Tactica Mechanicus 2.0 - ++DEPRECATED++

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.

**Aaranis**

Iago40k wrote:
I am already looking forward to the moment when spamlists aren't viable anymore.

Amen to that, if only everyone agreed on playing TAC lists.

**Iago40k**

Aaranis wrote:

Amen to that, if only everyone agreed on playing TAC lists.

As a tournament player I am all for "play the craziest toughest stuff you can imagine". So its okay if someone wants to play 6 to 8 onagers, flyers or whatever. But I am just looking foward that rock/paper/scissors will soon lead to more versatile lists. In a 7 game tournament you most certainly will not win 7 games with a 6 Onagers list. It will just take some time to find the balance between TAC and spam.

**Aaranis**

Well I guess in the end you need to be able to counter most spam lists, with different flavours of spam, so you'll have to develop some kind of TAC list isn't it ?

**Iago40k**

Well.. I think this list could work against Eldar (Flyers, Serpents, Knight, Wraithguard). I am not to keen on proxies but I kind of have to for this stresstest. But I just can't...I don't want use anything else than AdMech...not yet!

Here we go:

Spoiler:

Would love to use my 2 chicken walkers or some of my 12 Destroyers...well it is as it is

I think this could work out.

**str00dles1**

ross-128 wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure hover mode removes your minimum move and allows you to stop.

Your right, (and common sense would dictate that with the name "hover") but I double checked with an ITC organizer. Par for the course, the wording is so poor. Confusion was it doesn't say "up to 20" just says "becomes 20" See below for ability quote.

Hover Jet: "Before this model moves in your Movement Phase, you can declare it will hover. Its Move Characteristic becomes 20' until the end of the phase, looses Airborne, Hard to Hit, and Supersonic abilities until the beginning of your next movement phase"

**em_en_oh_pee**

str00dles1 wrote:
ross-128 wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure hover mode removes your minimum move and allows you to stop.

Your right, (and common sense would dictate that with the name "hover") but I double checked with an ITC organizer. Par for the course, the wording is so poor. Confusion was it doesn't say "up to 20" just says "becomes 20" See below for ability quote.

Hover Jet: "Before this model moves in your Movement Phase, you can declare it will hover. Its Move Characteristic becomes 20' until the end of the phase, looses Airborne, Hard to Hit, and Supersonic abilities until the beginning of your next movement phase"

Pretty straight forward to me. Refer to "Minimum Move" rule. Two values means it has to do that minimum while a single entry for movement treats it like any other unit.

So normally it is 20-45" meaning it has to move at least 20" and up to 45". When it goes to Hover, it just has a 20" movement like any other unit and can move up to that value.

**Pedroig**

Suzuteo wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
Why stop at 6 Onagers? Can get 9 with two spearheads, then flesh out an allied battalion with cheap AM HQ's and troops for under 500 points...

Er... well, one problem is that their bases are like dinner plates, and you can't fit nine of them around Cawl?

baseSize / (2*sin(180/numberUnits)) = distanceFromCenter
130/(2*sin(20)) = 190

Cawl is 35mm in radius on his shortest side, so 190 - 35 = 165mm = 6.10236 inches

Still don't play with Cawl... Still haven't lost an Admech game, though came close, twice.

Don't use bases on Onager's either. Wouldn't be "bubble walking" them anyway.

Even looking at not playing AdMech, but rather Imperial, get rid of HQ tax almost entirely, can eek out 12 Onagers with 2 Primaris Psykers as HQ's for 40 points each, can still squeeze in an Engineseer for a lil repair help...Just park a threesome on each objective and vaporize anything that gets close... Will have to proxy test that out though, not buying that many Onagers just to theory test...

**em_en_oh_pee**

Pedroig wrote:
Suzuteo wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
Why stop at 6 Onagers? Can get 9 with two spearheads, then flesh out an allied battalion with cheap AM HQ's and troops for under 500 points...

