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.

 CKO wrote:


I am defending the Ophydian Destroyers, I like the unit most people are dismissing it. We have to take player skill into consideration with our analysis of units. A competitive player and a casual player will get different results if they use these units. I think the Skorpekh unit is easier to use due to its toughness and 3+ save but the Ophydian Destroyers has a purpose.

On the bolded part - again, this applies to all units and is also very difficult to quantify. I'm always wary when people invoke the "git gud" argument because it's not usually backed up by any solid, useful reasoning. On top of that 40k isn't exactly the most tactically complex game so skill difference is often not as important as the difference in power between units. If a unit is just worse than other options, or doesn't fill a niche well no amount of player skill helps it. My primary problem with Ophydians is the lack of durability if they fail that DS charge. Pretty much any army can easily wipe a unit with the Ophydian's defensive profile without much problem so you really need to make that charge.

 CKO wrote:

Ophydian's extra movement is huge because it is a cc unit, 2 inches could mean a 7-inch charge vs a 9-inch charge. Ophidians also have 17 attacks with the chance of exploding 6's vs 11 attacks by the Skorpekhs. With the -1 to hit hordes will hate this unit hitting on 5's. The true purpose of this unit is that they can tunnel up and kill those small units that people like to keep on objectives, you have access to +1 to charge dynasties to make them more effective. A small investment of 105 points for a unit that can pop up and kill stuff is good. ( AP 4 Novokh AP 2 Claws for hordes)

With all that said it still gets a B ish grade. 8 inch charges are not guaranteed and most players have a hard time protecting units

Speaking of player skill, DS is a lot more difficult in 9th if you're playing with the smaller board sizes. It's become quite easy to screen out backfield objective campers simply because the board is small enough that you can often zone out an entire deployment zone without too much effort. Relying on that to make a unit work is a recipe for disaster and then you're back to footslogging across the board at which point the difference in movement between Skorpekhs and Ophydians becomes less of a problem. 2 momvement phases plus an Advance in T1 is going to be enough to get most assault units into a threatening position.

The weapon options are also a bit annoying to me. Units that have two weapons that are each good against different targets are often inefficient because regardless of your target one will be sub-optimal. On top of that, it looks like Flayed Ones, Praetorians and Lychguard are pretty decent melee options for Necrons as well, so I'm not sure where Ophydians fit.

Ophidian Destroyers fit nowhere. 105 points is too much for a throwaway unit. An 8" charge out of DS is still terrible, especially with the new rule being forced to reroll both dice on the Charge reroll. They are also rather large models on large bases. Just no.

If you want something with DS for secondary/action shenanigans, five Flayed Ones for 65 points are hard to beat. The Hexmark is even easier to hide, but 10 points more and a character (which excludes him from some actions).

tneva82 wrote:

 buddha wrote:
I'm weirdly liking Hexmarks as backfield harassers. They seem like lictors. They are infantry as well so still can perform actions.

For that role I first looked at deathmarks but they don't have a large shot volume. Flayed ones are an option but you risk failing the urge and are limited to CC.

6 weak shots vs 5 slightly killier shots. 6 shots isn't that large shot volume either. Especially when your damage output sucks

I think if we start to see a shift from Power armor, these may actually see play. If Sisters start popping up more, they may seem play. They are somewhat decent against Harlequins already.

It could end up being a good piece of tech, but if the meta shifts it won't be used.

i swear the hexmark was initially revealed as a character sniper.
But i dont see such a rule anywhere.

Hexmark will be great against things like Scions

 Vineheart01 wrote:
i swear the hexmark was initially revealed as a character sniper.
But i dont see such a rule anywhere.

Yeah i thought that too somehow.

Maybe because it bore a strong resemblance to the Kelermorph?

Yeah, it is weird it can't ignore look out sir. It wouldn't even be particularly powerful if it could; 6 S6 -1 1D hits aren't going to kill anything, though it could help snipe a last wound or two off something I guess.

The kelemorph is powerful because it has 2D and because it gets extra shots per hit, not per kill.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
i swear the hexmark was initially revealed as a character sniper.
But i dont see such a rule anywhere.

Yeah, it seems more of a chaff / MSU killer than a character killer.
Which makes sense, I suppose; Deathmarks already fill the assassin role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, it is weird it can't ignore look out sir. It wouldn't even be particularly powerful if it could; 6 S6 -1 1D hits aren't going to kill anything, though it could help snipe a last wound or two off something I guess.

The kelemorph is powerful because it has 2D and because it gets extra shots per hit, not per kill.

Against T4 and T3 single wound models it's quite dangerous. If you are planning on using the Hexmark to kill multi-wound models you're using it wrong.
Unfortunately, this also means that the Hexmark isn't that efficient against marines, as apparently even non-primaris gets 2W. You can still probably use it to remove some Devastators or something but its not as great as it would have been if marines were still 1W.
Good thing Marines aren't the only other army in the game I guess.

