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.

It’s really interesting how much more we can fit into lists since CA2018.

Some units are still overpriced.

Yeah, it's pretty great overall now. Plenty is still just bad or overpriced but honestly every book has a lot of units like that so from that perspective things aren't awful any more. Only thing I really wish is that I could get more MWs out of the army.

This isnt enough MW output for you ? Only tsons would be able to put out more MW.

 p5freak wrote:
This isnt enough MW output for you ? Only tsons would be able to put out more MW.

Spoiler:

++ Spearhead Detachment +1CP (Necrons) [46 PL, 760pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot +

Dynasty Choice
. Dynasty: Sautekh

+ HQ +

Imotekh the Stormlord [10 PL, 160pts]

+ Heavy Support +

Transcendent C'tan [12 PL, 200pts]: Fractured Personality: Cosmic Tyrant, Power of the C'tan: Time's Arrow, Power of the C'tan: Transdimensional Thunderbolt

Transcendent C'tan [12 PL, 200pts]: Fractured Personality: Cosmic Tyrant, Power of the C'tan: Seismic Assault, Power of the C'tan: Sky of Falling Stars

Transcendent C'tan [12 PL, 200pts]: Fractured Personality: Cosmic Tyrant, Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor, Power of the C'tan: Cosmic Fire

++ Air Wing Detachment +1CP (Necrons) [33 PL, 450pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot +

Dynasty Choice
. Dynasty: Sautekh

+ Flyer +

Doom Scythe [11 PL, 150pts]

Doom Scythe [11 PL, 150pts]

Doom Scythe [11 PL, 150pts]

++ Outrider Detachment +1CP (Necrons) [37 PL, 706pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot +

Dynasty Choice
. Dynasty: Sautekh

+ HQ +

Destroyer Lord [7 PL, 130pts]: Artefact (Sautekh): The Abyssal Staff, Phylactery, Staff of Light
. Warlord: Warlord Trait (Codex 6): Honourable Combatant

+ Elites +

C'tan Shard of the Deceiver [12 PL, 225pts]: Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor, Power of the C'tan: Cosmic Fire

+ Fast Attack +

Canoptek Scarabs [6 PL, 117pts]: 9x Canoptek Scarab Swarm

Canoptek Scarabs [6 PL, 117pts]: 9x Canoptek Scarab Swarm

Canoptek Scarabs [6 PL, 117pts]: 9x Canoptek Scarab Swarm

++ Total: [116 PL, 1,916pts] ++

Created with BattleScribe

Not denying your point (we can spam mortal wounds), but Death Guard can still kick out more MW than anyone in the game by a country mile. It's difficult to pull off, but the blight bombardment combo is disgusting.

Not sure I would think of death guard first when I think of mortal wounds being pumped out.

Off the top of my head I would worry more about thousand sons, eldar or wrath of mars combos. Probably even Nids too. I get what your saying about the upper threshold of blight bombardment, but it has to be one of the easiest combos to avoid in the game.

What are the reasons pros/cons/ math to mix saves on Tomb Blades to get a 3+/5++

I can see running a unit of 9, maybe 5 with shieldvanes for 3+; and the other 4 at a 4+/5++

You can pick and choose how to allocate wounds, much Like IG does with Bullgryns on ther 2+/4++

The shield vanes are cheaper and will do more work; there won't be much -3 weapons targetting them to the point where you need the invuln.

In ways though it could be worth taking just one or two in the event an opponent does try to use inefficient firepower to finish them off.

 Dynas wrote:
What are the reasons pros/cons/ math to mix saves on Tomb Blades to get a 3+/5++

I can see running a unit of 9, maybe 5 with shieldvanes for 3+; and the other 4 at a 4+/5++

You can pick and choose how to allocate wounds, much Like IG does with Bullgryns on ther 2+/4++

The benefit of these upgrades are increased survivability, this only matters when you get shot, if it makes the difference between RP and no RP, then it's very worth it. The downside is the loss of firepower in relation to the pts spent on the unit.

3+ vs 4+ multiplies durability per point invested by 1,35 vs AP-, 1,20 vs AP-1, 1,13 vs AP-2, 1,08 vs AP-3, 0,90 vs AP-4 at the cost of your firepower being multiplied by 0,90.

