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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Khorne Berserkers are two attacks base, not four.

2, plus doublefighting baseline. Ergo 4. without cp cost.

Not Online!!! wrote:
A khorne berzerker just with an axe for 3 pts less, gets baseline 4 attacks without his dublefighting ability allready. S6 ap -1 and is still cheaper. Infact with an additional Chainsword he has 4 attacks S6 ap-1 and 2 with S5.
Whilest beeing casually 3 pts cheaper / model.

Quote is unedited, except for removing excess words that aren't relevant.

Ups autocorrect

ryuken87 wrote:
Court of the Archon.

They are basically characters without the CHARACTER keyword, so a 2/3 wound model that just gets shot.

I think that was done because (between the index and codex) they amended the Character rules so that one Character couldn't block LoS to a different Character. Hence, if they made the Court models Characters, they'd actually become useless as bodyguards (as opponents would be able to shoot the Archon even if other Court members were closer).

Unfortunately, this change doesn't appear to have been considered in any other aspect of the Court's design.

To be honest, the Court in general seems to need a rethink.
- Rerolling all hits when the Archon is around is nice . . . but it also makes the Archon's aura redundant on his own Court. Not only that, but they lose the ability if they're embarked on the same transport as the Archon (which is quite a blow for the shooty units like Medusae and Sslyth). Would be nice if they amended the ability to 'Within 6" of an Archon or embarked on the same transport as an Archon...'
(But then, I think the Archon's aura is also in dire need of a complete overhaul.)
Anyway, going back to the Court:
- Lhamaeans seem lacking in offence for assassins. Mortal Wounds on a 4+ is nice, but with so few attacks (just 2 apiece) they just can't threaten most elite units/characters in any meaningful way.
- Ur-Ghuls have the opposite problem - they have plenty of attacks (6 on the charge), but with S4, no AP and damage 1 they just can't do much with them.
- Sslyth are bodyguards units . . . for what is probably the most expendable HQ in the game. Put simply, there's just no point in taking them until Archons are actually worth protecting. They also lack PfP - so there's a very real chance that an Archon will charge into melee and accidentally leave one or more of his bodyguards behind.
- Medusae are . . . weird. They have a very short-ranged weapon (though it's not actually a flamer, so its overwatch is crap) but no melee ability. They only get rerolls if they're near the Archon and then only if they're not in a transport (so you're penalised for drive-by shooting). So you have a ranged unit that wants to be in easy charge range of an enemy and accompanied by a melee HQ . . . but which is also absolutely terrible in melee. And when you get right down to it, it's weapon isn't anything to write home about. If nothing else, it seems like it could have really benefited from Eyeburst being a Pistol weapon (at least then it wouldn't be completely screwed by melee).

All in all, I don't think they're the worst units around, and I've at least had fun with Lhamaeans in my (admittedly horribly uncompetitive) Poison Tongue army. However, it seems like far too little thought went into both their individual design and into the interaction with the HQ they're supposed to be accompanying.

The first issue isn't actually an issue-Archons give RR1s to-HIT, not to-WOUND. You need a Relic for Wound rolls.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The first issue isn't actually an issue-Archons give RR1s to-HIT, not to-WOUND. You need a Relic for Wound rolls.

That was a misprint on my part. The Court rerolls Hits when the Archon is near, not Wounds.

So I'm afraid it does indeed overlap with his aura.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The first issue isn't actually an issue-Archons give RR1s to-HIT, not to-WOUND. You need a Relic for Wound rolls.

That was a misprint on my part. The Court rerolls Hits when the Archon is near, not Wounds.

So I'm afraid it does indeed overlap with his aura.

Welp...

Court sucks.

I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned the Runtherd. Here's a rundown.

