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:

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.

Ooopss guess I should read up before posting

Thanks for the heads up Sasori

Sasori wrote: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.

My posts were intended to compare the units, not the weapons. I apologize for not making that more clear; I just didn't like someone accusing me of skewing numbers etc when that wasn't the case. Simple misunderstanding and I'm glad it's been cleared up.

Philld77 wrote:

Sasori wrote:

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.

Ooopss guess I should read up before posting

Thanks for the heads up Sasori

So now you can shoot your weapon and assault to reap the benefit of having preferred enemy. Brilliant.

omerakk wrote:

Sasori wrote: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.

My posts were intended to compare the units, not the weapons. I apologize for not making that more clear; I just didn't like someone accusing me of skewing numbers etc when that wasn't the case. Simple misunderstanding and I'm glad it's been cleared up.

Not a problem, it's easy to misinterpret that stuff over the internet. My fault is well. I see a lot of people try to do shenanigans with comparisons, and I just assumed it was being done again. Well, you know what they say about assuming.

I think the main point is though, Between Wraiths and Scarabs, how often are Destroyers even going to be taken? Perhaps if Preferred enemy applies to ranged weapons in Sixth, but even then it seems like our other two FA choices are just too good to pass up.

Matt Ward **** **** THIS CODEX.

The biggest problem with this codex is the fact that IT CANNOT SURVIVE CLOSE COMBAT UNITS!

THERES NO WAY AROUND I2....Dark Eldar Incubi will have a field day with you, sanguinary guard and the lot of everything else space marine, hell even IG will stomp on your metal skulls before you can even raise a finger.

For those who argue this is a fluffy change for the army, bs...because only the lower level necrons are supposed to be automatons, Lords/lych/praetorian/wraiths are all supposed to have more semblence of who they are, and the lords are supposed to be masters of combat, not slow ass half witted morons!

For those who argue their bodies are slow...take a minute to think about that, they have the best technology in the whole universe for many centuries and have no way to make light metals that are alive?

Theres no way around this I 2 which makes taking any close combat units we may have useless....They will be down before blows are stuck back.

This is another of Wards piss poor rule writing strategies "I cant have anything be as strong as a muhreen, I suck **** for ultramarines"

Sasori wrote:

omerakk wrote:

Sasori wrote: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.

My posts were intended to compare the units, not the weapons. I apologize for not making that more clear; I just didn't like someone accusing me of skewing numbers etc when that wasn't the case. Simple misunderstanding and I'm glad it's been cleared up.

Not a problem, it's easy to misinterpret that stuff over the internet. My fault is well. I see a lot of people try to do shenanigans with comparisons, and I just assumed it was being done again. Well, you know what they say about assuming.

I think the main point is though, Between Wraiths and Scarabs, how often are Destroyers even going to be taken? Perhaps if Preferred enemy applies to ranged weapons in Sixth, but even then it seems like our other two FA choices are just too good to pass up.

Having played a game using scarabs with the new rules, even using cover, it is harder to get them up the battlefield, since you can't turbo boost for the 3+ cover save anymore, and, to my knowledge, have to use their 5+/5+RP. Also, if they stay at WS 2 and STR 3, they will only be useful against vehicles and will quickly disappear in cc with anything, even kroot.

3rd Ed. Heavy destroyers @65 points apiece carry a s9 ap2 heavy 1 gun.

5th Ed. Heavy D's are @60 points apiece, and carry a s9 ap2 assault 1 gun.

Max squad size for both is/was 3 models. So that hasn't changed. They both move 12" max and fire in the same turn. the new ones can't turbo-boost. However with potential changes to Preferred Enemy in 6th edition, the new ones are basically coming with twin-linked lascannons.

Not a nerf at all.

Evegoden wrote:Matt Ward ****ing F**kedTHIS CODEX.

The biggest problem with this codex is the fact that IT CANNOT SURVIVE CLOSE COMBAT UNITS!

THERES NO WAY AROUND I2....Dark Eldar Incubi will have a field day with you, sanguinary guard and the lot of everything else space marine, hell even IG will stomp on your metal skulls before you can even raise a finger.

For those who argue this is a fluffy change for the army, bs...because only the lower level necrons are supposed to be automatons, Lords/lych/praetorian/wraiths are all supposed to have more semblence of who they are, and the lords are supposed to be masters of combat, not slow ass half witted morons!