Er... well, one problem is that their bases are like dinner plates, and you can't fit nine of them around Cawl?

baseSize / (2*sin(180/numberUnits)) = distanceFromCenter
130/(2*sin(20)) = 190

Cawl is 35mm in radius on his shortest side, so 190 - 35 = 165mm = 6.10236 inches

Still don't play with Cawl... Still haven't lost an Admech game, though came close, twice.

Don't use bases on Onager's either. Wouldn't be "bubble walking" them anyway.

Even looking at not playing AdMech, but rather Imperial, get rid of HQ tax almost entirely, can eek out 12 Onagers with 2 Primaris Psykers as HQ's for 40 points each, can still squeeze in an Engineseer for a lil repair help...Just park a threesome on each objective and vaporize anything that gets close... Will have to proxy test that out though, not buying that many Onagers just to theory test...

Don't you kinda have to use a base if it comes with one? Some folks might not be a fan of that as you rob them of distance for charging (in theory).

**Aaranis**

em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Don't you kinda have to use a base if it comes with one? Some folks might not be a fan of that as you rob them of distance for charging (in theory).

Personnaly I never used mine with a base because I still need to paint strip it and then repaint it and I don't want to use adhesive gums to keep it on his base. Plus, it's so ludicrously big that you can't pass corners or small corridors easily on the table and it's just messy. Walkers that big like the Onager or Triarch Stalker shouldn't have bases. In fact the latter doesn't have one. I measure from the tip of the legs and use an imaginary circle, never had any problems and I'm not picky on measures if my opponent wants to charge it and it's blurry.

**str00dles1**

em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
Suzuteo wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
Why stop at 6 Onagers? Can get 9 with two spearheads, then flesh out an allied battalion with cheap AM HQ's and troops for under 500 points...

Er... well, one problem is that their bases are like dinner plates, and you can't fit nine of them around Cawl?

baseSize / (2*sin(180/numberUnits)) = distanceFromCenter
130/(2*sin(20)) = 190

Cawl is 35mm in radius on his shortest side, so 190 - 35 = 165mm = 6.10236 inches

Still don't play with Cawl... Still haven't lost an Admech game, though came close, twice.

Don't use bases on Onager's either. Wouldn't be "bubble walking" them anyway.

Even looking at not playing AdMech, but rather Imperial, get rid of HQ tax almost entirely, can eek out 12 Onagers with 2 Primaris Psykers as HQ's for 40 points each, can still squeeze in an Engineseer for a lil repair help...Just park a threesome on each objective and vaporize anything that gets close... Will have to proxy test that out though, not buying that many Onagers just to theory test...

Don't you kinda have to use a base if it comes with one? Some folks might not be a fan of that as you rob them of distance for charging (in theory).

Measuring movement PG177. You measure from base or the hull. So in this case, a base would give you small extra movement as the hull is in the middle of the model and not the legs.

The diagrams also show measuring shooting from the base. I would guess this would also fall on the hull? Or maybe not.

Open topped transports state specifically you measure from any point of the transport.

Personally I use a base, as I like the scenic bases I made for them and it makes them far more durable

**em_en_oh_pee**

Aaranis wrote:
em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Don't you kinda have to use a base if it comes with one? Some folks might not be a fan of that as you rob them of distance for charging (in theory).

Personnaly I never used mine with a base because I still need to paint strip it and then repaint it and I don't want to use adhesive gums to keep it on his base. Plus, it's so ludicrously big that you can't pass corners or small corridors easily on the table and it's just messy. Walkers that big like the Onager or Triarch Stalker shouldn't have bases. In fact the latter doesn't have one. I measure from the tip of the legs and use an imaginary circle, never had any problems and I'm not picky on measures if my opponent wants to charge it and it's blurry.

I thoroughly love building bases, so I guess that is why I am partial!

If I had it my way, every walker would have a base! That is how my Onagers legs will be kept safe from busting in transit too.

Check out my WiP ones. SO MUCH WORK LEFT!

Next set of bases I am going to try to pull some stuff from the newer terrain kits, if I can get them in time. The League schedule I am working on is rough!

