# Tomb Blades - Anyone gonna use 'em?



## SoulGazer (Jun 14, 2009)

I will! I intend to see just what these things are capable of. The question I would like to ask is which combination of weapon loadouts you guys think will be most effective in dealing with a wide array of enemies. 

Weapons: We can choose between Twin-linked Tesla Carbines, Twin-linked Gauss blasters, or Particle Beamers.

I know for things like mass infantry armies, the Beamers would do well. Massing small templates sounds painful. However, for MEQ's would it be better to mass the blasters or carbines? If they've got some Rhinos or maybe even a Land Raider backup, do you think some massed blaster fire could do some good glancing damage in one round of shooting?

Also, what roll do you think they should play? I was thinking of using them to rush in and assassinate an HQ or command squad, or maybe even trying to glance a Land Raider down early in the game.


----------



## aboytervigon (Jul 6, 2010)

I really don't think they have a use in my army.


----------



## SoulGazer (Jun 14, 2009)

aboytervigon said:


> I really don't think they have a use in my army.


Well that's.... Good to know. o.o


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

They are interesting, but they are already competing with a lot of really good things. They are kind of the crap choice of the four.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Yeah, maybe... I think they would be an ok unit and a relentless unit of 5 TL-gauss blasters for 100pts is pretty sweet.
I would be a little concerned that a few AP4 shots from medium/heavy weaponry could destroy a whole unit with ease and deny WBB, but it might be worth the risk.

In all probability I won't use them: I've got an extensive necron army, I'm buying lots of the new vehicles and HQ and I don't think the tomb blades do anything particularly special. If I had them already I might run them as a change-up, but can't see the reason to spend a likely £40-50 on a unit of 5 when they're not massively different.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Maybe I do tend to collect every choice from a army eventually regardless of effectivness. My possessed and spawn can attest to that fact.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

Eventually... There are a lot of other things further on my priority of buy/build/play before them. I also have a large collection and will probably grab a squad out of completionism than necessity.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Used to grab every unit/model in an army... but when my armies keep getting new books which radically alter the units, cut half and give many more it gets rather annoying.

Anyway, tomb blades remind me a lot of destroyers in the old rules.... and I got plenty of play with them, no rush to keep fighting that way when there are masses of new options.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Tim/Steve said:


> Used to grab every unit/model in an army... but when my armies keep getting new books which radically alter the units, cut half and give many more it gets rather annoying.
> 
> Anyway, tomb blades remind me a lot of destroyers in the old rules.... and I got plenty of play with them, no rush to keep fighting that way when there are masses of new options.


On a similar note....I don't see many people using destroyers (outside of hvy) with the new book....are they just simply not worth it now?


----------



## SoulGazer (Jun 14, 2009)

Ravner298 said:


> On a similar note....I don't see many people using destroyers (outside of hvy) with the new book....are they just simply not worth it now?


They're 24" 2 shots now, same as most everything else that can kill MEQ's in the Newcrons. Only reason people take heavies is for the 36" range. Also they're jump infantry, so they don't get to move beyond 12". They got nerfed hard, sadly.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

Ap3 shots now though, so they are definitely decent anti tac squads... Regardless, I am not rushing to field 15 of them anymore.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Yup, destroyers lost their 3 S6 shots for 2 S5 which means they lose out massively against vehicles and anyone who hasn't got a 3+ save. It takes them from an excellent all-rounder unit to an ok anti-MEQ unit. Not a bad choice, but they aren't the inst-take unit they used to be.
I think a lot of people are, like me, a little sick of using destroyers. I was playing a lot of games with my immortals and wraiths with the old dex just to have a change from destroyers... and now I have a whole new dex with loads of cool new units (and vehicles) to try out instead why would I take my destroyers?


To my thinking the anhihilation barge fills the role that destroyers used to: it averages about 5 S7 hits a turn plus its underslung cannon (1.3 gauss hits or 2 tesla) if you stay stationary (or want the AP from the gauss cannon). That meqans its putting out the firepower of about 3 of the old destroyers, for the price of about 2.

Having said that tomb blades could be used in a similar role, but I would be hesitant to choose a specific weapon for them: tesla gives you the numbers of shots to be useful, gauss give you lots of shots close in with AP to annoy anyone with less the 3+ armour but the particle beamer would give you a unit that can blast appart huge hoard units or just put moderate hurt on MEQ type units.... the beamers would attract me since they fill a role very little else in the book can manage, but then I would always miss the cheap TL fire the other weapons give you.


----------



## SoulGazer (Jun 14, 2009)

Tim/Steve said:


> but then I would always miss the cheap TL fire the other weapons give you.


You could always tag units with the Triarch Stalker to make the beamers twin-linked if fired at the same targets. :wink:


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Aye, I think many people will take stalkers just for that reason: I want one with a particle shredder to smash an infantry uint and make all my warrior/immortal/ghost ark fire twin linked... "What's that Bob, you brought a unit of 30 orks..? Not anymore."


----------



## SoulGazer (Jun 14, 2009)

Tim/Steve said:


> Aye, I think many people will take stalkers just for that reason: I want one with a particle shredder to smash an infantry uint and make all my warrior/immortal/ghost ark fire twin linked... "What's that Bob, you brought a unit of 30 orks..? Not anymore."


Curse GW for their multiple model wave shenanigans! Must have every model now! :ireful2:


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

Curses indeed! If the next wave has stalkers and scythes, I get the feeling a lot of people will be disappointed in me when i'm flat broke and giving out apologies for christmas


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Not to derail this thread, but honestly, I am not a fan of the stalkers. The more I think about them, the less I like them. At their cost, you get an okay melta type gun/ heavy flamer, particle shredder, or a guass. You also get the ability to TW things you hit.

