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.

Crypteks gain an ability like MWBD that only affects canpoptek units and possibly vehicles.

Crypteks can employ some canoptek and possibly vehicle stategems on nearby units without a command point.

Scarabs near a tomb spyder gain a 5++ save.

Due to small size and rapid movement shooting at scarabs from 12"+ incurs a -1 to hit penalty.

Tomb spyders either get the character keyword or a save equal to wraiths.

A tomb spyder can cast the self destruct strategem on a unit of scarabs within 12" without a command point.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Crypteks gain an ability like MWBD that only affects canpoptek units and possibly vehicles.

Crypteks can employ some canoptek and possibly vehicle stategems on nearby units without a command point.

Scarabs near a tomb spyder gain a 5++ save.

Due to small size and rapid movement shooting at scarabs from 12"+ incurs a -1 to hit penalty.

Tomb spyders either get the character keyword or a save equal to wraiths.

A tomb spyder can cast the self destruct strategem on a unit of scarabs within 12" without a command point.

Cryptek MWBD, free Stratagems for Spyders and -1 to hit on Scarabs introduce too much bloat IMO, if it was an optionable specialist detachment it would be fine but I think adding this many extra rules to the datasheets would be overdoing it. I would like Crypteks to be cheap engineers, IMO they're overpriced the MWBD may or may not be too much, but it would almost certainly mean that their pts can't be drastically lowered as I think they currently should be, this clashes with the option of taking a large royal court while also having pts left over for the rest of your list.

Why would Spyders give Scarabs a 5++? Are they telling them how to jink better or giving them a forcefield? What is the intention? I feel like you are really pigeon-holing Spyders into being a Scarab support unit, the fact that they don't synergize too well with Scarabs means they can fulfil other roles about as well as they can supporting Scarabs, they don't do anything amazingly well because of the high-ish pts cost, but I think this ability should be an option of some kind, like if you had a Canoptek Specialist Detachment and you made Spyders into characters you could have a 5++ aura for Scarabs and Spyders as a WL trait that people could then pay 1CP to get.

Why does a cryptek give infantry near him a 5++ save? Maybe the spyder can extend the same kind of shield over the scarabs.

I'd like to see crypteks be able to do things for constructs to buff them, i think the necrons would rely on constructs more since they're replaceable.

 Matt Swain wrote:
...i think the necrons would rely on constructs more since they're replaceable.

...Necrons are replaceable constructs.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Crypteks gain an ability like MWBD that only affects canpoptek units and possibly vehicles.

Crypteks can employ some canoptek and possibly vehicle stategems on nearby units without a command point.

A tomb spyder can cast the self destruct strategem on a unit of scarabs within 12" without a command point.

I've been kicking around the idea that many stratagems and aura buffs could be replaced by MWBD style "orders." These are a great example of what that might look like.

Scarabs near a tomb spyder gain a 5++ save.

Due to small size and rapid movement shooting at scarabs from 12"+ incurs a -1 to hit penalty.

Tomb spyders either get the character keyword or a save equal to wraiths.

Between spyders' slow speed and the defensive buffs you've presented here, it seems like your intent is to turn a spyder + scarab combo into a set of units that wants to sit back and camp objectives. That's not a bad idea. My concern is that in an army containing a spyder, cryptek, and scarabs, scarabs become a unit that can...
* Camp objectives with an invul save, a -1 to hit penalty, a pile of cheap wounds, and the ability to regain bodies (spyder ability + the strat that lets them use RP if needed).
* Move very quickly, charge after advancing (1CP strat), deal mortal wounds with a free strat (proposed spyder ability), and always wound on 5+ regardless of toughness.

So you take an already speedy and pretty flexible unit and make it slightly better at offense and significantly better at defense. Granted, it can't easily do both at once, but I worry that that expanded flexibility might warrant a price increase that detracts from their overall usefulness. But maybe not.

Some off-the-cuff thoughts:
* Maybe create a new scarab unit with the -1 to hit ability, a lower movement speed, and a statline that promotes hunkering down on objectives? Call them maintenance scarabs or something. The idea here being that rather than making scarabs better at both offense and defense, you create defense scarabs that perform the tasks you seem to want the spyder + scarab combo to do.

* I don't hate the idea of scarabs with a to-hit penalty, but if small size and high movement speed are the qualifiers for it, it seems like razorwings and any other similar units (are skyslashers still a thing?) would probably warrant the same treatment. Or maybe not; just because it would be similarly justified in the fluff doesn't mean they need the same rules.

* I miss the old cryptek disciplines (I forget what they were called). Maybe the cryptek abilities you're describing could be a replacement ability for the +1 to RP rule. Similar to how exarchs and harlequin characters can swap out special abilities now. Give this one to crypteks specializing in canoptek constructs. Have another one for the old time/matter/electricity/etc. specialists.

Wyldhunt wrote:
* Move very quickly, charge after advancing (1CP strat), deal mortal wounds with a free strat (proposed spyder ability), and always wound on 5+ regardless of toughness.

It'd still cost a Scarab Swarm.

* I miss the old cryptek disciplines (I forget what they were called). Maybe the cryptek abilities you're describing could be a replacement ability for the +1 to RP rule. Similar to how exarchs and harlequin characters can swap out special abilities now. Give this one to crypteks specializing in canoptek constructs. Have another one for the old time/matter/electricity/etc. specialists.

Wow, that's an amazing idea, you could do the same for Lords to encourage taking more than one. I've only ever considered WL traits, but replacing abilities could work super well.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
...i think the necrons would rely on constructs more since they're replaceable.

...Necrons are replaceable constructs.

From a necron perspective I'd think that there is a great distinction between constructs like scarabs and what were once actual living necrotyr.

 Matt Swain wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
...i think the necrons would rely on constructs more since they're replaceable.

...Necrons are replaceable constructs.

From a necron perspective I'd think that there is a great distinction between constructs like scarabs and what were once actual living necrotyr.

Soooort of. Like, I don't get the impression that sapient necrons put a lot of value in the essence/existence/former personhood of warriors. I vaguely recall a couple of comments from Anrakyr to the effect of, "How nice for them that they get to be part of how awesome I am." Then again, in the same story Anrakyr seems to lament the loss of some warriors as millitary assets. So like, sapient 'crons don't seem to see their servants as sacred beings worthy of respect in honor of the present or former personhood, and they're durable enough that you can be rough with them, but you don't want to get them perma-broken if you can avoid it. Once a warrior is gone, you can't just build a new one.

Scarabs, by contrast, are expendable and replaceable. They just don't seem to be considered as useful a millitary asset as a warrior.

 Matt Swain wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
...i think the necrons would rely on constructs more since they're replaceable.

...Necrons are replaceable constructs.

From a necron perspective I'd think that there is a great distinction between constructs like scarabs and what were once actual living necrotyr.

1) the lower ranks of Necrons are not sentient at all. Warriors and Immortals. They JUST follow orders.

2) Necrons have things built into their systems so that when their body becomes to severly damaged to function any more they are supposed to be teleported back to tomb worlds for repair. It takes an unbelievable amount of damage to prevent that from happening.

3) You can see broken Warriors on a ghost ark. They are being repaired just like any other machine.

For an overlord, there really isn't much or any difference between the rank and file necron and a canoptek construct. It's all property of the overlord.