Hexmark Cost just a bit too much.

Expensive? he costs 75pts for a 6-12shot S6 AP1 18" character protected hitting on 2 with rerolls.
Thats significantly better per point than the 5-6 warriors he costs.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Expensive? he costs 75pts for a 6-12shot S6 AP1 18" character protected hitting on 2 with rerolls.
Thats significantly better per point than the 5-6 warriors he costs.

Don't forget the super accurate overwatch he gets, meaning that he has some level of charge protection in addition to his not too shabby CC profile.
The Hexmark has one job and he's really good at doing it. Don't use him for stuff he isn't meant to kill.

He's a character? I didn't even notice. Not sure how that's going to help him though, as ideally you'd want him behind enemy lines to threaten heavy weapons squads and the like.
I guess drop in a unit of flayed ones to screen him and act as an even greater charge deterrent?

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Expensive? he costs 75pts for a 6-12shot S6 AP1 18" character protected hitting on 2 with rerolls.
Thats significantly better per point than the 5-6 warriors he costs.

Compared to the royal warden I'd say he needs to drop some points. Royal warden shoots better and has a great aura. These 2 units are kinda in competition for best suicide veil character. Hexmark might actually be winning this competion even though I consider him a worse unit for the cost because he is an elite choice. I really can't wait to use the doom stalker stratagem...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Expensive? he costs 75pts for a 6-12shot S6 AP1 18" character protected hitting on 2 with rerolls.
Thats significantly better per point than the 5-6 warriors he costs.

Compared to the royal warden I'd say he needs to drop some points. Royal warden shoots better and has a great aura.

Not really?
The Royal Warden is BS3+ that gets no rerolls and can suffer from modifiers. The Relic Gauss Blaster is a good gun, but its more efficient against high armor, multi-wound models than single wound models, which is what the Hexmark is designed to kill.
They both have very different ideal targets and roles. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Expensive? he costs 75pts for a 6-12shot S6 AP1 18" character protected hitting on 2 with rerolls.
Thats significantly better per point than the 5-6 warriors he costs.

Compared to the royal warden I'd say he needs to drop some points. Royal warden shoots better and has a great aura.

Not really?
The Royal Warden is BS3+ that gets no rerolls and can suffer from modifiers. The Relic Gauss Blaster is a good gun, but its more efficient against high armor, multi-wound models than single wound models, which is what the Hexmark is designed to kill.
They both have very different ideal targets and roles. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

Perhaps, I am liking the hexmark more now that I look at him.

Royal Warden stock has gone down significantly, imho. Army wide Fall back and shoot for one turn + defensive Veil should be enough. Shame that he is an HQ.

/edit: If your local meta is full of meta chasers, the Hexmark is obviously pretty good against Harlequins. Kills three Troupe guys/gals per shooting phase, and on Overwatch lol.

Royal warden is an HQ choice, Hexmark is an elite.

Hexmark can be added to any army w/o any real thought to it, the Warden takes a highly contested slot.

And the Warden does not shoot better lol. Personally, i think the Warden is kinda crap except for his fallback aura.
If the Warden was an elite i'd justify that comparison, as it would be utility vs pure offense.

Also yeah the hexmark is a character. Meaning he can drop behind a blob of warriors (18" guns are not that short) and give off Protocol auras, since its literally any character long as the noble is on the table.

Drakmord wrote:
When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?

To answer your original question, yes, since Necrons can easily get access to objective secured on everything, they can now field unorthodox troopless lists quite effectively and is the direction I plan to take the army initially. Specially ones best around our other shooty core unit, tomb blades and really abusing the 6" pre game move.

Outrider List



Contesting objectives should be trivial for the above spoilered list in the early turns, with 12 wraiths, 12 scarabs, 18 tomb blades all zipping around with 6" pre move to grab objectives. The partcile beamer is a real winner on the tomb blade, coming in 5pts cheaper. The trifecta of characters should mulch some opponents with a C'tan Void Dragon, an extremely tank enduring will Voidreaper Catacomb Command Barge and the Skorpekh Lord. The above list lacks serious ranged anti-tank, hence the void dragon over the nightbringer, but really it just needs to crack open transports on objectives and play the mission. If my opponent wants to gunline a few vehicles on the backfield then fine, they can do that.



On the hexmark discussion - I assume the main two points of using him over other deep striking options are:

1) You really want something to drop Gaunlet of Conflagration to clean out a horde blob alongside his pistols.
2) You want to deep strike a character to spread command protocols on turn X.

Royal Warden suffers greatly from being an HQ in a list that is already too stuffed full of HQs that serve a buffing role. He should not take up a slot in any detachment with a NOBLE, and crypteks should probably just be two free per NOBLE too, instead of paying for the first one.

