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.

To me (heavy) destroyers feel more like heavy bikers. They move 10", with T5 W3. Tomb blades are bikers, they move 14", with T5 W2.

Ctans cant really punch out vehicles. They have S7. Destroyer lord has S7. Scytheguard are S7. Skorpekh destroyers have one model with a S7 weapon. You can boost infantry with S+1, with disruption fields. Necrons arent good at killing vehicles in melee.

Then guess we have to rely on doom scythes, Doomsday arks after all. Well there is heavy destroyers... heard their stats are getting changed though.

New heavy destroyers mulch tank, but they're pricey and squishy. Still worth it vs serious armour though.

On average 3 Lokhust with Gauss do about 14 wounds to a repulsor. For 210pts, that ain't too bad.

IanVanCheese wrote:
New heavy destroyers mulch tank, but they're pricey and squishy. Still worth it vs serious armour though.

On average 3 Lokhust with Gauss do about 14 wounds to a repulsor. For 210pts, that ain't too bad.

Is that a meaningful statistic though. It's not like you are up against a bunch of repulsors, in which case a statistical average is something you can make use of.

You're up against one, perhaps noe more?

What would you expect to see against a single repulsor?

If one of them wound you're looking at around 6 damage. If two of them wound you're looking at around 12, if all hit and wound you're looking at around 18. 14 might not be that likely an outcome.

Why would you use fragile infantry platforms at 210 when you have doomsday arks at 180? Hell, 210 is almost enough for a tesseract ark with 2 gauss cannon and that terrifying main 3 profile weapon.

Not seeing the value here, even as a secondary mobile option to support ddas. I'd rather have the Tessie Ark (though of the three options, only the 3 ddas are in my current comp list.)

 DogHeadGod wrote:
Why would you use fragile infantry platforms at 210 when you have doomsday arks at 180? Hell, 210 is almost enough for a tesseract ark with 2 gauss cannon and that terrifying main 3 profile weapon.

Not seeing the value here, even as a secondary mobile option to support ddas. I'd rather have the Tessie Ark (though of the three options, only the 3 ddas are in my current comp list.)

The main problem is with the extreme Variance on the DDA. Rolling how many shots, to hit, to wound and how much damage often means they don't perform well.

The Lokhusts have variance as well, but it's not as extreme as the DDA. The fact you roll 3d3 for the damage mitigates this a ton.

I'm going to play test them for sure, but I don't know if I'd ever take more than one squad.

And three models have consistently three shots

I would rather have a QS platform with Obsec, movement, and high damage, with the range to see the board and the anti-infantry dakka to protect my back line,over an infantry platform vulnerable to Marine infantry weaponry in bulk.

Same reason I never saw 300 for destroyers who disappear when someone looks at them in a stern manner. 8th, and 9th from the looks of it, is just too lethal.

A DDA is still better than 3 lokhusts. It had T6, W14, QS, living metal, and Rapid fire 10 Gauss flayers. Once enemy armor us eliminated the DDA can hunt infantry. Oh, and an overlord can MWBD a DDA, making that on one lokhust is wasted.

Hey guys, how’s everyone’s apocalypse going?

I love that my t5 melee cron army is about to be pretty dang valid.

Been doing the hobby action. Right now I’m wondering how many warriors is to many warriors. Is it impossible to know before rp is leaked?

I’m at 100 right now, that would leave me 20 unbuilt bodies. I may be getting a second Indomitus which would be 120 warriors and 20 more new weapons to put on those unbuilt bodies to be at 140.

Is that all just way over the top?

Cheers

I guess your guess is as good as ours?

 DogHeadGod wrote:
I would rather have a QS platform with Obsec, movement, and high damage, with the range to see the board and the anti-infantry dakka to protect my back line,over an infantry platform vulnerable to Marine infantry weaponry in bulk.

Same reason I never saw 300 for destroyers who disappear when someone looks at them in a stern manner. 8th, and 9th from the looks of it, is just too lethal.

From experience heavy destroyers have been more durable than doomsday arks in my games. The difference between T5 AND T6 is meh and destroyers are infantry. They have a 2+ save sitting in light cover, while DDAs are stuck at 4+

bort123 wrote:

 DogHeadGod wrote:
I would rather have a QS platform with Obsec, movement, and high damage, with the range to see the board and the anti-infantry dakka to protect my back line,over an infantry platform vulnerable to Marine infantry weaponry in bulk.

Same reason I never saw 300 for destroyers who disappear when someone looks at them in a stern manner. 8th, and 9th from the looks of it, is just too lethal.

From experience heavy destroyers have been more durable than doomsday arks in my games. The difference between T5 AND T6 is meh and destroyers are infantry. They have a 2+ save sitting in light cover, while DDAs are stuck at 4+

Yeah, they can also move and shoot, which means they can get LOS to hunt down targets.

