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.

Twilight Pathways wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Maybe they'll update the destroyer lord to be shootier or something, idk.

I don't know how long Destroyer Lords have been an option, but it feels like people have been saying this for about 10 years now At least he now has melee Destroyer units that he can buff his aura. GW must have decided that Destroyer Lords must remain weird and mediocre and this must never ever change. They even kept him at 3+ WS unlike almost every other 'combat' character

He's been an option for more than 16 years.
He was first in the 3rd ed codex, released in 2004 I believe.

Now, back then the Destroyer lord was just a movement upgrade for a lord. In 5th ed he became his own unit choice, iirc, but was still melee oriented and was outclassed by the CCB.

They kept destroyer lord weird because they want to sell the new model Skorpek lord.

They just had no clue what to do with him, the CCB does everything the destroyer lord does, but better. And then the skorpekh lord comes along and does the one thing the destroyer lord does that the CCB doesn't, but does other stuff too.

Like the ophydians, it's a model without a niche.

I have yet to get my hands on the codex, and would like to plan my things out a bit. Lokhust Destroyers and Heavy Lokust Destroyers: What are the units sizes and weapons upgrades?


On a side note, I've found many of my old-school models now look like they are from other units. How much grief do you think I'll get for running Pariahs as Lychguard, 2nd edition Destroyers as Tomb Blades, and and 3rd edition Wraiths as Ophydian Destroyers?

I'd rebase them to the right sizes, but as long as you do that, most people probably won't care. Some tournaments might, though even there you could probably get approval by pre-submitting and saying they're "conversions" *wink wink nudge nudge*.

I'm pretty sad because I like a lot of the old lord models, but the rules for lords feel incredibly underwhelming. Do you think people would let me run my 3rd edition necron lord as an overlord?

Oaktreegamer wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Yeah, i'd agree hes about 100pts overpriced.

Purely because he degrades like a mofo. Who else in this game degrades that severely?

He goes from 6+4+3 attacks of 3 pretty strong profiles + 2 BIG guns +2 pretty powerful auras to 2 attacks barely better than an Overlord's swing, loses the big guns, and loses 2 auras.

Seriously, that is right up there with the Titans' 4-5 degrading brackets level of stupid. All other degrading units still have something useful to offer when degraded severely, he's literally an overlord at that point with higher toughness and a single deny.

What if you use the Stellar Alignment Protocol to put him back in the top bracket? Does that reactivate Phaeron of the stars/Blades etc

RAW it doesn't, I think. Stellar Alignment Protocols specifically mentions using the top bracket when "determining characteristics", whereas the rules that deal with the Phaeron abilities aren't characteristics but special abilities tied directly to the number of wounds remaining. The strat doesn't actually change the number of wounds remaining so you don't suddenly revive the Phaerons, sadly. I'd love to say this was all planned by GW but I'm not sure they really understand the nuances of their own wording sometimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Barcha wrote:
I'm pretty sad because I like a lot of the old lord models, but the rules for lords feel incredibly underwhelming. Do you think people would let me run my 3rd edition necron lord as an overlord?

Yes. Nobody should complain and the vast majority of people won't know the difference anyway. IIRC, that Lord model is from a time when there was no Lord/Overlord split anyway so I can't see anyone having a problem with it.

Here's a question:

Can you Rez Orb models that have fled from morale, combat attrition and models slain from non-attacks like Smite? Same with Rites of Reanimation.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Here's a question:

Can you Rez Orb models that have fled from morale, combat attrition and models slain from non-attacks like Smite? Same with Rites of Reanimation.

It looks like it. The old caveat that you couldn't reanimate models that flee no longer exists because the basic rules for RP only apply after an attack, so that caveat is no longer necessary. However, the Res Orb just says to roll RP for every model that's been destroyed, so it looks like it applies to all the missing models, regardless of what caused them to be destroyed.

I am so torn between Gauss Immortals and Warriors now.

The Warriors going to 13 points, by comparison to 17 pt Gauss Immortals....
Gets me +1 A,+1 SV, +1 T.
Loses RR1s for the RP.

They seem like a solid choice in a marine meta. They still reliably RP on a 5+, or a 4+ in some cases, and 2 of them will refund the cost of a rez orb. Getting a 2+ in cover is handy as well, with 30 inch range giving them a lot of options.
Thoughts nowadays?

 iGuy91 wrote:
I am so torn between Gauss Immortals and Warriors now.

The Warriors going to 13 points, by comparison to 17 pt Gauss Immortals....
Gets me +1 A,+1 SV, +1 T.
Loses RR1s for the RP.

They seem like a solid choice in a marine meta. They still reliably RP on a 5+, or a 4+ in some cases, and 2 of them will refund the cost of a rez orb. Getting a 2+ in cover is handy as well, with 30 inch range giving them a lot of options.
Thoughts nowadays?

Always Necron Immortals for on field deployment, Reaper Warriors when Deepstriking

With that said, I'm at least giving the custom dynasty's martial tradition a side-eye. Going MSU (multiple small unit) with minimal units, to get a reroll on the attack for each? You could do some serious work, shifting from resilience to FIREPOWER.

