Phasteon
-
Posts
486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Phasteon
-
-
2 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:
I personally Like the addition of the save stacking, Yet I have met some matches that I can’t say were fun.
for example a Mawcrusher.
this guys are currently extremely tanky while also being able to deal damage to a banning potential.
being able to have a 2+ save ignoring rend up to -2 with the right buffs and a 5+ ward, does mean, that some armies might need 2-3turns to kill that beast, with or without shooting, yet you might say that ignoring it is another option, but when 1 model is able to deal so much damage that you’ve basically lost everything at turn 2, I’m not certain that this is something those armies can do. At that point someone would have to ask, why even keep playing, when a loss is already determined by a single enemy model before the game even has begun
You‘re overestimating the Mawkrushas Output.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, pnkdth said:
Depends how you define the problem. Under your definition and experience it is not but take other local metas and experience you might very well end up with a very different point of view. When people say they're having a miserable time versus some armies and that it severely limits their army's options (as in having to bend over backwards and create ridiculously game-y lists) you got to account their experiences as well.
I never disagreed with people having a problem with save stacking, I disagree that its a general problem that must be „fixed“ 😉
-
59 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Is it fair though, when certain meatshield units, that are somewhat superior then clanrats, have a similar amount of wounds (or more), cost less, as much or just barely 5points more then them?
And then theres the skaven faction in total struggling a lot in the current meta (as well as others (gloomspite could use a reduction and so on….) of course we could just call it a day, wait 1-4years till a new battletome comes out to repair the mistakes, yet this seems pretty stupid, and if gw isn’t willing to update warscroll via a faq, or through the generals handbooks, points seems the next best way.
at this point for the ratties, making clanrats cheaper, would allow them to maybe be able to take an additional weapon team, or maybe be able to take another warplightning cannon into their army, it isn’t that gamebreaking.
I have no idea how stormcast are currently performing in the meta, nor do I currently know which units has been given the name Fulminators
We are talking about 2 completely different views of balance here.
You take the „simple“ comparison by putting 2 units in a vacuum.
„Who would win? 1k points of Zombies or 1k points of Clanrats?“
Which couldnt be further away from what the game is about.
My view is about the far more „complex“ view by comparing units by how good they benifit their army as a whole.
„What hammer do Zombies screen?“
VS
„What hammer do Clanrats screen?“
Maybe, and just maybe - the relatively fragile but strong ranged units of the skaven are more valuable to protect than Zombiedragons or other big stuff of the Gravelords.
So naturally, Skaven should pay more points for their chaff.
If I‘m not wrong here the Skaven also pay less points for their hammers than Gravelords do, which makes it even more reasonable.
And we are talking about very little points here, its not that Zombies are 115 and Clanrats are 150.
I 100% agree that many armies need a new tome, because they don’t fully fit into 3.0 yet.
But, in this discussion about „save stacking as a big problem“ the only intelligent thing to say is „its far too early to tell“.
I played like 25 games so far and there was not a single game where a stacked save felt oppressive (and I faced 10 protectors with mystic shield and lantern).
It felt challenging at best and at the worst it was like „damn, I should have focused XY instead“
-
1 hour ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Maybe not per model, and definitely not per wound, yet if we indicate the armour save of certain units and the average damage composition, there are definitely a good amount of units that can be considered far superior then clanrats:
for example: deadwalker zombies, dire wolf (although costing 5points more) their speed and bravery characteristic makes them far more superior then five points difference should every allow for,
Orruk ardboys, Ironbreakers, Akhelian Allopex,
Vanari bladelords, Liberators, Vanquishers, Vindictors, Pink horrors (if we consider their wounds per point, while being able to get a 5+ ward in the faction of the first prince), and so on
and to answer your question,
pink Horrors.
They are currently paying 4.3 points per wound
I don‘t think 20 Zombies „dominate“ 20 clanrats.
I‘d say its a wet noodle fight that the Zombies eventually win after 2-3 rounds of uneventful combat.
Your other examples (Ironbreakers, Allopexes, Bladelords) can‘t really hold their own, as those units are a) more expensive and b) more fitting in the elite category of the game.
Everyone knows that Pink Horrors are/were one of the most efficient tarpits in the game, but I wouldnt say they „dominate clanrats“ as well.
