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.

But 4++ save is a pretty effective way at mitigating damage. Pretty much the best available tool. No unit at 130ish points should be putting out 8 tank killer shots. I mean...the Valiant Gladiator does that and its 250 points...There is a clear unbalance here. At 6 shots it was already pretty bad but a point increase would have been satisfactory. With erads getting a MM option in the codex...it is just laughable.

 Xenomancers wrote:
But 4++ save is a pretty effective way at mitigating damage. Pretty much the best available tool. No unit at 130ish points should be putting out 8 tank killer shots. I mean...the Valiant Gladiator does that and its 250 points...There is a clear unbalance here. At 6 shots it was already pretty bad but a point increase would have been satisfactory. With erads getting a MM option in the codex...it is just laughable.

I'm not arguing that, but most heavy vehicles are not wounded on 3s by autocannons. It's the same as a drukhari ravager, really, vs other similarly priced units it's more durable vs some weapons and less vs others.

The doomstalker is decently durable for the cost. The primary thing that in my eyes makes it not worth considering as a competitive piece is the lack of reliability. D6 shot D6 damage gun is just bad IMO, particularly when 3d3 and 3+d3 options are available.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
But 4++ save is a pretty effective way at mitigating damage. Pretty much the best available tool. No unit at 130ish points should be putting out 8 tank killer shots. I mean...the Valiant Gladiator does that and its 250 points...There is a clear unbalance here. At 6 shots it was already pretty bad but a point increase would have been satisfactory. With erads getting a MM option in the codex...it is just laughable.

I'm not arguing that, but most heavy vehicles are not wounded on 3s by autocannons. It's the same as a drukhari ravager, really, vs other similarly priced units it's more durable vs some weapons and less vs others.

The doomstalker is decently durable for the cost. The primary thing that in my eyes makes it not worth considering as a competitive piece is the lack of reliability. D6 shot D6 damage gun is just bad IMO, particularly when 3d3 and 3+d3 options are available.

I think the doom stalker beats out Heavy destroyers without question though. The Nightscythe might be a better option. I will have to try it out. I liked it a lot better at 170 points with the ability to take MWBD from an indom overlord. I played it that way and it did great weeks ago. Now +30 points - no 2+ to hit and super tesla....It's gonna be hard for me to justify it - I have the nerf blues.

Safe to say Triarch stalkers are auto include. At least 1. Maybe 3.

140pts for 1 eradicators' worth of firepower?

I don't know if I'd call it an auto-include...for the same price, you can have 2 lokhust heavies hidden in units of regular lokhusts, which have native reroll 1s to hit and can have reroll all wounds.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Doomstalkers are useable if you take two or three with a Technomancer with Canoptek Control Node, but if you play in hard local metas or you are looking at tournament play, you want DDAs, they are simply better.

- more movement (not much, but still)
- FLY (still useful even without fall back + shoot)
- more HP (similar points efficiency, but still)
- QS (generally a wash, but better with 4++ stratagem)
- better secondary weapon (2.5 times as many shots)
- no need for a babysitter (better flexibility with hiding and general positioning)
- not needing the Technomancer also frees up a Cryptek slot for the rest of the army


On a sidenote, a DDA will survive a unit of fully buffed Eradicators (4x Heavy, 2x Multi with Chapter Master + Lieutnant rerolls) outside Melta range if you use the 4++ stratagem, taking 11.31 damage.

The Doomstalker won't, and the Doomscythe neither.

One thing I'm looking forward to is seeing the actually tournament results of Necrons with the new book. Personally, I'll honestly be surprised if they place great in tournaments, but I still think it'll be interesting to discuss their viability with a bit more hard evidence.
Also, thanks for all the replies in this thread, everyone!

Acehilator wrote:
Doomstalkers are useable if you take two or three with a Technomancer with Canoptek Control Node, but if you play in hard local metas or you are looking at tournament play, you want DDAs, they are simply better.

