Baggronor:
I just don't get what the point of it as a unit is. It's pretty much just a giant, awesome, fast, daemon. Why do Chaos Dwarfs get that? How does that fit with anything we know about them as a race? Sure, it's a bound daemon, and maybe it has some sort of mechanical element to it but mostly it's pretty much just the best possible combination of stats and abilities in Warhammer, and I don't get why.
Yup. It has a lot of overlap with the Taurus too, which isn't a good thing imo. It's greatest strength and the thing that makes the least sense is the M9. That is huge.
Vogon:
Well I don’t have a Destroyer yet but I’d have no problem using one or facing one in a game. There are so many other big monsters and things of that nature out there in the new edition (Stonehorn, Imperial Griffon, arachnarok, Terrorgheist, mortis engine, Warshpynx, the list goes on) that the Destroyer actually seems pretty tame in comparison.
I’m just waiting to see what the Warhammer Forge model looks like before going for it, by which time I’ll have a fairly balanced list anyway.
Cheers
Vogon
MLP:
I suspect we may see more Destroyers used once the official model is released, no matter how OTT it may be considered people will want to use a cool model they payed £50-100 for (or however much it will cost).
Grimbold Blackhammer:
It actually has two weaknesses - poison and the Lore of Shadow. Drop its Toughness and it will self destruct pretty quick. I’m not trying to say it is anything other than a rank-and-file killing beast but it isn’t bulletproof either.
So all that being said, are people winning games without it?
Grimbold Blackhammer
Parish:
I haven't played with the list yet but can already say now that I will not field a destroyer or a magma cannon...why?...because they're more or less standard in most lists and that turns me off on it.
SafetyTurtle
I'm in the same case , I can't see the point of playing them actually .
Almost every list , in the our section dedicated to it , includes a kday et magma , ok it's OP , but just nothing new :/
Bitterman:
You can definitely play friendly games without a Destroyer. I had an excellent and enjoyable game against a fluffy Dwarf army the other day that was very close, I lost by only just over 100 victory points, lots of fun. It’s not like the army “needs” a Destroyer to function. It may not be optimal without one, but Warhammer isn’t always about fielding an optimal army. In fact I prefer it when it is not.
More competitive games… I’m not so sure. It is self-evidently the best unit in the list, so if you’re trying to be competitive, why would you not take one given that the option is available? You may or may not be able to build a competitive LoA list without one but if competitiveness is the goal, the Destroyer is right there waiting for you.
Like Thommy, I’m not sure why the K’daai (including the Destroyer) were introduced. But unfortunately that’s 8th Ed army lists for you, it’s the way GW are taking the game - every army has access to everything, and always, always something BIG. Hence Empire armies with monstrous cavalry and laser guns, Ogres with move-and-shoot stone throwers that never misfire and are also monsters, Goblins with giant giant giant giant giant giant spiders, and (if hints in the rulebook are to be believed) Dark Elves with “metal giants with the souls of killers”, etc etc etc. Every army apparently has to have something massive and frighteningly powerful - for CDs, they decided it would be the Destroyer. It’s not a direction that I particularly like them to have taken Warhammer in, but that’s what Warhammer is now, and that’s that.
MLP:
Although I agree that Warhammer is Monsterhammer these days and I’m not particularly happy about it, I’m not just going to stop using the two units in the list which are considered the most powerful. I’m certain that no one in any of the gaming groups I play in will be doing the same with their armies.
Is it not a bit of an insult to not bring units you think are too tough for your opponent?
Opponent “hey you lost a bit easily, doesn’t your army have a cool fire cannon and an awesome monster?!”
you “yeah but I thought you’d cry like a baby wearing a pink tutu if I brought them…”
Opponent ends friendship
In an army with a lower than average amount of troop choices it just seems ridiculous not to use all your units. No matter how powerful a unit is, it can be countered. The K’daai has plenty: Ethereal units, 2+ fire Ward unit, poison, lore of shadow, frenzy baiting. A big part of Warhammer is to figure out how to defeat your opponent’s units, so if you play in a friendly manner no-one should have a problem with you using your army’s most powerful units.
Thommy H:
I don’t think the inclusion of the Destroyer is the same thing as the other monsters showing up in 8th Edition books - those are fine, because they actually fit with the armies they’re for. Vampires getting a massive undead bat thing (which is slow and has relatively few Attacks, as is appropriate) or O&G getting a giant spider (which has low Ld due to its Goblin riders) isn’t stretching credulity.
A huge, fast, frenzied fire daemon though? How does that fit with Chaos Dwarfs exactly?
MLP:
A huge, fast, frenzied fire daemon though? How does that fit with Chaos Dwarfs exactly?
Thommy H
We all know the real answer: Forgeworld want to sell big expensive models so will find any excuse to put one in there.
And by the looks of the new GW army books they're doing exactly the same.
Although I do think the K'daai fit in the army to an extent, I agree that the Destroyer is a bit over the top. But I think the rules probably extend from the expected price of the model. Not all people want to pay for just a good model they want to pay to use the rules in their army, so an expensive model need to be decent.