4+/5++ vs 4+ multiplies durability per point invested by 0,85 vs AP-, 0,85 vs AP-1, 1,06 vs AP-2, 1,27 vs AP-3, 1,27 vs AP-4 at the cost of your firepower being multiplied by 0,85.

Let's say you have that unit with 5 3+ and 4 4+/5++ at best you will multiply the durability per point invested of the 5 with 3+ by 1,35 and the 4 with 4+/5++ by 1,27 so 1,31 on average. Your opponent will have spent 32% more firepower than he would have on the same number of pts worth of basic TBs.

1,13 vs all AP-, 1,05 vs all AP-1, 1,10 vs all AP-2, 1,17 vs all AP-3, 1,07 vs all AP-4 at the cost of your firepower being multiplied by 0,88. If we assume firepower and durability are worth an even amount you'd need an increase in durability of 1,14 to make up for the loss in firepower.

The average if we assume you get all AP- one game, all AP-1 the next game and so on up to AP-4 is a 1,10 multiplication in durability. Or 1,11 if we ignore AP-4.

If we change the split from 5/4 to 2/7 you get an average of 1,08 (1,05 ignoring AP-4) and your firepower is multiplied by 0,86, 4/5 you get 1,09 (1,09) and your firepower is multiplied by 0,87, 7/2 you get 1,11 (1,15 ignoring AP-4) and your firepower is multiplied by 0,89.

If you take a 6/0/3 spit between 3+, 4+/5++ and 4+ you get an average of 1,09 (1,13 ignoring AP-4) and your firepower is multiplied by 0,935483871.

Tl;dr: mixing and matching 5++ and 3+ is a bad idea, unless you know your opponent is going to use a variety of weapons to take your TBs down. Take them naked, put 5++ on some of them or put 3+ but don't mix and match. I don't even want to touch the math of putting both on a single model because Dynas already knows it's a bad idea.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Not sure I would think of death guard first when I think of mortal wounds being pumped out.

Off the top of my head I would worry more about thousand sons, eldar or wrath of mars combos. Probably even Nids too. I get what your saying about the upper threshold of blight bombardment, but it has to be one of the easiest combos to avoid in the game.

If they get close in your face can pump out them decently. One unit can cause 4 mortals in average in combat and allow lots of his units to give you two 4+ tests in combat to take mortal wound so in 75% times 1 or 2 mortal wounds per round of combat.

Also they can have dreadnought that pumps out 2d3 shots hitting on 2+ for mortal wound with 24" range. My poor stompa faced trio of those last time I fielded it(and no he had not tuned up specifically vs stompa as nobody knew I would be taking stompa and we just agreed game as neither had arranged game in advance)

 Red Corsair wrote:
Not sure I would think of death guard first when I think of mortal wounds being pumped out.

Off the top of my head I would worry more about thousand sons, eldar or wrath of mars combos. Probably even Nids too. I get what your saying about the upper threshold of blight bombardment, but it has to be one of the easiest combos to avoid in the game.

I mean yes and no. In a normal list, it's easy to avoid but you can build a list around it. Plaguebearers out front, Plague marine blob in behind marching up behind, cloud of flies to cover them. Your opponent has to chew threw the plaguebearer wall and if they come anywhere near, they'll get grenaded off the planet. I think it's actually an interesting choice for Death Guard, as the big problem with Plaguebeaer spam is they lack offensive output.

Anyway, back on topic. We have plenty of ways to deal out MW with necrons, they're just usually attached to not great units. Vault was sweet until it got nerfed, C'Tan are OK but expensive for what they do, Deathmarks suck etc.

Yeah, I wasn't so much saying Necrons "have no way to produce an appreciable amount of Mortal Wounds" as I was saying they "have a hard time producing a decent baseline (like, say, 2-3 Smite's-worth) without spending excessively on particular units."

And I was speaking specifically about the list I used, i.e. Doomcrons. I've messed around with adding a Nightbringer or trying to find space for a Transcendent but I don't like what I lose. There's the Abyssal Staff, which is always second to the Veil for me, and there's the Doomscythe ATD strat, which I get to use maybe one game in six since everyone works their ass off to kill a Flyer immediately. And not having any MW production can hurt a lot if your opponent just starts to get hot on invulnerable saves.