- more movement (not much, but still)
- FLY (still useful even without fall back + shoot)
- more HP (similar points efficiency, but still)
- QS (generally a wash, but better with 4++ stratagem)
- better secondary weapon (2.5 times as many shots)
- no need for a babysitter (better flexibility with hiding and general positioning)
- not needing the Technomancer also frees up a Cryptek slot for the rest of the army


On a sidenote, a DDA will survive a unit of fully buffed Eradicators (4x Heavy, 2x Multi with Chapter Master + Lieutnant rerolls) outside Melta range if you use the 4++ stratagem, taking 11.31 damage.

The Doomstalker won't, and the Doomscythe neither.

You miss the doomsday ark is 50 points more each, taking 2 pays for the cryptek, likewise they degrade on their BS and the stalkers don't, it's not clear cut that either option is better imo.

Degradation is literally the only advantage in taking Stalkers. I am sure it's not worth it missing out on all the little things noted above.

Also, a "operate at top bracket" strat exists.

There are a lot of other advantages too. The DDA pays a lot of points for a bunch of 24" rapid fire anti-infantry weapons that are hard to use effectively without debuffing your big gun. It doesn't get free FTGG overwatch. It doesn't get to use the strat to shoot at something that killed one of your characters - super situational, but game-winning in the right circumstances. As a vehicle, it gets shredded by haywire, in a meta where harlequins are super strong and almost every harlequin player takes at least one 5-man squad of the bikes. Etc etc.

I instinctively dislike both of them because 1d6 shots 1d6 damage weapons are a bad joke. But they have done a pretty good job of creating reasons to take both versions, within that generally ineffective paradigm.

the_scotsman wrote:
140pts for 1 eradicators' worth of firepower?

I don't know if I'd call it an auto-include...for the same price, you can have 2 lokhust heavies hidden in units of regular lokhusts, which have native reroll 1s to hit and can have reroll all wounds.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

You should be taking the heavy gauss version even though its the most expensive. 6 shots str 7 ap-3 d3 damage. Most importantly though. They spread around reorll 1's to hit and have decent melee ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Acehilator wrote:
Degradation is literally the only advantage in taking Stalkers. I am sure it's not worth it missing out on all the little things noted above.

Also, a "operate at top bracket" strat exists.

190 x 3 = 570.
140 3x+ 95 for cryptec is 515.

It saves you 55 points and you get a cryptec to reanimate an infanttry a turn. The additional shots you get from the secondaries could be argued that can in certain situations be worth the extra points but I doubt it. 65 points gets you a spider with a claw to repair too. I think the choice between the two options is pretty close but the doom stalker wins out in the end. ESP if you also include other conaoptec units that benefit from the +1 aura too.

One thing I would note about the Doom scythe and the LHD with Destructors is that they are only likely to get an attack with their weapon, and then be wiped off the board.

So while the points per damage on the LHD and Doom scythe are higher, I generally expect the Doomstalkers to stick around much longer. Same with a DDA.

There could be a case of bringing individual LHDs. Now that we have credible Melee and Ranged Anti-tank in multiple slots though, we might be able to suffice with just a few 1 ofs LHDs.

Doomstalkers are useable if you take two or three with a Technomancer with Canoptek Control Node, but if you play in hard local metas or you are looking at tournament play, you want DDAs, they are simply better.

I'd agree with the part of the statement that says they are good if you take more than 1 and you support them, they are good. I struggle to see how they will be in any way "OP".

As for the results of "Wait and see" - I have said in many posts our group's "wait and see" moment was going to be the first two books. I guess you can label us cautiously optimistic?

Once again, there were VERY CLEARLY two extremely different interpretations of the initial design direction. As has been pointed out - Necrons got CORE in a very limited manner and Marines got it left and right like it was going out of style. A lot of the Necron "buffs" are highly situational, and/or side-grades that are hard to get too excited about as well.

That said, we really like the layouts of the new books, and really, they over-all did what we wanted them to do. Marines have been brought more in line, and the 'Crons are currently in the running for "most improved" (provided DG don't knock them out of that slot when their dex comes out!). Crons actually feel workable again. They have actual tools in the toolbox and marines were dialed back but not nerfed into the ground, so, yeah - cautiously optimistic over here.