I‘d say if you look at each of those 3 units (Zombies, Clanrats, Horrors) they all have a pretty similar task within their army, the are all accordingly prized for it (in comparison of INTERNAL not EXTERNAL balance, which is far more important), neither of those is obviously over- or undercosted.
You could make clanrats 110 points for 20, but I could find the same arguments to make 2 Fulminators 180 points.
Thats just not how external balance works at all.
-
14 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Mate it is true that clanrats are just meant as a tarpit, yet if that tarpit can be killed of pretty easily by units that cost less or exactly the same as a unit of clanrats, while it is also a lot more durable then the fellow ratties in total (through saves or wounds), a reduction for that said unit would be more then justified.
And I do agree that elite units should be a more dominating factor then the basic meatshield, yet having a unit of elites that cost the same or less then a unit of meatshields, and can kill them easily of in single phase, would mean, that those meatshields were basically useless, especially when those elites can be taken as a battleline option, making them the far superior unit in any shape or form. And that can clearly not be right!
Name 1 example of a unit that pays less points (6,5) per wound and dominates clanrats.
-
7 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Meh they could go down.
I can’t say for stormcast, since I haven’t played against them yet, but having seen the damage output on the currently biffed Ironjawz, being able to wield up to 200 or more meatshields, seems like a fair trait.
Well that depends, considering that my knowledge of nighthaunt is pretty restricted, I guess you could say that, now if we were talking abou the skaven (who are currently also struggling pretty hard) I could give you a few good examples, Why I believe clanrats need to go down a few points (20 in particularly), that could be considered a more professional statement from me-me.
Yet consider that I am just a human, and in that case can make some mistakes, like all man-things in some way or form can, even if some deny it.
So from a daemon to what I awesome to be a gentleman, would you like to continue this discussion, over the skaventide faction instead of the nighthaunt?
Its the same point though.
Clanrats pay 65p for 10 wounds, what I consider VERY cheap.
Chaff like that is not supposed to stick around for very long, nor should it be too useful from a utility perspective.
GW finally implemented a mechanic that makes chaff durable enough against other chaff / chip damage if needs to be and elite the dominating force they should be.
I can happily agree to disagree on this matter, but there is literally nothing to gain for me in discussing what should be „even cheaper“ or not.
To @JackStreicher‘s point about the small minority of competitive players:
(Sorry mate, its nothing personal, your points are just so ridiculously easy to attack)
Someone using multiple layers of + save to reinforce his ranks (eg making full use of the mechanic) is not considered a „casual“ player for me.
When using all the combos and tricks your army offers to win the game you are „competitive“ as per definition.
Now you tell us, that after 40 matches against those players the game is no fun to you, which seriously makes you
a) a bad loser
b) unable to adapt to core mechanics (= a bad player)
c) unwilling to adapt to core mechanics (= both)
Again, just ask your opponents to go easy on you - when they are just playing casually as you claim there should be no problem in doing so.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
yes
So basically you are trolling?
-
6 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Right I forgot those guys existed, I mostly meant, points reduction for chain-rasp, but forgot to add that, my fault, I guess.
meathsield units are currently pretty overpriced
How are 95p for 10 Chainrasps overpriced?
You get 10 Wounds with a 5+/6+.
Arkanauts are 100p for 10 wounds with a 4+ Save that pretty much fill the same roll, but their save is rendable, so you either put ressources into them to maybe make them stay or they die to -1 or better as fast as chain rasps.
Hobgrots are 80p but on a 6+ Save.
NH are good against everything that relies on high rend - high damage to kill stuff.
I could imagine 30 Chainrasps with proper support can tarpit Nagash, Archaon or Kragnos for at least 2-3 rounds of combat, while outnumbering them at an objective.
And at this point you pretty much won the game on points.
-
7 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Yes!
I have to admit,
I have 0 idea how the „standard“ skaven list looks like, but I just built a random list with Thanquol, some Stormfiends, Clanrats, and 2 Doomwheels / Warp Lightning Cannons and some little Heroes a friend of mine plays.
~140 wounds of RATS.
And you STILL want to tell me that fielding 300+ wounds of rend ignoring / 1/6 damage ignoring ghosts is reasonable?
