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.

As is tomb spyders have awesome minis and terrible rules that make them unplayable. To fix this.

Tomb spyders wounds are raised to 7, maybe 8.

A tomb spyder gains the vehicle keyword. A cryptek can repair it.

A tomb spyder can repair itself if it does not repair another unit that turn.

A tomb spyder gains the same save rolls as a wraith.

Machine mastery. If a tomb spyder scores a successful hit in close combat against a vehicle, the vehicle suffers d3 mortal wounds. The tomb spyder can only inflict d3 mortal wounds no matter how many times it hits a vehicle in a close combat round, but it may roll damage for each hit and keep the highest roll.

First you should identify what the strengths and role of the tomb spyder should be, and how it is not able to fulfill this role. You just raised its resilience and melee offence. If the unit is just not strong and survivable enough for its points, why a point adjustment not be enough?

Because rule of three.

It’s stupid vulnerable, but with a cap of 3, no matter how cheap they are, you can’t take enough.

 Threeshades wrote:
First you should identify what the strengths and role of the tomb spyder should be, and how it is not able to fulfill this role. You just raised its resilience and melee offence. If the unit is just not strong and survivable enough for its points, why a point adjustment not be enough?

I want to make it more survivable and useful. Making it cheaper does nothing. It still dies to easily and doesn't get to do anything. This way it can do some stuff. A unit tbat is a bomb magnet and has no survive ability is a waste of points, making it cheaper means it just wastes less points.

Reason im saying this is, because it helps immensely with giving feedback to a proposed rule change if the problem you are trying to adress and the reason why you chose to adress it the way you did is laid out properly.

Okay I just saw that they have only 4 wounds a piece. Which is absurdly low for a supposed Monster, even one as small as them.

Id disagree with giving them the wraith invuln, because they are simply not wraiths. They dont phase shift. But adding some extra wounds and repairability on would help.

Spyders only need one rule Change and that is the addition of the Character keyword. Their rules SCREAM character.

They are utility units that basically have no offensive capabilities. They're also pretty good at what they're doing but the Problem is that they die to a stiff breeze and there is no way of protecting them. Fluff wise they're also the "chief" units of all other canoptek constructs. Making them Characters would just make sense in every way.

Morkphoiz wrote:
Spyders only need one rule Change and that is the addition of the Character keyword. Their rules SCREAM character.

They have the same number of wounds as an IG Company Commander.

Character would help them a lot, but come on. They need more wounds.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Morkphoiz wrote:
Spyders only need one rule Change and that is the addition of the Character keyword. Their rules SCREAM character.

They have the same number of wounds as an IG Company Commander.

Character would help them a lot, but come on. They need more wounds.

They are no frontline units. They're utility units. They dont need wounds if they can be protected by other units.

Morkphoiz wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Morkphoiz wrote:
Spyders only need one rule Change and that is the addition of the Character keyword. Their rules SCREAM character.

They have the same number of wounds as an IG Company Commander.

Character would help them a lot, but come on. They need more wounds.

They are no frontline units. They're utility units. They dont need wounds if they can be protected by other units.

Their size indicates they should have more is what I'm saying.

They definitely need SOMETHING to keep them safe, either character or more wounds. But you want to tell me that a random Company Commander has the SAME NUMBER OF WOUNDS as a big ol' stonking spyder?

The spyders stats are fine, yes, they have as many wounds as a company commander, but they are T6, much harder to wound. I agree it should be able to fix itself/other spyders. What spyders need is the bodyguard protection rule. Scarabs should be able to intercept wounds/damage to it. If a spyder would suffer 4 damage, a scarab model can intercept each point of damage on 2+.

Making them characters doesnt fit because they are automatons. But that doesnt mean you cant give them a special rle that functions like the Character keyword when it comed to shooting

As for them having the same number of wounds as a company commander despite being so much bigger: Ogryns, Tyranid warriors and a whole host of other models are also bigger than company commanders and have the same number or fewer wounds. In the game design, two factors entitle a model to having extra wounds: size and importance. Being a character means you have a couple mor wounds than other models of your size. That's why hive tyrants have 10 wounds, even though they are just as big as, if not smaller than, a carnifex which has only 8.