EDIT:

The one caveat to this that I forgot to mention is the poor, poor Monolith - 380 points, LoW, AND IT LOST FLY? They basically put it in a sack and smashed it repeatedly with a hammer. I don't actually like them personally, so it doesn't affect me, but it's the functional equivalent of GW deciding Dar Eldar don't need Raiders anymore - such an iconic unit to the army, and it's not likely to see the table this edition with its current rules. That's a real head scratcher imo.

Well AT is the area Necrons are struggling with the most, which is funny given the stats on the weapon themselves. People on the Necrontyr Reddit have pics up of their LHDs, they are surprisingly small. Three in a unit are 210, they are infantry, so moving through walls and getting Light Cover is a thing. The weapons in said unit are way more consistent than DDA/Stalker, easy to hide etc. Obviously they melt to Eradicators.

Regarding the codizes, the general design is fine. Necrons having limited CORE is fine, it fits the fluff. If all codizes would turn out like the Necron one, that would be really nice. SMs continue to play their own game, at this point I don't care anymore. Them having CORE everywhere is fine too (well except Dreads, but whatever), GW just missed the points cost, as usual. Overall, I am not interested in another round of powercreep.

Looking forward to the DG codex.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Erads are a joke. No way they exist much longer than a few weeks like this. Marines stuff that is OP gets nerfed quickly. I also doubt outflank continues to exist ether. Remember turn 1 deepstrike in 8th? That didn't take long to nerf after that created so much problems.

Hmm yes, I too remember how quickly the whole last year and a half of 8th nerfed marines. Yes yes. Tell it to the world how it is Xeno.
Marines need the power level to keep up with units such as the Stompa and Squigbuggy clearly

Erads are pretty busted. But retributors can do similar now. 12 meltas at 36" with +1 damage (+3 half range). 150 pts and a 1 cp.

OP might have been strong words by me, but stalkers are very cheap for what you get. Previously every competitive necron player used 3 doomsday arcs in their lists, This is despite the fact that their weapons are D6 shots, D6 damage. Yes this isn’t ideal, but having 3 in a list adds a lot of redundancy that is needed for competitive lists. Doomstalkers lack the quantum shielding that arcs had, but gained a 4++ and are a lot cheaper at 140 points (x 3 since you have to run 3 for the consistentancy). Their main gun is slightly better to with AP -5, which does matter in this marine meta. The key here is that 48 inch range, which allows them to hang in the back away from scary melta weapons, which will be a lot more common than scary long ranged guns.

Also I think a lot of you are underestimating how important their cheap cost is. I here comments like “for only 60 points more I can get a doomsycth” or something similar for doomsday arcs. But as previously mentioned I think you have to run 3 of these units due to constancy, which means that 60 points get’s x3 as well to 180 points. Now where at the point where a necron player who takes 3 doomstalkers gets a full unit more than the player who takes one of the other doom options. Frankly this feels like powercreep to sell new models, but that’s just how the math works out here.

Also I’m not advocating people use doomstalkers instead of C’tan’s, but rather with C’tans. A list that uses 3 stalkers, the voiddragon, and nightbringer has 880 points left for troops, HQ’s, and maybe a melee unit. That to me will become the default setup for most competitive necron lists (although this is admittedly theoycrafting at this point).

140 points is cheap eneugh that you can toss one (or even three) into your list reasonably painlessly. I mean if you wanna compare the thing to a marine unit, it's worth noting that a twin las predator costs 130 points (thats not including the sponsons) and gets better performance along just about every metric.

C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.

yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.

ohh I just felt obligated to note doomstalkers are better then at least one marine heavy support option!

honestly I'd never looked at predator points until now, jesus those those are over priced. A pity, I had a predator I was thinking I could take for the odd game or two but I suspect ti'll spend 9th edition shelved

yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.

I don't think I can really agree here. Nothing in the game does what the Nightbringer does, and I think you will always see one in a competitive list.