-
31 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
I agree that NH might be better if the points of their non heroes would drop by ~ 40%
I just want to point out that this guy wants to make a 10-man bladegheist unit that can still dish out up to 40 attacks at -1 with a 4+ unrendeble save 100 points.
All while capping saves at 3+/4+ and giving +1 rend CA.
I‘d imagine how fun it would be facing 30 Bladegheists with ~60 Attacks -2 rend that cost 300 points slicing through my (now thx to rend) 4+ Save Fulminators that come at 480 points, while they do ~halve damage because their -2 rend gets ignored. 🤔
Doesnt matter if you are competitive minded or casual player, it‘s good that GW has professionals / play testers for the job and that we (as the loud minority) have no real impact in the design process.
-
4
-
-
18 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Well, If I’ll ever find a person, who has such a vast amount of overpriced (in a money perspective) nighthaunt models, I’ll happily try it out😉.
Just wondering, I’m more of a skaven player (don’t own much else), you wouldn’t mind me playing that faction, right?
ps: just wondering, but how exactly can a nighthaunt army get a 5+ ward (except heroes taking the amulet)?
Kruciator can hand out a 5+ ward bubble.
But look, my SCE list has 105 wounds at 2k points.
Basically all my lists have between 100 - 140 wounds.
And you want to tell us that bringing at least 300 wounds (not regarding heroes or multiwound models) is reasonable?
-
7 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Well @JackStreicher does have some good points, factions lime nighthaunt, gloomspite and beasts of chaos are currently struggling a lot when it comes down to putting out damage or having the possibility to keep themself alive with save stacking (since they are pretty much already starting the game with a literally bad or not so great save characteristics)
And it is not like these mentioned armies have a ton of stuff, that can go around the save stacking abilities of other faction.
Nighthaunt for example don’t have much rend on their army roster, and while there are some units that are able to do mortal wounds, they output is currently more laughable then anything else.
yet I do believe that a small rule change to the most taken artifact of the current third edition could make at least some different in the game, and keeps it fresh, since the meta would chance.
as for nighthaunt, I really have a feeling that the only saving grace for this faction would be a new tome or a points decrease so generous that one would be able to field up to 300models and/or more (yet not even that would be a grace considering their current price)
Yeah you pick the worst 3 factions in the game right now and say a general rule/mechanic is problematic because they struggle.
They did before and neither of us has any representative data if it got better or worse for them because literally nobody plays them.
As for Nighthaunt - i strongly disagree with you here. They definately need a new tome because of how old their current rules are, but they are in no spot where they need to field 300+ models to compete.
They have 4+ unrendeble saves in combination with 6+ (or even 5+) wards pretty much across the board.
They can tarpit really well, I‘d just make things like Bladegheists a bit cheaper (150 for 10) which should be enough until a new tome comes out.
If you really think Nighthaunt needs 300+ models then go ahead and play against someone with nighthaunt and let him field like 2k more points than you.
Make a batrep (pictures & write up) and show us how fun it would be to play against 300+ wounds that ignore rend and 1/6 of damage.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Beliman said:
That are exatly my thoughts too. I was expecting something completely diferent that I could use in my games.
I just want to remind that there is a rule that explicity states what can happen in a game:
In other words, everything can be killed.
That's nice and all, but the truth is a bit more complex. How "easy" is to accomplish that? If every 20 games, I can only kill 2 times your 2+save with +4 save stacking Hero-Monster with my dedicated 1500 points of focus fire, I don't really care about this two games, they are just anecdotes to talk when drinking some beers with friends, but it's not what is happening in the whole game.
It showed more than that.
It showed that even a model supposed to stick around FOREVER gets killed in a single round of shooting.
Not 3-4 rounds of combat as other 500+ Units buffed up can last.
A single round.
People claim that units get „unkillable“ because of save stacking, the same people cry about Lumineth Sentinels OP MW spam, when all they really do is punish low wound / high save units.
Its paper to your rock.
If you don‘t want a little bit of rock, paper, scissors then please enlighten me? What do you want?
Your keypiece getting taken out every.single.game on the first round of shooting because it just has a 3+ Save against a million attacks with rend?
I made realistic points about targetting support pieces first, screening deathstars, ignoring „unkillable“ threats to the point where they finally ARE killable or just bring something equally tough yourself, which is very possible with mystic shield + all out defense for everyone.