Of course, just the Doomscythe ATD strat can really explode for massive damage sometimes. So the MW production is just very swingy. It's often non-existent, but I played a practice NOVA mission last night against a Bobby G/FW Dreadnought list and seized on the guy, then it did a whopping 39 Mortal Wounds top of turn one. Then a DDA caused a Leviathan to explode and that dealt around 8 more.... So that was fun.

Deathmarks are a unit I really want to make work. I keep writing lists with two units of ten, ready to Deep Strike in as soon as a mob of Boyz or Lootaz use Da Jump, or as soon as some GSC show up, or whatever. I think they could be fun and actually do work in specific match-ups, tho they're patently bad most of the time.

tneva82 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Not sure I would think of death guard first when I think of mortal wounds being pumped out.

Off the top of my head I would worry more about thousand sons, eldar or wrath of mars combos. Probably even Nids too. I get what your saying about the upper threshold of blight bombardment, but it has to be one of the easiest combos to avoid in the game.

If they get close in your face can pump out them decently. One unit can cause 4 mortals in average in combat and allow lots of his units to give you two 4+ tests in combat to take mortal wound so in 75% times 1 or 2 mortal wounds per round of combat.

Also they can have dreadnought that pumps out 2d3 shots hitting on 2+ for mortal wound with 24" range. My poor stompa faced trio of those last time I fielded it(and no he had not tuned up specifically vs stompa as nobody knew I would be taking stompa and we just agreed game as neither had arranged game in advance)

Soul burners are rubbish for their cost. WAY to pricey, and anything taking a soul burner isn't a death guard specific unit anyway.

I am not saying death guard are bad, or that they don't have access to MW output. What I am saying is they are not even close to the top of the list of things I'd worry about in that regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IanVanCheese wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Not sure I would think of death guard first when I think of mortal wounds being pumped out.

Off the top of my head I would worry more about thousand sons, eldar or wrath of mars combos. Probably even Nids too. I get what your saying about the upper threshold of blight bombardment, but it has to be one of the easiest combos to avoid in the game.

I mean yes and no. In a normal list, it's easy to avoid but you can build a list around it. Plaguebearers out front, Plague marine blob in behind marching up behind, cloud of flies to cover them. Your opponent has to chew threw the plaguebearer wall and if they come anywhere near, they'll get grenaded off the planet. I think it's actually an interesting choice for Death Guard, as the big problem with Plaguebeaer spam is they lack offensive output.

Anyway, back on topic. We have plenty of ways to deal out MW with necrons, they're just usually attached to not great units. Vault was sweet until it got nerfed, C'Tan are OK but expensive for what they do, Deathmarks suck etc.

Plague bearers are on 32mm bases. Grenades have a 6" range. If they want to hide a blob of PM behind plague bearers then I'll let them. Again, it's so horrendously telegraphed and on a very slow unit with a 6" range per model. If your opponent manages to get this to work, they out played you or you were unaware because it requires a lot of CP and support ot pull off and it takes multiple turns to set up. Death guard lists generally aren't rolling in CP btw. I am more concerned by demon princes and blote drones behind plague bearer screens then plague marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW I am not being dismissive, blight bombardment is a sweet strat and I enjoy it on either end and am aware of the damage it can do, but as a person that's played VS a lot of competitive DG armies I can tell you it is way trickier to do then one might assume.

Also interestingly enough I think necrons are actually really well equiped for facing plague bearer spam. With all the bonuses we can stack to hit and units like destroyers and telsa immortals we can chew through them a lot faster then most other armies.

sieGermans wrote:
It’s really interesting how much more we can fit into lists since CA2018.

Still not enough compared to how much other factions can field for the same points.

I think if all of our HQ's cost were reduced by 50%, as well as the units that weren't touched in CA, then it could be interesting.

Cynista wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
It’s really interesting how much more we can fit into lists since CA2018.

Still not enough compared to how much other factions can field for the same points.

I think if all of our HQ's cost were reduced by 50%, as well as the units that weren't touched in CA, then it could be interesting.