35ppm, the same cost as a Flashgit, or 5 Boyz. For this it has the same statline as a Boy, with the exception of 3 more W and 1 more A. Its default CC weapon is a slightly better Choppa (+1S), and it's alternate weapon gives up +1A for -1AP. It can only have a Slugga for its Ranged weapon. And then it has to choose between 1 of 2 special rules options. It either gets what is essentially the "Breakin' Heads" ability of a Warboss, but only work on Gretchin, or it can give those Gretchin the ability to reroll 1s in the Fight Phase. And if you're sending Gretchin into CC, something has gone horribly wrong.

For Orkz, Gretchin only have two roles. 1) to eat damage via Grot Shields and 2) to generate CP. The Runtherd fails to assist its charges in either of these facets, which would be the only reason to take one to begin with. If it took an Elite slot (like it used to), it might have a use for filling Brigade requirements, but Runtherds are a slotless unit, so you don't even have THAT going for it. Really, the only useful thing about it is the Character Keyword it has, but with the 12" range on its Slugga, using that protection essentially means sitting 35 pts out of a fight.

Basically, anything a Runtherd can do, another unit can do better. It might not be the most expensive unit around, but being cheap AND bad is only useful when you can also fill out Detachment requirements.

What about warbikes? Also are flashgitz decent?

 flandarz wrote:
I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned the Runtherd. Here's a rundown.

35ppm, the same cost as a Flashgit, or 5 Boyz. For this it has the same statline as a Boy, with the exception of 3 more W and 1 more A. Its default CC weapon is a slightly better Choppa (+1S), and it's alternate weapon gives up +1A for -1AP. It can only have a Slugga for its Ranged weapon. And then it has to choose between 1 of 2 special rules options. It either gets what is essentially the "Breakin' Heads" ability of a Warboss, but only work on Gretchin, or it can give those Gretchin the ability to reroll 1s in the Fight Phase. And if you're sending Gretchin into CC, something has gone horribly wrong.

For Orkz, Gretchin only have two roles. 1) to eat damage via Grot Shields and 2) to generate CP. The Runtherd fails to assist its charges in either of these facets, which would be the only reason to take one to begin with. If it took an Elite slot (like it used to), it might have a use for filling Brigade requirements, but Runtherds are a slotless unit, so you don't even have THAT going for it. Really, the only useful thing about it is the Character Keyword it has, but with the 12" range on its Slugga, using that protection essentially means sitting 35 pts out of a fight.

Basically, anything a Runtherd can do, another unit can do better. It might not be the most expensive unit around, but being cheap AND bad is only useful when you can also fill out Detachment requirements.

Did Runtherds used to just be the Grot equivalent of Sergeants, or am I remembering wrong?

Warbikers aren't great, but they ain't really bad either. As long as you take enough so they don't get wiped. Flashgits are ok, but expensive.

As far as I know, Runtherds were basically the same as they are now, but they used to take an Elite slot.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually, possesed, we had greater possesed allready , might aswell also put down their smaller some chromosomes short version:

A possesed is a 20 pts model. (at one point even 22 ppm)

Now you'd asume that they would be generally be worth it.

they have B7 (ok i mean nice) and W2 (he basically a primaris?) and S5 (great)
the rest is literally tac marine statline.

They have ap-2 and D1 so allready worse then most weapon options chaos has.
They have d3 attacks. No buffs, no option for a special weapon, no ranged attack of any kind ( not even frag nades)

So on average you have a 20 pts model generating 2 attacks with S5 Ap-2 D1.

A khorne berzerker just with an axe for 3 pts less, gets baseline 4 attacks with his dublefighting ability allready. S6 ap -1 and is still cheaper. Infact with an additional Chainsword he has 4 attacks S6 ap-1 and 2 with S5.
Whilest beeing casually 3 pts cheaper / model.

Remembering the statement about the greater possesed, beeing also so bad because they fullfill a role allready better fullfilled by cheaper alternatives?
Yeah, this same instance, except the buyable unit sucks instead of just beeing decent.