But you guys don‘t want to listen to reason.
You want to believe that save stacking is ruining your games and everyone reasoning with you is treated as some kind of liar or toxic person.
@JackStreicher topped it off with his post. The only reason I did not report him is so reasonable people can have a laugh at his infantile talk.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:
one army? Nighthaunt. Why? Apparently you know all about the game, so you get the reasons yourself.
You just surrendered the discussion and made clear to everyone that you are a troll, nothing more.
Congrats on that, mate.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Sagittarii Orientalis said:
I am not sure if this is the battle report which Phasteon referred to, but it features a game between KO and SoB.
KOs removing Kragnos in a single turn can be seen from 19:09 to 24:34, although It seems that controlling player of Kragnos rolled 1's for his saves suspiciously often - he rolled 1 for every 2~3 dice frequently.
Dice rolls happen - he overall failed many saves, but he also saved many D3 and D2 shots and the KO player still had a unit of Riggers to shoot. (with potentially 6 MWs via drill launchers)
I don‘t claim that Kragnos was dead there a 100% in general but in this batrep for sure he was.
And my point still stands - how problematic can save stacking really be if a 700+ model with a 0+ save still dies in one round of focused fire?
Even if he took just like 8-10 wounds he would die as soon as finest hour went away.
-
28 minutes ago, Beliman said:
Can you share the Game? I'm really interested in this type of games because KOs have a really hard problem to kill things in this save-stacking season.
there you go, its german though.
@JackStreicherI know your opinion on the matter, and I already showed in the Stormcast 3.0 discussion why you are objectively wrong, so please avoid comments like „its not thought through“ when really all you do is denying that almost* every army got tools to either stack saves or deny saves via MWs.
Also, if you did 40 games this edition and STILL haven‘t figured out how to use and play around save stacking you should really just ask your opponents to go easy on you and/or play narrative games - you are obviously not made for competitive games.
*the armies that have neither have other tools / tricks.
If you really want to continue the discussion then please name ONE army that is absolutely lost in 3.0 because of the new mechanics and explain why exactly.
Beasts of Chaos do not count. There you go!
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, jjb070707 said:
I feel like this is the complete opposite response to one that should be taken. Son's are the perfect benchmark right now for an army to build to overcome. They do their thing and die on schedule to well made responses. It isn't fair to the sons player that their opponent's refuse to build lists that can deal with a giant per turn.
It is completely a misnomer that there is no tactical decision making during list building or in game with or against sons, its just the number of decisions required decreases, but the magnitude of each decision is amplified. A single misplaced screen against the sons could be a loss, just as a missed read on which unit to finest hour, where to move an objective, which unit to put your attacks into from a multicharge, or having gargants end up outside support windows to respond to whatever kills the first gargant will pretty much lose you the match against any skilled opponent that built a list anticipating sons as possible during an event.
A strong army that is easy to pilot, damn near builds itself, but consistently falls short of winning the event is the perfect challenge for list builders and pilots and should be celebrated. IE, "Can this beat 4 giants" is the baseline one should ALWAYS be considering when building a list, if not its time to move onto a new list theme.
If you are constantly winning with sons, its not sons fault, its your opponents. Son's are basically what we wish stormcast were in my group, an "easy" army in terms of number of units and number of decisions per turn with enough raw stats to always keep their pilot feeling like they have a good shot at winning a match, but never overpowering against a properly tooled army and a confident pilot. If anything, Son's may need a tiny nudge upward to remain relevant as new books come out with high rend tossed onto troops like candy. For example, those new annihilators will point for point shred a mega through AoD with a rerollable 7 inch charge. a double unit of them is the same point value as a mega, and someone ran the maths that I saw, and they put down a mega in a single combat something like 95%+ of their combats with the proper subfaction. Every army right now has ways to deal with a mega, they are susceptible to magic, big hammers, opposing heroes, combined arms, multicharges, and hordes out positioning them on objectives.
I watched a batrep today where 2 Mega Gargants + Kragnos got shot to pieces by KO without dealing any significant damage back to them.
Kragnos put finest hour AND all out defense on himself but still failed enough 2+ Saves against the KOs shooting to die in one phase.
Yes, 2+ Save (even against rend) rerolling 1s is problematic, as its really quite unlikely to pierce through, but a 2+ Save alone without ward won‘t save you against masses of wounds.