- 50 points
- 2+ save
- 6 wounds
- 3+ WS/BS
- Change scarab hive ability to simply "may create 1 swarm base per turn on a 2+"
- Allow Scarabs to intercept damage in same way as shield drones

SIMPLE

 Threeshades wrote:
Making them characters doesnt fit because they are automatons. But that doesnt mean you cant give them a special rle that functions like the Character keyword when it comed to shooting

As for them having the same number of wounds as a company commander despite being so much bigger: Ogryns, Tyranid warriors and a whole host of other models are also bigger than company commanders and have the same number or fewer wounds. In the game design, two factors entitle a model to having extra wounds: size and importance. Being a character means you have a couple mor wounds than other models of your size. That's why hive tyrants have 10 wounds, even though they are just as big as, if not smaller than, a carnifex which has only 8.

Making them Characters actually makes perfect sense since they are the leaders of the Canoptek units until a member of the royal court has been awakened, they can work together to form neural networks to command the units in the tomb world. Lowering their price would also be very effective, rule of 3 is a bad argument against this since they can be taken in units of 3, 9 Spyders even at 4 W/each is still quite a lot assuming you could get all of them without breaking the pts bank. Wounds would be pretty obvious since most Monsters doubled in wounds to offset the new D characteristic of weapons, Tomb Spyders durability effectively went down by 33% and only went up by 33% in raw numbers. Taking into account their actual durability last edition they should have 12 wounds instead of 4, but 6 is the absolute minimum they should have been. There are really a tonne of ways you can fix Spyders, all of them make an equal amount of sense. Making them 6 W Characters at 10 fewer pts wouldn't make them broken, I could see them being fielded in competitive events with all three upgrades though.

They're strong backline support with fabrication claw array. I'm guessing you're using it to move forward along with your scarabs.

Keep it out of LOS, near your ark/barges.

Try using it as back field DS screen with some scarabs. You get tons of mileage that way.

Now.. only if stalkers got <dynasty> keyword with a spyder with fab. claw array supporting it... It makes my head ache just thinking about it.
It would also be nice if they had VEHICLE keyword or the fabrication claw array also affected MONSTER keyword so that they can repair itself/each other.

 skchsan wrote:
They're strong backline support with fabrication claw array. I'm guessing you're using it to move forward along with your scarabs.

Keep it out of LOS, near your ark/barges.

Try using it as back field DS screen with some scarabs. You get tons of mileage that way.

Now.. only if stalkers got <dynasty> keyword with a spyder with fab. claw array supporting it... It makes my head ache just thinking about it.
It would also be nice if they had VEHICLE keyword or the fabrication claw array also affected MONSTER keyword so that they can repair itself/each other.

If you place them in your back line your opponent will either pick them off, shoot the vehicles it is close to dead or will refuse to shoot the vehicles at all. I don't know why I need a DS screen behind my DDAs? The DDAs are my DS screen for my Troops, they can sit within 9" of my table edge and snuggle up with an objective and maybe a Cloaktek while my Troops and FA units run around and take any other objectives, I don't see where Spyders come into the picture. I've run Spyders a number of times a number of ways, with Monoliths, with DDAs, with Ghostarks and Annihilation Barges. Are they best when run with DDAs in the backline? Perhaps, but you are weighing down a good choice with a bad choice, at least I feel better about them when they are supporting other bad units like Monoliths or mediocre units like GAs and ABs. I'm not sure why you need to keep Scarabs back near your DDAs, that seems like a waste. I've used Spyders in 6 games I think since CA2018, I've used the Scarab healing once or twice, exactly because I was using the Spyders to heal DDAs in my backfield. If you are keeping 160 pts worth of melee units near your 160 pts of shooting you are only getting half your pts worth. You'd be better off shoving 160 pts worth of Scarabs at an objective or have those 160 pts worth of Scarabs try and sneak in and tag a vehicle in melee. Spyders underperform in every metric, even if they could heal Stalkers or themselves they'd still be bad, my Stalker very often gets destroyed T1 so I'd never get to heal it anyway. A solid 25 pts decrease would be really fair if it was combined with a 10 pt increase in the Fabricator Claw, otherwise a 15 pt decrease alone would make me consider taking them in my 3x DDA lists outside of lists where I intentionally want to make it a bit weaker.

I think the Fabricator Claws should heal VEHICLES and CANOPTEK units.

The problem is that Tomb Spyders – sorry lol, "Canoptek Spyders" – don't fill a clear role.