Veshnakar:
I think the K’daai fit in with Chaos Dwarfs just fine. They are described as bound fire daemons trapped within armor forged by chaos dwarfs daemonsmiths.
I think thematically that fits in quite nicely with the idea of Chaos Dwarfs binding and bending daemons and using them against their will. To me, being dwarfs of Chaos would be a cop out, but rather we use chaos to gain an advantage. Having hellbound warmachines and bound fire daemons kind of exemplifies that for me.
Far2Casual:
@Thommy : The same way the Hellcannon does (huge, fast and frenzied). Actually, I largely prefer the concept of K’Daais than the Hellcannon. Could you explain me once again how this thing is supposed to fight and how Dwarves are supposed to move at M6 ?
Fireborns for example are a great addition to the army and are both fun to use and pretty balanced. They can be pretty useful but at the same time do not completely change the opponent’s plan when facing the Legion.
The Destroyer has many weaknesses. Poison, Lore of Light, Lore of Death, Lore of Shadows/Nehekhara, Frenzy, Dragonbane Gem/Dragon Helm, … We mentionned some here and there are more (like Chaos Knights, High Elves Dragon Princes, …). The real problem is : those are super-specific countermeasures. Where most units in the game can be handled by throwing enough power in close combat by using normal choices in an appropriate manner, the Destroyer needs a very specific treatment. If the opponent does not have it, or don’t know how to do it, they’ll lose a lot of their army if you’re lucky.
From my point of view, the Destroyer should have been M7, S6, T5, I4 @ 300 pts. Especially the -1T thing would have made him immensely easier to deal with in combat, as all armies in the game have access to tons of S4 hits. Yes he would have been immuned to S3, but that would have been considered as his “feature” without causing any further trouble.
Bitterman:
Is it not a bit of an insult to not bring units you think are too tough for your opponent?
MLP
Erm, no. Remember the Golden Rule - do unto others etc. I don't enjoy games
at all where my opponent has brought a highly optimised tournament army, I haven't, and I get tabled in three turns. I wouldn't consider it at all insulting if they turned up with a suboptimal army - I'd thank them for actually choosing to play a worthwhile game.
So I don't really see why I should inflict misery on my opponent. I think that's far more negative than the "insult" of choosing to play a game that might be fun. If I think there's a risk that my opponent won't find playing against a Destroyer fun (which is very possible) I won't take one. Hopefully we'll both enjoy the game more.
beefcake:
... don't like Demon players who always show up with a Bloodthirster because fighting it really isn't a lot of fun ...
Grimbold Blackhammer
I remember playing my brother years and years ago when he put his blood thirster on the table against my orcs. Luckily I put my black orc boss with the frost blade (instant kill with a wound) and a potion of strength. The blood thirster got 1 round of combat before he was charged by my general and killed outright after only suffering 1 lucky wound.
As previously stated there's always some weakness to things, (never having seen the destroyer used though.)
Bitterman:
A huge, fast, frenzied fire daemon though? How does that fit with Chaos Dwarfs exactly?
Thommy H
To be fair, if I were a Chaos Dwarf Daemonsmith attempting to create a new race to fight for me in battle, I'd want them to be everything my current units are not. Meaning, fast. I'd have plentiful slow units available to me already... why make more? I'd want something that could do things the rest of my army could not, ie. move quickly. From that point of view, I'm only surprised it doesn't fly.
Having access to a unit with opposite characteristics to the rest of the army not without precedent in game terms either. See for example Eldar Wraithlords or Dark Elf Hydras, both of which are very tough and resilient when the rest of the army is fragile.
So that's a fluff reason and a rules justification. That said, yes, I still have my reservations about the K'daai, as you do. But I think with modern Warhammer being what it is, you just have to roll with it to an extent.
Thommy H:
But what, in its rules, makes it obviously “bound” or constructed in any way? Isn’t it really just a Greater Daemon, but fire-themed? Hellcannon have low Initiative (because they’re half-sentient machines) - why are K’daai as fast as Slaaneshi Daemons? The Destroyer is M9 for god’s sake! There should be some fluff justification for it being one of the fastest things in the game. That’s a pretty unusual, powerful trait. Only cavalry is that fast on the ground, and even then only some cavalry. Don’t you think it’s weird that that isn’t addressed?
I just think it’s really random. It’s not that it’s a big monster - I have no issue with the Siege Giant (because it has a story to explain it), it’s just the presence of a totally left field Best Monster in the Game in the Rare section if the list, pretty much apropos of nothing, that puzzles me.
Bitterman:
You can definitely play friendly games without a Destroyer. I had an excellent and enjoyable game against a fluffy Dwarf army the other day that was very close, I lost by only just over 100 victory points, lots of fun. It’s not like the army “needs” a Destroyer to function. It may not be optimal without one, but Warhammer isn’t always about fielding an optimal army. In fact I prefer it when it is not.
