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.

zacharia wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Over 9000! wrote:Does anyone know if destroyers have 2 wounds? Because they really should

Nope.
Only 1w it seems. They do a Bit more damage now, however.

their weapons went from 36" S6 AP4 heavy3 to 36" S6 AP3 assault2 different damage is best id say not more.

They can now one shot marines. I call that an improvement.

Boy, can't wait for the codex! Crypteks sound semi-mandatory to help warriors to survive combat (with tremor staves and stuff). Definitley gonna kitbash some deathmarks/praetorians/warriors, to get some, hopefully, good looking crypteks

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

zacharia wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Over 9000! wrote:Does anyone know if destroyers have 2 wounds? Because they really should

Nope.
Only 1w it seems. They do a Bit more damage now, however.

their weapons went from 36" S6 AP4 heavy3 to 36" S6 AP3 assault2 different damage is best id say not more.

They can now one shot marines. I call that an improvement.

Thats why i said different, they are better against 3+save due to 1 better ap, but worse against everything else due to 1 less shot.

What does the new Necron codex mean for Tau? I mean, these Necrons look like they have some unbelievable firepower. They're all I2 but some of their CC wepaons are great but they certainly look like a very strong, if mad-range shooty army.

What are they gonna give Tau to make them stand out as the shooty army of WH40K? Extra range, OK, but they're gonna have to practically spam S6+ and AP1 all over the show to make the Tau the best shooty army of 6th ed, surely?

ColdSadHungry wrote:What does the new Necron codex mean for Tau? I mean, these Necrons look like they have some unbelievable firepower. They're all I2 but some of their CC wepaons are great but they certainly look like a very strong, if mad-range shooty army.

What are they gonna give Tau to make them stand out as the shooty army of WH40K? Extra range, OK, but they're gonna have to practically spam S6+ and AP1 all over the show to make the Tau the best shooty army of 6th ed, surely?

I think they will add strong long range firepower. I am more inclined to believe though that they will add new races and units in like kroot combat troops.

ColdSadHungry wrote:What does the new Necron codex mean for Tau? I mean, these Necrons look like they have some unbelievable firepower. They're all I2 but some of their CC wepaons are great but they certainly look like a very strong, if mad-range shooty army.

What are they gonna give Tau to make them stand out as the shooty army of WH40K? Extra range, OK, but they're gonna have to practically spam S6+ and AP1 all over the show to make the Tau the best shooty army of 6th ed, surely?

Lets not hihack this thread to tau...This is the necrons day of glory!

puma713 wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:

Kitzz wrote:

As a side note, is the annihilation barge really only 90 points? I mean that thing basically gurantees a torched chimera/rhino every turn, sometimes even two, and if it has quantum sheilding, that's pretty darn terrifying. At that low points value, heck, even at mid to high points, that's absolutely worth it. Why didn't they spoil that instead of the overlord version? The thing can even turbo-boost into position.

I've been saying the same thing regarding Annie B. People will decry its 24" range, but when you get a fast moving vehicle halfway across the table, 24" will usually get you in range to whatever you need destroyed...and if not you can always turbo boost to reposition.

According to the website, the Annihilation Barge is simply (Skimmer, Open-Topped). No fast moving, no moving flat out.

The website also doesn't say the CCB is fast, but it clearly says that it is in the WD article. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I played two games this weekend using the rules that were posted by Yak. Both were 500 point matches, and I played against the tau. I believe his list was:
Battle suit commander
tl missle
flamer
2x Battle suits
tl missle
flamer
2x Battle suits
tl missle
flamer
7x fire warriors
12x kroot
12x kroot

Game 1:
My list:
Overlord with no upgrades, staff of light
10x Warriors
10x Warriors
x2 Destroyers, x1 Heavy Destroyer

We played pitched battle and annihilation. I went first.
Turn 1, I positioned my destroyers and tried to shoot his battle suits, and rolled all 1's to hit. His turn 1 took out a destroyer.
Turn 2, I put the destroyers in cover, and shot again, rolled all 1's or 2's, and tried a warrior squad at his warriors, who immediately went to ground and saved everything. He then destroyed another destroyer and half a squad of warriors.
Turn 3, I shot with the heavy destroyer again, got a 6 to hit, a 1 to wound, then ran the hell into cover. He then wiped out half of the other squad of warriors as well as the heavy destroyer.
I gave up at that point with no way to take out his battle suits.