For those who argue their bodies are slow...take a minute to think about that, they have the best technology in the whole universe for many centuries and have no way to make light metals that are alive?

Theres no way around this I 2 which makes taking any close combat units we may have useless....They will be down before blows are stuck back.

This is another of Wards piss poor rule writing strategies "I cant have anything be as strong as a muhreen, I suck **** for ultramarines"

Have you already read the codex?

Since what we know atm are just the first wave and since we don't even have the codex yet we don't know what stats/items and all the units will have.

But i do agree I 2 sucks for CC units and why would you use them? (instead use immortals/death marks or blast them from a distance whit the stormlord or doomsday)

Evegoden wrote:Matt Ward ****ing F**kedTHIS CODEX.

The biggest problem with this codex is the fact that IT CANNOT SURVIVE CLOSE COMBAT UNITS!

THERES NO WAY AROUND I2....Dark Eldar Incubi will have a field day with you, sanguinary guard and the lot of everything else space marine, hell even IG will stomp on your metal skulls before you can even raise a finger.

For those who argue this is a fluffy change for the army, bs...because only the lower level necrons are supposed to be automatons, Lords/lych/praetorian/wraiths are all supposed to have more semblence of who they are, and the lords are supposed to be masters of combat, not slow ass half witted morons!

For those who argue their bodies are slow...take a minute to think about that, they have the best technology in the whole universe for many centuries and have no way to make light metals that are alive?

Theres no way around this I 2 which makes taking any close combat units we may have useless....They will be down before blows are stuck back.

This is another of Wards piss poor rule writing strategies "I cant have anything be as strong as a muhreen, I suck **** for ultramarines"

Oh hai random non-sequitur hater. I was wondering when your ilk will show up.

And the lords do have a semblance of who they were. Learn to read

Evegoden wrote:Matt Ward ****ing F**kedTHIS CODEX.

The biggest problem with this codex is the fact that IT CANNOT SURVIVE CLOSE COMBAT UNITS!

Yes, CC will still be a weakness of the necrons, but I am fine with that. If I wanted to have an allround army, I would just play MEQ like most players do...the same boring faction most people already play. Most likely even GK...when you start being cheesy, why not going for the maximum cheese?

I like the fact that the necrons still remain a very shooty army with a lot of special tricks up their sleeves, especially now with HQ units such as the storm lord. Furthermore, CC is a lot better than it used to be with new units and even old ones such as the wraiths getting a significant buff (yes, I2 now, but take their coils and...here you go!). FO have always been bad and will remain being bad but on top of that, the new ones look terrible and are the most overpriced unit in the entire codex. But then again, why take FO when you have so many new, better elite choices, especially for CC?

Concerning destroyers...I might still take a squad in our friendlies as most of them play MEQ and I just want those annoying 3+ to be gone...especially since I lack immortals and normal warriors just do not cut it against normal marines.

Evegoden wrote:Matt Ward ****ing F**kedTHIS CODEX.

The biggest problem with this codex is the fact that IT CANNOT SURVIVE CLOSE COMBAT UNITS!

THERES NO WAY AROUND I2....Dark Eldar Incubi will have a field day with you, sanguinary guard and the lot of everything else space marine, hell even IG will stomp on your metal skulls before you can even raise a finger.

For those who argue this is a fluffy change for the army, bs...because only the lower level necrons are supposed to be automatons, Lords/lych/praetorian/wraiths are all supposed to have more semblence of who they are, and the lords are supposed to be masters of combat, not slow ass half witted morons!

For those who argue their bodies are slow...take a minute to think about that, they have the best technology in the whole universe for many centuries and have no way to make light metals that are alive?

Theres no way around this I 2 which makes taking any close combat units we may have useless....They will be down before blows are stuck back.

This is another of Wards piss poor rule writing strategies "I cant have anything be as strong as a muhreen, I suck **** for ultramarines"

Oh, how original. When you are old enough to shave, then you may understand that you don't have to follow the sheep.

No you are right I have not seen the new codex yet, also I have been posting in this thread for a while.

So no, I am not random.

I just rage when I see 45 point models with no justification for their cost and what they are intended to do.


I just hope there is something that CC units can take that makes them higher than I 2 or at least strike simultaneously.

