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.

It seems weird that people keep praising the Doomstrider for not degenerating, given that it already starts out with a degenerated profile.

 vipoid wrote:
It seems weird that people keep praising the Doomstrider for not degenerating, given that it already starts out with a degenerated profile.

It's a construct, they're all BS4 base. Try using daemon engines which are both BS4+ ranged platforms and do degrade as well.

 vipoid wrote:
It seems weird that people keep praising the Doomstrider for not degenerating, given that it already starts out with a degenerated profile.

People are both acknowledging that it doesn't degrade BS as a benefit, while at the same time acknowledging that starting at BS4 is a negative.

Dudeface wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
It seems weird that people keep praising the Doomstrider for not degenerating, given that it already starts out with a degenerated profile.

It's a construct, they're all BS4 base.

Canoptek Wraiths would like a word with you.

The Enmitic weapon looks even worse when compared to the new SM bike and turret...

Either FW are casting in small bunches or they are shifting like crazy, Tomb Sentinel email came and I went to check and its already back on out of stock.

No special rules on the destroyers?

Danit wrote:
No special rules on the destroyers?

They are not on the Marine sheets either. I expect either a FAQ for these sheets or something later.

Initially I was very much "oh OK, that turrets weird in that it can move" I did not notice the 4 bs2 lascannons for 80 pts.

Dudeface wrote:
Initially I was very much "oh OK, that turrets weird in that it can move" I did not notice the 4 bs2 lascannons for 80 pts.

The Lastalon is at least 130 pts. I'm more upset at the autocannon which is just flat out much better than our Enmitic weapon for 10 pts more, which BS2 and a 2+ save.

 Sasori wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Initially I was very much "oh OK, that turrets weird in that it can move" I did not notice the 4 bs2 lascannons for 80 pts.

The Lastalon is at least 130 pts. I'm more upset at the autocannon which is just flat out much better than our Enmitic weapon for 10 pts more, which BS2 and a 2+ save.

That's still a dumb unit at that price for either load out.

Any one else notice a multi melta is heavy 2 and 1d6+2 damage at half range now

Danit wrote:
Any one else notice a multi melta is heavy 2 and 1d6+2 damage at half range now

You beat me to it. Heavy 2 MM? with 1d6+2 dmg...yikes!

 Lord Clinto wrote:

Danit wrote:
Any one else notice a multi melta is heavy 2 and 1d6+2 damage at half range now

You beat me to it. Heavy 2 MM? with 1d6+2 dmg...yikes!

This is good for sisters, especially if all melta changes to 1d6+2 at half

Danit wrote:
Any one else notice a multi melta is heavy 2 and 1d6+2 damage at half range now

I called it!

Nice.

The 2 shots part, not the +2D part.

Does anyone else think the DDA is gong to need changes to stay valid in 9e?

I saw the stats for the lokhust heavy destroyer and it's got a weapon option that is heavy 1, S10, AP4 and doed 3d3 dam.

3d3 damage means an average 6 dam per hit. Yes it has a shorter range but still long enough to cover a lot of the table. The DDA on high power does 1d6, which is 3-4 dam per his on average.

3 minimum, 6 average, max 9 dam per hit vs the DDA with 1 minimum, 3.5 average and 6 maximum per hit pretty much means that people are going to likely be taking a couple of these lokhusts rasthen than a dda.

The DDA has some advantages, like longer ranger, d6 shots rather than 1, more survivable and the gauss flayer array, but still, an average hit from a lokhust will do 6 dam while 2 hits from a DDA will average 7.

If the lokhust is half the cost of a DDAor less the dda will likely disappear from a lot of tables.

If the DDA doesn't get a buff it's going to be replaced by the lokhust. Do you think gw will buff the dda or just decide to make the lokhust totally superior as everyone who is likely to buy a dda already has so gw nerfs is t get people to buy lokhusts?

 Matt Swain wrote:
Does anyone else think the DDA is gong to need changes to stay valid in 9e?

I saw the stats for the lokhust heavy destroyer and it's got a weapon option that is heavy 1, S10, AP4 and doed 3d3 dam.

3d3 damage means an average 6 dam per hit. Yes it has a shorter range but still long enough to cover a lot of the table. The DDA on high power does 1d6, which is 3-4 dam per his on average.

3 minimum, 6 average, max 9 dam per hit vs the DDA with 1 minimum, 3.5 average and 6 maximum per hit pretty much means that people are going to likely be taking a couple of these lokhusts rasthen than a dda.

The DDA has some advantages, like longer ranger, d6 shots rather than 1, more survivable and the gauss flayer array, but still, an average hit from a lokhust will do 6 dam while 2 hits from a DDA will average 7.

If the lokhust is half the cost of a DDAor less the dda will likely disappear from a lot of tables.

If the DDA doesn't get a buff it's going to be replaced by the lokhust. Do you think gw will buff the dda or just decide to make the lokhust totally superior as everyone who is likely to buy a dda already has so gw nerfs is t get people to buy lokhusts?

