear, Hear!

I like leonard. he makes me feel smart.

I think it is probably best to speak with opponents as to what terrain is before a game starts. Even if you think the rules clearly state something, best to double check just in case.

Super duper important since board control is now a primary Necron trait. I have yet to encounter anyone playing any game whatsoever who likes 'gotchas'.

To mathhammer I am at the point I cant help it. I instinctively look at a situation before I charge and know what the expected outcome is. Its very easy to say 20 gauss (str 4 shots) will cause on average 2-3 dead marines on average, or whatnot. Coupled with the issue that the book from my scant few matches so far seem to be dynamite in synergy makes it even harder to blanket just say x or y is hyperbole.

StormStrikr wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

Well that is how the rules are written. And GW specifically says to play read as written in tourniment play. Does this make sense that it having a base means it is area terrain? Not really. But that is how the rules are written and you dont get to ignore it just because you think its silly. Believe me I share this frustration but this is how it is. period.

1) Gw do not say, that, period. GW do not make any rules up on how I run MY tournaments, thats for sure

2) No, you decide as per page 13 what is area terrain and what isnt. Also you are using the logical fallacy of A implies B means B implies A. It says in order to show the boundary of area terrain you should put a border on it, not that anything with a border is area terrain.

3) Area terrain is NOT a flat out 4+ save. Remove this concept from your head, as it has no place in real rules. The covre save provided by ANY piece of terrain is listed on p21, box out. So area terrain grass (for some reason) would be 5+, not 4+

nosferatu1001 wrote:

StormStrikr wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

Well that is how the rules are written. And GW specifically says to play read as written in tourniment play. Does this make sense that it having a base means it is area terrain? Not really. But that is how the rules are written and you dont get to ignore it just because you think its silly. Believe me I share this frustration but this is how it is. period.

1) Gw do not say, that, period. GW do not make any rules up on how I run MY tournaments, thats for sure

2) No, you decide as per page 13 what is area terrain and what isnt. Also you are using the logical fallacy of A implies B means B implies A. It says in order to show the boundary of area terrain you should put a border on it, not that anything with a border is area terrain.

3) Area terrain is NOT a flat out 4+ save. Remove this concept from your head, as it has no place in real rules. The covre save provided by ANY piece of terrain is listed on p21, box out. So area terrain grass (for some reason) would be 5+, not 4+

Of course you can decide whatever you like however in a blind situation two people coming together to make it easy you have to start with the assumption that all based terrain is 4+ area terrain.

StormStrikr wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

You seem to have no clue how the rules work. The rulebook specifically states that any piece of terrain that has a boarder is considered Area Terrain, and Area Terrain is ALWAYS a 4+. The pre-game terrain discussion if for determining what is dangerous, unpassable etc. You DO NOT get to decide what save terrain gives in this edition and if you are you are doing it wrong. So basically every damn thing in this edition gets a 4+

And heres a little math for you on old vs new destroyers shooting marines in cover.

Old: 15 shots hitting on 3s, that means 10 are going to hit. Wounding on 2s, 8 are going to wound. 3+ armor save means 3 die.

New: 10 shots hitting on 3s, that means 7 are going to hit. Wounding on 3s, that means 4 are going to wound. 4+ cover save means 2 die.

Add this to the fact that the reduction in strength and shots gives them MUCH less vehicle threatening power and its clear that they are much worse than before. And don't give me that "well you should twin link them with a Triach Stalker" crap. The destroyer unit already cost 200 points! I should not need to use another 150 point unit to make a 200 f'ing point unit not suck!. 350 points of firepower and you will still not kill that marine squad. Case closed.

First off, dude shut up. You don't get the right to tell me whether I know the game rules or not. Secondly, where did I say AREA TERRAIN? Huh? Nowhere, so don't put words in my mouth. I said COVER SAVE. And cover saves are achieved through MANY means, NOT JUST AREA TERRAIN.

Also, for reference, the rulebook says nothing about area terrain automatically being a 4+. It ALSO mentions that you should talk about terrain features with your opponent and decide on what counts as what and where the lines are (if not clearly defined). So, you're wrong. Yes, the chart about cover saves has about 90% of terrain features under the 4+ category. But, "area terrain" is not one of them, as I could easily have a piece of "area terrain" that is all high grass. That is classed as a 5+.