I don't understand why some people have been saying Lokhust Destroyers moving to Heavy Support is a bad thing. It's a great thing! Fast Attack is always the most stacked but that's levelled out slightly

Also I actually like what they have done with classic Destroyers (apart from nerfing the strat ffs), making them these one robot wrecking balls of firepower. The issue is both Lokhust and Heavy Lokhust are at overpriced. Regular's by at least 10 points

 Sasori wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.

I don't think I can really agree here. Nothing in the game does what the Nightbringer does, and I think you will always see one in a competitive list.

I think that's why you won't see him in a competitive list. There's a reason nothing else in the game does what he does - because that isn't a role that really needs doing IMO. Maybe in a meta with lots of knights or something, but 40k isn't generally a game where you need a 350 point melee beatstick. He feels to me like a "win harder" piece, something that will absolutely smash lists you'd beat anyway but doesn't give you a real competitive advantage against the lists you would have trouble with. Anything that can do damage in 3 or even 2 phases is a massive threat to him.

Honestly his c'tan power is probably the scariest thing about him and the main reason I'd take him, more than his melee. He puts out something like 4.5ish targeted MWs on average per turn when he's within range of it, and that's enough to be really scary to characters.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.

I don't think I can really agree here. Nothing in the game does what the Nightbringer does, and I think you will always see one in a competitive list.

I think that's why you won't see him in a competitive list. There's a reason nothing else in the game does what he does - because that isn't a role that really needs doing IMO. Maybe in a meta with lots of knights or something, but 40k isn't generally a game where you need a 350 point melee beatstick. He feels to me like a "win harder" piece, something that will absolutely smash lists you'd beat anyway but doesn't give you a real competitive advantage against the lists you would have trouble with. Anything that can do damage in 3 or even 2 phases is a massive threat to him.

Honestly his c'tan power is probably the scariest thing about him and the main reason I'd take him, more than his melee. He puts out something like 4.5ish targeted MWs on average per turn when he's within range of it, and that's enough to be really scary to characters.

keep in mind that the meta is always shifting, a year from now a new knights codex could come out that is insane;y good, insanely popular and suddenly every necron player wants to have nightbringer on hand. having a tool that "may not be needed in the current meta" doesn't mean it's not a bad tool to have.

I never said it was. I said I don't think you'll see him in competitive lists right now. Obviously if the meta changes and big beefy units aren't being suppressed by eradicators any more the situation might change.

Tycho wrote:

Once again, there were VERY CLEARLY two extremely different interpretations of the initial design direction. As has been pointed out - Necrons got CORE in a very limited manner and Marines got it left and right like it was going out of style.

I really don't think there were, I just think people made the mistake in thinking which units being designated CORE were done so for balance/gameplay reasons. Gonna quote a post I just made on the subject:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.

The only inconsistency concerning CORE for Marines and CORE for Necrons is that the Centurion by the standards they're obviously operating with should have it.

All the Marines that are CORE are so because they are all some variation of dudes in the open field. Infantry, bikers, and dreadnoughts whose metal frame essentially is their body. They are core because all can be directly coordinated by a Spess Mehreen commander.

The Necron units that are CORE are all of the units the Necron nobility can directly coordinate. So just warriors, immortal, deathmark, tomb blades, and lych guard. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are insane, and Canoptek are mindless and working within the pre-set parameters of their design.

It makes perfect sense that Eradicators are CORE, even if it's bad for game balance, just like it makes perfect sense that flayed ones aren't core, even if it would be fine for balance.

The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.

I don't like it very much myself, but there isn't any double standard that benefits Marines. The one time they went against that obvious design philosophy was in a hamfisted attempt to gut the Centurion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I never said it was. I said I don't think you'll see him in competitive lists right now. Obviously if the meta changes and big beefy units aren't being suppressed by eradicators any more the situation might change.

What lists have the targeted smite firepower to shave three wounds off of him that are meta right now except maybe Daemons?

Couldn't agree more Void__Dragon.