I agree to a point. Our HQs are probably our weakest slot, followed up by the elites. (Propped up by the ctan shards).
They all need about a 15 point cut, and a 4th melee attack. Anrakyr is about 60 points overpriced.

Honestly I wouldn't mind the HQs and Elites being overpriced if they got some direct buffs. I understand that they are trying to account for reanimation, but it's kinda rough.

IMO the Cryptek is the worst offender by far. It's just so so overpriced for what you get, especially the Chronotek. Both variants should legit be no more than 50 points including the staff.

The lack of buffs, and the limits of those we have, are ridiculous. I believe necrons are the only faction in the entire game who dont have access to +1 to wound, while others can get +2 to wound.

Orks says hi.

 p5freak wrote:
The lack of buffs, and the limits of those we have, are ridiculous. I believe necrons are the only faction in the entire game who dont have access to +1 to wound, while others can get +2 to wound.

+1 to-wound is NOT a common buff.

Cynista wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
It’s really interesting how much more we can fit into lists since CA2018.

Still not enough compared to how much other factions can field for the same points.

I think if all of our HQ's cost were reduced by 50%, as well as the units that weren't touched in CA, then it could be interesting.

Tbh, I'd be more or less okay with the current price of an overlord if MWBD was a normal aura that affected every unit within 6". And maybe give them a 4th melee attack

Kahi the Uncertain wrote:

Cynista wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
It’s really interesting how much more we can fit into lists since CA2018.

Still not enough compared to how much other factions can field for the same points.

I think if all of our HQ's cost were reduced by 50%, as well as the units that weren't touched in CA, then it could be interesting.

Tbh, I'd be more or less okay with the current price of an overlord if MWBD was a normal aura that affected every unit within 6". And maybe give them a 4th melee attack

That's a big change though. That's like baking in 1-2 CP into his ability every turn. At least 3 CP over the course of an average game. That's as big a buff as cutting his pts by 25 or 35 pts, the biggest buff would be that you wouldn't be able to forget it though. I still maintain that Overlords should have had the Lord's Will and Lords should have My Will Be Done. It would just make a tonne more sense that you spam the lieutenants rather than the generals. But same with the change to cover GW didn't fully consider how crunch affects army-building and how army building should reflect fluff. Instead, here I am with my 3 Overlords and 1 Lord because having more than 1 Lord essentially just means I'm not using the one I have to his full potential. It is the same thing with Crypteks really, it should've just worked like the Res Orb does and then Res Orbs could be the aura effect or work like they currently do, just something to promote taking more than 1 Cryptek and more than 1 Lord.

I do think cutting the cost of our HQs by 50% is completely absurd, we'd be getting the best HQs in the game if that was the case. I want a 10-15 pts drop across our HQs, maybe 25 pts on the Overlord if Tesla was changed to work on flat 6s rather than 6+. Just enough that they don't drag down the rest of a list or are only worth it when they provide at least 1 CP, just enough to make Supreme Command Detachments worth it, considering Necrons are the most fluffy faction to use SCDs I don't think that's too much to ask. Instead we see trios of Captains with jump packs and trios of Custodes HQs on bikes, but an Overlord and his entourage? Unthinkable!

I think a 10-15 point drop for our HQs would be entirely fair.

Ideally though they'd give stuff like The Lords Will, Technomancer and Chronometron a 6" aura instead of a 3" one.

 vict0988 wrote:

I do think cutting the cost of our HQs by 50% is completely absurd, we'd be getting the best HQs in the game if that was the case.

Except that really isn't the case. Let's say closer to 40% than 50% which is still a lot more than 10-15 points reduction (which would be nowhere near enough IMO). A Cryptek at 40-50 points is still pretty average, just not ridiculously costed. Same with a Destroyer Lord at 80 points. I fail to see how pricing our extremely mediocre HQ's fairly would make them the "best in the game". They'd simply stop being an unwanted tax.

I know a few of you dislike directly comparing our units to similar ones from other factions, but frankly I don't care and I think it's absolutely fair. And when you do that you realise how obnoxiously overcosted all of our HQ's really are.

CCB - Disco Lord
Destroyer Lord - Smash Captain
Cryptek - Tech Priest Enginseer

If you want to know how to price our HQ's, then look at their (generally better) equivalents in other armies.

