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.

ok, i have been reading a lot about how Destroyers aren't worht their points and Tomb Blades are the way to go..but looking atteh unit stats the Destroyer do seem to be quite a bit nastier than the Blades....

So whiel the Destroyers do cost more it looks on paper like they are correspondingly tougher and nastier....so how come the Destroyer hate?

Tomb Blades have: more options, more speed (Via T-Boost), TL guns

Destroyers have 3+ save, higher T, better S and AP gun

I have only played a couple of small games with new necrons and used a squad fo 4 Destroyers in each one and they have been pretty good, mainly due to T5 and an AP3 gun.

Take the option that gives you stealth and all of sudden you are getting great cover every and my main use for them is to harass light a armour and take flanks

What about if they are "naked"? Are they worth taking without any add-ons or is it a case that Shadowlooms are a must-take?

They should almost be a single codex entry, as you upgrade a tomb blade it just becomes a destroyer with different guns. But they do both have a major unique selling point.

The destroyer has much more killing power, ap3 is sorely lacking in the necron's shooting. The wargear summary in the back of the codex tends to jump from the ap -/4/5 of infantry gear straight to the ap 1/2 of super expensive specialized tank or character guns. Destroyers also have the unique benefit of being jump infantry in that they can (hilariously) turn off their hover butts and waddle along the ground to get into area terrain without the dangerous tests, which is super helpful considering how high they tend to be on target priority for enemy shooting. Preferred enemy may make them absurdly valuable in 6th edition but that is purely speculative.

Tomb blades are jetbikes, and if you've ever run catacomb command barges you know 24" moves are no joke. The fact they have the same kind of anti light infantry weapons that all of your scoring units share combined with their small unit size makes them extremely nonthreatening, no one wants to pump shots into a 3++ saving grot squad that can't even cap objectives. This makes them unique in the necron codex of being able to get into pretty much wherever you want them to go unhindered, including getting at weak rear armor values, or blocking transport exits just before you bust it, or turbo boosting as a conga line to create a hardy screening wall for an expensive deepstriking unit that would be otherwise open to being shot on the turn it comes in, or on a last turn boost on top of an enemy's backfield objective to contest it and win you the game, or making sure that expensive unit that you're about to tank shock will keep falling back and can't regroup until it's off the board. Everything you've ever wished a warrior squad was flexible or fast enough to do, they can. The value of their upgrades is situational and arguable, largely matters of personal preference and what the rest of your list needs them to be.

Actinium hit the Tomb Blades nail on the head pretty accurately. I think the real value in Destroyers is the Heavy Destroyers. 36" range weapons in an army that can force at least 2 rounds of night fighting on the opponent is pretty amazing, and combined with their high maneuverability is fantastic. A full squad of 3 HDs and 2 Ds is one of those rare heavy weapon squads that actually stick around deep into the game. You can make them virtually un-hit-table the first two round by picking on the peripheries of the enemy formation, and by the time round 3 rolls around theirs not enough fire power on the field to take down 5 T5 3+ wounds in one volley,

I've used destroyers quite effectively in several games. I'll try proxying them for tomb blades soon.

As far as the destroyers go, they're mobile, make MEQ's cry blood when they don't get armor saves, and have the equivalent of lascannons when upgraded. I put mine into cover, and outshot a squad of purifiers with psybolt-cannon thingies

The nice thing about both, is that they can still get back up. IMO, they are both legitimate options for two different types of armies.

I used destroyers as long range fire support for a footslogging force, but thats just me.

So much competition over that slot. It's also full of units that provide your armies essentials... Frustrating to have key pieces clumped up like that. The way you use your hq and fast slots really end up defining your necron army.

My problem with destroyers is that they are pretty vulnerable when you aren't keeping them safe via mobility and that they fill a role high av tanks do (or groups of transports) for other armies but more expensive or poorer utility. But lascannon shots are great, killing tanks predominantly in cc sucks and playing keep away with marines who's transport you've wasted is lovely. The comment about walking your destroyers into terrain makes me really want to dust them off.

Blades are cool. Really cool. But what are they doing that you really want in a slot so packed with essentials? I'd love to see some in a moving castle or foot list to address little problems but they are hard to justify.

Hmmm, good points all. i am still undecided to be honest.

I was leaning towards Destroyers as most of the people i play field marines and AP3 makes me happy.

i think if Destroyers were like 5 or 10 points cheaper they would be an auto-take for me. It's only the cost of them that puts me off.


