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.

Ah thanks, @tneva82. Yeah I was wondering because I’m making a crusade roster haha, so that’s good to know. I was tossing up between a Triarch Stalker or a Doomstalker since they’re the same power.

An army full of multi purpose units is probably going to be the best bet in 9th

Triarch Stalkers
CCB
Skorpekh Lord (although to a lesser extent than others)
Praetorians
Tomb Sentinel

Would all sit well in an objective focussed TAC list

Also I'm thinking the only way I can think of Ophydians being good is as backup to an initial push by Skorpekh Destroyers and Lord. Or just a Lord with some Scarabs. Deep Strike them in after you make contact with other units and they'll get the buff from the Lord

tneva82 wrote:

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.

Not sure what you are on about here, the possibility of overkill has no real impact on the maths I was showing. The important question is "how much damage am I going to inflict on a tank per point spent on this unit?". None of the listed units are likely to do more than 12 wounds in the units sizes they come in so it's irrelevent. A DDA does 5.44 wounds to a Russ because that's the average, overkill is nothing to do with it.

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.

Stalkers are 0.022 damage per point outside of melta range, so they are quite low compared to the other options, but they are an all rounder and not dedicated anti tank.

Yeah I have no idea why the Doomsday Blaster and the Doomsday Cannon have identical stats. Which designer decided that Necrons need two units where you get to channel your inner Clint Eastwood?





I guess it's nice that you get the option because the Walkers look awesome and I hate the Doomsday Arc model, but still...


So let's see:

3x Canoptek Doomstalker = 420 (blaze it)
1x Technomancer with Canoptek Control Node = 90 (1 CP - Thrall of the Silent King WL trait)
1x Cryptothralls = 40

550 gives you a pretty nice package. With Thrall of the Silent King to increase the aura size, you can spread out the Walkers 19". That should give you decent firing lanes.

The Cryptothralls can raise a banner T1, and then can go do whatever depending on table setup and opposing list.


On the other hand, hilariously the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer is still <INFANTRY>. So move through walls and cover are both available. They don't need a babysitter (I guess you would need to take 9 to make the Lokhust Destroyer Lord viable, lol), they are mobile... would one unit of three be enough in a vehicle-light meta?

Hrm.

One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.

But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?

EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.

I always forget that they don't degrade, and they have 10" movement in a pinch.

If you take three, each one essentially costs 170 when factoring in the cost for the Technomancer. Arks are 190 with two more hitpoints, two inches more movement, <FLY> and better secondary weapons. They don't explode on 5s, but they degrade normally. Always 4++ is a wash compared to QS, but QS can be boosted to 4++ for 1 CP (on one unit, obviously). And Arks can deploy all over the table without the need to check ranges with their babysitter.


So I guess overall verdict:

Slight advantage to Arks, but not enough to make the Stalker unuseable. But you need to all-in on Stalkers with 3 + Technomancer. Any other combination will be decidedly less effective.


/edit: Silent King can buff Praetorians with his MWBD.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.

But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?

EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.

They can't get or benefit from any code. They can benefit from Szarekhs Auras though.


The 4+ on it's own is not quite as good as QS, but it's still really good, since a 4++ is for the most part going to be the best you can get in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Acehilator wrote:
I always forget that they don't degrade, and they have 10" movement in a pinch.

If you take three, each one essentially costs 170 when factoring in the cost for the Technomancer. Arks are 190 with two more hitpoints, two inches more movement, <FLY> and better secondary weapons. They don't explode on 5s, but they degrade normally. Always 4++ is a wash compared to QS, but QS can be boosted to 4++ for 1 CP (on one unit, obviously). And Arks they can deploy all over the table without the need to check ranges with their babysitter.


So I guess overall verdict:

Slight advantage to Arks, but not enough to make the Stalker unuseable. But you need to all-in on Stalkers with 3 + Technomancer. Any other combination will be decidedly less effective.

The Stratagem is also very good for Doomstalkers. For Arks you really need to be using the Flayer Arrays to get your points out of them as well, so you are moving a lot more in my opinion. They are much more independent though.

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

So many possibilities. The only garbo option is the psychomancer IMO. D-
Chrono is a great defensive buffer with that 5++ on demand (I wish it was just +1 to save though) Decent ability upgrade for halving charge/advance rolls for target unit within 18" (Should be 24) He gets a B- for me cost is a little high too IMO - he has 1 Melee attack.
Technomancers is a boss. Canoptec buffer to the max (+1 to hit aura in all phases). Several good upgrade abilities. A++
Plasmamancer is a decent mortal wound generator for cheap that can't be denied cause they aren't psychic. B+

Psycho is definitely the stinker of the 4. He's close to being awesome but falls flat on his face.

