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.

I want to get a named character that is also either a Naut Or a Walker of some sort, it would be fun to be able to hit people with a S10 Ap1 fist before they can do the same thing to you :-P

Just to reiterate, little meks may not be taken on their own as a stand-alone HQ. They are different than techmarines in this regard, due to the mekaniaks rule:

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots"

There is no other way to field meks than this rule - it isn't optional.

I'd have to check the wording, but I believe that the mekaniaks rule is also what allows you to attach them to squads. Little meks are NOT independent characters.

Even if you argued that you could field them by ignoring the mekaniaks rule, (which you can't), you couldn't attach them to anything, because you're not following the mekaniaks rule that allows you to do so. So, you'd have 20 meks running around the field on their own, unable to board the orkanauts because orkanauts can only carry one squad, and your max squad with list would be one big mek joining one little mek - so 10 riding, 20 on foot.

The Rule doesn't specifically say you are not allowed to field them as HQ units thats what were getting at, since it doesnt specifically say NO we will probably field them

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Just to reiterate, little meks may not be taken on their own as a stand-alone HQ. They are different than techmarines in this regard, due to the mekaniaks rule:

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots"

There is no other way to field meks than this rule - it isn't optional.

I'd have to check the wording, but I believe that the mekaniaks rule is also what allows you to attach them to squads. Little meks are NOT independent characters.

Even if you argued that you could field them by ignoring the mekaniaks rule, (which you can't), you couldn't attach them to anything, because you're not following the mekaniaks rule that allows you to do so. So, you'd have 20 meks running around the field on their own, unable to board the orkanauts because orkanauts can only carry one squad, and your max squad with list would be one big mek joining one little mek - so 10 riding, 20 on foot.

Here we go again...

We've established that you can indeed field Meks as HQs. The first sentence of their rule is worded the exact same way the Techmarine rule is, so there's that.

As for getting them into transports, each Big Mek is a unit made up of 1 infantry model. Just add 5 Meks to each Big Mek. I know the Meks aren't independent characters, but I don't see why they couldn't form a legal, all-character unit.

Wow looks good! Never would have imagined an army like that!

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Just to reiterate, little meks may not be taken on their own as a stand-alone HQ. They are different than techmarines in this regard, due to the mekaniaks rule:

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots"

There is no other way to field meks than this rule - it isn't optional.

I'd have to check the wording, but I believe that the mekaniaks rule is also what allows you to attach them to squads. Little meks are NOT independent characters.

Even if you argued that you could field them by ignoring the mekaniaks rule, (which you can't), you couldn't attach them to anything, because you're not following the mekaniaks rule that allows you to do so. So, you'd have 20 meks running around the field on their own, unable to board the orkanauts because orkanauts can only carry one squad, and your max squad with list would be one big mek joining one little mek - so 10 riding, 20 on foot.

I initially thought the same as you but re-read the mekaniaks rule, specifically the bit in brackets. That right there implies Meks CAN be taken as regular HQs just that if they are they cannot generate a slotless Mek. Also everywhere else in the codex lists them as HQ, including the summary tables in the back of the book. You may still have a valid point about not being independant characters though.

Maybe someone should post in YMDC about this. . . .

Otherwise, the list looks hilarious. Until you encounter one of those IG armies with tons of vanquishers, it should rock out.

One thought: wistch lootas to burnas, for horde control? That way you dont get bogged down on little guys during your assault? Just an idea.

I'll recheck the mekanianks rule. You may be able to take it as a HQ, but if you don't follow the mekaniaks rule, I'm 99% sure you cannot legally attach it to anything. Again, they're NOT independent characters (unlike techmarines), and I think the mekaniaks rule is that allows you to attach them to units. Their rules are a lot more similar to warlocks than techmarines in that regard.