They're a bit cheaper than a Dreadnought, and they have the same Strength and Attacks, so maybe they're meant to be an assault unit in a similar role? But they only have WS4+, and come with less Damage, less AP, and no x2 Strength. Oh, and they have half the Wounds, no Smoke Launchers, and -1 Toughness. So... I guess they're not assault units, right?

Oh, I can give them particle beamers? That increases their cost by 30%, but obviously it means they're meant to be weapons platforms in a fire support role, right? But they only have BS4+... and particle beamers are Strength 6, AP0, D1, which means they're only good for killing GEQs... and, uh, hit-for-hit a regular gauss flayer is exactly as good. I could take four Necron Warriors for half the points, and they'd have the same number of Wounds, access to Reanimation Protocols, and be better at shooting gak.

Aha, but I see I can give them a fabricator claw array, which makes them into tech-priests for Necrons! So they're clearly meant to be vehicle support units! Except that all Necron vehicles can self-repair anyway, so how much do I really need that? More pressingly, a Tech-Priest is almost as tough, costs less than half as much, and is a CHARACTER. It can do its job every turn just by hanging out next to a vehicle, impervious to enemy fire.

So I'm spending the cost of a Rhino on a unit that can't fight properly, can't shoot properly, and can't support anything that needs supporting.

Oh, and they used to be able to split up and form separate units and use scarabs as meatshields, but if I started complaining about everything lost from 3e Necrons we'd be here for a very, very long time.

Spyders are distraction carnifex. The fabricator claw array increasss its apparent threat level. It's proximity to something it can heal even more so. Use it as a sacrificial pawn to draw fire away from your other things.

A single unit of scarabs can deter a 9" deepstrike against you back liners.

 skchsan wrote:
Spyders are distraction carnifex. The fabricator claw array increasss its apparent threat level. It's proximity to something it can heal even more so. Use it as a sacrificial pawn to draw fire away from your other things.

If a unit is presented as a powerful support construct capable of spawning swarms of deadly nanobots and repairing damaged vehicles, and its only practical use is "distract an enemy who doesn't know any better from the units that actually matter", then something has gone seriously wrong.

RevlidRas wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Spyders are distraction carnifex. The fabricator claw array increasss its apparent threat level. It's proximity to something it can heal even more so. Use it as a sacrificial pawn to draw fire away from your other things.

If a unit is presented as a powerful support construct capable of spawning swarms of deadly nanobots and repairing damaged vehicles, and its only practical use is "distract an enemy who doesn't know any better from the units that actually matter", then something has gone seriously wrong.

If spyder supported vehicle platforms is your only angle, then there's something wrong with your list.

If the spyder formation died to keep formation B alive, it's done its job. If formation B fell to keep spyder formation alive, it's done its job.

A list should be constructed as to make target priority difficult for your opponent (unless of course you're taking one basket approah like riptide drone spam)

 skchsan wrote:

RevlidRas wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Spyders are distraction carnifex. The fabricator claw array increasss its apparent threat level. It's proximity to something it can heal even more so. Use it as a sacrificial pawn to draw fire away from your other things.

If a unit is presented as a powerful support construct capable of spawning swarms of deadly nanobots and repairing damaged vehicles, and its only practical use is "distract an enemy who doesn't know any better from the units that actually matter", then something has gone seriously wrong.

If spyder supported vehicle platforms is your only angle, then there's something wrong with your list.

If the spyder formation died to keep formation B alive, it's done its job. If formation B fell to keep spyder formation alive, it's done its job.

A list should be constructed as to make target priority difficult for your opponent (unless of course you're taking one basket approah like riptide drone spam)

...okay, but Formation B is presumably also capable of doing stuff other than dying. So why not just take two Formation Bs, and ignore the Spyders?

For the cost of a single naked Spyder I could take six extra Necron Warriors. These are basic Troops who'll soak up about as much damage as the Spyder, deal considerably more damage than the Spyder, and keep their unit alive through Reanimation Protocols. They have a clear role and a clear use, and if they die soaking up damage for something else that's fine, and if something else dies soaking up damage for them that's also fine, I know what I'm doing with them.

But if the Spyder doesn't fill the role you've laid out for it - namely, dying - then what do I do with it? It can sort of fight a little, but Wraiths are cheaper and noticeably more suited to that exact role. I can splurge on two particle beamers... but Tomb Blades are cheaper and noticeably more suited to that exact role. So the only thing left for it is the fabricator claw array... which means it's just a Tech Priest that costs twice as much and is much easier to kill.