Possessed also have a 5++, access to all marks and are Daemons giving them the most possible Synergies in the game. Khorne Berzerkers can't be taken by Emperor's Children and Death Guard. I'm not saying Berzerkers are bad, it's just that Possessed have their niche and don't belong on a list of worst units in the game anymore. I'd rate Mutilators below Possessed, for example.

 flandarz wrote:
Warbikers aren't great, but they ain't really bad either. As long as you take enough so they don't get wiped. Flashgits are ok, but expensive.

As far as I know, Runtherds were basically the same as they are now, but they used to take an Elite slot.

Yeah, Runtherds' cost and inability to fill a slot really kills them as a unit. With their price tag you may as well get another unit of grots instead of taking him for morale protection. I feel like if they were able to affect all grot type units (aka Killa Kanz and Mek Gunz) in some sort of capacity that they would be much more interesting. Bring them down to 15 points with the squig, and make them 35 points if they take the whip which allows all GRETCHIN units within 3" to reroll hit rolls of one (in this instance I would probably up the cost of the relevant mek gunz (smashas mainly) so they don't become borderline broken with this combo. It would make Killa Kanz much more palatable as a unit.

I think it would even be a palatable unit choice if they just allowed it to fill an Elite slot, if only to make it easier to create a Brigade CP battery.

I guess we are still doing this.

How are either of them better than the Autarch?

The Autarch has a much better melee weapon (plus far more ranged options if you use the Index), a vastly better aura, and a transport where you can actually fit him in with a squad.

Also, I'd trade the Archon's Shadowfield for the Autarch's 4++ in a heartbeat.

You can believe me or not, but Archon is much better in melee than normal Autarch. Your relics are really useful for melee and index options are not always allowed.
The aura is literally the some. 6 inch reroll to 1. Yes your effects only kebal, but if you play with archons you have them anyway.
Shadowfield give you chance to survive where Autarch will just die. What is annoying is archon 5+, if it was better without need of relics.

Except that you nothing you said was a rebuttal to any of the issues I raised.

All you said was 'But muh Phoenix Lords'.

Frankly, you are the one who seems to be whining. If you want to make a case that Phoenix Lords are bad, go nuts. I fail to see, however, why Phoenix Lords being bad somehow makes the terrible DE HQs suddenly good.

Subject: "The Epitome of Bad" - What's worse than the Land Raider.
I just showed you there are worst HQ choices than Autarch and Succumbus. You just missed the point, whatever.

Should []the Phoenix Lords] be cheaper ? Maybe, maybe not, game designers will decide that. Are the [Phoenix Lords] bad as you claim ? Certainly no, they are good HQ.

See, when you provide 0 evidence, I can just turn your own argument round on you.

Hell, by this logic, every unit in the game is great because I can just write it and apparently that makes it true.

Who needs logic, reason or evidence when we can just provide circular-reasoning.

Emotional and childish, i give you reasoning regardless if you accept them or not. Relative cheap HQs with decent buff auras and some melee potential. Maybe not the best HQs in the game, but certainly not the worst.

That literally sums up my current HQ choices.

What you have utterly failed to understand is that I would gladly take a Farseer over my current HQs - even if its powers weren't changed to work on Drukhari units. That's how irredeemably abysmal the Archon and Succubus are.

Sure man, whatever wave your flag.

Marin wrote:
Joke aside you want eldar pshychics powers sorry, but that don`t make your HQ choices bad



I didn't say it did. I said the Succubus being cheaper than a Farseer didn't equate to it being in any way better or more efficient, but it seems you missed that point.

I was, however, kind enough to provide you with a whole list of reasons on why the Archon and Succubus are bad (none of which involved comparisons with Eldar HQs or a lack of psychic powers). Maybe you could have read that, rather than responding to a whole lot of claims that I didn't make in the first place?

Having decent rules and being cheap is the definition of efficient units.
There is reason you don`t see armies of aspects with autarch, but you see often venoms,kebalites and archons or/and saccubi with wyches, because they are good.
What is important is to have synergy between the units and centrally your HQ have good synergy. Archon buffing ravagers with the relic for 3-5 turns is doing more than enough to be called efficient. Succubi supporting the wyches, is good way to increase your melee power for little pts and give you extra CP.