I just don't see it being cost effective in the army from a competitive point of view. 

From a modelling point of view, they look sweet, but I just don't see using them much. 

For their cost, I can get almost 4 wraiths or some other better unit.


----------



## blind_freak (Dec 8, 2009)

The tomb blades seem to be a tad under powered for the size of the unit. You would be hard pressed to use them without using another unit. Their best feature, I think, is that they are the only jetbikes in the codex (if my memory serves me correctly). Since all of the previous jetbikes have been downgraded to jump troops, this is one of the only things that give necrons the opportunity for a late game contested objective (the others being the planes/fast skimmers). 

Also, the stalkers seemed ok until I noticed their lack of DCCW. Seems like a pretty strong disadvantage especially with their limited mobility and lack of deep strike capability.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

lokis222 said:


> Not to derail this thread, but honestly, I am not a fan of the stalkers. The more I think about them, the less I like them. At their cost, you get an okay melta type gun/ heavy flamer, particle shredder, or a guass. You also get the ability to TW things you hit.
> 
> I just don't see it being cost effective in the army from a competitive point of view.
> 
> ...


The ability to tag a unit with what's essentially a twin-linked lascannon from 36" away (well outside of enemy melta range and protected by AV13) is quite good, especially considering that if the target survives the rest of the army has a far easier time hitting is well worth the points and Elite slot(s). I think a pair of Stalkers could be really, really good and quite synergistic with certain other units.


----------



## SoulGazer (Jun 14, 2009)

blind_freak said:


> Also, the stalkers seemed ok until I noticed their lack of DCCW. Seems like a pretty strong disadvantage especially with their limited mobility and lack of deep strike capability.


If your Stalker tags something like a Dreadnought that DSed in front of it, it may not kill it. However, the 40 warriors right next to the Stalker have a good chance of glancing the thing to death with all them twin-linked gauss weapons that can rapid fire. That's gonna get really nasty really fast.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> The ability to tag a unit with what's essentially a twin-linked lascannon from 36" away (well outside of enemy melta range and protected by AV13) is quite good, especially considering that if the target survives the rest of the army has a far easier time hitting is well worth the points and Elite slot(s). I think a pair of Stalkers could be really, really good and quite synergistic with certain other units.


Wasn't looking at the Heavy Guass. Good point. Not a hundred percent sold, but I could see that working well with large foot slogging warriors with Overlord Phaerons. It would be nasty against hordes.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

SoulGazer said:


> If your Stalker tags something like a Dreadnought that DSed in front of it, it may not kill it. However, the 40 warriors right next to the Stalker have a good chance of glancing the thing to death with all them twin-linked gauss weapons that can rapid fire. That's gonna get really nasty really fast.


Agreed. Stalkers have an awesome synergy with your infantry. I see a couple of them making a Necron horde army an incredibly potent force.

EDIT- point made redundant by ninja's


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

To bad about the high cost vs relative survivability thought, but then again the best support units often have a jacked up cost anyways.


----------



## Igniskhin (May 19, 2011)

I consider the tomb blades to be quick versions of immortals. with the vain (???) upgrade they get the 3+ so for... 13 points (i think) more you get an immortal with twin linked weapons and a faster movement speed, and relentless special rule. they just cant claim objectives.

you could upgrade them to hit more often, but the twin linked is allready there so to me its kinda "meh" inless your using the particle and want to reduce scatter.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Igniskhin said:


> I consider the tomb blades to be quick versions of immortals. with the vain (???) upgrade they get the 3+ so for... 13 points (i think) more you get an immortal with twin linked weapons and a faster movement speed, and relentless special rule. they just cant claim objectives.
> 
> you could upgrade them to hit more often, but the twin linked is allready there so to me its kinda "meh" inless your using the particle and want to reduce scatter.


Been thinking about them more and I am starting to like them. They are jet bikes, they are twin-linked (tesla goodness), and they are pretty cheap. In the right army list, I think they could have a lot of potential.

I know this is a 180 on my previous opinion, but like I said, I took a closer look at them.

Not sure the vanes are worth it. They add 50% to cost and I see this unit as more of a distraction that hurts when it can rather than a hard hitting unit you need to have stay around.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

As always upgrade are the killer in this unit, and many a list has been whittled down to a counterproductive mess of 25 models after falling pray to over application of upgrades.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> As always upgrade are the killer in this unit, and many a list has been whittled down to a counterproductive mess of 25 models after falling pray to over application of upgrades.


Agreed, there is so much shiny stuff that it gets to the magpie in all of us. So many neat things, so few points.


----------



## OddJob (Nov 1, 2007)

lokis222 said:


> Not to derail this thread, but honestly, I am not a fan of the stalkers. The more I think about them, the less I like them. At their cost, you get an okay melta type gun/ heavy flamer, particle shredder, or a guass. You also get the ability to TW things you hit.


You also get an av13 walker for holding up difficult assault units such as infiltrating stealers or blood crushers. No single aspect is worth the 150pnt price tag but I can see them having niche roles in a TAC list, so I'm taking one for now.

Thinking about the twin linking ability got me to take five tomb blades with the particle do-hickeys. Did anyone ever play with the old dex tyranid warriors? Massed st6 templates can be utterly lethal, especially if twin linked. DSers don't like to see them, nor do scarabs (in the mirror match). 150pts for 5 sounds like a bargain to me- you can keep them cheap if you protect them with two turns of nightfight and a more pressing target priority.

That being said, this is mostly theory as I'm not getting many competative games in at the moment.


----------