If he had a 24" reach he'd be awesome, as none of his abilities are incredibly powerful just niche useful. But at 12" its gonna be difficult to ever get him in range of a unit that any of his abilities actually matter, except denying overwatch. And i dont think a 70ish point model purely to deny overwatch is worth it (except against tau maybe but thats listtailoring territory)
Of course none of the crypteks are anything to write home about outside of their ability, so if their ability isnt that great...they suck lol.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.

But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?

EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.

No matter how it maths out the 4++ has a very strong psychological element. Who shoots at a 4++ when they can shoot at things with a 5++?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.

But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?

EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.

No matter how it maths out the 4++ has a very strong psychological element. Who shoots at a 4++ when they can shoot at things with a 5++?

People who need the 4++ dead more than the 5++.

While you should take advantage of an opponent's mistakes, you shouldn't rely on them making mistakes.

i mean theres also the cost vs reward aspect.

Its basically in distraction carnifex territory. 140pts for a T6 12W 3+/4++ model thats lethal if left alone is prime distraction territory.
Its cheap enough and durable enough that nobody is going to WANT to take it out, because unless luck is against the necron player odds are that thing is gonna eat a lot more points worth of shooting to kill than its worth.
Aside from simply failing every 4++ and the opponent getting high damage rolls each time i dont see it dying that quick w/o 2x its points in stuff shooting at it.

Maybe its the ork in me but if i can force you to spend a third of your army to kill something that cost me ~125pts, i'll LET you do that because so much of my army is now unscathed as you spent so much trying to get rid of that one model.
And part of the reason its so deadly isnt even in its own cost, its the cryptek around it giving it a 3+ BS. Which can just mosey on over to other stuff once it blows up, no value lost.

Tbh i was expecting the doomstalker to be around 200pts. When i saw it was 140 i was quite baffled.

Acehilator wrote:
I always forget that they don't degrade, and they have 10" movement in a pinch.

If you take three, each one essentially costs 170 when factoring in the cost for the Technomancer. Arks are 190 with two more hitpoints, two inches more movement, <FLY> and better secondary weapons. They don't explode on 5s, but they degrade normally. Always 4++ is a wash compared to QS, but QS can be boosted to 4++ for 1 CP (on one unit, obviously). And Arks can deploy all over the table without the need to check ranges with their babysitter.


So I guess overall verdict:

Slight advantage to Arks, but not enough to make the Stalker unuseable. But you need to all-in on Stalkers with 3 + Technomancer. Any other combination will be decidedly less effective.


/edit: Silent King can buff Praetorians with his MWBD.

IDK if it is fair to assume the cost of the techomancer a wash in the comparsion. He will be resurrecting an infantry a turn as well at best case plus he is a character that can secure objectives like (gather intel) ect. Doomsday archs are indeed more independent but the degrading issue is a problem. If you manage to make use of the doom stalker stratagem/overwatch ability - it is a clear win for doomstalker IMO. In any case. In larger games I will take 3 of each ofc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.

But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?

EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.

No matter how it maths out the 4++ has a very strong psychological element. Who shoots at a 4++ when they can shoot at things with a 5++?

People who need the 4++ dead more than the 5++.

While you should take advantage of an opponent's mistakes, you shouldn't rely on them making mistakes.

It's not necessarily a mistake. If you shoot at the 4++ and they made all the saves on 4's then it was a mistake lol. Things like that happen in a game and it can fluster and opponent.

What are people thinking about warriors vs gauss immortals? I was originally back on the warrior hype train, but after actually doing the math, immortals come out better value for points against almost everything.
That reroll 1s on RP looks tasty until you realize it only brings back 1.16 additional warriors per twenty destroyed. The only places immortals don't clearly outperform their 25% points premium is shooting extreme chaff (T3 6+ or worse) and when getting shot by S6-7, ap 2 or more weapons. Meanwhile, they're *double* as durable against S4 -1AP, and the extra attack makes them much better in combat too, though still not great.

I can see taking warriors if you take a 20 blob with a rez orb, or maybe with the 12" assault 2 weapon if advancing is a big deal to you. But mathwise, 7 immortals just seems better than 10 warriors with the 24" gun in the vast majority of circumstances, even if you can't find the points to take all 10.

yukishiro1 wrote:
What are people thinking about warriors vs gauss immortals? I was originally back on the warrior hype train, but after actually doing the math, immortals come out better value for points against almost everything.
That reroll 1s on RP looks tasty until you realize it only brings back 1.16 additional warriors per twenty destroyed. The only places immortals don't clearly outperform their 25% points premium is shooting extreme chaff (T3 6+ or worse) and when getting shot by S6-7, ap 2 or more weapons. Meanwhile, they're *double* as durable against S4 -1AP, and the extra attack makes them much better in combat too, though still not great.