Slipspace wrote:
On the bolded part - again, this applies to all units and is also very difficult to quantify. I'm always wary when people invoke the "git gud" argument because it's not usually backed up by any solid, useful reasoning. On top of that 40k isn't exactly the most tactically complex game so skill difference is often not as important as the difference in power between units. If a unit is just worse than other options, or doesn't fill a niche well no amount of player skill helps it. My primary problem with Ophydians is the lack of durability if they fail that DS charge. Pretty much any army can easily wipe a unit with the Ophydian's defensive profile without much problem so you really need to make that charge.

I am a firm believer in the "git gud" argument. I believe in player progress and getting the most out of your units. Every unit in a codex is not going to have an A grade like the Nightbringer. All players should try to "git betta" or you will find yourself constantly blaming your units for the lost. You are correct 40k isn't a tactically complex game but winning requires tactical skills.

I plan on doing strategic videos to show how every unit such as Ophydian Destroyers and Hexmark Destroyers can be used. Will those videos convince people to buy those units maybe not but at least you will know their purpose and most people will be surprised at how efficient some units are.

The part that is in bolded sets a false narrative. Do you know how most players compare options? They look at the stat-line and the weapon profile maybe the rules than judge. Units are like players, your army list is the team, and you are the coach. Some coaches can get more out of there players than others this is the same with 40k. Now some units get a D or F grade and I don't care who the coach is thanks GW!

Slipspace wrote:
Speaking of player skill, DS is a lot more difficult in 9th if you're playing with the smaller board sizes. It's become quite easy to screen out backfield objective campers simply because the board is small enough that you can often zone out an entire deployment zone without too much effort. Relying on that to make a unit work is a recipe for disaster and then you're back to footslogging across the board at which point the difference in movement between Skorpekhs and Ophydians becomes less of a problem. 2 momvement phases plus an Advance in T1 is going to be enough to get most assault units into a threatening position.

This is your opinion on deep striking units in general, flayed ones have the same issue right? Extra movement is extra movement, add 2 inches to any unit and see if it will change the community's opinion on that unit.

Slipspace wrote:
The weapon options are also a bit annoying to me. Units that have two weapons that are each good against different targets are often inefficient because regardless of your target one will be sub-optimal. On top of that, it looks like Flayed Ones, Praetorians and Lychguard are pretty decent melee options for Necrons as well, so I'm not sure where Ophydians fit.

The cup is half full my friend. Units that have two weapons are always more efficient. Do you like that the Nightbringer has 2 different types of attacks? What about the Skorpekh Lord? Ophydians 6 extra attacks is the equivalent of 2 flayed ones. They fit if you want them to fit. They are a deep striking unit that delivers's Skorpekh Destroyer damage or have enough extra attacks to deal with horde units.

This post is about me defending units who have a B grade. B grade units have weaknesses you have to overcome them. If you don't like that weakness use another option. When you become a better player B units will become viable options for your list. I agree with Slipspace about the majority of the stuff he said about the Ophydians (Except the downplaying of the 10 inch movement and the extra 2 attacks), I believe in players more than powerful units.

Ophydians are not B, lol. Skorpekhs are B.

Ophydians are barely C. They will drop to D if Heavy Intercessors become meta... and there is a good chance they will.

I feel that letter grading units is very reductive when trying to advise other players on how good or bad something is.

Saying that a unit is a "B" does not tell you anything about how that unit works -- but you know it's a "B," relative to whatever on the list is an "A." But why is it an "A?" Because everything else on the list "isn't"? There usually are no bounds set within which the letter grades make sense.

If the goal is to show that a unit excels in certain areas, statistical damage output AND use cases are both very useful. Examples of both abound in this thread alone (a Hexmark with a gauntlet sounds really funny and I want to try that at least once) .

With Ophydians, they face tremendous competition in their FOC slot and their general battlefield role. Wraiths are cheaper, faster, and more durable. Praetorians are also cheaper with a better defensive profile, and while they are a bit slower, they have a unique offensive Stratagem to call on and benefit from a good ranged attack as well.

Honestly they remind me of Acanthrites: an interesting offensive profile on a unit that is not well positioned to make use of it.

I think the gimmick of ophydians is their Deep Strike.

Unless I'm mistaken, Wraiths and Praetorians both lost that ability



I am thinking I'll try dropping them in with Flayed Ones and/or a Hexmark, because having that kinda threat pop into being somewhere and then have a large threat bubble from somewhere on a different front to your guns sounds interesting at least.

Regarding the grading system, I guess that's true. But on the other hand, it's a quick information about the viability of a unit/model in the broadest sense, most useful to newer players or people switching armies, or extending their collection. Detailed information about why someone might have given a certain unit a certain grade can normally be found out in minutes, in this day and age.