**Pedroig**

1" is still 1" no matter where you measure from.

I have the bases, but I end up taking some "scenic" terrain features which have no rule effects, but my walkers can, you know, WALK over, looking all "gangsta" whilst doing so...

Also working on a diorama with part of the concept is two have two Onagers scaling a cliff to join the rest of the Skitarii up top, bases would sort of crimp that pretty hard...

I do have one base where I mounted the "flat feet" for the Onager on it, primed only, could paint it up and temporarily 'mount" it on them if a tourney requires bases.

**Aaranis**

em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Aaranis wrote:
em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Don't you kinda have to use a base if it comes with one? Some folks might not be a fan of that as you rob them of distance for charging (in theory).

Personnaly I never used mine with a base because I still need to paint strip it and then repaint it and I don't want to use adhesive gums to keep it on his base. Plus, it's so ludicrously big that you can't pass corners or small corridors easily on the table and it's just messy. Walkers that big like the Onager or Triarch Stalker shouldn't have bases. In fact the latter doesn't have one. I measure from the tip of the legs and use an imaginary circle, never had any problems and I'm not picky on measures if my opponent wants to charge it and it's blurry.

I thoroughly love building bases, so I guess that is why I am partial! If I had it my way, every walker would have a base! That is how my Onagers legs will be kept safe from busting in transit too.

Check out my WiP ones. SO MUCH WORK LEFT!

Next set of bases I am going to try to pull some stuff from the newer terrain kits, if I can get them in time. The League schedule I am working on is rough!

Wonderful bases, well done ! I intend on basing my Onager too, with maybe a dead Eldar or two for good measure, and of course some rocks. But it'll have to wait the repainting

**Iago40k**

okay little batrep. I played versus Ynnaeri. His list was 3 Hemlocks, 3 waveserpents with fire dragons and 2 autarchs. pretty straight forward. i played cawl, 2 neutronagers, 2 icarus, 4 dakkastelans, smith, tpd, 4 vanguard, 1 ranger 2 arquebusses, infiltrator.
He got 1st turn, I seized but since we are friends I let him go first since I was keen on seeing what could happen. I put my troops as screening units (thats what they are there for anyways). I gave him 3 positions he could move his hemlocks into. In those positions he wasnt able to focus 1 onager with all three. he advanced his serpents and shot vanguards. he smited vanguards and rangers and as i said shot his hemlocks on the onager. got 1 down to 5 and one down to 9. my turn. repaired the onager, switched protocolls on the dakkastelans and shot all three hemlocks with the onager and cawl. did a couple of wounds on one serpent. his turn. disembarked all fire dragons, advanced 2 units and startet shooting. he killed 1 vangaurd unit, soulbursted and shot into dakkastelans. killed one and got 2 MW in return. His shooting was subpar, he basically killed one kastellan, rangers and 1 vanguard squad, in return he lost 1 exarch and 4 fire dragons due to mortal wounds. aftrer that the dakkastelan double tapped and i wiped everything but 5 warpspiders he had hiding and an empty wave serpent. He called game after that turn.
Love this list, Every unit did what the had to do, troops are pretty heavy with 300 pts but they did an excellent job. 6+ invul ftw^^

**Suzuteo**

Pedroig wrote:Don't use bases on Onager's either. Wouldn't be "bubble walking" them anyway.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:Don't you kinda have to use a base if it comes with one? Some folks might not be a fan of that as you rob them of distance for charging (in theory).

Aaranis wrote:Personnaly I never used mine with a base because I still need to paint strip it and then repaint it and I don't want to use adhesive gums to keep it on his base. Plus, it's so ludicrously big that you can't pass corners or small corridors easily on the table and it's just messy. Walkers that big like the Onager or Triarch Stalker shouldn't have bases. In fact the latter doesn't have one. I measure from the tip of the legs and use an imaginary circle, never had any problems and I'm not picky on measures if my opponent wants to charge it and it's blurry.

str00dles1 wrote:Measuring movement PG177. You measure from base or the hull. So in this case, a base would give you small extra movement as the hull is in the middle of the model and not the legs.

