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.

So whats your vote?

(and yes I tried to search but found nothing that just poped out so don't say it lol)

IS this point for point or what? Point for Point I think that they are about equal with Immortals just a little ahead.

They seem to fill different roles often, the Immortals to kill infantry while the warriors are your one and only troop choice for objectives, and your primary means of increasing your phase out number.

On a side note immortals cost a fortune relatively to field a unit of, so thats a negative.

Let us examine the different aspects of both.

Warriors:
-troops
-can arrive through the monolith
-are cheaper than the immortals
-can have large mobs

Immortals:
-T5
-expensive
-AP4

In the end, I have to conclude that the warriors are better, because if you have enough of them it is hard to be phased out. Perhaps if immortals were AP3, but AP4 just doesn't cut it with the large amount of MEQ armies out there, and the warriors' AP5 will suffice vs guardsmen.

I use immortals in squads of 5, joined by lords, works for me.

I don't know if one is necessarily better than the other. Immortals are tougher with better guns, but Warriors are troops which counts for a lot in 5th Edition.

Not to be contrary, but I use Destroyers exclusively and am never disappointed.