RevlidRas wrote:
The problem is that Tomb Spyders – sorry lol, "Canoptek Spyders" – don't fill a clear role.

They're a bit cheaper than a Dreadnought, and they have the same Strength and Attacks, so maybe they're meant to be an assault unit in a similar role? But they only have WS4+, and come with less Damage, less AP, and no x2 Strength. Oh, and they have half the Wounds, no Smoke Launchers, and -1 Toughness. So... I guess they're not assault units, right?

They are assault units with a side order of support, this can work, look at Captains and Lieutenants.

Pts, pts, pts. If I can get 3 Spyders for every Dreadnought you get then Spyders get 3x the attacks and 1,5x the wounds, making them a better option in lots of cases. They are an assault unit, they are just so horribly overcosted that they suck at it. Their saving grace is the Fabricator Claw Array which is quite undercosted, but that still fails to make up for the unit being worth much less than it costs from the start. So what you see is a single FabClaw Spyder in a handful of lists underperforming slightly, but only being around 15 pts overcosted all told, which isn't really enough to detract from a list overall. I think they at the very least should cost less than a Wraith at baseline, they are less durable and slower and have more or less the same damage output and the Scarab gimmick isn't worth nearly as much as speed IMO. Given the fact that FabClaws and the Scarab Spawning abilities don't stack I think GW has a lot of leeway with taking Spyder's cost way down as long as they don't touch the Fab Claw, most people would probably still just take a single Fab Claw Spyder even if Spyders were 45 pts base.

RevlidRas wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

RevlidRas wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Spyders are distraction carnifex. The fabricator claw array increasss its apparent threat level. It's proximity to something it can heal even more so. Use it as a sacrificial pawn to draw fire away from your other things.

If a unit is presented as a powerful support construct capable of spawning swarms of deadly nanobots and repairing damaged vehicles, and its only practical use is "distract an enemy who doesn't know any better from the units that actually matter", then something has gone seriously wrong.

If spyder supported vehicle platforms is your only angle, then there's something wrong with your list.

If the spyder formation died to keep formation B alive, it's done its job. If formation B fell to keep spyder formation alive, it's done its job.

A list should be constructed as to make target priority difficult for your opponent (unless of course you're taking one basket approah like riptide drone spam)

...okay, but Formation B is presumably also capable of doing stuff other than dying. So why not just take two Formation Bs, and ignore the Spyders?

For the cost of a single naked Spyder I could take six extra Necron Warriors. These are basic Troops who'll soak up about as much damage as the Spyder, deal considerably more damage than the Spyder, and keep their unit alive through Reanimation Protocols. They have a clear role and a clear use, and if they die soaking up damage for something else that's fine, and if something else dies soaking up damage for them that's also fine, I know what I'm doing with them.

But if the Spyder doesn't fill the role you've laid out for it - namely, dying - then what do I do with it? It can sort of fight a little, but Wraiths are cheaper and noticeably more suited to that exact role. I can splurge on two particle beamers... but Tomb Blades are cheaper and noticeably more suited to that exact role. So the only thing left for it is the fabricator claw array... which means it's just a Tech Priest that costs twice as much and is much easier to kill.

70 pts for T6, Sv3+ 4W model with auto d3 heal ability sounds like a steal to me (coming from a SM player). The question is, is healing ability worth anything in the current state of 8th ed and its lethality? Maybe not.

The point is, when you have a units with damage chart supported by a healing unit, it causes your opponent to think "well, if i half ass my attacks against these vehicles, that spyder is going to just heal it right back up... So I'm either going to have to dedicate a pretty good portion of my attacks to cripple it or outright destroy them... But he also has these units are going to reach it's threat range next turn, and it's also going to do a solid damage to me if I don't whittle it down..." Distraction carnifex doesnt mean it's only purpose is to die - it literally is there to cause distraction and force harder decision making on your opponent.

In cased you've missed my first post here, all I'm saying is, despite the basic melee weapon that it comes with, spyders aren't units that should be played as forwards with other Canoptek units (scarabs & wraiths), despite how thematic that may appear. It's primary ability to "repair" units of scarabs shouldn't be the focus/reason for taking them in the first place because the impact is so abysmal.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because rule of three.

It’s stupid vulnerable, but with a cap of 3, no matter how cheap they are, you can’t take enough.

Technically you can take 9.
Tomb spyders are taken in units up to 3, but unlike 3rd ed you can't deploy them independently.
Bringing back that rule would actually increase their utility somewhat, as they could cover more ground.