Also I play non MEQ armies mostly Xenos, Dark Eldar is my second army, and I have been shaving for years lol.

I just love close combat, and I can see the faults or kinks in our armor and having played Incubi and knowing how fast they tear through Termies means that they will surely tear through us.

Evegoden wrote:

I just rage when I see 45 point models with no justification for their cost and what they are intended to do.

What unit are you referring to?

Lychguard with Shields im guessing.

Evegoden wrote:No you are right I have not seen the new codex yet, also I have been posting in this thread for a while.

So no, I am not random.

I just rage when I see 45 point models with no justification for their cost and what they are intended to do.


I just hope there is something that CC units can take that makes them higher than I 2 or at least strike simultaneously.

The Low I doesn't really matter... they have T5 or invul saves with Resurrection Protocols. Hitting before them isn't the challenge; it's actually wounding them.

Evegoden wrote:
I just hope there is something that CC units can take that makes them higher than I 2 or at least strike simultaneously.

You mean like Wraiths being able to take Lashes that make opponents I1?

Evegoden wrote:No you are right I have not seen the new codex yet, also I have been posting in this thread for a while.

So no, I am not random.

I just rage when I see 45 point models with no justification for their cost and what they are intended to do.


I just hope there is something that CC units can take that makes them higher than I 2 or at least strike simultaneously.

You should try looking at the statline of the new wraiths; as well as the wargear they can take. There's your cc answer.
Or, bury people with scarabs. Even against assault units that can rip through them, a group of 10 supported by tomb spyders adding models to the unit will keep enemies tied up for a long time

You see this info wouldve been nice before.

I was under the impression that lych were also 45points...per model heck even 40 points a model is bad.

I didn't know the whips did that either....things are looking less meh.

I mostly got pissed cause I already spent 400$ on new models cause necrons are my home team ever since I started 8 years ago.

I think the main point is though, Between Wraiths and Scarabs, how often are Destroyers even going to be taken? Perhaps if Preferred enemy applies to ranged weapons in Sixth, but even then it seems like our other two FA choices are just too good to pass up.

Not to mention tomb blades that are 1-5, jetbikes and twin linked, this alone makes destroyers worthless (heavies still have a use in some lists but even then the other options are better imo)

FalkorsRaiders wrote:

Sasori wrote:

omerakk wrote:

Sasori wrote: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.

My posts were intended to compare the units, not the weapons. I apologize for not making that more clear; I just didn't like someone accusing me of skewing numbers etc when that wasn't the case. Simple misunderstanding and I'm glad it's been cleared up.

Not a problem, it's easy to misinterpret that stuff over the internet. My fault is well. I see a lot of people try to do shenanigans with comparisons, and I just assumed it was being done again. Well, you know what they say about assuming.

I think the main point is though, Between Wraiths and Scarabs, how often are Destroyers even going to be taken? Perhaps if Preferred enemy applies to ranged weapons in Sixth, but even then it seems like our other two FA choices are just too good to pass up.

Having played a game using scarabs with the new rules, even using cover, it is harder to get them up the battlefield, since you can't turbo boost for the 3+ cover save anymore, and, to my knowledge, have to use their 5+/5+RP. Also, if they stay at WS 2 and STR 3, they will only be useful against vehicles and will quickly disappear in cc with anything, even kroot.

I'm surprised you had such an issue, even with kroot. A Scarab is hitting anything with WS 4 and below on a 4 still, and has 4 attacks on the charge per base. Even with Strength 3, they should still cause enough attacks/wounds from a swarm of them to inflict a mass amount of casualties. If you had ten bases, that's 40 attacks on the charge, and should cause a lot of damage.

You remembered they are beasts now right? They have Fleet and a 12' assault. In addition, they still have the stealth rule, so should be able to get a 3+ cover save early on, depending on the board.

Either way, to me it seems like their priority targets are still vehicles. Sending them against infantry seems like a waste of their usefulness.

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.

EDIT: Totally Ninja'd

MATH HAMMER!
This is based on shooting against MEQs, as they comprise half of the existing armies, and most competitive armies.

