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.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Pretty sure, from memory, they name dropped it as being a "Doomsday Blaster", so it's probably got a distinct profile.

They did, they also mentioned that it has to stand still for the full power if it, so it's likely going to have the two split profiles like the regular DD cannon.

Would be nice if it has some out of LOS capability though.

Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.

Eyjio wrote:
Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.

Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.

I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.

changemod wrote:
Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.

I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.

I don’t disagree, but your alternative is 3 heavy destroyers in that slot, which is less powerful on average and substantially easier to kill. Yes, it’s 120 points vs 180, but that extra 60 points gets you more toughness, wounds and quantum shielding, as well as 10 gauss flayers. It’s not that they’re good, it’s that all the alternative anti-tank is worse. I suspect it’ll be the same story with this thing - it’s canoptek, so bound to be BS4+, it’ll likely have random shots, and if heavy destroyers remain, it has to fit in an awkward gap of more deadly than 3 lascannons, and sufficiently tough that you wouldn’t just take the doomsday ark. It’s a tall order IMO, especially seeing that the other walker is both fragile and not especially deadly for 20 points fewer. My intuition for stats from appearance is T5 W8 3+ with a heavy d6 S10 AP-5 Dd3 gun, and if that’s the case, it won’t see play. We’ll see though.

I suspect the Lokhust destroyer thing we've seen is a replacement heavy destroyer/destroyer lord combi-kit, and that there is a smaller lokhust destroyers kit we haven't seen yet.

Eyjio wrote:

changemod wrote:
Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.

I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.

I don’t disagree, but your alternative is 3 heavy destroyers in that slot, which is less powerful on average and substantially easier to kill. Yes, it’s 120 points vs 180, but that extra 60 points gets you more toughness, wounds and quantum shielding, as well as 10 gauss flayers. It’s not that they’re good, it’s that all the alternative anti-tank is worse. I suspect it’ll be the same story with this thing - it’s canoptek, so bound to be BS4+, it’ll likely have random shots, and if heavy destroyers remain, it has to fit in an awkward gap of more deadly than 3 lascannons, and sufficiently tough that you wouldn’t just take the doomsday ark. It’s a tall order IMO, especially seeing that the other walker is both fragile and not especially deadly for 20 points fewer. My intuition for stats from appearance is T5 W8 3+ with a heavy d6 S10 AP-5 Dd3 gun, and if that’s the case, it won’t see play. We’ll see though.

I honestly would be surprised if at least the gun isn't objectively better than the full sized doomsday cannon. Only because its A) a new gun and B) a new gun in the post 7th edition paradigm for weapons to be way too lethal.

But Necrons are also an NPC faction. So it could also be one of those things where you look at the rules for a few minutes and then ask why does it even exist and who thought this was a good unit.

 Sasori wrote:

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Pretty sure, from memory, they name dropped it as being a "Doomsday Blaster", so it's probably got a distinct profile.

They did, they also mentioned that it has to stand still for the full power if it, so it's likely going to have the two split profiles like the regular DD cannon.

Would be nice if it has some out of LOS capability though.

It points slightly downwards on a tall model.
That makes a non-LOS weapon seem unlikely to me.

 Sasori wrote:
Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.

It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.

EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model. Unless it's got something very weird going on behind it, it looks like it's a part of the background.

I agree and have thought the same thing from the start of the previews.

The orb is off center and the backplates on the model make it look like that couldn't be attached

changemod wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.

Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.

I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.

So 4 shots underperforming?

tneva82 wrote:

changemod wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.

Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.

I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.

So 4 shots underperforming?

Four shots is the required roll to match the output of a predator.

It has a 50% chance to fail to do that well before even rolling to hit, possibly even only getting one shot. The chance of overperforming instead does little to compensate for the painful hit to reliability.

Someone above said they still prefer it to heavy destroyers. I could maybe see that on an open field, but with fairly dense terrain I’d take the heavies any day of the week and make efforts to use their mobility to shield them better than other devastator-type units from enemy fire lanes. Still not ideal, but maybe this next codex will present something better.

Four shots is the required roll to match the output of a predator.

It has a 50% chance to fail to do that well before even rolling to hit, possibly even only getting one shot. The chance of overperforming instead does little to compensate for the painful hit to reliability.

Agreed.
I think blast should have also included a minimum number of shots when shooting at large targets (vehicles, MCs, etc) as well as 6-10 infantry.

So many AT weapons are still amazingly bad at that job, but shockingly good at heavy & medium infantry.

I'm honestly wondering if the new monolith with mini-death rays will be a better AT platform than the DDA.