Game 1:
My list:
Overlord with no upgrades, staff of light
x5 immortals w/ tesla
x5 immortals w/ tesla
x5 scarabs
x5 scarabs
x2 wraiths

We played with 5 points and dawn of war.
Turn 1, my scarabs and wraiths came out, and sat for next turn, the immortals took 2 points and hid. He set up a a line of kroot, hid everything behind it, and had a kroot squad sit on a point. 2:1 me
Turn 2, moved scarabs up and wraiths. Shot with immortals, killed half of fire warrior squad. rolled double 1's to run up scarabs, 6 to move up wraith into cover. Lost a squad of scarabs against all of his firepower and moved his fire warriors onto a point 2:2
Turn 3, moved up scarabs and wraiths, went to run scarab squad, got a 2. Assaulted a squad of battlesuits, he saved all wounds, i lost a wraith and it stood up (first successful rp roll of the day.) Shot up a squad of immortals to 3, then assaulted and wipe out the wraiths with kroot. 2:2
Turn 4, assaulted his kroot with scarabs, inflicted 0 wounds and lost all 5 scarabs (used ws 2, str 3, i 2, 3 attacks each, 3 wounds each, 5+ save). He then got rid of the immortals he shot up earlier. His win 1:2.

Two lessons learned: When you fail at rolling, you will lose. Necrons are very limited in games with little points still.

Your really not going to get any decent indication of how the army can run until you get to 1500 points and up.

500 points is grossly in favor of a few armies, and knocks down the others.

For instance, battlesuits are some of the best things in the Tau codex, and he is using 5 at 500 points.

Start playing at above 1500, and watch your Doomsday cannon kill 3 battlesuits at once.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

They can now one shot marines. I call that an improvement.

Exactly. I love the new destroyers and I can happily live with one shot less when the two remaining shots ignore the MEQ 3+. Yes, people are correct when they say that it's worse against targets with a different armor, but then again, it always feels like 80% of W40k players play MEQ.

As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

omerakk wrote:As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

A 4+ cover save is still worse than a 3+ save.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

omerakk wrote:As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

A 4+ cover save is still worse than a 3+ save.

And 15 shots going into a squad is better than 6.

Sasori wrote:Your really not going to get any decent indication of how the army can run until you get to 1500 points and up.

500 points is grossly in favor of a few armies, and knocks down the others.

For instance, battlesuits are some of the best things in the Tau codex, and he is using 5 at 500 points.

Start playing at above 1500, and watch your Doomsday cannon kill 3 battlesuits at once.

Sadly, he only owns an army of about 1150 points and he was busy painting his other 650 points worth. I wanted to play against my ork friend but he was an idiot and lost his codex and didn't want to look online for it. Next weekend I'm gonna play again in a 1500 point match. I'm forcing my tau friend to upgrade everything, even if he doesn't want to. never playing 500 points as necrons again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

omerakk wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

omerakk wrote:As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

A 4+ cover save is still worse than a 3+ save.

And 15 shots going into a squad is better than 6.

With 1 less shot per destroyer, and the squad only being 1-3 instead of 3-5, It really seems like a nerf, even though its now AP 3. I think they could have at least kept the 3 shots if you make the max squad size 2 less than before. Also, I'd like to point out that the loss of turbo-boosting really makes these guys less mobile then before. Only by nerfing the destroyers does GW find a way to profit off the Fast Attack slot for necron players.

omerakk wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

omerakk wrote:As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

A 4+ cover save is still worse than a 3+ save.

And 15 shots going into a squad is better than 6.

9 shots.
3 old destroyers = 9
3 new destroyers = 6

And even then:

2/3 chance of hitting

9 : 6 hits

6 : 4

5/6 chance of wounding

:nearly 5 wounds

:most likely all 4 wounds

Against AP4 = 2/3 chance of saving

about 3 or 4 saved, meaning 1 or 2 wounds

Against AP 3 = N0 chance, 4 wounds

In cover : 1/2 chance of saving

2 saved, 2 wounds.

I would say its about even.

Well, ok the squad size is a bit smaller, but you can now have preferred enemy, marines still die easily, you can now deepstrike, take a nightscythe (maybe)

omerakk wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

omerakk wrote:As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

A 4+ cover save is still worse than a 3+ save.

And 15 shots going into a squad is better than 6.

Squads are only 3 now, so you would be saying that 9 Shots is better than six, if you are just comparing the qualities of the new weapon.