Here is a list i have been working. Right now the decision seems to be

a: more warriors and take Tomb Blades
b: fewer warriors and take Destroyers

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/436226.page

Some other thoughts, people tend to think of Destoyers and particularly Heavy Destoryers as expensive, especially when compared the LanceTeks, but one thing most don't factor is the opportunity cost of A.) the Overlord the lanceteks require and B.) the cost of the unit they need to be attached to. Basically after you have your compulsory 2 troops and an Overlord, your really paying about 100-120 points per Lancetek (all be it a 6 wound lancetek) versus 60 points her HD. Now obviously, depending on the size of the army more troops might be needed and a second overlord might be in the plans as well, just something to consider when comparing relative costs.

ShadarLogoth wrote:but one thing most don't factor is the opportunity cost of A.) the Overlord the lanceteks require and B.) the cost of the unit they need to be attached to. Basically after you have your compulsory 2 troops and an Overlord, your really paying about 100-120 points per Lancetek (all be it a 6 wound lancetek) versus 60 points her HD.

Hmm but by the way you worded it you also have to pay for an Overlord to get a Heavy Destroyer. I mean what other HQs are there to take

And the two troop choices are already nice spot for two lances. So one extra troop slot (which should be taken anyways for larger games) does not add in too much of a cost. I'm not saying HD or Destroyers are bad, just a bit confused with your argument

I'm loving my Heavy Destroyers.

They're really my only option for long-ranged anti-tank as my Heavy Support section is pretty stacked. The standard variety is somewhat underwhelming.

I've found the Destroyers to be good in almost every situation. A full squad of regular Destroyers have a habit of making enemy problem unit's go away rather fast. Even against GEQ they can hurt them then Charge in for assault ( it does actually work well). The problem is they are rather costly, and are targeted early in games.

They synergize really well with Zahndrekh. Tank Hunters and Stealth are awesome on Destroyers, when the situation dictates.

kenshin620 wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:but one thing most don't factor is the opportunity cost of A.) the Overlord the lanceteks require and B.) the cost of the unit they need to be attached to. Basically after you have your compulsory 2 troops and an Overlord, your really paying about 100-120 points per Lancetek (all be it a 6 wound lancetek) versus 60 points her HD.

Hmm but by the way you worded it you also have to pay for an Overlord to get a Heavy Destroyer. I mean what other HQs are there to take

And the two troop choices are already nice spot for two lances. So one extra troop slot (which should be taken anyways for larger games) does not add in too much of a cost. I'm not saying HD or Destroyers are bad, just a bit confused with your argument

Yeah sorry I worded it poorly, kind of what I meant was once you have:

Overlord

Troop+LanceTek
Troop+LanceTek

And your itching for more high strength ap 2 goodness, if you don't necessarily need any more troops (or HQs), the HD get them at a cheaper rate per cannon then the LanceTeks (unless they are running solo or in a court).

I think when I talk about the cost of high strength low ap shots at 36+ range I'm comparing more so to other armies. I guess it's a given that necrons pay through the nose for those but perhaps do supression, cc tank battling and anti infantry fire a tad better. It's also awfully frustrating to compare crypteks to the cost of heavy/special distribution in squads that other armies get, as long as we're on a subject I love complaining about.

I really want to like destroyers! I just feel like they cost a little too much and have a lot of little limitations or other things going against them. I really like this stealth idea though.

Whats the ruling on their Jump-pack-ness. Most other jump troops sit on a normal base and get all the cover they want if they walk into a little or have men standing in front of them. Do my destroyers get to do that? Do they land now? Does GW think of things before it makes decisions about retconning units (even ones that have jetbikes for butts!)?

Well maybe more people will like destroyers more if 6th does something to preferred enemy in shooting. It does seem odd for a shooting unit to have preferred enemy

Well, I played with both a squad of 5 Lanceteks and a squad of 2 destroyers. The Lanceteks work really well, even in a group of five, and the Destroyers did their job as well, even with just two of them.

This article had an interesting take on the use of these units and the fast slot. I think I'm too much of a moron to trust myself with/make the most of singleton units filling up an exciting slot though.

http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/03/necron-codex-review-part-8-fast-attack.html

kenshin620 wrote:Well maybe more people will like destroyers more if 6th does something to preferred enemy in shooting. It does seem odd for a shooting unit to have preferred enemy

I think this may be a fluff thing but still like you said weird for a shoting unit to have it and for them to cost that much.

But if the 6th ed rumor is true( that preffered enemy means hit on a 3+, unless you would anyway, like a destroyer, then its a 2+) in which case they would be must haves, like wraiths.

Monster Rain wrote:They synergize really well with Zahndrekh. Tank Hunters and Stealth are awesome on Destroyers, when the situation dictates.

I think H-Destroyers are a must Every list i have at6 least 3 HD's. They are our best 36'' muti wound/character heavy armour killers

Ive given them night fighting as well. for dawn of war or stormlord etc