Add in some MWs and those 14+ Monsters aren‘t really that scary - it‘s just a matter of having the right tools for the job, if not change your list.
But lets be real here:
Nagash costs 1k points and counts as 5 models towards objectives.
If you absolutely cant kill him you can just kill the other 1k points and then split your forces to hold more objectives than Nagash, with proper screening / tarpitting he can‘t be everywhere at once.
If you pay 1k points for a single model its only fair that anyone is struggling to kill that model.
I think this whole „save stacking discussion“ is just about people being too focused on „being able to kill everything point and click style with ease“ instead of adapting to those tough units.
I prefer a unit getting to a 2+/3+ „invuln“ by buffing them up instead of them just having a 3+ invuln like in 40k without doing anything for it (except paying points). Those save bonusses are costing ressources and often can be countered by killing off support heroes or forcing the opponent to leave wholly within X“ bubbles to maximize damage or models on objectives.
I prefer Retributors fighting with a 2+ Save (all out defense) against rend 0 chaff - instead of them dying to clanrats because of their (former) 4+ Save as they did in 2th.
Long story short, I think save stacking is probably one of the best tactical tools in 3.0 and I don‘t care if people can‘t deal with it.
-
3
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
If you insist this is RAW so quickly you are not taking the complexity of the issue seriously.
What is RAW is that more specific rules trump more general rules. But the range restriction on holy commands and Bastian's ability to issue commands anywhere on the board are the same level of specificity. So what trumps what is just not clear without an official ruling. You can argue that we should play it one way or the other, but it's not as easy as claiming your reading is RAW. The rules as written are ambiguous.
Also, Bastian's ability still makes sense if it gets trumped by command abilities that specify a range. It just allows him to issue generic commands anywhere, in that case, which do not have any range restrictions (and if they did, they would be trumped by Bastian's more specific rule since they are part of the core rules and his is a battletome rule).
You just assume its complex, thats your interpretation of the rules, which makes it a matter of RAI.
I talk RAW here.
1. Bastian is a Lord, so he is enabled to issue holy commands.
2. Holy commands are Command Abilities.
3. Bastian lets you issue commands anywhere on the board.
Just because you (and others) want to make a discussion out of it, doesnt mean you guys got a point.
I won‘t discuss the matter any further from here.
-
6 hours ago, Squark said:
Maybe. The jury is out on how the extra qualifications for Holy Commands' range intwracts with Bastan's ability. The rulebook says how effects can override each other, but not how can vs. can't works.
RAW he absolutely can.
He is a Lord so he qualified for using the ability and thundering voice lets him „command a unit anywhere on the battlefield“ which lets him literally ignore any range boundaries - remember EVERY Command Ability has a range limit, so your statement doesn‘t make sense at all, because if a fixed range would disable his ability it would literally be useless 100% of the time.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Skreech Verminking said:
What would a gloomspite gitz or beasts of chaos player say to that, I wonder
Last time I faced GSG they caused MW on 6s with their 60 grots and ~40 attacks while placing, well, 60 bodies on the objective…
Did they change that?
-
48 minutes ago, PJetski said:
You have to fully resolve an ability before you can use another one.
Thunderbolt Volley doesn't say you can shoot later in the phase, like some other abilities in the game do. It works exactly like Unleash Hell shoot as soon as you receive the command.
You must shoot with TV immediately, you cannot issue the command, translocate, then shoot.
Another reason why Bastian is awesome, he can order anywhere on the board!
-
3 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
The list went 5-0, so I guess that ends the need for speculation whether or not it's viable
The Knight-Judicator comes with some nice upside besides the 1d3 once per game mortal wound bomb. It also has a great attack profile of 2 attacks, 3/2/-3/3 at 30" so it puts out good damage every turn, and it comes with two Gryph Hounds for chaff.
Busting up the opponent's big centerpiece hero or their castle turn one and then laying down the suppression fire seems like it could be worth it, even at 1000 points. Just looking at it as 1000 points vs 1500 points is too reductive, if your 1000 points manage to take out the centerpiece of their list that everything else revolves around it can still be worth doing. Not to mention that a 6" within bubble is going to catch more than just a single hero almost guaranteed.