There are alot of good players using such combos, show me good player who is using 30-40 storm guardians and Autarchs.

I`m out will not type to you any more.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually, possesed, we had greater possesed allready , might aswell also put down their smaller some chromosomes short version:

A possesed is a 20 pts model. (at one point even 22 ppm)

Now you'd asume that they would be generally be worth it.

they have B7 (ok i mean nice) and W2 (he basically a primaris?) and S5 (great)
the rest is literally tac marine statline.

They have ap-2 and D1 so allready worse then most weapon options chaos has.
They have d3 attacks. No buffs, no option for a special weapon, no ranged attack of any kind ( not even frag nades)

So on average you have a 20 pts model generating 2 attacks with S5 Ap-2 D1.

A khorne berzerker just with an axe for 3 pts less, gets baseline 4 attacks with his dublefighting ability allready. S6 ap -1 and is still cheaper. Infact with an additional Chainsword he has 4 attacks S6 ap-1 and 2 with S5.
Whilest beeing casually 3 pts cheaper / model.

Remembering the statement about the greater possesed, beeing also so bad because they fullfill a role allready better fullfilled by cheaper alternatives?
Yeah, this same instance, except the buyable unit sucks instead of just beeing decent.

Possessed also have a 5++, access to all marks and are Daemons giving them the most possible Synergies in the game. Khorne Berzerkers can't be taken by Emperor's Children and Death Guard. I'm not saying Berzerkers are bad, it's just that Possessed have their niche and don't belong on a list of worst units in the game anymore. I'd rate Mutilators below Possessed, for example.

No, Mutilators atleast have ds, better weapons and more choppa.
Also important to note the daemon synergy, atleast the csm part, is gak.
Or in this case you have a melee unit that absolutely wants to fight twice so khorne is really the only option. (mostly because that also solves reliabilty issues.)

Marin wrote:

There is reason you don`t see armies of aspects with autarch, but you see often venoms,kebalites and archons or/and saccubi with wyches, because they are good.

It's not because they're good. It's because they are literally the only option. I often stick Yvraine in instead of a second character even if I'm not playing Ynnari, just to avoid a duff HQ. Venoms and Kabalites are great, but the Archon is a mandatory tax, the reason you don't see the Autarch is that there are better options. If the Autarch on foot was literally the only option, you'd see them all the time.

Drager wrote:

Marin wrote:

There is reason you don`t see armies of aspects with autarch, but you see often venoms,kebalites and archons or/and saccubi with wyches, because they are good.

It's not because they're good. It's because they are literally the only option. I often stick Yvraine in instead of a second character even if I'm not playing Ynnari, just to avoid a duff HQ. Venoms and Kabalites are great, but the Archon is a mandatory tax, the reason you don't see the Autarch is that there are better options. If the Autarch on foot was literally the only option, you'd see them all the time.

Absolutely. My Dark Eldar have 2 Archons. I'd gladly take 0 if I could. Same for the Succubus. They are a terrible mix of conflicting rules and equipment, hamstrung by the Rule of 3 and the weird design approach to the DE Codex. They can be made passable in melee, but are best at cutting down chaff, which is not a role DE need any help with from their characters. Against enemy characters or actually dangerous units they flail away fairly ineffectually and pray they don't roll a 1 for their save.

If a unit is literally the only option available to an army, you can't draw conclusions about how good it is based on how often it appears in those armies.

Slipspace wrote:

Drager wrote:

Marin wrote:

There is reason you don`t see armies of aspects with autarch, but you see often venoms,kebalites and archons or/and saccubi with wyches, because they are good.

It's not because they're good. It's because they are literally the only option. I often stick Yvraine in instead of a second character even if I'm not playing Ynnari, just to avoid a duff HQ. Venoms and Kabalites are great, but the Archon is a mandatory tax, the reason you don't see the Autarch is that there are better options. If the Autarch on foot was literally the only option, you'd see them all the time.