Old Destroyers (full squad)
5x Destroyers = 15 shots
15 shots @ BS 4 = 10 hits
10 hits @ Str 6 vs. Str 4 = 8.33 wounds
8.33 wounds vs. 3+ armour save = 5.58 unsaved wounds
if FNP aplies...
5.58 wounds vs. 4+ FNP = 2.79 dead marines

Old Destroyers (comparative squad)
3x Destroyers = 9 shots
9 shots @ BS 4 = 6 hits
6 hits @ Str 6 vs. Str 4 = 4 wounds
4 wounds vs. 3+ armour save = 2.67 unsaved wounds
if FNP applies...
2.67 unsaved wounds vs. 4+ FNP = 1.34 dead marines

New Destroyers
3x Destroyers = 6 shots
6 shots @ BS 4 = 4 hits
4 hits @ Str 6 vs Str 4 = 3.33 dead marines

Verdict: the new Destroyer guns are significantly better per unit (0.67 unsaved sounds per squad size, 0.54 dead marines wihtout FNP, per shooting phase) against troops. However, as the AP has no effect here on AV, it is reasonable to say that the new Destroyer guns are significantly reduced against tanks simply because of the 33% reduction in shots per model.

So, if you used your Destroyer wings as AT, then you should be very angry. However, if you're like me and used them almost exclusively as anti-troop units, then this is awesome. (I play against BA, SW and Vanilla Marines a lot)

Let's look at this against 15 Longfangs:

9 Necron Destroyers shoot into 15 Longfangs, killing 10.
5 Longfangs shoot into 9 Destroyers, killing 3.
6 Destroyers shoot into 5 Longfangs, killing 5.
6 Destroyers fist-bump, turn their attention to the next unit of squishy marines.

Now, I'm very, very angry about the squad size reduction (still hoping it's incorrect) but I'm elated about the increase to AP3, which is exactly what I always wanted the Necrons to have outside of the one-shot per turn deals like the Monolith's Particle Whip.

Evegoden wrote:Matt Ward ****ing F**kedTHIS CODEX.

The biggest problem with this codex is the fact that IT CANNOT SURVIVE CLOSE COMBAT UNITS!

THERES NO WAY AROUND I2....Dark Eldar Incubi will have a field day with you, sanguinary guard and the lot of everything else space marine, hell even IG will stomp on your metal skulls before you can even raise a finger.

For those who argue this is a fluffy change for the army, bs...because only the lower level necrons are supposed to be automatons, Lords/lych/praetorian/wraiths are all supposed to have more semblence of who they are, and the lords are supposed to be masters of combat, not slow ass half witted morons!

For those who argue their bodies are slow...take a minute to think about that, they have the best technology in the whole universe for many centuries and have no way to make light metals that are alive?

Theres no way around this I 2 which makes taking any close combat units we may have useless....They will be down before blows are stuck back.

This is another of Wards piss poor rule writing strategies "I cant have anything be as strong as a muhreen, I suck **** for ultramarines"

CC has always been a problem for Necrons, this isn't a new thing. having units above I2 hasn't really been stopping us from getting swept and denied WBB rolls. most of the new CC options are for counter-assault, and you can take some whip coils on Wraiths to go before everyone else in the combat that you touch.

and if, when the new codex drops, you're incapable of stopping CC units from getting to you with the massive amount of long ranged unfriendliness therein then that's not the fault of the Codex... it's not like all of our units just sit there with "come hither" expressions, doing nothing while the enemy drives up to them.

Evegoden wrote:You see this info wouldve been nice before.

I was under the impression that lych were also 45points...per model heck even 40 points a model is bad.

Why exactly would that be bad? 3+/4++/5(4)+++ (RP), power weapon, potential bullet reflection, good stat line...not the best, I agree, but bad? No.

Evegoden wrote:You see this info wouldve been nice before.

I was under the impression that lych were also 45points...per model heck even 40 points a model is bad.

I didn't know the whips did that either....things are looking less meh.

I mostly got pissed cause I already spent 400$ on new models cause necrons are my home team ever since I started 8 years ago.

I highly recommend reading up first before coming into a thread, blindly raging on stuff just to withdraw your statement a few posts later...saves trouble both for you and us

Agreed,

Sorry thread, Khorne got the best of me for a minute.

On that note I did some mathhammer

16 Incubi vs 8 Lychguard with shields

Incubi charge
33.8 hit

4.4 wound

2.2 wounds saved

6 Lychguard attack back

hit 5 times

and inflict 3.6 unsaveable wounds

and 0.4 Lychguard get back up

So even though the Incubi charged and you will never have 16 incubi charging you, Lychguard still won.

