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.

I really don't mind the plain destroyers too much. It's nice that the heavy one looks significantly more bad ass, if that's what we're looking at.

Of course any update to our range is always cool.

Since no one's said it yet: hyperphase reap-blades.... What a terrible name!

Just price it right and I don't care what it's called

 Tiberius501 wrote:
It’s interesting how much they’re fleshing out the destroyer cult, it’s quite cool. I hope the old Destroyers, the locust ones, get an update to their models, they’re really crude now compared to all these new models, especially with the updated heavy destroyer.

It's safe to assume, everything else with green rods is getting a redo. I'd guess the heavy destroyer will be a dual build with the normal destroyers.

Candidly, a Strength 4 base (with +2) would also make them symmetrical with existing Destroyer shooting profile of Strength 6.

Whether that's to be retained, however, is certainly an open question.

sieGermans wrote:
Candidly, a Strength 4 base (with +2) would also make them symmetrical with existing Destroyer shooting profile of Strength 6.

Whether that's to be retained, however, is certainly an open question.

.. if we also get that reroll everything strat for them in cc then things would be interesting

torblind wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
Candidly, a Strength 4 base (with +2) would also make them symmetrical with existing Destroyer shooting profile of Strength 6.

Whether that's to be retained, however, is certainly an open question.

.. if we also get that reroll everything strat for them in cc then things would be interesting

Agreed. Note also that this addresses the 7th Ed. incoherence of a melee Destroyer Lord having no Destroyer cult compatriots to cleave into battle with.

MrPieChee wrote:
Since no one's said it yet: hyperphase reap-blades.... What a terrible name!

Yeah, its a dumb name, and I don't like how it looks either.
The weapon itself looks fine, but the hands being welded to it looks odd.
I actually think the other weapon options look better and more natural.

Did anyone notice that the model everyone refers to as the heavy destroyer has 3 arms?

punisher357 wrote:
Did anyone notice that the model everyone refers to as the heavy destroyer has 3 arms?

I'm ok with that

MrPieChee wrote:
Since no one's said it yet: hyperphase reap-blades.... What a terrible name!

Agreed. Don't understand why they didn't just call it a Hyperphase Reaper, or really just anything that's not as clumsy as reap-blade.

I’ve pretty much accepted that GW are gonna name everything terribly. It feels sort of like they’ve got a random name generator that pumps out a verb then a noun and then the designers roll with whatever they combine.

So riddle me this.

The new destroyers, assuming the have 10 inch movement, and the infantry keyword. 3 attacks base, with 3 weapon options.

How would you use them in a list? Give a VoD to a Destroyer lord, and teleport them into threat range? It feels as if we're still stepping on the toes of the Wraiths, which would probably pair well with them as a distraction carnifex to draw fire?

Thoughts?

 iGuy91 wrote:
So riddle me this.

The new destroyers, assuming the have 10 inch movement, and the infantry keyword. 3 attacks base, with 3 weapon options.

How would you use them in a list? Give a VoD to a Destroyer lord, and teleport them into threat range? It feels as if we're still stepping on the toes of the Wraiths, which would probably pair well with them as a distraction carnifex to draw fire?

Thoughts?

A lot will depend on how terrain works in 9th. Assuming they're infantry, and infantry still get to do things like ignore walls of ruins when moving, they might be OK just running up through cover. 10"+D6 Advance then another 10" in their next turn is around 22-24" of movement before the charge roll, which gives them a decent amount of table coverage. I'm assuming/hoping 9th won't be a case of charge first turn or die to withering return fire but I can see them being very resilient to small arms fire and a Necron army with a bunch of Wraiths and regular Destroyers will have quite a lot of threat saturation of relatively high Toughness infantry that are all either fast or threatening from range. I prefer using the VoD on shooting units to take an advantageous position early, usually in cover.

It's impossible to know. If they're basically destroyers on legs, then with those stats they'd be wraiths that trade toughness for damage output.

With new emphasis on cover, they could be a phenomenal counter charge unit to hide in the middle of the board. Our firepower is typically mdi range, which leaves us worryingly close to our foes. having a unit of these ready to maul anything that comes near could be great.

We don't know much for now, other than that reap-blades is an awful name.

