Welcome to Librarium Online!
You want a mixture
i was talking to a fellow necron player at my club who owns 27 immortals and he vouched for them completley and said they trumped destroyers. It got abit heated because I have 9 (3x3) destroyers but after re reading the codex I see he made some good points. So, Which is a better all round choice?
Higher strenth gun
Can serve as an anti transport unit
Less vunerable to blast templates
More of them means harder to prevent wbb
Can use cover without taking dangerous terrain checks
Number of wbb means averages are more reliable.
Destroyers are better than immortals in every way that matters outside of cost.
The main reason being they provide range and mobility in an army that typically lacks both on their infantry that cannot be subsidised by heavy/special weapons.
Make no mistake immortals are amazing, but I would go for destroyers first in 90% of lists simply because they cover a huge hole in the necron army list.
Last edited by The_Outsider; December 21st, 2009 at 18:26. Reason: hole =/= whole
In terms of which is best all round, its definitely Destorers. Saying that, give me a unit of Immortals any day. Point for Point, they are far more reliable given their Unit size. That is really the deciding factor. 3-5 Destroyers dont last long, but the same points worth of Imms tend to be pretty resilient due to their numbers, and the fact they also have T5.
Of course, when i did used to play, i always took both They both have their roles in the army.
As an Ork player, I have to say that I'm far more afraid of Immortals than I am of Destroyers.
Regardless of what army you're facing, the lack of armor in the necron army (besides the AR14 monster monolith) means that there's nothing for players to use their long range S7-8 shooting on besides the destroyers. With nothing to draw fire away, the destroyers most likely won't last long.
Immortals, on the other hand, are not only more likely to survive through numbers (and we'll be back), but anti-infantry fire will have to be split between them and virtually everything else in the army.
Regardless, I think a 'mix' of both types of units is the best choice. It's always best to be versatile.
"Any job worth doing, is worth doing with a powerklaw."
Destroyers hands down. Other than WBB (just take other warriors, or fill in remaining points with some immortals) my destroyers are one of the biggest threats I have out there with a Ctan and a Monolith.
1 Destroyer 3 S6 shots at 36" and 12" movement, plus turboboosting. Means they should never be assaulted!
2 Immortals are about the same cost 4 S5 shots at 24" and have to foot slog it. Sure they are equal in toughness, however you can't PEN transports which are spammed left and right in 5th. Since they're slow, all my opponents wants to do is assault me. Everyone knows we suck, so there's no reason to hold back. Charge the line and wipe the floor with you. In my opinion for ONE less shot, but gaining pen, movement, and range....destroyers are superior. I field 2 five man squads myself. 30 shots a turn from turn one (if not night fight) is awsome.
"There is only do, or do not. There is no try." - Yoda
I never really understand this argument. Immortals and Destroyers are both fantastic units, there is no reason to not have both in your force in most games.
Destroyers always fill the roll of high priority targeting in my lists, targeting the nastiest units from afar and gunning them down. Once the destroyers whittle away at something for a round or two it usually crumbles. Their mobility is a means to get in position of these targets effectively.
Immortals form a solid block of heavy infantry and provide a wall of anti-infantry fire. When enemy units are getting into that too-close for comfort range, Immortals' massed fire always (ok, usually) sends them off. Also the sheer durability of the unit is often astounding, I had 6 of them sit through a punching match with genestealers for 3 rounds recently. If I'm fielding VoD, my Immortals become a second priority-target annihilator.
Comparing these to units just doesn't make sense, one is a high speed fire support squad, meant to cut the enemy's big nasties down, the other is for slaying infantry en-mass. Granted they have enough versatility to overlap one anothers' roles, but this just makes them even more impressive.
Personally I used Destroyers for 2 reasons. Firstly, they were plastic (We 'ates the metals we do!) and secondly they provided me with nasty quick moving horrific fire power.
I did try to convert destroyer torsos to make plastic Immortals as a nails bodyguard for my Lord. But it proved prohibitively expensive and complicated.
For the purposes of the poll, I've voted a mixture of both. Allow me to explain why.
As Alzer points out, you can't really compare the two as they are designed for almost entirely different roles.
Destroyers are excellent all-round. Their movement range allows you to cover gaps in your flanks while the gauss cannon is excellent from shredding some of the heavier units or transports. You are unlikely to be assaulted because you'll just pull away from them. The only 'draw-back' is that you have only 3 to 5 wounds in a squadron and most opponents tend to focus their intended anti-vehicle weaponry at them.
Immortals are also excellent in their own respect. They are incredibly resilient troops with their T5, WBB and 5 to 10 wounds and have immense infantry slaying power with their gauss blasters. The assault type of their weapons allows you to maintain suppressive and/or aggressive fire while on the move, somewhat valuable in covering fellow necron warriors. Especially when playing objectives, a squad of immortals with warriors will make it extremely difficult for the opponent to shift you from the objective. But of course, they suffer from CC as they cannot avoid CC easily and the I of 2 can somewhat hurt when things don't work in their favour.
While I would take both whenever possible, destroyers get the priority as they are needed to provide swift firepower and the warriors can already fulfil the role of marching firepower. Typically, if I have the points, the destroyers and already have two warrior squads, then I would take on immortals.
Just my thoughts.
Necrons W68-D13-L10 (3rd edition codex)
Necrons W3-D1-L1 (latest codex)
Skaven still being assembled
Many people seem to make the arguement that Destroyers are better then Immortals due to the fact that they have more shots and are just as tough. This is just false (though the speed advantage is not, and puts the units at least on par in my book).
Assuming equal points of Destroyers and Immortals, the Destroyers will have 56% the wounds and 84% the shots of the Immortals. And of course the Immortals can more easily use cover.
I voted for a mixture. Frankly I would never write a list without getting close to the max 30 Immortals and 15 Destroyers, simply because they are so good (and the rest of the codex is so not).
Voted destroyers. Cause i use them. The only reason i don't use immortals cause it costs $13.25 for one. So for eight thats like around $100. I got three with my battleforce and bought two more and they work great.
WH 40k Armies (W/L/D):
Tyranid: 2250 Points of Awesome (5/4/1)
Necrons: 1000 Points (4/0/1)