Yep, Meks are officially broken in the rule book, they need to be fixed to specify when you can take one and for what. With that said, I would still just utilize Burna/loota squads to pile in some meks. realistically you only need 2-3.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Yep, Meks are officially broken in the rule book, they need to be fixed to specify when you can take one and for what. With that said, I would still just utilize Burna/loota squads to pile in some meks. realistically you only need 2-3.

Yeah, Meks are a bit weird with their rules. I think the best way to run the list is with them, but it might lead to arguments as the rules aren't completely clear on them.

I'm just going to stick to Loota mobs myself, easier that way and 4 repair rolls on each 'naut is already more than enough.

I did just realize that this list can be made Battle-forged in a single CAD - so if you wanna get stompy but you don't want to be Unbound, look below!

Gorkanaut Krushin' Krew formation:

3*1 Gorkanaut 825 pts.
-Extra armor
-Grot riggas

Combined Arms Detachment:

HQ

2*1 Big Mek 90 pts.
-2*1 Grot oiler
-Da Finkin' Cap

2 Meks 40 pts.
-2*1 Grot oiler

Elites

3*5 Burna boys 255 pts.
-3*3 Meks
--3*1 Grot oiler

Troops

2*19 Gretchin 124 pts.
2*1 Runtherd

Heavy Support

1*5 Lootas 75 pts.
-1*3 Meks
--1*1 Grot oiler

2*1 Morkanaut 620 pts.
-Kustom force field
-Extra armor
-Grot riggas

Total: 1999 pts.

It follows the same principle as the Unbound list. The Burna boys go in the Gorkanauts so those have 3 repair rolls each. The lone Loota mob is joined by the Mek with da Finkin' Kap and this unit gets inside one of the Morkanauts. The Kap Mek will obviously be the Warlord. The other Big Mek is joined by the 2 Meks* and they go in the other Morkanaut. The 'warlord 'naut' gets 4 repair rolls this way, while everybody else has their 3. There's more re-rolls in this list, which could come in handy. The grots are there to make the list legal - keep them in reserve and once they're on the table, just park them on an objective.

*: I'm assuming that Independent Characters are treated as a unit made up of 1 model. Since the Big Mek is Infantry (Character), he can be joined by the Meks as per the Mekaniaks rule. If you're not comfortable doing this (because you don't think it's legal) just drop the Meks and use the points for something else.

For Warlord traits, I'd roll on Strategic or Command. Sadly, getting Master of Ambush with this list does nothing, as the 'nauts are not dedicated transports and so cannot Outflank. The rest of the Strategic traits are useful though. Command is similarly great,, especially on a 4+ roll - +1" Run and Charge moves, re-rolling 1's for To Hit in either the Shooting or the Assault phase should be pretty neat.

A walker character for Orks would be pretty great... I think a 'naut would make the most sense then. Deff dreads are just too tiny at this point. Maybe us greenskins will get our own Gerantius. I know I'd love that.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
looks good, just remember one thing, AP1 and AP2 weapons can still insta kill that formation

Even thought that's technically true, it's statistically not very likely with the KFF and AV 13 and all.

People seem to have this impression that nuaghts explode the first time they see a single meltagun. They can actually take a pretty good beating. A single Melta shot has less then 10% chance of killing one. It would be pretty tough to kill all 5. Most people simply don't bring that much anti high AV



I like the battleforged version in particular.

im sorry shadarlogoth i wasn't saying they die easily, but a lucky hit from a lascannon or melta gun can pop one in a single turn. when a lascannon hits it has a 1/3rd chance to pen, the Naut has a 1/3rd chance of avoiding this with his KFF. from their the cannon has to roll a 6 to explode the naut. So a 1/6 chance. a melta is basically the same except its a 1/6 chance to pen OR a 7/12 chance to pen. (8 + 2D = 10-20 you need a 14 to pen) So Nauts are tough, but if you get unlucky....it sucks.

So I guess standalone meks aren't possible : /

Wait wait wait...i was told no argument, no matter how valid could be won on the internet...

*mind blown*