Absolutely. My Dark Eldar have 2 Archons. I'd gladly take 0 if I could. Same for the Succubus. They are a terrible mix of conflicting rules and equipment, hamstrung by the Rule of 3 and the weird design approach to the DE Codex. They can be made passable in melee, but are best at cutting down chaff, which is not a role DE need any help with from their characters. Against enemy characters or actually dangerous units they flail away fairly ineffectually and pray they don't roll a 1 for their save.

If a unit is literally the only option available to an army, you can't draw conclusions about how good it is based on how often it appears in those armies.

BUT BUT BUT, BECAUSE MY phoenix lords suck your HQ's all should!


CWE SUFFER don't you know?

(sarcasm aside, i know that the roster for CWE constantly shifts and that a shitton of models still need massive resculpts but i guess you understand this point now.)

Drager wrote:

Marin wrote:

There is reason you don`t see armies of aspects with autarch, but you see often venoms,kebalites and archons or/and saccubi with wyches, because they are good.

It's not because they're good. It's because they are literally the only option. I often stick Yvraine in instead of a second character even if I'm not playing Ynnari, just to avoid a duff HQ. Venoms and Kabalites are great, but the Archon is a mandatory tax, the reason you don't see the Autarch is that there are better options. If the Autarch on foot was literally the only option, you'd see them all the time.

It`s not DE only option, you can replace him with Ynnari characters or use Draznar who is somehow worse.
For triple Ravagers Archon is mandatory and that make him useful character and his tax is not the worst for what he provides DE army.

Absolutely. My Dark Eldar have 2 Archons. I'd gladly take 0 if I could. Same for the Succubus. They are a terrible mix of conflicting rules and equipment, hamstrung by the Rule of 3 and the weird design approach to the DE Codex. They can be made passable in melee, but are best at cutting down chaff, which is not a role DE need any help with from their characters. Against enemy characters or actually dangerous units they flail away fairly ineffectually and pray they don't roll a 1 for their save.

If a unit is literally the only option available to an army, you can't draw conclusions about how good it is based on how often it appears in those armies.

Repeating the some lie, Archon is not your only option.

BUT BUT BUT, BECAUSE MY phoenix lords suck your HQ's all should!


CWE SUFFER don't you know?

(sarcasm aside, i know that the roster for CWE constantly shifts and that a shitton of models still need massive resculpts but i guess you understand this point now.)

But, but, but my HQ can`t do everything perfectly BabyRage

Marin wrote:
I guess we are still doing this.

Well, since you both started the argument and refuse to walk away, I guess we are.

Marin wrote:
You can believe me or not, but Archon is much better in melee than normal Autarch.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of objective fact.

As for melee, I'll freely grant that the Archon is better than a Swooping Hawk or Warp Spider Autarch (as they can only take Power Swords), but worse than a foot Autarch or Jetbike Autarch (as, even with 1 fewer attack, their Star Glaive and Laser Lance are both far better than any of the Archon's weapons).

Marin wrote:
Your relics are really useful for melee and index options are not always allowed.

I'm confused as to why you wrote "relics" (plural), as Archons have access to all of 1 melee weapon Relic.

In any case, I don't include relics in these comparisons because they're limited. If I take a Battalion then I have 2 Archons. Okay, I give the first the Djin Blade. What about the second? Unlike Autarchs, I can't fall back on Laser Lances or Star Glaives.

As for index options not being allowed, you realise that this hurts the Archon as much as the Autarch (probably moreso)? As their only worthwhile ranged weapon has been confined to the Index.

Lastly, even if you were correct, what you seem to have missed entirely is that melee is simply not a useful role for Archons. Even fully kitted with Relics and the like, they're still not great in melee, and their survivability rests entirely on getting lucky with Shadowfield. The thing is, they're supposed to be supporting a ranged subfaction. Kabal don't need a melee HQ they need a support HQ.

Which leads us to...

