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.

I'm not happy to sya this to a new user, but it's incredible to see that such a dumb thread is still going on while the much more proficuous "thoughts on the new dex" lies underneath... I can understand the classic "oh the new dex is broken" thread (even if it's absolutely untrue...) But saying that the new dex is worse than the previous one.... it's so absurd...

StormStrikr wrote:
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.

I don't have the codex yet, but I'm told the cost of Destroyers went down.

How do the figures pan out if you use equal points of Destroyers?

marv335 wrote:

StormStrikr wrote:
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.

I don't have the codex yet, but I'm told the cost of Destroyers went down.

How do the figures pan out if you use equal points of Destroyers?

True, it's pretty much 4 destroyers in the old dex and five in the new.

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.

Page number please.

AzureDeath wrote:

ernshmagl wrote:Can you let me know how the necron play cause i am considering starting a necron army again.

Will do. He is putting his Annilation Barge together now so it will be fielded on Monday as well as Imotek.

Well he couldn't play last night so no report yet and I even broke out my nids to use against him.

Davor 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.

Page number please.

As has been stated by myself and at least two other posters already, there is no such rule, so you won't get a page number out of him. If that's what you're hinting at, I fail at internet comprehension.

Across the board price reductions = Nerf?

New units with awesome abilities and insane cohesion = Nerf?

Removal of Phase Out for terrible CC army = Nerf?

BeefCakeSoup wrote:Across the board price reductions = Nerf?

New units with awesome abilities and insane cohesion = Nerf?

Removal of Phase Out for terrible CC army = Nerf?

Dont think of it logically, trolls gonna troll.

Cryage wrote:

BeefCakeSoup wrote:Across the board price reductions = Nerf?

New units with awesome abilities and insane cohesion = Nerf?

Removal of Phase Out for terrible CC army = Nerf?

Dont think of it logically, trolls gonna troll.

Can't believe I bit...

Friggin trolls lol

Step 1: Play a few games with Necrons before complaining about them.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

Kevin949 wrote:
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.

And as soon as that stalker is taken out, then suddenly those destroyers are reduced to what the new codex makes them, namely crap. And as for "everyone" else who is benefitted by a stalker's presence, similar result. Synergy is inherently unreliable. Every non-SM army should not be forced to rely on "synergy"!

Kevin949 wrote:

marv335 wrote:I don't have the codex yet, but I'm told the cost of Destroyers went down.

How do the figures pan out if you use equal points of Destroyers?

True, it's pretty much 4 destroyers in the old dex and five in the new.

Given that, Mathhammer indicates 5 new destroyers perform equally against Space Marines in Cover as 4 of the older destroyers.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
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.

And as soon as that stalker is taken out, then suddenly those destroyers are reduced to what the new codex makes them, namely crap. And as for "everyone" else who is benefitted by a stalker's presence, similar result. Synergy is inherently unreliable. Every non-SM army should not be forced to rely on "synergy"!

Oh god, get off it dude. You're just going to complain no matter what anyone says, so don't use the destroyers. Break down every argument anyone has, that's fine. You're a pessimist, I get it. You don't like having to use units in conjunction with one another and actually use strategy, that's fine. Build your death star and enjoy your game.

I, on the other hand, have used the new destroyers and thoroughly loved the look on my opponents face when I told him "5 wounds, AP3..." on his just arrived via drop pod tac squad with lascannon and other nasties.

Love em, will use em in just about every game.

Kevin949 wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
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.

And as soon as that stalker is taken out, then suddenly those destroyers are reduced to what the new codex makes them, namely crap. And as for "everyone" else who is benefitted by a stalker's presence, similar result. Synergy is inherently unreliable. Every non-SM army should not be forced to rely on "synergy"!

Oh god, get off it dude. You're just going to complain no matter what anyone says, so don't use the destroyers. Break down every argument anyone has, that's fine. You're a pessimist, I get it.

No, I don't think you do get it. I'm not "going to complain no matter what anyone says." I'm going to keep arguing against "l-love-'em-and-you-just-hate-change" posters who refuse to acknowledge the obvious no matter what anyone says.

Kevin949 wrote:You don't like having to use units in conjunction with one another and actually use strategy, that's fine. Build your death star and enjoy your game.

Nice straw man you've built, pal. More often than not I didn't use death stars. I only have one monolith. One of my favorite builds combo'd a Lord with a nightmare shroud, pariahs, and flayed ones. But not every time! And now even that army is nerfed out of existence. At considerable expense to me.

Kevin949 wrote:I, on the other hand, have used the new destroyers and thoroughly loved the look on my opponents face when I told him "5 wounds, AP3..." on his just arrived via drop pod tac squad with lascannon and other nasties.

Well, congratulations. You beat an opponent with a new rule he may not even have faced before. Isn't that special? I'm sure he won't repeat that tactic again.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
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.

And as soon as that stalker is taken out, then suddenly those destroyers are reduced to what the new codex makes them, namely crap. And as for "everyone" else who is benefitted by a stalker's presence, similar result. Synergy is inherently unreliable. Every non-SM army should not be forced to rely on "synergy"!