If you really want to make them more resilient, just make them characters. No need to increase their stats or damage output, a simple character keyword would do it.

 vict0988 wrote:
They are assault units with a side order of support, this can work, look at Captains and Lieutenants.

Captains and Lieutenants are Characters, which means they're not typically vulnerable to shooting on the way in to combat. In addition, both Captains and Lieutenants provide direct offensive bonuses in their "support" role. This means they're bolstering units (and themselves) in the role they want to fulfill, in the place they want to fulfill it, and have the tools to get there in the first place.

Spyder "support" comes from healing vehicles, most of which want to avoid combat so they don't get bogged down. That's less of a concern for Necrons because almost all of their vehicles can fly, but even so the only vehicle with a combat statline or any reason to be at close range is... the Triarch Stalker, which you can't heal because it's not <DYNASTY>. So a Spyder has the tools to be okay-ish in close combat, but its most useful ability only works on units that don't have any reason to be near combat.

 vict0988 wrote:
Pts, pts, pts. If I can get 3 Spyders for every Dreadnought you get

The problem is that if you drop a Spyder's points down to make it viable as an assault unit... you've basically just made Wraiths again. Twice the Move, two-thirds of the cost, WS3+, and a 3+ invulnerable save to get it to combat. That's what a Spyder looks like if you re-tool it for combat. It already exists.

The Spyder should be primarily a support unit. Part of the problem is that it was replaced conceptually by the Cryptek, the ugly cycloptic Tech-Priest copy-paste, which just leaves it with a few weird half-niches.

What ever happened to their anti psyker shtick?

RevlidRas wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Pts, pts, pts. If I can get 3 Spyders for every Dreadnought you get

The problem is that if you drop a Spyder's points down to make it viable as an assault unit... you've basically just made Wraiths again. Twice the Move, two-thirds of the cost, WS3+, and a 3+ invulnerable save to get it to combat. That's what a Spyder looks like if you re-tool it for combat. It already exists.

The Spyder should be primarily a support unit. Part of the problem is that it was replaced conceptually by the Cryptek, the ugly cycloptic Tech-Priest copy-paste, which just leaves it with a few weird half-niches.

Even if you drop their pts to 40-50 and/or make them Characters you would still only have M6, still no invul, still have the Scarab "farming" ability, that's still nothing like a Wraith even if it's a close combat unit. Yes, they are both multi-wound S6 Dd3 assault units, but they are hugely different. Spyders did not have the ability to repair Monoliths or stop psychic powers if you want them to be a support unit those options are available, but without any bonus upgrades, their rules are skewed in the direction of assault. I shouldn't have to pull anything off or add anything to my Spyders to use them without feeling bad, I don't have to be able to bring them in competitive games, but I shouldn't bring them just to give my opponent something easy to kill and largely harmless even if it makes it into combat or performs its support role as best it can. They also shouldn't have such a huge drop-off in value after the first one, why do I even own more than one? Pts is the problem and the solution.

 Desubot wrote:
What ever happened to their anti psyker shtick?

It costs a fair amount of pts on an overpriced unit, it's not cheap enough to justify the initial cost and its range doesn't jive with setting a Spyder up out of LOS to heal a couple of DDAs. I'm better off taking Scarabs and running them in front of my other guys and just absorbing the damage the Spyder might prevent in the games where it's relevant and the Spyder with the anti-psyker gear is an even worse investment against non-Psychic armies. If I'm taking a Spyder in a more offensive capacity I like the upgrade, but on defence it's not worth it and it isn't worth bringing that Spyder in the first place anyways.

 Desubot wrote:
What ever happened to their anti psyker shtick?

Its not great. Its a 5 pt upgrade on an already expensive model, and it allows them to deny 1 power per turn. In order to deny 3 powers you need like 200+ pts worth of spiders. Its not a very good investment.

 vict0988 wrote:

Even if you drop their pts to 40-50 and/or make them Characters you would still only have M6, still no invul, still have the Scarab "farming" ability, that's still nothing like a Wraith even if it's a close combat unit. Yes, they are both multi-wound S6 Dd3 assault units, but they are hugely different.