Immortals (max. 10) don't control objectives like Warriors (20). You want to be close to objective with your Troops units so you don't need Immortals "long" range gauss. Maybe one unit for home objective.

Also, 20 warriors can perform sweet "Cut them down" stratagem surprise just for 1CP.

 Xyxel wrote:
Immortals (max. 10) don't control objectives like Warriors (20).

And how do they control it ? Are there multiple ways to do it ?

I think that both Warriors and Immortals have places in a list, use your warriors for front line objective grabbing and moving up the board, and use Immortals to snag objectives that the warriors no longer want to hold.

I'm going to try running a 10x immortals for every 20x warriors, I think the secret will be ratios more then which is better if any of what I've said makes sense

Does anyone know how the new RP interacts with morale? And by that, I mean if my squad of ten warriors loses 6, and 2 get back up, is my morale d6 plus 4 or 6?

RP specifically says they dont count when factoring morale.

nvm

I made a video on the cryptothralls, what unit should I do next?

 CKO wrote:
I made a video on the cryptothralls, what unit should I do next?

I'd be pretty happy to see one for plasmancers. I'm not totally sure where to place them right now.

Well...these little washing machines can mulch through light infantry with easy. If close to a technomancer they would do 6a at 2+ and s5 each. What would be the max? 6 guys? 3 Units of 2? Infantry. Not a bad way of rising banners and counter chaff.

 iGuy91 wrote:
I am so torn between Gauss Immortals and Warriors now.

The Warriors going to 13 points, by comparison to 17 pt Gauss Immortals....
Gets me +1 A,+1 SV, +1 T.
Loses RR1s for the RP.

They seem like a solid choice in a marine meta. They still reliably RP on a 5+, or a 4+ in some cases, and 2 of them will refund the cost of a rez orb. Getting a 2+ in cover is handy as well, with 30 inch range giving them a lot of options.
Thoughts nowadays?

Immortals are also quite easy to wipe in one go negating rp fully.

Immortals are also quite easy to wipe in one go negating rp fully.

How that?

 wuestenfux wrote:

Immortals are also quite easy to wipe in one go negating rp fully.

How that?

I mean, I agree with Wuestenfux
10 T5 2+ save models (in cover) that have a 5+ RP if the squad isn't totally wiped is pretty tough.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I have yet to get my hands on the codex, and would like to plan my things out a bit. Lokhust Destroyers and Heavy Lokust Destroyers: What are the units sizes and weapons upgrades?


On a side note, I've found many of my old-school models now look like they are from other units. How much grief do you think I'll get for running Pariahs as Lychguard, 2nd edition Destroyers as Tomb Blades, and and 3rd edition Wraiths as Ophydian Destroyers?

1-6 regular destroyers, 0-1 heavy destroyers in the unit. Regular destroyers IIRC have the same gun they have now - heavy 3 S6 AP-3 Dd3, they ignore move and fire heavy with a datasheet rule, and they get always rr1s to hit. The old destroyer stratagem has been nerfed somewhat, it's now 2cp and only rerolls to wound, not to hit and to wound (You miss out on rerolling 2s to hit)

heavy destroyers have the same cost regardless of gun making the lascannon equivalent one always best. Heavy 1 S12 AP-4 D3d3.

Unfortunate that you can't sneak 2 heavies into a unit of lokhusts, but it is what it is.

The Heavy Destroyer's gun is S10, not S12.

Do people think regular Destroyers have much use any more? Their move from FA to HS alone pretty much renders them unappealing. Then they went from having one of the best strats in the game to an average one...

I actuall ythink them being in Heavy not Fast is a benefit, given how cramped our FA slots were...

I will probably still use mine. Unless I'm mistaken, they're still one of our best ranged options at dropping Marines, including Gravis armour, which we're about to see a lot more of.

I think one unit of regulars could have a place in lists, if they can be accomodated.

 IHateNids wrote:
I actuall ythink them being in Heavy not Fast is a benefit, given how cramped our FA slots were...

I will probably still use mine. Unless I'm mistaken, they're still one of our best ranged options at dropping Marines, including Gravis armour, which we're about to see a lot more of.

I think one unit of regulars could have a place in lists, if they can be accomodated.

I'm inclined to agree. I think the key to beating marines now in 9th is being able to handle mass gravis. Which is something destroyers (in any variety) are good at.

 iGuy91 wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
I actuall ythink them being in Heavy not Fast is a benefit, given how cramped our FA slots were...

I will probably still use mine. Unless I'm mistaken, they're still one of our best ranged options at dropping Marines, including Gravis armour, which we're about to see a lot more of.

I think one unit of regulars could have a place in lists, if they can be accomodated.

I'm inclined to agree. I think the key to beating marines now in 9th is being able to handle mass gravis. Which is something destroyers (in any variety) are good at.

It's about the only thing I actually feel remotely confident about saying so far about the new dex (granted I have not been able to actually collect it yet - hooray shifts)

I genuinely think the first thing I am going to try is ditching vehicles entirely, just to see how things go (Maybe I'll use the Stalker still... not sure). Will be very wierd not moving 6 big lumps around every single board I'm ever playing on, but I am looking forward to it.

In view of list building, are you using the new GW app and the possibility to access the codex within the app.
Battlescribe seems a bit lacking behind with the codex update.