Marin wrote:
The aura is literally the some. 6 inch reroll to 1. Yes your effects only kebal, but if you play with archons you have them anyway.

(emphasis mine)



A aura that only affects a small subgroup of an army is - by definition - not the same as one which affects the entire army.

For crying out loud, is it really that hard to admit that you're wrong about this?

Furthermore, you're deliberately choosing to ignore two further facts:

1) Dark Eldar (especially Kabal) make very heavy use of open-topped transports. Eldar have none. That means that DE will almost always be shooting from transports, whilst Eldar will have disembarked before opening fire. However, the Archon's aura can't actually affect units inside a transport - even if he's literally in the same transport. So, even if their auras were equal (which they're demonstrably not), the Archon's aura still has drastically less synergy not just with his army but with the subfaction he's supposed to be buffing.

2) Dark Eldar and Eldar both have many fast units. However, only the Autarch is allowed actual mobility options (Jetbikes, Wings etc.). Hence, the Autarch has no issue in applying his aura to wherever it's needed, as he can keep up with even the fastest units in his army. Meanwhile, the Archon has 0 mobility options and so simply cannot keep up with any of the fast elements in a DE army. At best you can put him in a transport . . . which nullifies his aura.

Are you seeing the issue yet?

Marin wrote:
Shadowfield give you chance to survive where Autarch will just die. What is annoying is archon 5+, if it was better without need of relics.

But the same could be said for any Invulnerable save.

The difference is, they don't disappear the first time you fail them. What's more, unlike the Shadowfield, you can spend a CP to reroll a critical save that you failed.

Believe me, I would *love* the option of taking a 4++ instead of the Shadowfield. Hell, I'd take a 5++ over the sodding Shadowfield.

Marin wrote:

Subject: "The Epitome of Bad" - What's worse than the Land Raider.
I just showed you there are worst HQ choices than Autarch and Succumbus. You just missed the point, whatever.

Except that you failed to address one of the key points that made Archons and Succubi bad - that they're *mandatory*.

Again, if you think Phoenix Lords are good enough, you have page upon page of alternate HQs - including one of the best Psykers in the game.

If a DE player doesn't like Archons or Succubu, they have no alternatives. These are the only HQs we can take for Kabal and Cult, respectively.

Marin wrote:

Emotional and childish

I'm sorry if you find my pointing out the gaping holes in your reasoning to be "emotional and childish". How foolish of me to treat you like an adult capable of understanding ideas like 'logic' or 'arguments that make sense'.

Marin wrote:

Having decent rules and being cheap is the definition of efficient units.

A dictionary might disagree with you on that front, but whatever.

Even if we take you (frankly optimistic) definition, it still fails. Because DE HQs *don't* have decent rules (as I've spent the last 4 posts explaining to you), and only one of them is even cheap.

Marin wrote:

There is reason you don`t see armies of aspects with autarch, but you see often venoms,kebalites and archons or/and saccubi with wyches, because they are good.

Oh for the love of God.

Archons and Succubi are the only HQs available for Kabal and Cult armies. That's why you always see them. Not because they're good but because there are literally no alternatives.

I've said this multiple times now - including in my very first post (which you decided to take issue with). Maybe at some point it will actually penetrate your skull.

Marin wrote:

What is important is to have synergy between the units and centrally your HQ have good synergy.

Yes, a melee HQ leading a subfaction of ranged units that he is entirely unable to buff is the definition of 'synergy'.

Marin wrote:
Archon buffing ravagers with the relic for 3-5 turns is doing more than enough to be called efficient.

So the unit whose melee prowess you were espousing moments ago is being used solely to buff backfield artillery. You want to maybe rethink your argument?

Also, once again, this is a single Archon with a Relic. What is the second Archon - lacking in both the buffing Relic and in Ravagers to buff - doing?

Hell, what is any Archon that lacks that buffing Relic doing?

Or what if - God forbid - a DE player wants to make use of an army sans Ravagers. What then is the Archon doing (with or without the buff relic)?