Officially, you must use the base that comes with the model (or one of equivalent dimensions), as it represents the "true" size of your models.

That being said, yeah, the 130mm bases suck. They're way too big, and you spend way too much time dealing with wobbly model syndrome. If you go in without bases, you definitely need to bring a 130mm cylinder or just a base for measurement purposes. (I also highly recommend the sand shoes so the feet don't snap as easily...)

**Pedroig**

Officially? I think not:

Q: What are the official rules regarding specific base sizes for specific models (if any)?
A: The rules assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with, but it’s entirely fine to mount them on whichever base you think is appropriate. Sometimes, a player may have models in their collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all. In these cases you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've been required to have models based in twenty plus years. Official events, unofficial events, Adepticon, etc.

**Wulfey**

So is Cawl's 6" bubble to the base? Or do the foot of the model? If it is to the base, then I would prefer the bases. Otherwise, those bases are killing you.

**Pedroig**

If it is based it is to the base, if not based it is to the model. Moving the legs to intentionally get in/out of range would be modelling for advantage...

**rvd1ofakind**

Every spider tank unit no matter the army can be used with or without a base. In order to prevent moving shannanigans, there is a rule: "no part of the model can move more than the M characteristic.

If you want to win and you're using bases - you're a silly person. They're waaaay too clunky.

**Suzuteo**

Pedroig wrote:
Officially? I think not:

Q: What are the official rules regarding specific base sizes for specific models (if any)?
A: The rules assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with, but it’s entirely fine to mount them on whichever base you think is appropriate. Sometimes, a player may have models in their collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all. In these cases you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've been required to have models based in twenty plus years. Official events, unofficial events, Adepticon, etc.

That section you quoted does not say that models with a supplied base do not need to be based. From what I have gathered, GW is okay with a model being based on any base equal in size to the supplied base. In contrast, many of the major tournaments require you to have the models on the most recent supplied bases. That is why 25 to 32mm nested base adapters are a thing.

Anyhow, if you want to play with an unbased Crawler, that's fine. Just be prepared to show courtesy to those who insist on measuring to your base for charge. (You might give off the impression of modelling for advantage otherwise.) And if you want to bring them to a tournament, feel free do so, but at your own risk. I still highly recommend you bring a 130mm base or cylinder to do measurements, again, because Dunecrawlers are much easier to charge with the base.

rvd1ofakind wrote:
Every spider tank unit no matter the army can be used with or without a base. In order to prevent moving shannanigans, there is a rule: "no part of the model can move more than the M characteristic.

If you want to win and you're using bases - you're a silly person. They're waaaay too clunky.

Are you sure? That really doesn't seem to pass the smell test. I mean, they're walkers based on bases roughly double their area (well, less if you're measuring to the tip of the legs, but still quite an increase in size). It would be a huge advantage to force would-be chargers to measure to the model instead of the base.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay. So I looked up base policies, here's the one for Nova Open:

Basing Policy
• Models must be played on the bases provided with them.
• Models may be played on scenic bases of identical size to the bases provided with them. If you have a
question, ask ahead of time.
• If your scenic bases are smaller than they should be, be aware that you may be asked not to use
the models at all (if the organizers believe you brought them on such bases to gain an advantage),
or to count them as the appropriate base size.
• If your scenic bases are larger than they should be, the above (in re: smaller bases) applies as
well. Additionally, keep in mind that if an opponent is able to reach one of your larger bases
with a shooting attack or charge, you may not use the excuse of base size to prevent it. The
corollary does NOT apply – you may not gain extra range or charges due to larger bases. In
short, you gain no advantages for unusual base size, but may gain additional handicaps.
• Skimmers must be mounted (but not necessarily glued) on the bases provided with them, save for
situations where the rules allow for / require otherwise.
• We recognize that some skimmer bases are largely impractical for mounting your units on; if you
have a different basing route you’ve gone with, simply give us a heads up ahead of time – we’ll
work with you to make sure your models are both comfortably playable and comfortably stable

So if you intend to participate at a Nova Open, please do bring that 130mm base or cylinder to measure with.

