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.

Sasori wrote:

Ok, so I exaggerated a bit.

I did take into account target armor, and ran the simulation on Tac Marines, Standard Terminators, Ork Boyz, and IG. According to Yakface, the Tesla carbine is Assault 2, rather than just Assault. Getting two shots every time you fire is better than rapid fire. (I am counting 3 hits when you get a 6 to hit).

I didn't look into attacking vehicles.

I don't have my spreadsheet in front of me (it's at home), but I looked at expected kills on Marines, Ork Boyz, and IG (the results on Terminators was laughable!), on each the Tesla Carbine resulted in more expected kills in a single round of firing than the Blaster (in either single fire or rapid fire range). Granted, the size of the effect is reduced the more armor your target has.

I agree that cost will be a deciding factor. Will it be a free swap? Will it be 5 extra points per model? Will it be 10?
I'm guessing that it would probably be worth it at 5 points/model, and definitely worth a free swap.

Where did he say it was assault 2? the last I heard was from his quote on the first page

Tesla Carbines (24" S5 Assault1, 'Tesla'

Yeah, if it was actually assault 2 it would hands-down be the better weapon.

I'm a little disappointed about the cost of the ghost ark, considering how fragile I expect it to be and the fact that it's only a DT for warriors. 240 points is a lot to pay for a unit of just bolters, even if they can autoglance.

Ostrakon wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Ok, so I exaggerated a bit.

I did take into account target armor, and ran the simulation on Tac Marines, Standard Terminators, Ork Boyz, and IG. According to Yakface, the Tesla carbine is Assault 2, rather than just Assault. Getting two shots every time you fire is better than rapid fire. (I am counting 3 hits when you get a 6 to hit).

I didn't look into attacking vehicles.

I don't have my spreadsheet in front of me (it's at home), but I looked at expected kills on Marines, Ork Boyz, and IG (the results on Terminators was laughable!), on each the Tesla Carbine resulted in more expected kills in a single round of firing than the Blaster (in either single fire or rapid fire range). Granted, the size of the effect is reduced the more armor your target has.

I agree that cost will be a deciding factor. Will it be a free swap? Will it be 5 extra points per model? Will it be 10?
I'm guessing that it would probably be worth it at 5 points/model, and definitely worth a free swap.

Where did he say it was assault 2? the last I heard was from his quote on the first page

Tesla Carbines (24" S5 Assault1, 'Tesla'

Yeah, if it was actually assault 2 it would hands-down be the better weapon.

I'm a little disappointed about the cost of the ghost ark, considering how fragile I expect it to be and the fact that it's only a DT for warriors. 240 points is a lot to pay for a unit of just bolters, even if they can autoglance.

Oops. My bad.

Again some stuff i got from the WD: Imhotek is 225 points, Trazyn is 175. 10 warriors in a ghost ark are 245 (do the math on that one). A Doomsday ark is 175 points. An annihilation barge is 90 points.

You know I really wanted the doomsday ark at first, but I don't know if it's worth 175 points. I'd probably just field the monoliths for another 25.

Same here. The Arks main gun is stronger, but the monolith is superior in almost every other respect as I see it right now. And with 2 of them you can propably just skip the transports for your troops as well since you can teleport them around.

hollowmirror wrote:You know I really wanted the doomsday ark at first, but I don't know if it's worth 175 points. I'd probably just field the monoliths for another 25.

If the Doomsday large blast is ordnance it could be worth it, especially if you've got some Imhotek night fighting shenanigans going on.

125 points for an ark strikes me as rather absurd from a balance perspective. It's only going to stay AV13 for a single round of shooting, and all it has for armaments are auto-glancing bolters. It's not even fast.

Depends where you want your AT to come from. Personally I'm looking at scarabs to do the damage, but I'm thinking wraiths could make a right mess of most parking lots...

EDIT: Double Post!

On the other hand, it might be worth it just to disembark the warriors and throw some immortals in there, especially if the new rapidfire rules prove to be true in 6E.

Aldaris wrote:Same here. The Arks main gun is stronger, but the monolith is superior in almost every other respect as I see it right now. And with 2 of them you can propably just skip the transports for your troops as well since you can teleport them around.

The major advantage the Ark has is range--sitting in your backfield, it can reach out and touch just about any threat on the table.