Cynista wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I do think cutting the cost of our HQs by 50% is completely absurd, we'd be getting the best HQs in the game if that was the case.

Except that really isn't the case. Let's say closer to 40% than 50% which is still a lot more than 10-15 points reduction (which would be nowhere near enough IMO). A Cryptek at 40-50 points is still pretty average, just not ridiculously costed. Same with a Destroyer Lord at 80 points. I fail to see how pricing our extremely mediocre HQ's fairly would make them the "best in the game". They'd simply stop being an unwanted tax.

I know a few of you dislike directly comparing our units to similar ones from other factions, but frankly I don't care and I think it's absolutely fair. And when you do that you realise how obnoxiously overcosted all of our HQ's really are.

CCB - Disco Lord
Destroyer Lord - Smash Captain
Cryptek - Tech Priest Enginseer

If you want to know how to price our HQ's, then look at their (generally better) equivalents in other armies.

To be fair, it's been stated many times that different armies are costed differently. Maybe Necrons aren't intended to have strong HQs like some other armies do.

Every army's HQs are built for a purpose.

Eldar? They're psykers and force multipliers
Demon Princes? Beat Sticks and Multipliers

Company Commanders? Cheap, expedible force multipliers

Ours....have such little utility...they can barely protect themselves with a meagre '3' attacks, have tiny auras....and cost way more than what other codexes pay for something demonstratively better. What gives?

 iGuy91 wrote:
Every army's HQs are built for a purpose.

Eldar? They're psykers and force multipliers
Demon Princes? Beat Sticks and Multipliers

Company Commanders? Cheap, expedible force multipliers

Ours....have such little utility...they can barely protect themselves with a meagre '3' attacks, have tiny auras....and cost way more than what other codexes pay for something demonstratively better. What gives?

They have higher strength and toughness values than average, have good melee weapons and can regenerate 1 health per turn.
That's...about it. The designers seem to think that's enough for some reason.

It seems we largely comprise, and are geared towards, elitish infantry.

I mean we have easy access to AP-2 and -3, in various forms and shapes.

However in a meta where elite infantry is not very prominent, that hurts us. It's about schaff or T7/T8, and little middle ground. And it's about speed in an even bigger picture.

We're like most other non-tshirt infantry, only tougher. that seems to be our intended strength. Only theres little room for units like that this edition, other than in a marginal support capacity. This also makes our normal HQs not very impressive. To make this work, you can't also have a flimsy on-or-off RP, you need something FNP like in 7th (I like current RP best, it just has issues, well discussed elsewhere)

Cynista wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I do think cutting the cost of our HQs by 50% is completely absurd, we'd be getting the best HQs in the game if that was the case.

Except that really isn't the case. Let's say closer to 40% than 50% which is still a lot more than 10-15 points reduction (which would be nowhere near enough IMO). A Cryptek at 40-50 points is still pretty average, just not ridiculously costed. Same with a Destroyer Lord at 80 points. I fail to see how pricing our extremely mediocre HQ's fairly would make them the "best in the game". They'd simply stop being an unwanted tax.

I know a few of you dislike directly comparing our units to similar ones from other factions, but frankly I don't care and I think it's absolutely fair. And when you do that you realise how obnoxiously overcosted all of our HQ's really are.

CCB - Disco Lord
Destroyer Lord - Smash Captain
Cryptek - Tech Priest Enginseer

If you want to know how to price our HQ's, then look at their (generally better) equivalents in other armies.

I absolutely agree that you should be able to compare units between codices, the fact that the designers and playtesters of previous editions haven't done so enough is the reason why previous editions had gak balance, the more it is done the better balance gets. On the other hand there is valid critisism to be made. I think the best way to do things is to figure out a scenario where your unit should be bad and set a minimum balanaced pts level so it doesn't become crazy OP and then find a situation where your unit should do well and make sure it isn't a completely useless unit (like the Monolith was during the index).