Eyjio wrote:
It’s a tall order IMO, especially seeing that the other walker is both fragile and not especially deadly for 20 points fewer.

A tall order, for a tall model.

changemod wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

changemod wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.

Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.

I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.

So 4 shots underperforming?

Four shots is the required roll to match the output of a predator.

It has a 50% chance to fail to do that well before even rolling to hit, possibly even only getting one shot. The chance of overperforming instead does little to compensate for the painful hit to reliability.

Someone above said they still prefer it to heavy destroyers. I could maybe see that on an open field, but with fairly dense terrain I’d take the heavies any day of the week and make efforts to use their mobility to shield them better than other devastator-type units from enemy fire lanes. Still not ideal, but maybe this next codex will present something better.

Predator does not shoot S10 -5 shots.

You DO know right that not every weapon has to have same shot amount to not underperform? Otherwise where's my 20 shot lascannons! Predator autocannon is btw 2d3 shots so can be shooting less than 4 as well and twin lascannon is 2 shots so dda is outperforming that one. And if you factor in sponsons as well dda has usefull other guns as well, flies and is significantly tougher. Comparing apples to oranges.

And again. You are literally claiming getting 4 shots IS UNDERPERFORMING! So anything short of 5 or 6 shots is underperforming. You are greedy fellow.

soviet13 wrote:
I suspect the Lokhust destroyer thing we've seen is a replacement heavy destroyer/destroyer lord combi-kit, and that there is a smaller lokhust destroyers kit we haven't seen yet.

I think so.

 ElAntiguoGuardián wrote:

soviet13 wrote:
I suspect the Lokhust destroyer thing we've seen is a replacement heavy destroyer/destroyer lord combi-kit, and that there is a smaller lokhust destroyers kit we haven't seen yet.

I think so.

The one we've seen is an ETB kit with only an alternate gun. No Lord option in it.

Doomsday blaster looks like it is just a Doomsday cannon with shorter range.

tneva82 wrote:

changemod wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

changemod wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Ah, did they? For goodness sake, can we not have nice things? Even if it's not a downgrade - and I heavily suspect it will be - it's yet more weapons bloat, just like the new Overlord weapon. Well, hard to see how it can come close to a doomsday ark in terms of usefulness then, unless it also gets quantum shielding or an invuln.

Funnily enough, I’ve been tending towards thinking it would be difficult for it to be as bad as a doomsday ark, which I’ve found horrendously overrated.

I mean ok, the changed blast rules will help the DDA out against suboptimal targets, but it’s still rolling D6 shots as an anti-vehicle platform, making it underperform more often than not.

So 4 shots underperforming?

Four shots is the required roll to match the output of a predator.

It has a 50% chance to fail to do that well before even rolling to hit, possibly even only getting one shot. The chance of overperforming instead does little to compensate for the painful hit to reliability.

Someone above said they still prefer it to heavy destroyers. I could maybe see that on an open field, but with fairly dense terrain I’d take the heavies any day of the week and make efforts to use their mobility to shield them better than other devastator-type units from enemy fire lanes. Still not ideal, but maybe this next codex will present something better.

Predator does not shoot S10 -5 shots.

You DO know right that not every weapon has to have same shot amount to not underperform? Otherwise where's my 20 shot lascannons! Predator autocannon is btw 2d3 shots so can be shooting less than 4 as well and twin lascannon is 2 shots so dda is outperforming that one. And if you factor in sponsons as well dda has usefull other guns as well, flies and is significantly tougher. Comparing apples to oranges.

And again. You are literally claiming getting 4 shots IS UNDERPERFORMING! So anything short of 5 or 6 shots is underperforming. You are greedy fellow.

What on earth are you talking about?

4 is baseline performance, anything lower fails to keep up. The anti-tank loadout for a predator is, I’m not sure why I have to specify, four lascannon shots.

S10 and AP-5 is essentially the same as S9 AP-4 against most vehicles and monsters you’d be taking lascannon equivalents to deal with.

And yeah, the vehicle that needs to stay still to fire properly has a squad of warriors worth of infantry guns you can shoot if your opponent wilfully approaches it. That’s... not really something I care about in a codex that only has two semi-workable anti-vehicle units, both of which still aren’t at all great in their role.

But Lascannons are S9 AP -3, which gives an not insignificant chance of a save for Sv 3+.

 alextroy wrote:
But Lascannons are S9 AP -3, which gives an not insignificant chance of a save for Sv 3+.

Well dev doctrine is universal to all marines turn 1, which is usually the most important turn for such units, although it is temporary. I also wouldn't exactly call a 6+ save significant.

I thirst for leaks and rumours. Please won’t someone grant some leaks and rumours?!