**kingyyz**

Forgive me if I am being naive, but doesn't base size also affect the size of gap that the model can fit through?

I use based Onagers and I often have severe restrictions about where they can travel on the table because of density of terrain. I'd love to take them off the bases just to get around easier.

**Verviedi**

Pulled scans from OP because of forum copyright rules.

Here's my "starting" list, as an experiment using my current models, and models on my shopping list. Points and CP not relevant, as I'm just establishing a framework here. Main issue I can see is lack of screening (10 Vanguard don't seem like enough), but I can't fit in more troops without sacrificing my buff character killing power.

Spearhead Detachment - 4CP

Belisarius Cawl

5x Rangers w/ 2x Arquebus
5x Rangers w/ 2x Arquebus
10x Vanguard

5x Infilitrators w/ Taser/Flechette
Cybernetica Datasmith

Onager Dunecrawler w/ Icarus Array
Onager Dunecrawler w/ Neutron Laser
Onager Dunecrawler w/ Neutron Laser
2x Kastelan Robots w/ 3x Phosphor
2x Kastelan Robots w/ 3x Phosphor

**WrentheFaceless**

rvd1ofakind wrote:
Every spider tank unit no matter the army can be used with or without a base. In order to prevent moving shannanigans, there is a rule: "no part of the model can move more than the M characteristic.

If you want to win and you're using bases - you're a silly person. They're waaaay too clunky.

No tournament will let you bring a model without a base or with a different base than supplied if it comes with its own base

This base argument is WAAC"ing of the worst kind and belongs on YMDC

**Suzuteo**

kingyyz wrote:
Forgive me if I am being naive, but doesn't base size also affect the size of gap that the model can fit through?

I use based Onagers and I often have severe restrictions about where they can travel on the table because of density of terrain. I'd love to take them off the bases just to get around easier.

I believe 8th edition overhauled the movement rules for terrain; it's now determined by your unit type. Crawlers, as non-infantry, consider all fortifications, forests, ruins, and hills as solid objects and cannot move through them. And yes, you would consider the base the true size of the unit. The model, however, does determine the height.

Verviedi wrote:
Pulled scans from OP because of forum copyright rules.

Here's my "starting" list, as an experiment using my current models, and models on my shopping list. Points and CP not relevant, as I'm just establishing a framework here. Main issue I can see is lack of screening (10 Vanguard don't seem like enough), but I can't fit in more troops without sacrificing my buff character killing power.

...

Yeah, you need more screening units. I mean, AdMech in general NEEDS them because our best units are pretty much shut down the instant something CCs them, especially the Kastelans, who practically lose two turns of shooting because of Protector Protocol. In light of this, consider them as a force multiplier, since they give you more turns of shooting and less turns of fighting/falling back.

In fact, I think it should be one of the golden rules that roughly 20% of your points (400 for a tournament standard army) should be taken up by screening units (or units that can act as screening units).

**em_en_oh_pee**

Suzuteo wrote:
kingyyz wrote:
Forgive me if I am being naive, but doesn't base size also affect the size of gap that the model can fit through?

I use based Onagers and I often have severe restrictions about where they can travel on the table because of density of terrain. I'd love to take them off the bases just to get around easier.

I believe 8th edition overhauled the movement rules for terrain; it's now determined by your unit type. Crawlers, as non-infantry, consider all fortifications, forests, ruins, and hills as solid objects and cannot move through them. And yes, you would consider the base the true size of the unit. The model, however, does determine the height.

Verviedi wrote:
Pulled scans from OP because of forum copyright rules.

Here's my "starting" list, as an experiment using my current models, and models on my shopping list. Points and CP not relevant, as I'm just establishing a framework here. Main issue I can see is lack of screening (10 Vanguard don't seem like enough), but I can't fit in more troops without sacrificing my buff character killing power.

...