S: autoinclude or damn near it
A: always useful if taken, plug&play for most lists, requiring little support
B: generally useful, needs list synergies and/or has drawbacks to overcome
C: can be useful if build around it, needs either serious synergies, or has serious drawbacks that can not be circumvented
D and worse: degrees of not worth taking unless for the lolz

Regarding the Royal Warden, I honestly don't get why it is an HQ choice. It's a glorified Immortal with a somewhat decent aura.

Also, on a more petty note, it bugs me that the Royal Warden has 3 attacks but can't get a melee weapon even through a relic; meanwhile Crypteks actually have some half-decent melee weapons but are stuck with 1 attack each.

 IHateNids wrote:
I think the gimmick of ophydians is their Deep Strike.

Unless I'm mistaken, Wraiths and Praetorians both lost that ability



I am thinking I'll try dropping them in with Flayed Ones and/or a Hexmark, because having that kinda threat pop into being somewhere and then have a large threat bubble from somewhere on a different front to your guns sounds interesting at least.

It would be nice if they had an Ophydian Lord too, but there is something to treating them as Flayed Ones with special weapons.

Drakmord wrote:
I feel that letter grading units is very reductive when trying to advise other players on how good or bad something is.

Saying that a unit is a "B" does not tell you anything about how that unit works -- but you know it's a "B," relative to whatever on the list is an "A." But why is it an "A?" Because everything else on the list "isn't"? There usually are no bounds set within which the letter grades make sense.

If the goal is to show that a unit excels in certain areas, statistical damage output AND use cases are both very useful. Examples of both abound in this thread alone (a Hexmark with a gauntlet sounds really funny and I want to try that at least once) .

With Ophydians, they face tremendous competition in their FOC slot and their general battlefield role. Wraiths are cheaper, faster, and more durable. Praetorians are also cheaper with a better defensive profile, and while they are a bit slower, they have a unique offensive Stratagem to call on and benefit from a good ranged attack as well.

Honestly they remind me of Acanthrites: an interesting offensive profile on a unit that is not well positioned to make use of it.

I agree with you on grading units. I think I have a method that will work with my videos, I will be consistent with my criteria and grades. It will generate conversation as some people will feel different about the units. Stats play a role in the grade but it is not the only part.

The primary problem with ophidians is they are a unit that seems designed to charge from reserves, in a book that has no way to get better than an 8" rerollable charge, which is only 65% and therefore not enough to rely on. The other problem is they have a very inefficient split attack profile, with one making S6 4AP 3D attacks, two making S4 3AP 2D attacks, and then all three making more S4 1AP 1D attacks. This means that no matter what you target, some portion of your attacks are going to be ineffective.

They don't kill hordes as well as flayed ones. They don't kill mid-T mid-wound targets as well as skorpekhs. And they don't kill tough stuff very well at all, certainly not as well as spyders. And they evaporate to even basic S4 bolters.

It's a really tough ask to make something like that work. Especially when you have a number of other options in the book that do any particular niche better. They're like a super finicky generalist, and that's not a promising profile in 40k.

 vipoid wrote:
Regarding the Royal Warden, I honestly don't get why it is an HQ choice. It's a glorified Immortal with a somewhat decent aura.

Also, on a more petty note, it bugs me that the Royal Warden has 3 attacks but can't get a melee weapon even through a relic; meanwhile Crypteks actually have some half-decent melee weapons but are stuck with 1 attack each.

Yeah, for whatever reason GW seem fine with giving Techmarines and even Big Meks ample amounts of attacks with weapon options, but for Necrons, where their technology is far beyond both, are hampered for some bizarre reason in terms of having any reasonable defense or offense in CC. I guess part of it is being both the "psykers/wizards" of the faction as well as the tech-guys, but for the ones who are partly responsible for the bodies they inhabit, they would chosen more sturdy or dangerous forms.

 CKO wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
On the bolded part - again, this applies to all units and is also very difficult to quantify. I'm always wary when people invoke the "git gud" argument because it's not usually backed up by any solid, useful reasoning. On top of that 40k isn't exactly the most tactically complex game so skill difference is often not as important as the difference in power between units. If a unit is just worse than other options, or doesn't fill a niche well no amount of player skill helps it. My primary problem with Ophydians is the lack of durability if they fail that DS charge. Pretty much any army can easily wipe a unit with the Ophydian's defensive profile without much problem so you really need to make that charge.

I am a firm believer in the "git gud" argument. I believe in player progress and getting the most out of your units. Every unit in a codex is not going to have an A grade like the Nightbringer. All players should try to "git betta" or you will find yourself constantly blaming your units for the lost. You are correct 40k isn't a tactically complex game but winning requires tactical skills.

So you "git good". So does opponent except he has better unit.

You are basically just aiming noob smashing. But the moment you　go out of noob opponents you lose.