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I thirst for leaks and rumours. Please won’t someone grant some leaks and rumours?!

The release in October means it'll take longer to get leaks unfortunately. Someone in a thread here apparently got something from one of the videos and doing software editing or whatever to read it. However that still wasn't a lot of info outside the fact that Crypteks are gonna get bunch of toys again.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I thirst for leaks and rumours. Please won’t someone grant some leaks and rumours?!

Us getting the two pages of dynasty codes is probably the most we are going to have for a while.

I'm guessing the next thing is when they make the Lokhust and DDS available. I'm hoping it's out before the codex since we have points already.

The way they've previewed things suggests that we are getting more models before the codex releases. That said Indomitus being put into reprint has likely caused some issues and we also have to consider that everything else GW makes also wants its time. It might be that models are also coming around the same time as the books if not after.
It's hard to predict and GW might not be fully certain and be shifting dates around every so often

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I thirst for leaks and rumours. Please won’t someone grant some leaks and rumours?!

Rumor has it we might get ranged Skorpekh. And by rumor I mean it was slightly mentioned in the Indomitus novel like once

I think the fact that Lokhust Heavy Destroyers and the Canoptek Doomstalker are both listed under 'Indomitus set' in chapter approved 2020 strongly suggests they'll be out pre codex.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I think the fact that Lokhust Heavy Destroyers and the Canoptek Doomstalker are both listed under 'Indomitus set' in chapter approved 2020 strongly suggests they'll be out pre codex.

.

Well... not necessarily. Its important to keep in mind how long book publishing can take (and how far in advance of release the final version is set), and how thoroughly a full factory shutdown followed by lowered production could have fethed up GW's schedule.

We're kind of in the dark, since we don't know what the original schedule was or how the cascade of effects is affecting planned releases. Something like a third to half their range is currently out of stock (depending on what region you're ordering from) including necrons and even space marines, including basics like Intercessors and Impulsors (UK has intercessors as 'limited stock,' but they're gone in the US). Stuff that they'll want to sell with the codex releases. They may have pushed the codexes back just so they have time to bump stock on those ranges. You don't want to sell new codexes (which generally cause a sales spike in older models) when you lack older kits to sell. That leads to angry or discouraged customers buying less, which makes for a fiscally poor release month.

But if they're trying to push older kits back in the pipeline, they have to slow production on newer kits as well. So they may not come out before the relevant codex does either.
They've also got a lot of AoS, Underworlds, Warcry, etc releases to catch up on, which will probably eat a lot of August & September.

They've used boxed sets as shorthand for FAQs and the like, so it's not unbelievable.

 Sasori wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.

It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.

EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model.

I'm being honest with you, but I cannot "clearly" see that. Even blown up it looks very clearly to me to be a part of the model.

I don't see anything terrain connected in the image to the orb.

It just doesn't seem to line up with the model, it looks like it's further in the background.

I could be wrong, maybe blowing up the image is distorting it some but it does not appear to be on backplate of the model.

EDIT: I dunno, I'm waffleing back and forth on this. It would make sense ot be a part of the model, but the orb and circular plate below the orb seem very off from the model.

Either way, hopefully they reveal it before too long.

See I can see where you're coming from too though. I also could be wrong. I was trying to see if there were more pictures from a different angle. But I haven't found anything else. I'll let you know if I do.

 Togusa wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sasori wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
Ya'll need go look at the picture blown up.

It is clearly not a part of the model when you look at it close up. even in the larger picture you can see the back of the model and the curved backplate and the orb does not fit.

EDIT: If you click on the image, it doesn't seem to line up with it being on the backplate of the model.

I'm being honest with you, but I cannot "clearly" see that. Even blown up it looks very clearly to me to be a part of the model.

I don't see anything terrain connected in the image to the orb.

It just doesn't seem to line up with the model, it looks like it's further in the background.

I could be wrong, maybe blowing up the image is distorting it some but it does not appear to be on backplate of the model.

EDIT: I dunno, I'm waffleing back and forth on this. It would make sense ot be a part of the model, but the orb and circular plate below the orb seem very off from the model.

Either way, hopefully they reveal it before too long.

See I can see where you're coming from too though. I also could be wrong. I was trying to see if there were more pictures from a different angle. But I haven't found anything else. I'll let you know if I do.

Since that image was published by Games Workshop on Warhammer Community you won't find any different angles.

I'm still holding out a vain hope for pariahs or flayed ones, even though there's been no previews of either. I know it's a long shot but with the new art and that mention of pariahs in the Necrons through the ages piece, I think it's within the realm of possibilities.