Someone can do the mathhammer, but I think the 6 shots at AP3 is much better than the 9 Shots for killing marines.

EDIT: Totally Ninja'd

omerakk wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

omerakk wrote:As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

A 4+ cover save is still worse than a 3+ save.

And 15 shots going into a squad is better than 6.

Couldn't agree more, the more saves your opponent has to make the more painful it becomes for them*.


* Dice rolls permitting :

Sasori wrote:

omerakk wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

omerakk wrote:As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

A 4+ cover save is still worse than a 3+ save.

And 15 shots going into a squad is better than 6.

Squads are only 3 now, so you would be saying that 9 Shots is better than six, if you are just comparing the qualities of the new weapon.

Someone can do the mathhammer, but I think the 6 shots at AP3 is much better than the 9 Shots for killing marines.

Already done. See above.

Well, its not Mathhammer but anyway.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sasori wrote:

omerakk wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

omerakk wrote:As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

A 4+ cover save is still worse than a 3+ save.

And 15 shots going into a squad is better than 6.

Squads are only 3 now, so you would be saying that 9 Shots is better than six, if you are just comparing the qualities of the new weapon.

Someone can do the mathhammer, but I think the 6 shots at AP3 is much better than the 9 Shots for killing marines.

Already done. See above.

Well, its not Mathhammer but anyway.

Yeah, didn't see it till to late. I just think it's silly when someone trys to skew the numbers in their favor like that.

Thanks for the small math hammer part, CthulhuIsSpy.

Furthermore, on top of the fact that MEQ now lose their 3+ against destroyers, their overall movement becomes more predictable as they must either get in cover or risk having no save at all.

I do hope, however, that PE also applies to ranged attacks in 6th as right now, it is a completely worthless rule for destroyers.

Sasori wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sasori wrote:

omerakk wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

omerakk wrote:As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

A 4+ cover save is still worse than a 3+ save.

And 15 shots going into a squad is better than 6.

Squads are only 3 now, so you would be saying that 9 Shots is better than six, if you are just comparing the qualities of the new weapon.

Someone can do the mathhammer, but I think the 6 shots at AP3 is much better than the 9 Shots for killing marines.

Already done. See above.

Well, its not Mathhammer but anyway.

Yeah, didn't see it till to late. I just think it's silly when someone trys to skew the numbers in their favor like that.

It's not skewing the numbers in game terms at all.

What's the most effective number of destroyers in the new codex? 3, that is your max. What's the most effective number of destroyers in the old codex? 5, that is your max.

Comparing 3 v 3 is just dandy, but ignoring that the squads used to be 5 is ignoring a huge factor when comparing the new destroyers to the old ones.

New advantages:
ap3 for better kills in the open
reduced cost
can deepstrike

Old advantages:
greater squad size (more survivability, greater amount of shots, better kills vs cover, greater chance for pens/glances on vehicles due to shots)
could turbo boost

Really, they didn't upgrade or downgrade, they just went sideways. The only thing that really changed was now you can max out at 9 destroyers, so anyone that had more than that is going to be shelving or selling models

Meh, we don't need destroyers now and also there cheap enough to be run in small 3 man suicide squads.

aboytervigon wrote:Meh, we don't need destroyers now and also there cheap enough to be run in small 3 man suicide squads.

I think that pretty much sums it up and makes the destroyer debate a moot point. They used to be our only option for strong fire support. This is no longer the case. Plus, seeing as how they compete for the fast slot against scarabs and wraiths; which both seem to be extremely useful now... is there really any purpose for a regular destroyer group instead of a heavy group?

omerakk wrote:

Sasori wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sasori wrote:

omerakk wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

omerakk wrote:As long as those marines are running around out in the open, it's an improvement. If they are getting any kind of cover, the guns are worse.

A 4+ cover save is still worse than a 3+ save.

And 15 shots going into a squad is better than 6.

Squads are only 3 now, so you would be saying that 9 Shots is better than six, if you are just comparing the qualities of the new weapon.

Someone can do the mathhammer, but I think the 6 shots at AP3 is much better than the 9 Shots for killing marines.

Already done. See above.

Well, its not Mathhammer but anyway.

Yeah, didn't see it till to late. I just think it's silly when someone trys to skew the numbers in their favor like that.

It's not skewing the numbers in game terms at all.

What's the most effective number of destroyers in the new codex? 3, that is your max. What's the most effective number of destroyers in the old codex? 5, that is your max.