Spyders did not have the ability to repair Monoliths or stop psychic powers if you want them to be a support unit those options are available, but without any bonus upgrades, their rules are skewed in the direction of assault. I shouldn't have to pull anything off or add anything to my Spyders to use them without feeling bad, I don't have to be able to bring them in competitive games, but I shouldn't bring them just to give my opponent something easy to kill and largely harmless even if it makes it into combat or performs its support role as best it can. They also shouldn't have such a huge drop-off in value after the first one, why do I even own more than one? Pts is the problem and the solution.

Okay, I don't think we're actually disagreeing much?

We both agree that Spyders are crap in their current state because they're too expensive for what they do and too fragile for how much they cost, yes?

However, my view is that they're also too unfocused to do any one thing well enough. It's totally reasonable to look at the Spyder statline and think that it could be a decent combat unit if it wasn't so expensive: four WS4+ attacks at S6, AP-2, D2 is about the same as a Killa Kan, after all, it's just that you can get three Killa Kans for every two Spyders.

The problem I see is that even if you drop the Spyder by 20 points, it's not competing with Killa Kans. It's competing with Wraiths, who are... also combat-focused floaty Necron constructs. And who cost about that much already. And who have basically the same weapon, and hit about as hard. But who are twice as fast, trade 1 Wound for a 3+ Invulnerable save, and can freely charge through units.

So even if you want the Spyder to be, at its core, an assault unit... it needs bigger changes to distinguish it from Wraiths. This wasn't a problem when Wraiths were small Necrons rather than big constructs, but that's another issue to lay at the feet of Newcrons, whoops. Give the Spyder more wounds and attacks and make it a Dreadnought-equivalent. Give Wraiths an extra attack, drop their damage to 1, and then boost the Spyder Damage to emphasize its anti-vehicle role over the Wraiths as anti-infantry. Give Scarabs the T'au Savior Protocols for Spyders and have Spyders give nearby Scarabs a reroll to wound so it's a combat-swarm centrepiece. Whatever. But just dropping its cost won't save it.


EDIT: For example, if you change the Scarab's rules to this:

Disassembly Procedures: <DYNASTY> SCARABS units within 3" of any friendly <DYNASTY> SPYDERS increase the Armour Penetration characteristic of their feeder mandibles to -1.

Repair Network: The first time this unit is set up, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit for all rules purposes.

Scarab Hive: If a <DYNASTY> SPYDERS model within 3" of a friendly <DYNASTY> SCARABS unit is hit by an enemy attack, roll a D6. On a 2+, you can allocate that hit to the SCARABS unit. In addition, <DYNASTY> SCARABS units within 3" of any friendly <DYNASTY> SPYDERS gain the Reanimation Protocols ability.

It immediately gains a clear role of being surrounded by Scarabs as it and they move into close combat. Then do something with its three upgrade options that works with this; maybe Fabricator Claws work on CANOPTEK units too, and the Gloom Prism extends the Deny ability to nearby Scarabs, and... I don't know how to fix the Particle Beamers, honestly, because they're gak, but presumably you could change them up to help somehow.

RevlidRas wrote:
My view is that they're also too unfocused to do any one thing well enough. It's totally reasonable to look at the Spyder statline and think that it could be a decent combat unit if it wasn't so expensive: four WS4+ attacks at S6, AP-2, D2 is about the same as a Killa Kan, after all, it's just that you can get three Killa Kans for every two Spyders.

The problem I see is that even if you drop the Spyder by 20 points, it's not competing with Killa Kans. It's competing with Wraiths, who are... also combat-focused floaty Necron constructs. And who cost about that much already. And who have basically the same weapon, and hit about as hard. But who are twice as fast, trade 1 Wound for a 3+ Invulnerable save, and can freely charge through units.

So even if you want the Spyder to be, at its core, an assault unit... it needs bigger changes to distinguish it from Wraiths. This wasn't a problem when Wraiths were small Necrons rather than big constructs, but that's another issue to lay at the feet of Newcrons, whoops. Give the Spyder more wounds and attacks and make it a Dreadnought-equivalent. Give Wraiths an extra attack, drop their damage to 1, and then boost the Spyder Damage to emphasize its anti-vehicle role over the Wraiths as anti-infantry. Give Scarabs the T'au Savior Protocols for Spyders and have Spyders give nearby Scarabs a reroll to wound so it's a combat-swarm centrepiece. Whatever. But just dropping its cost won't save it.

Drop the cost low enough and it will absolutely be worth it, anything at a low enough cost is worth it, you can sell faeces for agricultural use, but you obviously can't demand the same price per pound as you would for gold to a goldsmith.