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.

Ugh, the Ophydians are a big disappointment. Real pity. At least they're so obviously bad that GW will be forced to do something sooner or later.

The rule writers clearly just didn't have a clue on how to differentiate them from skorpekhs. So they just made them the same as skorpekhs, but with a squishier profile and very slightly more offense.

Seems like a classic case of model designers and rules writers not being on the same page.

Main problem with Ophydians is they are competing at the same price point as both Skorpekhs and Wraiths. Both of those require little setup and can just do what they do.

I think if the Whip Body was -1 to both shooting and melee, these guys would probably be a great choice. Then it'd be a higher risk and higher reward unit.

That being said, they look ace so I'm going to pick up a unit of them for sure and give them a try anyway. They may work pretty well starting on the table with the 6' pre game move and then a Chronometron on them.

Can the ghost ark carry other units besides warriors?

Warriors and <DYNASTY> INFANTRY CHARACTERS only.

.Night Scythe can carry <DYNASTY> CORE INFANTRY, <DYNASTY> INFANTRY CHARACTERS, and, interestingly DYNASTIC AGENT INFANTRY, i.e. Praetorians or named characters without a dynasty. So I guess you could put Szeras, Trazyn, Anrakyr, etc in one if you wanted to.

the...what...hold on...this cant be intentional..

Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.

Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)

Well, if you lost a warrior, then you could put the other 9 in the ark with the Skorpekh lord, I guess.

GW sure loves transports without room for a character to go along with the squad.

So as mediocre as I think Flayed Ones are, I was just thinking about how they interact with the radiation dynasty code and I like it. Unlike some other units that wouldn't benefit much from it, Flayed Ones would now:

Wound Aggressors and Custodes on 4's
Wound Marines on 3's
Wound Guardsmen on 2's

Just wish they kept Shred. Makes this combo even better

edit. Helps Scarabs out a lot too

Yeah, but enough to give up obsec on everything? The way 9th is structured, I have a hard time seeing how any other choice can possibly compare to that.

 CKO wrote:
Ophydian's with the -1 toughness dynastic tradition is good if you know how to use their 10-inch movement to protect them using terrain or keeping them in combat. The average player will not be able to get the most out of this unit.

The problem is they're the same cost as the other 2 units that share the same role: Wraiths and Skorpekhs. Wraiths are faster and more durable and get fall back and charge as well as their very useful movement buffs from their pseudo-Fly rules. They're not as good in combat but still not completely terrible. Skorpekhs are slightly slower but more durable and hit hard enough to be scary. Ophydians just don't really offer anything the other 2 near-identical options do at least as well. If you Deep Strike them you either make the charge or die because T4, W3 4+ save is not a defensive profile you want to rely on. If you start them on the board they're slightly faster Skorpekhs without the durability.

This is the problem with comments like "they're good if you know how to use them". That applies equally to the other units that are just better to start with. If you know how to use Ophydians you can use exactly the same tactics to keep Skorpekhs alive too, so the question becomes which unit is better and the answer is most likely Skorpekhs because they aren't so easy to just delete with relatively light, common shooting.

It's annoying because I love the models but it feels like GW had no real idea what role they wanted them to have in the army.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
the...what...hold on...this cant be intentional..

Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.

Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)

Its not intended that characters can embark on their faction transport ? Are you serious ?? Every faction with a transport can do that. Lokhust lords can also embark. They couldnt in 8th (they were destroyer lords), but now they can. Still not intended ??

 p5freak wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
the...what...hold on...this cant be intentional..

Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.

Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)

Its not intended that characters can embark on their faction transport ? Are you serious ?? Every faction with a transport can do that. Lokhust lords can also embark. They couldnt in 8th (they were destroyer lords), but now they can. Still not intended ??

If you re-read his post, you will see that he relates this specificly to the large size of the model, not the fact that he's a character.

torblind wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
the...what...hold on...this cant be intentional..

Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.

Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)

Its not intended that characters can embark on their faction transport ? Are you serious ?? Every faction with a transport can do that. Lokhust lords can also embark. They couldnt in 8th (they were destroyer lords), but now they can. Still not intended ??

If you re-read his post, you will see that he relates this specificly to the large size of the model, not the fact that he's a character.

Scale is irrelevant. Many models in 40k are not the right size. Try fitting 10 SM in a rhino. Vehicles in general should be a lot bigger.

Regarding Ophydian Destroyers, they don't seem very impressive in and of themselves, but what about using them to convert a Destroyer Lord? Seems like it could give you a fun design, without having to use the rather outdated D. Lord kit.

 p5freak wrote:

torblind wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
the...what...hold on...this cant be intentional..

Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.

Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)

Its not intended that characters can embark on their faction transport ? Are you serious ?? Every faction with a transport can do that. Lokhust lords can also embark. They couldnt in 8th (they were destroyer lords), but now they can. Still not intended ??

If you re-read his post, you will see that he relates this specificly to the large size of the model, not the fact that he's a character.

Scale is irrelevant. Many models in 40k are not the right size. Try fitting 10 SM in a rhino. Vehicles in general should be a lot bigger.

Same for most buildings.

That said its also the design. The Rhino is basically a box on tracks so what goes in doesn't matter. The Ark has very specifically got warriors in rank and file down its spine. Now whilst its easy to see those replaced with immortals or such its harder to visually see where a Skorpek lord could fit let alone ride in such a vehicle.

What are people's thoughts regarding the different Crypteks?

Skorpek on ghost ark suffers from 1/6 chance of dying up the moment GA dies. No way to put anything cheap there as backup. 6 slinger or crypteks are about cheapest sacrificial lambs.