Comparing 3 v 3 is just dandy, but ignoring that the squads used to be 5 is ignoring a huge factor when comparing the new destroyers to the old ones.

New advantages:
ap3 for better kills in the open
reduced cost
can deepstrike

Old advantages:
greater squad size (more survivability, greater amount of shots, better kills vs cover, greater chance for pens/glances on vehicles due to shots)
could turbo boost

Really, they didn't upgrade or downgrade, they just went sideways. The only thing that really changed was now you can max out at 9 destroyers, so anyone that had more than that is going to be shelving or selling models

Your posts were not comparing the Old vs New Destroyers. People were specifically comparing the old vs new guns. So Yes, comparing the squad size in that instance is not relevant. If you want to compare Old Destroyers vs New destroyers then the squad size is relevant. The posts I were reading, were just about if the Guns are better or not.

Well the way I see it, is that although the old ones put out more shots, the new is still better.


This example uses 9 rounds of shooting with a sqaud of 5. Now I know you can't get that many in a squad, and of course they are variables and a game would never last this long, but this works out just to show whole numbers. Now then...

Old Cannon
9 rounds of shooting= 135 Shots fired at BS4= Meaning 90 hits. Only a 1 won't wound= Meaning 75 wounds. 3+ Armor saves means= 25 dead marines. If that squad is in cover, they suffer the same amount because there armor save is better.

New Cannon

9 rounds of shooting= 90 Shots fired at BS4= Meaning 60 hits. Only a 1 won't wound= Meaning 50 wounds. At AP3, that is 50 dead marines. That is double the amount of dead marines compared to the old cannon. If they are in cover, only half will survive, meaning 25 dead marines, which is the same.

If the marine is in the open the new cannon will kill a lot more. If the marine is in cover, both cannons will kill the same equally.

BSent wrote:Well the way I see it, is that although the old ones put out more shots, the new is still better.


This example uses 9 rounds of shooting with a sqaud of 5. Now I know you can't get that many in a squad, and of course they are variables and a game would never last this long, but this works out just to show whole numbers. Now then...

Old Cannon
9 rounds of shooting= 135 Shots fired at BS4= Meaning 90 hits. Only a 1 won't wound= Meaning 75 wounds. 3+ Armor saves means= 25 dead marines. If that squad is in cover, they suffer the same amount because there armor save is better.

New Cannon

9 rounds of shooting= 90 Shots fired at BS4= Meaning 60 hits. Only a 1 won't wound= Meaning 50 wounds. At AP3, that is 50 dead marines. That is double the amount of dead marines compared to the old cannon. If they are in cover, only half will survive, meaning 25 dead marines, which is the same.

If the marine is in the open the new cannon will kill a lot more. If the marine is in cover, both cannons will kill the same equally.

Remember, now that you can deep strike them, when the enemy is in cover, you can teleport behind them and kill them. you could even have a cryptek attach on with a veil (don't see any reason to ever use destroyers for this) and do the same thing. the AP 3 will be very useful, but i still wish the destroyers squad could have remained at 5 max instead of 3.

omerakk wrote:

aboytervigon wrote:Meh, we don't need destroyers now and also there cheap enough to be run in small 3 man suicide squads.

I think that pretty much sums it up and makes the destroyer debate a moot point. They used to be our only option for strong fire support. This is no longer the case. Plus, seeing as how they compete for the fast slot against scarabs and wraiths; which both seem to be extremely useful now... is there really any purpose for a regular destroyer group instead of a heavy group?

Unless they get Relentless SR or are Jetpack JI then they will have problems moving and shooting Heavy Weapons, at least when they were classed as Jetbikes they had the Relentless SR.

Wow, forgot about that...

Philld77 wrote:

omerakk wrote:

aboytervigon wrote:Meh, we don't need destroyers now and also there cheap enough to be run in small 3 man suicide squads.

I think that pretty much sums it up and makes the destroyer debate a moot point. They used to be our only option for strong fire support. This is no longer the case. Plus, seeing as how they compete for the fast slot against scarabs and wraiths; which both seem to be extremely useful now... is there really any purpose for a regular destroyer group instead of a heavy group?

Unless they get Relentless SR or are Jetpack JI then they will have problems moving and shooting Heavy Weapons, at least when they were classed as Jetbikes they had the Relentless SR.

They are both assault weapons now.

Woo.