I can see taking warriors if you take a 20 blob with a rez orb, or maybe with the 12" assault 2 weapon if advancing is a big deal to you. But mathwise, 7 immortals just seems better than 10 warriors with the 24" gun in the vast majority of circumstances, even if you can't find the points to take all 10.

IMO, warriors seem better to use as front line objective cappers, as you can have them in large blobs to sit on objectives better. Immortals are nice for actual dmg output as your units of 10 with gauss will shred.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.

But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?

EDIT: Do Triarch Praetorians/Stalkers benefit from the Szarekhan Dynasty? I know there’s a rule to stop Dynastic Agens getting Dynastic abilities but apparently someone in a battle report said they could get the Szarekhan code. I can’t really see it written anywhere but I’m usually blind to these things.

No matter how it maths out the 4++ has a very strong psychological element. Who shoots at a 4++ when they can shoot at things with a 5++?

People who need the 4++ dead more than the 5++.

While you should take advantage of an opponent's mistakes, you shouldn't rely on them making mistakes.

It's not necessarily a mistake. If you shoot at the 4++ and they made all the saves on 4's then it was a mistake lol. Things like that happen in a game and it can fluster and opponent.

Just because it didn't work out doesn't mean it was a mistake.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
What are people thinking about warriors vs gauss immortals? I was originally back on the warrior hype train, but after actually doing the math, immortals come out better value for points against almost everything.
That reroll 1s on RP looks tasty until you realize it only brings back 1.16 additional warriors per twenty destroyed. The only places immortals don't clearly outperform their 25% points premium is shooting extreme chaff (T3 6+ or worse) and when getting shot by S6-7, ap 2 or more weapons. Meanwhile, they're *double* as durable against S4 -1AP, and the extra attack makes them much better in combat too, though still not great.

I can see taking warriors if you take a 20 blob with a rez orb, or maybe with the 12" assault 2 weapon if advancing is a big deal to you. But mathwise, 7 immortals just seems better than 10 warriors with the 24" gun in the vast majority of circumstances, even if you can't find the points to take all 10.

IMO, warriors seem better to use as front line objective cappers, as you can have them in large blobs to sit on objectives better. Immortals are nice for actual dmg output as your units of 10 with gauss will shred.

In general yes but warriors with reapers actually outdamage immortals quite a bit per point. ESP with the 6's to hit autowound stratagem. on 40 shots that has a lot of damage potential.

Well if you have an Technomancer as babysitter for three Doomstalkers, he is probably not going to do much resurrecting. I would rather maximize his positioning in regards to the Stalkers, than try to keep him in range of a blob of Warriors.


Regarding Crypteks:

Technomancer: A
Canoptek Control Node as buffbot for Stalkers or Spyders is amazing, Canoptek Cloak as a support unit for Skorpekhs is too.

Chronomancer: B
Targeted 5++ is great, especially for Warriors, or Spyders. Entropic Lance for the lolz.

Psychomancer: B
Potentially gamewinning abilities on decent chances to succeed. Interrupt actions, turn off ObSec, deny Overwatch (that ability also includes Fight last, which would be very powerful on its own), that's three very strong abilities. Only the charge reduction is pants. But if he would have more than 12" range on those abilites, it would be broken.

Plasmancer: D
If Living Lightning had more range maybe, but with 6" on that you are mostly doing 1.5MW per turn that are not targetable. That's really not great. For 25 you can add the Cryptek Arcana for a targetable pseudo Smite, but then we are talking about 95 points for about 3 MW/turn. If you local meta only consists of Terminators maybe, but otherwise, in such a crowded slot, any combination of the other Crypteks is better.

It certainly is if you knew going into a proposition that you had a lower risk option and took the higher. It all depends on game state.

Warriors also get 1d3 models back from Rites as opposed to 1 Immortal. The GA can also restore 1d3 (or 1d6 with a stratagem) Warriors back to a unit.

A lot our force multiplies have 'better' benefits for Warriors than Immortals, at least on the face of it.

EDIT: On that note though, how do people feel about Tomb Blades? I'm planning to try a list including a unit of 9, backed by an orb-toting CCB. You can get the damage AND defensive profile of 2 Immortals per 1 Tomb Blade, while costing less (or very slightly more) than the equivalent number of Immortals per wound.

Acehilator wrote:
Well if you have an Technomancer as babysitter for three Doomstalkers, he is probably not going to do much resurrecting. I would rather maximize his positioning in regards to the Stalkers, than try to keep him in range of a blob of Warriors.


Regarding Crypteks:

Technomancer: A
Canoptek Control Node as buffbot for Stalkers or Spyders is amazing, Canoptek Cloak as a support unit for Skorpekhs is too.

Chronomancer: B
Targeted 5++ is great, especially for Warriors, or Spyders. Entropic Lance for the lolz.