Yeah, you need more screening units. I mean, AdMech in general NEEDS them because our best units are pretty much shut down the instant something CCs them, especially the Kastelans, who practically lose two turns of shooting because of Protector Protocol. In light of this, consider them as a force multiplier, since they give you more turns of shooting and less turns of fighting/falling back.

In fact, I think it should be one of the golden rules that roughly 20% of your points (400 for a tournament standard army) should be taken up by screening units (or units that can act as screening units).

I can't find anything in the terrain rules that say units with the Vehicle keyword can't move through forests, ruins, and hills, etc. Mind citing that for me so I can tag it in my copy.

**rvd1ofakind**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
rvd1ofakind wrote:
Every spider tank unit no matter the army can be used with or without a base. In order to prevent moving shannanigans, there is a rule: "no part of the model can move more than the M characteristic.

If you want to win and you're using bases - you're a silly person. They're waaaay too clunky.

No tournament will let you bring a model without a base or with a different base than supplied if it comes with its own base

This base argument is WAAC"ing of the worst kind and belongs on YMDC

I'll admit to not doing too much research here. My friend who's been playing a lot told me this. I've also seen multiple batreps without the bases so I just went with it.

**Suzuteo**

em_en_oh_pee wrote:
I can't find anything in the terrain rules that say units with the Vehicle keyword can't move through forests, ruins, and hills, etc. Mind citing that for me so I can tag it in my copy.

Advanced Rules, Battlefield Terrain, P248

EDIT: Bah, on second thought, I actually might have too strict an interpretation of the rules based on the Ruins rules, which explicitly state that only Infantry can move through them, climb, etc. Terrain does seem to be able to "impede" non-infantry, which I took as a requirement that the base has to fit through them physically.

RUINS
The galaxy is littered with the remains of once-proud cities.

Unless they can FLY, VEHICLES, MONSTERS and BIKES can only end their move on the ground floor of ruins.

INFANTRY are assumed to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows, doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment.

INFANTRY units that are on a ruin receive the benefit of cover. Other units only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is actually obscured from the point of view of the shooting unit.

**Iago40k**

played against ynnari harlequins yesterday. Heavy loss caused by maelstrom missions, deadlock is just not good for AdMech. IN the end i had 2 dakkastelans and 4 onagers left, he had 1 empty starweaver and 3 jetbikes. After a lot of games against first turn charge armies I am not too keen on using large screens. I use 3 to 4 vanguard units with 5 models. That is simply put enough. Against the Harleys I wouldn't have needed them at all since they are only good for the enemy to trigger soulburst more often and sooner. Larger screens such as 50 conscripts are too stale to use. Our robots and crawlers are fast but will be slowed down by those conscripts. They lack output as well. So, I am certainly in between but i yet have to face a force where I really need a larger screen than 20 models.

**em_en_oh_pee**

Suzuteo wrote:
em_en_oh_pee wrote:
I can't find anything in the terrain rules that say units with the Vehicle keyword can't move through forests, ruins, and hills, etc. Mind citing that for me so I can tag it in my copy.

Advanced Rules, Battlefield Terrain, P248

EDIT: Bah, on second thought, I actually might have too strict an interpretation of the rules based on the Ruins rules, which explicitly state that only Infantry can move through them, climb, etc. Terrain does seem to be able to "impede" non-infantry, which I took as a requirement that the base has to fit through them physically.

RUINS
The galaxy is littered with the remains of once-proud cities.

Unless they can FLY, VEHICLES, MONSTERS and BIKES can only end their move on the ground floor of ruins.

INFANTRY are assumed to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows, doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment.

INFANTRY units that are on a ruin receive the benefit of cover. Other units only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is actually obscured from the point of view of the shooting unit.

Yea, so no restrictions on movement through terrain that I can see for vehicles excluding where it applies to multi-story ruins.

**Aaranis**

em_en_oh_pee wrote:

INFANTRY are assumed to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows, doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment.

Yea, so no restrictions on movement through terrain that I can see for vehicles excluding where it applies to multi-story ruins.