True, but without Monoliths you need some way to get your dudes around the board. And since transports seem pretty expensive for what they can actually do I'd rather have 2 Monos and invest the points saved on transports elsewhere.

Just speculating on what's known so far of course.

kargenetic wrote:

Aldaris wrote:Same here. The Arks main gun is stronger, but the monolith is superior in almost every other respect as I see it right now. And with 2 of them you can propably just skip the transports for your troops as well since you can teleport them around.

The major advantage the Ark has is range--sitting in your backfield, it can reach out and touch just about any threat on the table.

Let's not forget about AP1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aldaris wrote:True, but without Monoliths you need some way to get your dudes around the board. And since transports seem pretty expensive for what they can actually do I'd rather have 2 Monos and invest the points saved on transports elsewhere.

Just speculating on what's known so far of course.

Keep in mind the monolith can only move 6 inches, and we don't know if it can teleport dudes immediately after deep striking. AV14 is still tough to crack but it's not nearly as crazy as it used to be since it's not immune to meltas and lances.

That's why I'd like to have 2!

:-)

kargenetic wrote:

Aldaris wrote:Same here. The Arks main gun is stronger, but the monolith is superior in almost every other respect as I see it right now. And with 2 of them you can propably just skip the transports for your troops as well since you can teleport them around.

The major advantage the Ark has is range--sitting in your backfield, it can reach out and touch just about any threat on the table.

The problem to me on that is that most people will be using Imotech it sounds like. So It'll be likely that the first 2-3 turns are night fighting. Which means even if it can shoot it's str9 ap1 it can only reach an average 21". That's also assuming that it doesn't move, which it likely will need to move at least once or twice through the game which will reduce it's profile down to str7 24" for the following shooting phase.

being armor 13 until the first penetrate or glance is nice, but since it's open topped it has a 50% chance of crashing and burning after that first penetrate.

So all but one of the Necron vehicles are AV11 (AV13 with QS) and the Monolith only has 24" weapons. Oh, and they're not exactly cheap. I can only think that either vehicles are getting a lot tougher to kill in 6th Edition, or perhaps the Necron army was balanced with the idea that 90% of all Necron players are going to take Imotekh(and a Solar Pulse Cryptek) every game. I'm not sure which idea is worse.

hollowmirror wrote:

kargenetic wrote:

Aldaris wrote:Same here. The Arks main gun is stronger, but the monolith is superior in almost every other respect as I see it right now. And with 2 of them you can propably just skip the transports for your troops as well since you can teleport them around.

The major advantage the Ark has is range--sitting in your backfield, it can reach out and touch just about any threat on the table.

The problem to me on that is that most people will be using Imotech it sounds like. So It'll be likely that the first 2-3 turns are night fighting. Which means even if it can shoot it's str9 ap1 it can only reach an average 21". That's also assuming that it doesn't move, which it likely will need to move at least once or twice through the game which will reduce it's profile down to str7 24" for the following shooting phase.

being armor 13 until the first penetrate or glance is nice, but since it's open topped it has a 50% chance of crashing and burning after that first penetrate.

Use that to your advantage, though. Take Imhotek with a cryptek that has Solar Flare, and pop something on turn one with utter impunity. Plus, you can decide to stop rolling for it whenever.

Okay, I'll concede that the Ark doesn't sound bad with Mr. Imhotek and a correspondingly equipped Cryptek in play. I don't know if I want to build my whole force on that combo though, which is basically what it would mean.

I would be curious to see a list that used a strong core of doomsday arks and triarch stalkers with gauss cannons. Using the stalkers to mark something you want crunched and then getting a twin-linked str9 ap1 large blast could be very helpful to making them viable.

I'd agree the solar pulse could help immensely if done at the right time.

Points cost... Everything is so expensive. I never expected the Doomsday Ark to be 175.

Yeah, my headcount had it at 150 max...oh well, makes my decisions easier. And for some reason I thought it was St10 so it's even easier now to forget about it

So, what's your current take on heavy support, Mr. Smash?

Right now it's going to have to wait but my heavy support slots are looking to be slightly empty honestly. Though tomb spyders might be a direction I head. So far nothing jumps out but point values are important for me to make those decisions

I do see that the necron codex has a pretty big theme of all the gears working together to get the desired result, such as the c'tan - tremorstave combination, the Imotech - solarpulse or the tomb spyders helping to restock your scarabs.