Psychomancer: B
Potentially gamewinning abilities on decent chances to succeed. Interrupt actions, turn off ObSec, deny Overwatch (that ability also includes Fight last, which would be very powerful on its own), that's three very strong abilities. Only the charge reduction is pants. But if he would have more than 12" range on those abilites, it would be broken.

Plasmancer: D
If Living Lightning had more range maybe, but with 6" on that you are mostly doing 1.5MW per turn that are not targetable. That's really not great. For 25 you can add the Cryptek Arcana for a targetable pseudo Smite, but then we are talking about 95 points for about 3 MW/turn. If you local meta only consists of Terminators maybe, but otherwise, in such a crowded slot, any combination of the other Crypteks is better.

Have you considered death marks and immortals? They are happy in the backfeild and can't be ignored ether. Also - I feel like this build takes the middle of the table with cryptec in range of most everything.

 Xenomancers wrote:
In general yes but warriors with reapers actually outdamage immortals quite a bit per point. ESP with the 6's to hit autowound stratagem. on 40 shots that has a lot of damage potential.

Only within 12", though. Getting 20 warriors within 12" is not easy, and if you are that close, the extra attack on the immortals is likely to become relevant.

But I agree, the reaper is the interesting choice on warriors, as is the 20 man unit size. If you're going to take a unit of 10 flayers, I think you may as well take immortals instead.

Death Marks are a trap. The gun is still only one damage, and when using their special stratagem they only hit on 3s (or if you move them to get LoS to a juicy target). If you play on planet bowling ball, sure. Otherwise, no.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In general yes but warriors with reapers actually outdamage immortals quite a bit per point. ESP with the 6's to hit autowound stratagem. on 40 shots that has a lot of damage potential.

Only within 12", though. Getting 20 warriors within 12" is not easy, and if you are that close, the extra attack on the immortals is likely to become relevant.

But I agree, the reaper is the interesting choice on warriors, as is the 20 man unit size. If you're going to take a unit of 10 flayers, I think you may as well take immortals instead.

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Acehilator wrote:
Death Marks are a trap. The gun is still only one damage, and when using their special stratagem they only hit on 3s (or if you move them to get LoS to a juicy target). If you play on planet bowling ball, sure. Otherwise, no.

It's 1 shot that does a mortal wound on a 6 and they hit on 2's and are core. I think they are pretty phenomenal. They can threaten most characters in single turn. MWBD is a thing too. You can move them around and hit on 2's.

Reanimation is great on them too. They are certainly not a trap. They might not be auto include but they are more than just playable.

Reapers are for when you utilize ways to teleport the warriors up to get the entire squad in range.
i.e. any of the stratagems to warp them in or the Veil of Darkness.

if you try to footslog reapers your opponent is gonna laugh at you

Deathmarks vs SM character:

10 shots
8.34 hits
5.56 wounds
3.7 unsaved regular damage
1.67 MWs

This is best case scenario, hitting on 2s vs T4 without an Invul. And they can barely kill the most basic stuff, only high value target would be the Chief Apothecary.
Captain/Chaplain no matter which version = nope.

Regarding Warriors with Reapers, either teleport shenanigans or custom dynasty with 6" move.

Deathmarks need a full squad of 10 to actually threaten anything but the weakest characters, and that's a lot of points and bodies to do that.

Combine say 5 of them with stuff that does splash or targeted MWs, however - the upgraded psychomancer with the targeted smite, deceiver's mind war power, the tesla strat, or the c'tan power that does the splash wounds on a 4+ - and they start to become interesting.

Are warriors with reapers just better than flayers? Or can you make use of flayers?

Acehilator wrote:
Deathmarks vs SM character:

10 shots
8.34 hits
5.56 wounds
3.7 unsaved regular damage
1.67 MWs

This is best case scenario, hitting on 2s vs T4 without an Invul. And they can barely kill the most basic stuff, only high value target would be the Chief Apothecary.
Captain/Chaplain no matter which version = nope.

Regarding Warriors with Reapers, either teleport shenanigans or custom dynasty with 6" move.

Averaging 5 damage means essentially half the time you kill it and half the time you don't. Tip the odds in your favor...take 20. Now you can kill almost any character in the open or at the very least alter their game plans. There are other options too - plasmamancer and ctans can put wounds on characters too. Realistically you kill the opponents characters and you win the game. Viable strategy IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Are warriors with reapers just better than flayers? Or can you make use of flayers?

I don't see much use for flayers. Unless you are running a warrior horde of some kind. Mephrite warriors with flayers are probably the best at it.

There's no way you're going to be able to get 20 deathmarks able to shoot a character your opponent cares about. Even 10 is pushing it. They need to be combined with other stuff that can put MWs on characters IMO, otherwise they're just going to be ineffective.