Many big Centerpieces come with a Ward (Archaon and Nagash having 4+ against MW)
A single 5-0 surely cant be ignored, but its a single result pretty early this edition.
I wouldnt call it „overpowered“.
-
4 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I have only recently come to appreciate the strength of a reasonable mortal wound bomb on a generic hero after seeing the Knight-Judicator spam list. I actually think that kind of ability may be a design mistake, becaue it's often irrelevant if you only have one copy of it or overpowered when you spam it. Dropping 1d3 mortals in a bubble once per game isn't really impactful, but if you have the ability to drop 5d3 mortals wherever you want, suddenly you can just nuke all your opponent's heroes.
Does this strategy realistically work though?
1) its on a 4+, so you might miss a lot of damage
2) 5 KJudicators are over 1k points
3) a smart opponent can just keep their heroes more than 12“ from another. Since pretty much all 5 KJudicators do is that onetrick spreading out shouldnt be too bad
4) even if you delete like 400p-500p of Heroes you still have like 1000p army against 1500p of enemy army
I dont see KJudicator spam being a serious „meta list“ its more of a onetrick that might catch people off guard once, but not if they know what the KJ does.
-
2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
First off: it does. Most armies lack mortal wound output. A 2+ unrendable (because you have +3 to the save) prevents 5/6 of all attacks. You‘ll basically need a gazillion attacks to kill anything.
First off: Thats objectively not true. All armies have MWs in some form. Denying that is just objectively wrong.
Also if you‘ve read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I explained how to deal with stacked saves even if you don‘t have enough MWs.
Just one example: I played a guy who managed to keep 2 auras of +1 to save online combined with all out defense and mystic shield he basically had a +3 save for half of his army (Sylvaneth).
Most Sylvaneth start with a 4+ or even 5+ Save, so they‘re saving on 3+/4+ which is not that hard to chew through. Also All out Defense / Mystic Shield are no Auras, only ONE unit at a time benefits from it, again if you read my post I already explained how to counterplay that.
That Game was fun, not. You can‘t strategize against that unless you know that you‘ll be facing this exact list. Since, you know, save stacking isn’t all they do, it’s just an easy to uphold ability/spell while there’s a lot more going on, like obscene amounts of Mortal wounds (Alarielle’s spell) and the whole battle.
Sorry, but you absolutely DON‘T need any kind of anti-build or list tailored to deal with + save when its a core mechanic of the game now. YOU KNOW you have to face +1/2 to Saves and if you are not ready to face it you want the game to adapt to your taste, instead of doing it the other way round as 99% of the rest does.
Save stacking is a huge issue in this edition. As mentioned: most armies don’t have the tools to fight it and some armies get +x to their save way too easily.
Again, you are objectively wrong, so your whole point is based on a false premise.
I know it might sound like „git gud“ to you, but if you are struggling that hard against Sylvaneth because of + Save then you should take another look on your strategic / tactical knowledge of the game.
I assume you played SCE as its the SCE discussion. Why didn‘t you just add up on your saves as well? Sylvaneth don‘t exactly have that much MW output aside from Alarielle.
At least not that much that its impossible to deal with.Sorry to be that direct, but it just seems that you didn‘t take a loss all that well.
-
1
-
AoS 2 - Ossiarch Bonereapers Discussion
in Death
Posted
I did some brainstorming with an OBR playing friend of mine about how to create more pressure and being able to get a more consistent grip on the board.
He is usually playing Katakros, Zandtos, Soulmason, 2x 20 Mortek Guards, 2x 5 Deathriders and a Harvester.
I think while having some kind of staying power there is no real threat on the board.
I can easily make sure I get a charge with my 4 Fulminators into whatever I want which absolutely murders whatever it touches.
I think you need a hammer unit of some sort.
And the only viable hammer unit imo are Morghast Harbingers.
They have fly, speed (3d6 charge) and -2 on the halberds.
Maybe they could work in a Katakros list because of his buff aura, but I‘d go for a (fluffy) Petrifex List with 2x4 of them with some MSU Style Necropolis Stalkers and just min squads of Mortek Guard for some Objective Holding.
Maybe 2x10 Mortek for screening and 1x5 Deathriders (to grab opponents objectives, they are pretty fast with 15 + d6+1 run movement)
What do you think?