Sasori wrote:[

I think the main point is though, Between Wraiths and Scarabs, how often are Destroyers even going to be taken? Perhaps if Preferred enemy applies to ranged weapons in Sixth, but even then it seems like our other two FA choices are just too good to pass up.

tbh i will be fielding 9 destroyers, if i want cc, i will put some courts in to bash, toghether with a ctan

After reading about this chap i'm really looking forward to getting the codex.

This guy is a definite drinking buddy for Ahriman.

Sasori wrote:

FalkorsRaiders wrote:

Sasori wrote:

omerakk wrote:

Sasori wrote: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.

My posts were intended to compare the units, not the weapons. I apologize for not making that more clear; I just didn't like someone accusing me of skewing numbers etc when that wasn't the case. Simple misunderstanding and I'm glad it's been cleared up.

Not a problem, it's easy to misinterpret that stuff over the internet. My fault is well. I see a lot of people try to do shenanigans with comparisons, and I just assumed it was being done again. Well, you know what they say about assuming.

I think the main point is though, Between Wraiths and Scarabs, how often are Destroyers even going to be taken? Perhaps if Preferred enemy applies to ranged weapons in Sixth, but even then it seems like our other two FA choices are just too good to pass up.

Having played a game using scarabs with the new rules, even using cover, it is harder to get them up the battlefield, since you can't turbo boost for the 3+ cover save anymore, and, to my knowledge, have to use their 5+/5+RP. Also, if they stay at WS 2 and STR 3, they will only be useful against vehicles and will quickly disappear in cc with anything, even kroot.

I'm surprised you had such an issue, even with kroot. A Scarab is hitting anything with WS 4 and below on a 4 still, and has 4 attacks on the charge per base. Even with Strength 3, they should still cause enough attacks/wounds from a swarm of them to inflict a mass amount of casualties. If you had ten bases, that's 40 attacks on the charge, and should cause a lot of damage.

You remembered they are beasts now right? They have Fleet and a 12' assault. In addition, they still have the stealth rule, so should be able to get a 3+ cover save early on, depending on the board.

Either way, to me it seems like their priority targets are still vehicles. Sending them against infantry seems like a waste of their usefulness.

I was also rolling nothing but 1's and 2's, except when my immortals shot with the teslas where out of 5 dice I got 4 6's, and my opponent made all of his armor saves. I was also using 5 in a squad, making my chance to do something decrease by 50%, as well as was rolling 1's and 2's while running with fleet, having to trek 3 feet across the table... Not to mention the board had randomly placed terrain that left the middle a no terrain wasteland. Luck just wasn't on my side. By my point still stands, the wraiths will be our anti-infantry while the scarabs will be anti-vehicle. Sure you could use one for the other purpose, it will just be better at the other task.

Evegoden wrote:You see this info wouldve been nice before.

I was under the impression that lych were also 45points...per model heck even 40 points a model is bad.

I didn't know the whips did that either....things are looking less meh.

I mostly got pissed cause I already spent 400$ on new models cause necrons are my home team ever since I started 8 years ago.

Alright, you really need to take a deep breath, because your posts are out of control, and are making you look silly and uninformed.


Let's look at the Lycheguard with Dispersion shields. for 45 points, these things have been mathhammered to show that they can beat, and are pretty much equal to TH/SS Termies. Do you consider TH/SS Termies to be worth 45 points? This isn't even counting if you throw a Rez orb in the squad, boosting their RP to a 4+, which puts them ahead in fight between the two.

Yes, I2 hurts. But with Additions like the Royal court being able to break off like Wolf Guard, and Vehicles like the Ghost Ark, you can really improve the CC potential of the Army. Crypteks are also able to take some nifty wargear to further augment various aspects of the army. Close Combat is a Weakness of the army, but now we have a ton of ways to deal with it, unlike before.

Do yourself a favor though, and relax and read the codex before you give yourself a stroke.

Hmm, I have always like the Necrons. I do not approve of them being the Tomb Kings in space. But I do like the additions and changes.

They appear to have much more personality, and the new models look fantastic.

I look forward to blowing their metal asses into dust(with my Tau).