More competitive games… I’m not so sure. It is self-evidently the best unit in the list, so if you’re trying to be competitive, why would you not take one given that the option is available? You may or may not be able to build a competitive LoA list without one but if competitiveness is the goal, the Destroyer is right there waiting for you.
Like Thommy, I’m not sure why the K’daai (including the Destroyer) were introduced. But unfortunately that’s 8th Ed army lists for you, it’s the way GW are taking the game - every army has access to everything, and always, always something BIG. Hence Empire armies with monstrous cavalry and laser guns, Ogres with move-and-shoot stone throwers that never misfire and are also monsters, Goblins with giant giant giant giant giant giant spiders, and (if hints in the rulebook are to be believed) Dark Elves with “metal giants with the souls of killers”, etc etc etc. Every army apparently has to have something massive and frighteningly powerful - for CDs, they decided it would be the Destroyer. It’s not a direction that I particularly like them to have taken Warhammer in, but that’s what Warhammer is now, and that’s that.
MLP:
Is it not a bit of an insult to not bring units you think are too tough for your opponent?
MLP
Erm, no. Remember the Golden Rule - do unto others etc. I don't enjoy games at all where my opponent has brought a highly optimised tournament army, I haven't, and I get tabled in three turns. I wouldn't consider it at all insulting if they turned up with a suboptimal army - I'd thank them for actually choosing to play a worthwhile game.
So I don't really see why I should inflict misery on my opponent. I think that's far more negative than the "insult" of choosing to play a game that might be fun. If I think there's a risk that my opponent won't find playing against a Destroyer fun (which is very possible) I won't take one. Hopefully we'll both enjoy the game more.
Bitterman
I don't think that taking a Destroyer or Magma cannon could be considered a highly optimised list. They're two pretty standard options. Maybe if the list contained two or three magma cannons and one or two destroyers it would be over the top. I just can't see why anyone would hold it against you for taking one of these units.
I've played against armies with similar units and have enjoyed it just as much, if you're not in a competition game then it doesn't really matter if you win or lose. Enjoy the challenges presented by your opposition.
If someone is not enjoying the game because of a single unit in your army then it is his fault, not yours or the rules. I can only suggest playing against tactically better opponents if who you are playing can't defeat you.
Grimbold Blackhammer:
Hey! Stop hijacking my thread!!
Grimbold Blackhammer
MLP:
Sorry! It’s a point I get quite passionate(read:become a twat) about sometimes. It is sort of on topic though!
A bit more on topic: Personally(after all my previous posts!) I don’t use it! Mainly because I don’t have an appropriate model though more than anything. But I do regularly see one being played in another army and he doesn’t seem to get any complaints.
In my battles without the Destroyer I seem to be on about 50/10/40 win/draw/lose, I don’t feel at a disadvantage without one. In fact the only rare I use currently is Wolf Raiders and occasionally a Hell Cannon. I do generally use a Magma cannon but I don’t find it as overpowered as everyone thinks.
tvandyke:
I don't think the inclusion of the Destroyer is the same thing as the other monsters showing up in 8th Edition books - those are fine, because they actually fit with the armies they're for. Vampires getting a massive undead bat thing (which is slow and has relatively few Attacks, as is appropriate) or O&G getting a giant spider (which has low Ld due to its Goblin riders) isn't stretching credulity.
A huge, fast, frenzied fire daemon though? How does that fit with Chaos Dwarfs exactly?
Thommy H
It's more than just a fire daemon. I think Tuomas Pirinen wrote very fluffy rules when he came up with his Golem for the CD book he wrote. Big metal construct with a bound daemon inside and weapon, armor upgrades available. Personally, I don't quite understand why FW didn't go this route when it was pretty obvious that Chaos Dwarfs were perfect for it. Having said that, the K'daai aren't "that" much different from golems. Instead of animating machines with a bound daemon, they just animated armor (in different shapes) with a bound daemon. In all honestly, is it really that much different? If they had renamed the K'daii to Golems and slightly changed the fluff but kept the same rules, would you still be saying the same thing? If they had done that, I guess the only rule changes that would make some sense would be to reduce the speed a tad and probably change the ward save to an armor save (maybe even regen if you can justify the things as having the ability to repair themselves).
As far as whether or not to use the Destroyer, my take is that I've always loved having some sort of big, centerpiece model in my army. My Chaos Warrior armies have always had big, customized chariots or war shrines. I've also used the Shaggoth quite a bit even though it's currently the most overpriced monster in the game. If I lose the Destroyer, I'll probably replace it with the Taurus once I get it painted up. I certainly don't feel bad fielding it. 3 of us from this site all went to the SAWS Challenge Tournament a couple of weeks ago. Our combined record was 7 wins, 7 losses, 1 tie. We all had the Destroyer so it's not like it somehow makes our armies OTT compared to others. I've also played with Nurgle Daemons since Ravening Hordes came out and compared to that RH Daemon list and the 7th edition version of Daemons, this LOA list (even with the Destroyer) is at least a couple of notches below, if not more, than those monstrosities.