Oh god, get off it dude. You're just going to complain no matter what anyone says, so don't use the destroyers. Break down every argument anyone has, that's fine. You're a pessimist, I get it.

No, I don't think you do get it. I'm not "going to complain no matter what anyone says." I'm going to keep arguing against "l-love-'em-and-you-just-hate-change" posters who refuse to acknowledge the obvious no matter what anyone says.

Kevin949 wrote:You don't like having to use units in conjunction with one another and actually use strategy, that's fine. Build your death star and enjoy your game.

Nice straw man you've built, pal. More often than not I didn't use death stars. I only have one monolith. One of my favorite builds combo'd a Lord with a nightmare shroud, pariahs, and flayed ones. But not every time! And now even that army is nerfed out of existence. At considerable expense to me.

Kevin949 wrote:I, on the other hand, have used the new destroyers and thoroughly loved the look on my opponents face when I told him "5 wounds, AP3..." on his just arrived via drop pod tac squad with lascannon and other nasties.

Well, congratulations. You beat an opponent with a new rule he may not even have faced before. Isn't that special? I'm sure he won't repeat that tactic again.

I never said I love 'em, I said your argument of them being nerfed is ridiculous. Prior to the last game I played over the weekend, I haven't used destroyers in probably 6 months or more.

So you call me a straw man though I made a simple generalized statement? Ok man, whatever floats your boat. That term gets thrown around here so much that it's lost all value and everyone using it thinks they're doing so correctly. If you can't think of anything that actually fits the situation, I guess you can stick with that. And who said I was talking about the previous codex anyway?

A new rule? You mean, the slightly different gun that he was well aware of and is one of my closest friends who also got me into WH40K and taught me the game? Ya, he doesn't know what he's doing at all.

I don't know how many FO's you have but in a large group the FO's can be deadly, even without rending/power weapons or fearless. Your pariahs can be used as lychguard still and the veil still exists, it just can't be used to pull out of CC. Sucks, sure, but you can still use your build if you wanted and I'm sure it would be pretty good too just due to sheer weight of attacks.

So like I said, you don't like the change then don't use them. But when you start pushing your opinion in an aggressive fashion you're going to get resistance. Especially when you're just going off of what's written on paper and not taking into account that the game isn't statistics-hammer, it's fluid and you just don't know what is going to happen. Like the game I mentioned, I made a mistake on my turn and my destroyers ended up getting assaulted by my friends dreadnought. So, that sucked but it was my mistake but the destroyers lasted in CC against him for 2 rounds before we had to quit the game (it was end of the 5th round anyway). If that had happened previously, they would have been whittled down due to the DCCW bypassing WBB. Again though, it was my own stupid fault that they got caught in assault because I forgot to move my c'tan into assault position to go at the dreadnought. I was in a hurry and trying to learn all the new stuff.

Anyway...whatever dude. Have your negative outlook. I feel they're a perfectly viable unit and I welcome the changes to them.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
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.

And as soon as that stalker is taken out, then suddenly those destroyers are reduced to what the new codex makes them, namely crap. And as for "everyone" else who is benefitted by a stalker's presence, similar result. Synergy is inherently unreliable. Every non-SM army should not be forced to rely on "synergy"!

Oh god, get off it dude. You're just going to complain no matter what anyone says, so don't use the destroyers. Break down every argument anyone has, that's fine. You're a pessimist, I get it.

No, I don't think you do get it. I'm not "going to complain no matter what anyone says." I'm going to keep arguing against "l-love-'em-and-you-just-hate-change" posters who refuse to acknowledge the obvious no matter what anyone says.

So what is the obvious? That you have no idea what you're talking about and are likely trolling every thread on the topic?

Kevin949 wrote:You don't like having to use units in conjunction with one another and actually use strategy, that's fine. Build your death star and enjoy your game.

Nice straw man you've built, pal. More often than not I didn't use death stars. I only have one monolith. One of my favorite builds combo'd a Lord with a nightmare shroud, pariahs, and flayed ones. But not every time! And now even that army is nerfed out of existence. At considerable expense to me.

You've undermined any sort of argument you may have had before. With the old Codex you had a regular combo that you like using. For some reason you didn't think a new Codex might just change stuff around so old tactics would no longer be viable. How long have you been in this hobby? You're point is now invalid, you just don't like change.

Kevin949 wrote:I, on the other hand, have used the new destroyers and thoroughly loved the look on my opponents face when I told him "5 wounds, AP3..." on his just arrived via drop pod tac squad with lascannon and other nasties.

Well, congratulations. You beat an opponent with a new rule he may not even have faced before. Isn't that special? I'm sure he won't repeat that tactic again.

Well it refutes any argument that the Destroyers are useless. From my own experiences recently they're a must-have against MEQ armies for this reason. They haven't been nerfed, their role has changed somewhat, and as we've already established, you don't like change.

Yep, apparently change shouldnt occur with a new codex.

And SM armies dont have to work together? What planet are you on, precisely?