Problem is the Lokhust are subject to very high variance with 1 shot on the Destructor. They also are overkill for everything except high value tanks, and 3 Lokhusts cost 30 more pts than a DDA.

If anything I feel like the Doomsday stalker is going to be used a lot, but there is pros and cons with it and the DDA.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Does anyone else think the DDA is gong to need changes to stay valid in 9e?

I saw the stats for the lokhust heavy destroyer and it's got a weapon option that is heavy 1, S10, AP4 and doed 3d3 dam.

3d3 damage means an average 6 dam per hit. Yes it has a shorter range but still long enough to cover a lot of the table. The DDA on high power does 1d6, which is 3-4 dam per his on average.

3 minimum, 6 average, max 9 dam per hit vs the DDA with 1 minimum, 3.5 average and 6 maximum per hit pretty much means that people are going to likely be taking a couple of these lokhusts rasthen than a dda.

The DDA has some advantages, like longer ranger, d6 shots rather than 1, more survivable and the gauss flayer array, but still, an average hit from a lokhust will do 6 dam while 2 hits from a DDA will average 7.

If the lokhust is half the cost of a DDAor less the dda will likely disappear from a lot of tables.

If the DDA doesn't get a buff it's going to be replaced by the lokhust. Do you think gw will buff the dda or just decide to make the lokhust totally superior as everyone who is likely to buy a dda already has so gw nerfs is t get people to buy lokhusts?

2 locust averages 5.33 vs russ. Dda 5.14, has flayer arrays(very　useful) and is tougher.

Dda is also vehicle which is generally good in 9th.

I have the DDA at 5.44

Won't the LHD likely reroll 1s to hit also? Should put 2 LHD at 6.22 vs LRBT on average

torblind wrote:
I have the DDA at 5.44

Won't the LHD likely reroll 1s to hit also? Should put 2 LHD at 6.22 vs LRBT on average

Which is already superior at 40 less points, no need to worry about the 3rd, but if you do it really seals it. Yep these things are nasty since they will also get back up and can gain the buffs from crypteks.

It's the same argument as before with normal heavy destoryers only these are more consistant on damage. I don't think they will invalidate the DDA but they are worth while.

I would say the doomstalker is less appealing personally. I'll still buy one as it's decent and looks neat but I honestly think the triarch stalker is way better at the same role and is an elite.

It's a better autocannon than even csm have in that turret..
And csm have literally autocannons as a side buissness are attached to their faction....?!?
Ffs gw.

 Sasori wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
It seems weird that people keep praising the Doomstrider for not degenerating, given that it already starts out with a degenerated profile.

People are both acknowledging that it doesn't degrade BS as a benefit, while at the same time acknowledging that starting at BS4 is a negative.

I dunno, I like it. Part of my problem with this fething game is that everything hits on 2/3s rerolling 1s all the time if set up right. I like the straight forward, "if it hits, it hits" BS4 profile. The guard never complain about it, why should anyone else?

Repacked Spyders come with both large clear flight base and traditional 60mm bases, just received 2 of the new packs in an order today.

Box shows the new color scheme on the 60mm, instructions are the same as the old packs so still shows the clear base.

Is the clear base also 60mm or are GW really messing with us on the whole base issue; which seems odd considering how well they've done in AoS.

 Overread wrote:
Is the clear base also 60mm or are GW really messing with us on the whole base issue; which seems odd considering how well they've done in AoS.

The clear base is most likely the Citadel Flying Stems with 60mm Flying Bases.

 Overread wrote:
Is the clear base also 60mm or are GW really messing with us on the whole base issue; which seems odd considering how well they've done in AoS.

Who even knows anymore. The Skorpekh Lord and Reanimator are on 65 mm bases and that wasn't even a thing outside the sector mechanicus and shattered dominion sets (at least AFAIK).

60mm flying make sense, but at this point its really hard to care about base consistency. Some of the Indomitus models feel like they flipped a coin to choose between base sizes. 28, 32, 40, 65 and 90mm Oval.
And current things in the Necron range should have been bumped at least a size. Particularly wraiths, which really want to tip over on 40mm.

I just feel that, with same PL as Lokust Heavy Destroyer, it seem that the turret is far better.

Well the Lokust is a lot more mobile and I would imagine has Reanimation Protocols over the turret.

armisael wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sasori wrote:
The Enmitic weapon looks even worse when compared to the new SM bike and turret...

I just feel that, with same PL as Lokust Heavy Destroyer, it seem that the turret is far better.

Well it's marines. Of course it's better. We are better off comparing our stuff to other non-imperial marines. Npc vs npc is meaningfull comparison. Npc vs master faction just leaves sour taste in mouth

After seeing the Doom Stalker it would seem GW are returning to their old ways. That thing needs to be cheap in order to be any good because BS4 is pants, random shots are pants and it's a weapon called a Doomsday Blaster but doesn't even have the blast rule!