Grog - Dont want to sounds rude, but why go for less warriors?
They add firepower and can help to form a solid line with the liths.
They also prevent me phasing out early.
While destroyers add to phase out, its not by much.
Keep in mind that 3 warriors costs a tiny bit more, but you get more shooting and wounds from it.
Scarabs are something i have alot of love for since i got told to try them out a while ago.
Since ive been using them ive had a fair bit of luck, mainly popping tanks, but also holding up units i want to keep away from.
I do indeed have a C'tan, both infact.
However, both are pretty heavy on points, and thier 4++ does not go too far, even more so when the only armour is solid 14's.
So he will be taking every smaller anti-tank weapon.
Not only that, after playing him against a Deldar player i learned the hard way about poisoned weps.
He is simply too slow to get about and do what needs to be done.
Brutii - firepower wise the army isnt too bad, i think adding destroyers is about the only thing that may make a very slight difference, but again, for the same price i can get a large unit of warriors that have alot more firepower between them.
And also alot more wounds
Basic orb lords come out at 140
lol.
Also, keep in mind that alot of
MC's have great saves, so gauss will bounce off of them.
The destroyer lord is able to kill them pretty easily, he isnt able to be instant death'ed, and has a ++ save ontop of all that.
So the
Dlord tends to be my hammer.
However, i have a few games comming up later this week, so ill try it all out and see how it goes.
I guess losing scarabs and a lord for a game wont hurt for more D's
However, by no means am i dropping down to 20 warriors.
Most armies at this points level have enough anti-tank for 12 vehicles, i dont have that, so excess will be used to help phase me out quickly.