The Necron Core units are Core because it makes sense within the fluff. Flayed Ones are abhorred by the Necrons, and Destroyers (of all types) are obsessive creatures slowly devolving into madness. Of course they're not considered "Core" by the Necrons.

And you're right that the inconsistency are the Centurions.

Yeah. Its what I've been saying for a while. Core is GW's latest stab at pushing fluffy 'this is what this army is supposed to look like.'

Necron Core means 'actually necrons,' 'sane,' and not 'watchmen outside the order of the dynasties'

It has squat to do with balance.
Marine Core is basically infantry/bikes capable of taking orders (which is basically all of them), plus dreads because GW thinks dreads are cool (and loyalist dreads are heavily dosed with heroism particles and battle honors, rather than pure crazy).
Centurions I can't explain. It might be a random thought about game balance, but it could just as easily be an accidental omission.

----
It'll be interesting to see how Death Guard are handled. I obviously expect it on the plague marines, terminators and dreads, but not daemon engines or cultists. The various Nurgle Daemons also seem unlikely since they currently break detachment bonuses.
Poxwalkers are my 'I'm not sure' guess.
I kind of expect them to seem 'shorted' here, simply because they don't have marine units threaded through every slot type (no fast or heavy), and the glut of elite characters shouldn't get it (as excluding characters is one of the points of the Core tag).

When they finally get around to Imperial Guard, it'll be really interesting, since that's the codex I half-expect to see it on tanks. And not on any of the Auxiliary units. But just Infantry, special weapons squads, HWT, veterans and scions (if them) seems too limited.

Voss wrote:
Yeah. Its what I've been saying for a while. Core is GW's latest stab at pushing fluffy 'this is what this army is supposed to look like.'

Necron Core means 'actually necrons,' 'sane,' and not 'watchmen outside the order of the dynasties'

It has squat to do with balance.

It'll be interesting to see how Death Guard are handled. I obviously expect it on the marines, terminators and dreads, but not daemon engines or cultists. The various Nurgle Daemons also seem unlikely since they currently break detachment bonuses.
Poxwalkers are my 'I'm not sure' guess.

When they finally get around to Imperial Guard, it'll be really interesting, since that's the point I half-expect to see it on tanks.

and this BTW gets back to some of us managed to predict what the core units would be pretty accurately before the codices launched. we looked at what GW said the intent of the rule was, rather then wish hopefully

Voss wrote:
When they finally get around to Imperial Guard, it'll be really interesting, since that's the codex I half-expect to see it on tanks. And not on any of the Auxiliary units. But just Infantry, special weapons squads, HWT, veterans and scions (if them) seems too limited.

Depends on how they do the Leman Russ entry, really.

If it's just all-in-one, then there might be some hesitation to list Vanquishers and Executioners as "core". If they split them up a bit, then regular Russes, Exterminators and maybe Demolishers could be core. The Chimera is a possibility as well. On the other hand, I wouldn't be shocked if Sentinels didn't get it.

Scions are an interesting case, as they are not something I'd consider "core" in a Guard army. In a Scion army though, they are obviously intrinsic (so is the Taurox for that matter). They could make it conditional ie. "If you Warlord has the 'Scion' Keyword then the following units gain the Core keyword". They could even do that with tanks, as it happens.

Hell that might even be a way of fixing the current nonsense with Dark Eldar. "If you include a Succubus in your army all Wych units gain the Core keyword". And so on...

Conditional Core makes no real sense- it undermines the utility of having the concept at all.

Instead of going that route, they're better off sticking to the relevant keyword (be it 'Scion' or 'Russ.'). In this case Scion would be like Destroyers, where the leader models & strats only buff the relevant unit and they don't get Core.


---
That said, dark eldar (as they're currently organized) might be a messy exception to that, simply because GW has made such as mess of the 'subfactions.'
Though equally likely, I could see dark eldar having NO Core at all, just characters and strats that only affect Kabals, Cults OR Covens, but never more than one.

But I still hope that DE (and CE) just get massive overhauls to drag them out of the pits of neglect they've been summarily tossed into, making that sort of speculation moot.