Marin wrote:
Succubi supporting the wyches, is good way to increase your melee power for little pts and give you extra CP.

Where is this CP coming from exactly?

Also, when you say 'for little pts', are you including the cost of the transport needed to ferry the Succubus into battle? Which will, if anything, cost more than the Succubus herself.

Or is the Succubus sharing a transport with a Squad of Wyches and in doing so preventing them from taking 2 of their Wych Weapons? Thus reducing their melee power so that, rather than buffing them, her aura is merely compensating them for the lack of melee power that she caused.

Marin wrote:
There are alot of good players using such combos, show me good player who is using 30-40 storm guardians and Autarchs.

*Gets out telescope*

Nope, those goalposts have now vanished over the horizon.

You seem to have entirely misunderstood not just the claim that I made but the claim that *you* made. My point about Storm Guardians was simply intended to point out the flaw in your logic. You said that DE couldn't have bad HQs because they had cheap troops, so I stated that Eldar having cheap troops (in the form of Storm Guardians) must - by your own logic - mean that Phoenix Lords aren't bad either.

But, as with everything else I've said here, it seems that went straight over your head.

Marin wrote:
I`m out will not type to you any more.

I don't know why you bothered replying the first time. You've demonstrated that you have absolutely no interest in ever reading anything I write here.

@vipoid:

Should I call the police? Because I just witnesses a murder.

 carldooley wrote:
Ah Space Marines, complaining about having the only Superheavy available in normal games for 5 editions of the game.

They moved the Baneblade to Space Marines in 3rd edition

I think Cron Deathmarks are particularly gak (even in casual games).
Cant recall the last time I picked them.

G/Morkanauts don't belong in this discussion, both are solid. They're basically knights but a bit worse, and with a proportional points decrease to make up for that. For example, they only move 8" but get to re-roll one or both of the dice to charge. They have three quarters the wounds of a knight but cost about 3/4. They don't have a 5++ against shooting (the mork does, gork doesn't) but can benefit from other KFF's, kultures provide useful defensive buffs and can be healed by meks/big meks

Deathskulls is particularly beneficial for them

I agree. Gorks, in particular, I think are good as armored anti-infantry. Mork kinda steps on the toes of Mek Gunz and SSAG. I tend to run mine as Freebooterz, proc the +1 with a Dakkajet, then lay in with its shots.

I WILL say they'd be a lot worse without the Tellyporta Stratagem. Too big to hide, not durable enough to withstand a T1 anti-armor barrage.

 Ratius wrote:
I think Cron Deathmarks are particularly gak (even in casual games).

Deathmarks are pretty bad.

I think losing the rule that let them wound on 2s on the round the entered hurt them a lot (and they were never a solid unit to begin with).

For me it's particularly sad because of all the new units, Deathmarks seem by far the closest to the lore and aesthetic of the older Necrons.

 flandarz wrote:
I agree. Gorks, in particular, I think are good as armored anti-infantry. Mork kinda steps on the toes of Mek Gunz and SSAG. I tend to run mine as Freebooterz, proc the +1 with a Dakkajet, then lay in with its shots.

I WILL say they'd be a lot worse without the Tellyporta Stratagem. Too big to hide, not durable enough to withstand a T1 anti-armor barrage.

The really sadpart, i wanted to start an army around them at their introduction. Never came around to it, such a wierdly nice looking unit, yet always kinda meh.,

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
G/Morkanauts don't belong in this discussion, both are solid. They're basically knights but a bit worse, and with a proportional points decrease to make up for that. For example, they only move 8" but get to re-roll one or both of the dice to charge. They have three quarters the wounds of a knight but cost about 3/4. They don't have a 5++ against shooting (the mork does, gork doesn't) but can benefit from other KFF's, kultures provide useful defensive buffs and can be healed by meks/big meks

Deathskulls is particularly beneficial for them

95% of the units being discussed her don't belong in it.

I stand by my BA listings. BA units are REALLY bad.