If these wonky balanced tripod destroyers are slower than the flying ones it raises a lot of questions as to why on earth they’d mod themselves to be worse at getting into melee than their shooty pals.

changemod wrote:
If these wonky balanced tripod destroyers are slower than the flying ones it raises a lot of questions as to why on earth they’d mod themselves to be worse at getting into melee than their shooty pals.

Presumably they'll get a melee rule to replace the Repulsor Platform rule, which only benefits shooting.

Insaitable Destruction: This unit can charge even if it has advanced this turn.

Please & Thanks

You’re giving me hope. And we all know what hope is the first step to. -_-

Someone mentioned before that the canoptek plasmacyte gets its name from the plasmacyte which is a part of the immune system that makes antibodies when it detects a threat so maybe it will have the ability to make some kind of scarabs or cause mortal wounds?

Or it is reacting to the high warp presence and “activating”?

sieGermans wrote:
Or it is reacting to the high warp presence and “activating”?

Could be that's, maybe a bubble to protect from warp shenanigans

torblind wrote:

punisher357 wrote:
Did anyone notice that the model everyone refers to as the heavy destroyer has 3 arms?

I'm ok with that

Not a complaint. I also don't think thevgiant gun he has is gauss. It looks just like the enmitic annihilator the skorpekh destroyer lord has, except larger.

punisher357 wrote:

torblind wrote:

punisher357 wrote:
Did anyone notice that the model everyone refers to as the heavy destroyer has 3 arms?

I'm ok with that

Not a complaint. I also don't think thevgiant gun he has is gauss. It looks just like the enmitic annihilator the skorpekh destroyer lord has, except larger.

Would be cool if the heavy destroyer had multiple weapon options, but that official pic GW put out labelled him as "all the gauss", so who knows.

With a new kit I'd like to see more weapon options

Rumours from the 4chan dynasty,

Super dubious about these, given that they say hyperphase reap-blades have a -1 to hit built in, which the preview made no mention of.

Other thoughts:

Gauss reapers are wayyyyy better than flayers. Hell, they're better than Gauss blasters.
Skorptekh destroyers look decent, their viability depends on strats and dynasty traits. Rerolling RP after killing a unit is cool.
Canoptek Stalker (presumably the smaller of the war of the worlds walkers) - not great. Gives an inv save and spreads auras, but without character rule it'll just die super quickly. Maybe decent if new cover makes it hideable.
Immortal Overseer - poop. Moral isn't a huge issue for us. Might see some limited use as a filler HQ, since assuming he'd be dirt cheap with those stats.

I'm assuming the Canoptek Stalker is the thing skulking behind the Monolith


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Could also concievably be the Limbed Turbine accompanying the cryptek in the centre of the image

IanVanCheese wrote:


Rumours from the 4chan dynasty,

Super dubious about these, given that they say hyperphase reap-blades have a -1 to hit built in, which the preview made no mention of.

Other thoughts:

Gauss reapers are wayyyyy better than flayers. Hell, they're better than Gauss blasters.
Skorptekh destroyers look decent, their viability depends on strats and dynasty traits. Rerolling RP after killing a unit is cool.
Canoptek Stalker (presumably the smaller of the war of the worlds walkers) - not great. Gives an inv save and spreads auras, but without character rule it'll just die super quickly. Maybe decent if new cover makes it hideable.
Immortal Overseer - poop. Moral isn't a huge issue for us. Might see some limited use as a filler HQ, since assuming he'd be dirt cheap with those stats.

Yeah I agree I hope these rumours are false. As those models are pretty underwhelming.

Surely the walker is T 6 with a few more wounds and would shielding otherwise it'll get obliterated and yeah morale isn't a problem for us.

Reapers are good but at 18 inch range it would feasibly give a primaris unit at least 2/3 full turns of shooting for us to get in range

And I also hope that's not the only use for the plasmacyte, rerolling 1 is nice but will you enemy give you chance to do so

Its fake, there are typos you dont see in GW rules. It says canopteck re-reoll, and enamy. And hyperphase reap blades now list the -1 to hit, which wasnt there a few hours ago.

Typoes hardly proof since those aren't photos of actual rule so somebody would be writing them anyway. Typo would have come somebody typing from book.

The lack of -1 to hit is bigger tell.