As to whether a repulsor is a good benchmark, it's a T8 3+ save tank, which is about as tough as regular tanks get so yeah.

DDA are good, but as pure anti-tank they're way less efficient. The average 3.5 shots, 2.33 hits, 1.56 wound, so 5.44 damage. Lokhust average basically double that. Yeah they can swing a lot higher, but so can the Lokhust. Lokhust are reliable anti-tank, that's what necrons have been screaming for for years. Infantry, chill in cover with a 2+ save, they're reasonably resilient too. Not saying don't take DDAs ofc, but maybe drop one and replace with Lokhust to give yourself some true AT firepower.

DDAs are still boss (Edited the proper maths in).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
A DDA is still better than 3 lokhusts. It had T6, W14, QS, living metal, and Rapid fire 10 Gauss flayers. Once enemy armor us eliminated the DDA can hunt infantry. Oh, and an overlord can MWBD a DDA, making that on one lokhust is wasted.

Lokhust can almost certainly come in squads of 3, in which case MWBD is not wasted.

How do you get 1.18 hits from 3.5 shots?

 JNAProductions wrote:
How do you get 1.18 hits from 3.5 shots?

Lol my bad, rough maths and not much sleep, but the point is, it does way less average damage than 3 Lokhust.

IanVanCheese wrote:

Lokhust can almost certainly come in squads of 3, in which case MWBD is not wasted.

True, they can be taken in squads of 3. 36" range is also not good. But if you want to MWBD them they need to be on the battlefield, and you are likely to lose one or two models when you dont go first. Then your number of shots goes down, a DDA always has D6 shots.

I do hope heavy destroyers will be at least on par with DDA as an anti tank. That way, I can realise my dream of fielding a pure silvertide army!

IanVanCheese wrote:
New heavy destroyers mulch tank, but they're pricey and squishy. Still worth it vs serious armour though.

On average 3 Lokhust with Gauss do about 14 wounds to a repulsor. For 210pts, that ain't too bad.

14? What's wrong with my math. 3 shots, hit on 2+(say overlord is nearby), wound on 3+, no save, 3d3 damage. 3*5/6*2/3*6=10. HOWEVER 3 shots at 3d3 damage means there's overkill potential and since overkill is irrelevant and thus won't compensate for low rolls real average is less than 10 actually(just like pylon vs baneblade is not 31 damage average but rather 19 damage average)

edit: Well that overkill effect isn't THAT big as odds of overkill isn't that big. But about 9.58 damage for squadron of 3 lokhust with MWBD with about 12.85% chance of one shotting the tank. Without MWBD it is 7.78 damage and 6.5% chance of one shotting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

Lokhust can almost certainly come in squads of 3, in which case MWBD is not wasted.

True, they can be taken in squads of 3. 36" range is also not good. But if you want to MWBD them they need to be on the battlefield, and you are likely to lose one or two models when you dont go first. Then your number of shots goes down, a DDA always has D6 shots.

If you deploy in sight DDA is also going to go down T1 though. Dead DDA is not any more shootier than dead lokust.

tneva82 wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:
New heavy destroyers mulch tank, but they're pricey and squishy. Still worth it vs serious armour though.

On average 3 Lokhust with Gauss do about 14 wounds to a repulsor. For 210pts, that ain't too bad.

14? What's wrong with my math. 3 shots, hit on 2+(say overlord is nearby), wound on 3+, no save, 3d3 damage. 3*5/6*2/3*6=10. HOWEVER 3 shots at 3d3 damage means there's overkill potential and since overkill is irrelevant and thus won't compensate for low rolls real average is less than 10 actually(just like pylon vs baneblade is not 31 damage average but rather 19 damage average)

edit: Well that overkill effect isn't THAT big as odds of overkill isn't that big. But about 9.58 damage for squadron of 3 lokhust with MWBD with about 12.85% chance of one shotting the tank. Without MWBD it is 7.78 damage and 6.5% chance of one shotting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

Lokhust can almost certainly come in squads of 3, in which case MWBD is not wasted.

True, they can be taken in squads of 3. 36" range is also not good. But if you want to MWBD them they need to be on the battlefield, and you are likely to lose one or two models when you dont go first. Then your number of shots goes down, a DDA always has D6 shots.

If you deploy in sight DDA is also going to go down T1 though. Dead DDA is not any more shootier than dead lokust.

How do you math that?

Without MWBD:
3 * 2/3 = 2.00 hits (from 3 shots with 2/3 of hitting) 2 * 2/3 = 1.33 wounds (2/3 chance of wounding) 1.33 * 6.00 = 8.00 damage (assuming 3d3 = 6 on average)

Now assuming hit-reroll 1, that should bring the total higher, not lower. You're number was at 7.78

With MWBD you're hitting 5/6 instead of 4/6, so that's a 25% increase, so MWBD should net you 10 damage on average.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The DDA nets you 5.44 or 6.81 damage with and witout MWBD (and I didn't yet add reroll 1s to hit to the LHD)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I'd argue that they shouldn't be compared. DDA is much more hit or miss, whereas the LHD would be much more consistent damage dealers.