Consequently, I used destroyers in a game last night and they thoroughly rocked. But you guys go ahead and not use them and complain about the nerf, I'll continue to laugh at my opponents suffering at the hands of my JI shooters.

Vaktathi wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Wounding t4 on 3+ instead of 2+ isn't that big of a loss when all of those wounds won't give an armor save to 90+% of what is on the board as opposed to before when you were probably only denying 40% of what's on the board, at best, and wounding on a 2+ against a 3+ armor save is hardly better than wounding on a 3+ with no armor save. Math hammer it out all you want.

There's lots of T4 units where AP3 vs AP4 isn't a meaningful difference anyway (orks, scouts, wracks, bloodletters, etc) and cover is hugely ubiquitous, and with cover factored in, their significantly less capable.

Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

Because the old S6 3 shot ones inflicted 25% more casualties against marines in cover than the new ones do and could do it 12" further away (e.g. from their deployment zone)

Ah, yes, heavy vs assault wasn't an issue PREVIOUSLY but it would be NOW since they are JI instead of JB.

Right, but effectively nothing changed in that regard.

What mobility and versatility? Destroyers couldn't move over 12" and still fire previously and they can't now.

Right but it meant they had a defense against stuff like battlecannons and the like even in the open if they needed it, and could redeploy to the other side of the board or out of line of sight far easier.

Sure they can't turbo-boost but seriously, why would you turbo-boost and lose out on a round of 15 str6 shots? Unless you REALLY didn't need those shots are you really put them in a bad spot, that was your [the players] fault.

Or there's an ordnance weapon around and that 3+ cover becomes *really* useful, something comes in from reserve that needs to be reacted to (get away from it or get to it), there's a threat on the other side of the board they need to engage because of something unforseen or went wrong, want to pull a last minute objective spoiler, or its Dawn of War and you want to get into a sweet firing position quickly and want a cover save to use against your opponents first turn of shooting?

So they can't move 24" now, big whoop,

See above.

there is so much more stuff now to make up for that tiny loss that it hardly matters.

I'm not arguing that there's a lot more, I'm making the point that Destroyers aren't as good as they used to be. The book as a whole is a lot better, but it's difficult to argue that Destroyers didn't get a nerf.

Versatility? If nothing, they're more versatile now. With armor reducing units abound, and the gauss rule still in effect, they're still effective against armor and with the lower AP they're much more dangerous to troops.

The *ONLY* thing they are more dangerous against is 3+sv troops in the open without a cover save at under 24". Against 6+/5+/4+/2+sv's, anything T4 or higher with the aformentioned saves, any vehicle, and anything 24-36" away, they're noticeably less effective.

You have to understand, the codex is going more for synergy between units and rules rather than one unit standing out as an "OMG That's badass!" kind of a thing. Alone, destroyers are good but not amazing. But coupled with a triarch stalker for the twin link advantage they suddenly become amazing (just one example).

That's requiring a 150pt unit to make them significantly more capable however.

Ok, starting off with the turbo-boosting thing...here's the problem, so you boost and negate (or heavily diminish) the damage from the battle-cannon, or it fires at something else (most likely scenario). So, next round...what, you do the same thing again? If you don't, that battle cannon is still there (most likely). So, another round of shooting gone. Fat lot of good those extra shots are doing you, right? Also, previously that b.cannon would wipe them with no WBB (barring a res orb present, of course) and that is not the case now. Also, they still have threat from 37-48 inches if you put in heavies (or just 1, whatever). They still have threat from 36" away, they just have to move for that, whereas previously they didn't. Boo-hoo. *Shrug*
All I'm getting at is that the turbo-boost ability was a huge gamble for losing out on those powerful just to possibly not lose quite as many guys if whatever weapon didn't shoot at them. But now, it's not such a big deal. Not with the RP rules anyway. Besides, you shouldn't be bunching them up that close for a b.cannon to hit more than 2 of them anyway.

I'll argue this destroyer nerf until I'm blue in the face because I heartily disagree.

See above, they're still viable up to 36" and up to 48 with heavies present.

If you're going to nitpick about taking another unit that benefits EVERYONE (some more than others) then you obviously don't know what synergy is. I'm not saying to take a stalker because you have destroyers. I'm saying, if a stalker is present then the destroyers suddenly get much more beneficial. More so than the over-hyped Tesla rule that is hugely random.