Its ridiculous how limited ghost arks are when it comes to units which can embark on them. Skorpekh lords fit, but not immortals. Lokhust lords fit, but no deathmarks. You would need to lose some warriors, to be able to embark them in a ghost ark, with some infantry characters.

Hey Guys.

I hated the three-arm design of the skorpekh Lord.
A friend of mine made a tail with his 3-D-Printer for me to make him look more scorpion like.

Thought you guys would like it.
Will post again after finished painting if you want.

Something I'm going to try(maybe 2nd game. first game will be next week. Well 1st and 2nd were actually on tuesday for small crusade games) is 10 lychguard and night scythe. If I can keep night scythe alive for turn 2 it's pretty much automatic charge. Problem of course is keeping scythe alive but at least unit isn't dead and can just come out of reserves normally...

Too bad don't have warscythe lychguard so have to go with sword version

edit: Put flier into reserves. 3CP for stratagegic reserves, 1CP for stratagem. As long as there's enemy within 15" of table edge on turn 2 you can do 6" charge roll. Costs money for +3" charge roll but lol. And then you have flier flying around

 vipoid wrote:
What are people's thoughts regarding the different Crypteks?

I think I would just take a Technomancer and a Chrono one. The Techno could help get more warriors back on foot, helping me contest that important objective in 9th where the scoring is mainly progressive. The Chrono one help keep my important units such as Destroyers live longer.

Other variants don't seem to do good enough buff or damage.

The "no obsec for you" could be sweet though to deny opponent from scoring primaries. Especially with "all units obsec" dynasties. Park one model near objective, shut down obsec, haha.

Surtr wrote:
Hey Guys.

I hated the three-arm design of the skorpekh Lord.
A friend of mine made a tail with his 3-D-Printer for me to make him look more scorpion like.

Thought you guys would like it.
Will post again after finished painting if you want.

I love the idea (I don't care for the 3-arm design myself), and you're right in that it would help Skorpekhs look more like their namesake. My only concern is that tail doesn't look quite the right scale for the rest of the model.

If it was 3D printed, would it be possible to make one that was a bit thinner, perhaps with more of the vertebrae to maintain the length?

I think Doom Scythes might be our best anti-tank option now. Their damage output for their points is as good as anything else, plus they don't use up a contested battlefield roll slot.

Downscaling would bei no problem

I am currently pondering about AT choices. Why the f*** are the flyers not rocking QS? I know they didn't have it in 8th either, but still. Like wtf.

The weapon on the Doom Scythe is just amazeballs, but the survivabilty is MUCH worse than our other options. Hard to hit alone just doesn't cut it.

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
I think Doom Scythes might be our best anti-tank option now. Their damage output for their points is as good as anything else, plus they don't use up a contested battlefield roll slot.

Trouble with those. Expensive, super soft, can't do much regarding objectives. 9e is about scoring vp's more than killing enemy so any unit that doesn't contribute to objectives needs to be really good at the killing then.

Some maths for our anti-tank:

Average damage per point against vehicles (T7, 3+Sv):

Lokhust Heavy: 0.044
Doom Scythe: ..0.042
Doomsday Ark: 0.035
Doomstalker: ...0.029

This includes the secondary weapons of each, but no bonuses for being within 12".

So Lokhusts are the most efficient, followed very closely by Doom Scythes, then a decent step behind are DDAs and Doomstalkers. The LHD and DS are also much more reliable, with fixed numbers of shots and less swingy damage.

The less efficient options here are a lot more durable, but also a lot less mobile.
LHDs are the weakest, although they can hide.
The Doom Scythe has incredible mobility, enabling it to get shots on Artillery behind LOS blockers, or assassinate characters, but it can't score objectives.

I think it's actually a pretty balanced list of options, with the best choice largely depending on how much terrain you're playing with.

Personally I'll be going with Doom Scythes as I've found long range units that don't move struggle to hit ideal targets in 9th, and I hate how swingy D6 shots D6 damage are.



EDIT: A Death Ray Monolith does 0.031 damage per point which is better than I thought, putting it between a DDA and a Doomstalker.

How do the Triarch Stalkers hold up for anti-tank with those other units?

I’m curious what the best option for low point games would be for an anti-tank option in an all rounder list.

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
Some maths for our anti-tank:

Average damage per point against vehicles (T7, 3+Sv):

Lokhust Heavy: 0.044
Doom Scythe: ..0.042
Doomsday Ark: 0.035
Doomstalker: ...0.029

Looks like you don't remove excess damage from overkill. Causing 20 damage to russ isn't particularly useful so for example DDA doesn't cause 3.5*2/3*2/3*3.5 damage in practice. More like 5.14 damage vs W12 model.

Similarly pylon vs baneblade doesn't average 31 damage More like tad under 20.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
How do the Triarch Stalkers hold up for anti-tank with those other units?

I’m curious what the best option for low point games would be for an anti-tank option in an all rounder list.

Big help those have is move and shoot plus versatility of heat ray. I have had that go on my crusade and so far been doing it's job well enough.

And of course now with melta bonus once you get within 12" it's sweet. Low shot count is bummer but command reroll helps and the "automatic wound for hit" reduces some variance as well.

Inv saves are annoying to face though.

But for small point I would take it. Unit that can do multiple roles is valuable and units that have to sit back and stand still are less valuable. You don't want big chunk of your army stand still just shooting. Gives opponent often easy targets what to take out. The units trying to score vp's! Take them out, your DDA/whatever can blow stuff up but can't win the game.