CCBs are 8 W, Lord Discordant on Hellstalker is 10+, they are not comparable. A better comparison would be a Daemon Prince of Nurgle at 170 pts, which really should be 185 or 190 pts. It has a better support ability, it hits quite a bit harder, it's slightly more durable, the psyker ability is about on par with a gauss cannon. CCBs would be as OP as DPs of Nurgle at 130 pts, with a 15 pts drop CCBs are also very good at around 140 pts it would be on par with a 185 pt DP of Nurgle.

Smash Captains have to get nerfed, they are also 124 pts, they probably belong around 140-150. That being said, an 80 pt DLord is far stronger than a 124 pt Smash Captain, more than strong enough to litter battlefields with groups of them. I'd say a DLord is about on-par with a Smash Captain in terms of power level, maybe slightly weaker. At the absolute least a DLord would be 105 pts with a warscythe, so a 15 pt drop and then he's very good.

Cloaktek at 75 compared to a Tech Priest Dominus at 90 pts. The Tech Priest Dominus is better at healing and has a maybe slightly better aura abilty, so maybe we can say a 55 pt Cryptek base and a 5 pt increase to the cloak's price, oh look that's 15 pts from his current cost.

50% is insanity, there is no unit in the game that needs more than a 40% cut in pts and less than 2% of units need more than 30% unless you want to centre balance around the very tippy top of competitive play and never nerf anything ever again.

 vict0988 wrote:

I absolutely agree that you should be able to compare units between codices, the fact that the designers and playtesters of previous editions haven't done so enough is the reason why previous editions had gak balance, the more it is done the better balance gets. On the other hand there is valid critisism to be made. I think the best way to do things is to figure out a scenario where your unit should be bad and set a minimum balanaced pts level so it doesn't become crazy OP and then find a situation where your unit should do well and make sure it isn't a completely useless unit (like the Monolith was during the index).

CCBs are 8 W, Lord Discordant on Hellstalker is 10+, they are not comparable. A better comparison would be a Daemon Prince of Nurgle at 170 pts, which really should be 185 or 190 pts. It has a better support ability, it hits quite a bit harder, it's slightly more durable, the psyker ability is about on par with a gauss cannon. CCBs would be as OP as DPs of Nurgle at 130 pts, with a 15 pts drop CCBs are also very good at around 140 pts it would be on par with a 185 pt DP of Nurgle.

Smash Captains have to get nerfed, they are also 124 pts, they probably belong around 140-150. That being said, an 80 pt DLord is far stronger than a 124 pt Smash Captain, more than strong enough to litter battlefields with groups of them. I'd say a DLord is about on-par with a Smash Captain in terms of power level, maybe slightly weaker. At the absolute least a DLord would be 105 pts with a warscythe, so a 15 pt drop and then he's very good.

Cloaktek at 75 compared to a Tech Priest Dominus at 90 pts. The Tech Priest Dominus is better at healing and has a maybe slightly better aura abilty, so maybe we can say a 55 pt Cryptek base and a 5 pt increase to the cloak's price, oh look that's 15 pts from his current cost.

50% is insanity, there is no unit in the game that needs more than a 40% cut in pts and less than 2% of units need more than 30% unless you want to centre balance around the very tippy top of competitive play and never nerf anything ever again.

So your defence here is "ohh well everything else is OP and needs to be nerfed so it doesn't count". Lol sorry pal but it does count and they won't get nerfed. How about we just buff our stuff instead, eh?

A smash captain is objectively better than a D.Lord and is easily worth 40 more points. Even just the 3++ by itself is worth 10-15 points. Yet they cost pretty much the same currently.

CCB and Lord Disco are absolutely comparable regardless of one being over 10 wounds because it's still hard to kill. They have similar battlefield roles, both are a lord riding what is effectively a chariot. But one is again just objectively better in every way. You prefer to compare it to a Demon Prince but then go on to admit that the DP is just better than a CCB. Other than "other stuff should be nerfed" what's your point here? Demon Princes don't need to be nerfed. That is a slippery road my friend, if they are too cheap then so are three quarters of HQ's in the game. Better to just bring Necrons in line than the opposite.

Note that I said Tech Priest Enginseer not Dominus, which is 30 points and has a very similar statline and battlefield role to a Cryptek (and is actually better in combat) at a third of the cost. Please read properly before you get sarcy

The only insanity here is you claiming a 10-15 point drop for our HQ's would make them as good as their counterparts