Hulksmash wrote:Right now it's going to have to wait but my heavy support slots are looking to be slightly empty honestly. Though tomb spyders might be a direction I head. So far nothing jumps out but point values are important for me to make those decisions

I have to Agree here. The points costs are driving me away from the Heavy support slot as well. I really wanted to use the Doomsday Arks, but I expected them around 130-150 points. Not 175, that's for sure.

We'll have to see. I really need to get the codex in my hands now.

I hope It's wrong, that's for sure.

You know, maybe I'm discounting the arks' "regenerate 3 models" ability too easily. I wonder what a force that looks something like this could accomplish:
Imotek on Barge ???

As many scarabs as possible ???

10 warriors 245
-Ark

10 warriros 245
-Ark

15 warriors 180
15 warriors 180
15 warriors 180

With this you have literal boatloads of scoring units that are not incredibly easy to eliminate, with lots of cover saves due to being screened by scarabs. If the scarabs aren't dealt with, they can mire CC units or debilitate vehicles altogether. All that mass gauss fire could do a lot of damage (especially if 6E rapidfire rules prove to be true), and even though they'd get picked off, the two arks regenerating an average of 36 points worth of necrons a turn is a non-trival boon. Take a couple eldritch lances/tachyon arrows for helping with high priority vehicle targets and you're golden.

The scarabs help intercept CC units who will almost certainly sweep your warrior units, but if you lose one altogether it isn't the end of the world.

There's probably a better balance of warriors to other units but I could see something like this working.

I just want to come up with a way to make Lychguard work for me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Youre not thinking this through, re the no scatter flayed ones

If the opponent is altering their battle plans because they know this unit is vulnerable to flayed ones, then you already have an advantage over them. The random nature of reserves meaning your opponent has to keep protecting their unit, every time you dont come down.

Stormlord seems well worth 200+ points, even without a power weapon. Ditto wraiths.

Possibly an important point -- in the rumored 6th edition rules, units may charge the turn they deep strike. Most units only get a 6" advance move after the DS, so you have to land close. And under those rules it's normally a very risky thing to even attempt to DS within 6" of another unit. But with a homer...

Also note that in those rules, reserves are much more reliable. You can more or less decide which turn they're going to arrive. This seems be a prime example of something that may look different after 6th edition arrives.

Dr. Delorean wrote:We gotta look at the transport thing as being ahead of the curve in terms of any paradigm shifts 6th ed will bring. I think it's a pretty safe bet that transports, and vehicles in general, will be slightly reduced in their durability, maybe not back to what 4th ed had, but maybe a halfway point between the two.

The rumored rules had all vehicles getting more durable, actually. The catch is that you won't want to be bunkering inside them anymore.

Gorgon, would you mind refreshing my memory on why we don't want to bunker them anymore? I don't remember at all.

Do they normally list the new points cost for things in WD? I don't get it very often.

Booo to making vehicles more survivable. We already see to much mech currently in the game.

I for one think thats a good cost for it. All vehicles of any sort should be more expensive. Look at the game now, 1000 vehicles per side for almost every army. So the game becomes lets see whos transport gets blown up first so then the troops are screwed and die in droves. I hope that this is a hint in 6th that it will be more on how 40k should really be, about the troops shooting the hell out of eachother and cutting eachother up in combat, not running around in tons of tanks.

str00dles1 wrote:I for one think thats a good cost for it. All vehicles of any sort should be more expensive. Look at the game now, 1000 vehicles per side for almost every army. So the game becomes lets see whos transport gets blown up first so then the troops are screwed and die in droves. I hope that this is a hint in 6th that it will be more on how 40k should really be, about the troops shooting the hell out of eachother and cutting eachother up in combat, not running around in tons of tanks.

The problem is that this isn't reflected in other codices, though.

I seriously doubt we're going to see 80 point razorbacks in the 6E marine codex, too.

The problem with proposing that all vehicles/transports in 6th will/should be more expensive is that the Rulebook itself doesn't affect it, but the individual codices. Therefore, if some units are made more expensive (say rhinos are 45pts in the next Codex), then they will be even further under-costed in Codices that have not been updated, therefore creating some notable imbalance...