A simple comparison of averages is certainly not that useful.

By running attack run 100,000 times and see how much damage comes cutting away overkill. Your formula counts 27 damage worth 27 damage. That's not particularly useful as the high rolls don't compensate low rolls.

Issue comes every time you can cause more damage than there#s wounds and the more likely the more dramatic effect is. Pylon seemingly causes more damage than banebiade has in turn yet is only 58% likely one shotting. Thus the average withou'　cutting off overkill is　irrelevan'

Sure, just asked what the math was.

Could you instead report the most frequent damage output, or a reasonable range?

I think the issue you will find on the equivalent points worth of Locusts (2.5?) is that there is a really high chance to do 0 damage against anything with an invul, due to the low number of shots.

Whereas a DDA obviously can fail to do anything either - but if you get a 4-5-6 on the number of shots, you are more likely to get *something* through.

I guess in a no-invul word that might be less of an issue.

Tyel wrote:
I think the issue you will find on the equivalent points worth of Locusts (2.5?) is that there is a really high chance to do 0 damage against anything with an invul, due to the low number of shots.

Whereas a DDA obviously can fail to do anything either - but if you get a 4-5-6 on the number of shots, you are more likely to get *something* through.

I guess in a no-invul word that might be less of an issue.

It should average out almost the same though, right? D6 shots being 3.5 on average. Quite close to three.

torblind wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think the issue you will find on the equivalent points worth of Locusts (2.5?) is that there is a really high chance to do 0 damage against anything with an invul, due to the low number of shots.

Whereas a DDA obviously can fail to do anything either - but if you get a 4-5-6 on the number of shots, you are more likely to get *something* through.

I guess in a no-invul word that might be less of an issue.

It should average out almost the same though, right? D6 shots being 3.5 on average. Quite close to three.

Yeah especially as you're ignoring that the DDA can just as easily get fewer shots than the Lokhust, and have even less chance of getting a shot through, and do less damage if it does get one through.

Edit on the maths btw.

The 14 wounds (13.6) was with reroll 1s to wound as well, my bad.

It's 9.33 standard, 11.67 with MWBD (25% chance to drop it in one go too). I think you're missing the innate reroll 1s to hit Still doubles the output of the DDA.

Where are you guys getting the leaks for all this new necron codex stuff ?

IanVanCheese wrote:

It's 9.33 standard, 11.67 with MWBD (25% chance to drop it in one go too). I think you're missing the innate reroll 1s to hit Still doubles the output of the DDA.

ATM lokhust have zero special rules. No reroll 1 to hit, no move and shoot without penalty. Nothing. So for now you can't base on having reroll 1 to hit without exterior source and unless you want to take -1 to hit you stay still.



And if they get them there's no quarantee price will stay same either so hard to analyze efficiency then.

tneva82 wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

It's 9.33 standard, 11.67 with MWBD (25% chance to drop it in one go too). I think you're missing the innate reroll 1s to hit Still doubles the output of the DDA.

ATM lokhust have zero special rules. No reroll 1 to hit, no move and shoot without penalty. Nothing. So for now you can't base on having reroll 1 to hit without exterior source and unless you want to take -1 to hit you stay still.

Spoiler:

And if they get them there's no quarantee price will stay same either so hard to analyze efficiency then.

Its highly unlikely that it stays that way. They will probably get to reroll 1s to hit, and ignore the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons, just like destroyers.

Not really sure how to show the maths, but by my calculations 3 Lokhusts (210 points) versus a DDA (180) shooting something where they all hit on 3s, wound on 3s, and there is a 5++, gives the following.

DDA: About a 35% chance to do nothing. Average about 3.6 damage.

Lokhusts, interestingly, also about a 35% chance to do nothing, average 5.3 damage.

So point for point the Lokhusts do about 26% more damage. (5.3/3.6)/(210/180)

Or crunching the numbers another way, a DDA has about a 9% chance to kill a 10 wound Ravager, while the 3 Lokhusts have a 19% chance. Perhaps more notably, a DDA has a 63% chance to not degrade a healthy Ravager (i.e. do 4 wounds or less) - while that drops to 41.5% with the Lokhusts. Gauss (if in range etc) might tick this back up a bit though.

As people say, the DDA output is skewed by the fact it *sucks* when you only get 1-2 shots but its quite good if you get 5-6. Unless there is something in the codex to make that more balanced, I guess it will average out over time. Lokhusts will also presumably get destroyer buffs.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Where are you guys getting the leaks for all this new necron codex stuff ?

The datasheet in the boxes

The codex is going to change point costs and rules for loads of units, as well as adding new army wide special rules which will be more beneficial to some units than others. Even with the new datasheets there is effectively no information to make unit comparisons.