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.

For the baron detachment in 1850 you won't have enough points to bring in a meaningful ally. That eaves you with 5 models on the table. They are not OS so you can't count on them to hold an objective. With each knight that dies your board coverage decreases. So on and so forth.

For the formation it is actually very subtle but well done. All of the things that are cheap to spam upgrades on are limited(battle maniple) and all of the units you can buy more of have high model costs and low upgrade costs.

Seriously, I spent a hour or so trying to make a list I was happy with and I couldn't make anything I thought was competitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the baron detachment in 1850 you won't have enough points to bring in a meaningful ally. That eaves you with 5 models on the table. They are not OS so you can't count on them to hold an objective. With each knight that dies your board coverage decreases. So on and so forth.

For the formation it is actually very subtle but well done. All of the things that are cheap to spam upgrades on are limited(battle maniple) and all of the units you can buy more of have high model costs and low upgrade costs.

Seriously, I spent a hour or so trying to make a list I was happy with and I couldn't make anything I thought was competitive.

For the record, the average range for CM Troops choices is around 24". Given how many points you're sinking into each one of them, having them sit backfield and hold objectives as an OS unit is a huge waste of them.

 ansacs wrote:
People keep saying ObjSec is trifling and not important however ObjSec is GAME winning. One extra S6 shot hitting per turn per knight will rarely win a game however ObjSec can and will win games on a regular basis.

I agree!! I don't know how people can say that ObSec is not a big deal, or that it "rarely wins them games". I don't even see how that's possible, given two competent commanders.

 Leth wrote:
For the baron detachment in 1850 you won't have enough points to bring in a meaningful ally. That eaves you with 5 models on the table. They are not OS so you can't count on them to hold an objective. With each knight that dies your board coverage decreases. So on and so forth.

For the formation it is actually very subtle but well done. All of the things that are cheap to spam upgrades on are limited(battle maniple) and all of the units you can buy more of have high model costs and low upgrade costs.

Seriously, I spent a hour or so trying to make a list I was happy with and I couldn't make anything I thought was competitive.

Yeah, Baron detachment begs to be played in games larger than 1850 -- but really, no different than Angel's Fury, one of the first detachments that came out that was really cool, but too expensive to be useful in 1850 games. Then again, GW never said that 1850 was meaningful in any way, after all, and in their store tournaments, I've seen 1000, 2000, 3000 points (never 1850). Not that I have any issue with it; sub-2000 keeps the game moving at a good pace for most armies. Then again, if both sides have few models at 1850, it's also not a big deal to up the points and put more stuff on the table

 Talys wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
People keep saying ObjSec is trifling and not important however ObjSec is GAME winning. One extra S6 shot hitting per turn per knight will rarely win a game however ObjSec can and will win games on a regular basis.

I agree!! I don't know how people can say that ObSec is not a big deal, or that it "rarely wins them games". I don't even see how that's possible, given two competent commanders.

Oh, it's very simple actually.

Let's say I have two footslogging troop units, and so does my opponent.

How often is Obsec even going to come up? Once every twenty games or so by my estimate. When's it going to decide the game? Still hasn't. I did manage to use it to score that "hold all 6 objectives" card once, but I'd already blown two thirds of the opposing force off the table and scored plenty of other points by that stage.

It'll come up more if one side has Obsec bikes or is running a metric ton of Obsec dedicated transports, but I tend not to see that around here outside of one Ravenwing force.

changemod wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
People keep saying ObjSec is trifling and not important however ObjSec is GAME winning. One extra S6 shot hitting per turn per knight will rarely win a game however ObjSec can and will win games on a regular basis.

I agree!! I don't know how people can say that ObSec is not a big deal, or that it "rarely wins them games". I don't even see how that's possible, given two competent commanders.

Oh, it's very simple actually.

Let's say I have two footslogging troop units, and so does my opponent.

How often is Obsec even going to come up? Once every twenty games or so by my estimate. When's it going to decide the game? Still hasn't. I did manage to use it to score that "hold all 6 objectives" card once, but I'd already blown two thirds of the opposing force off the table and scored plenty of other points by that stage.

It'll come up more if one side has Obsec bikes or is running a metric ton of Obsec dedicated transports, but I tend not to see that around here outside of one Ravenwing force.

I think the prevalence of ObSec really depends on your own meta. I play in two different countries at three different FLGS, one has a meta dominated by MSU in cheap transports, one is alpha-strike dominated, and the last is a scattering of new players who don't know better In the first case, ObSec will matter, in the second, it's getting Seize the Initiative, tough units, and burst damage that matters more.

That HQ dominus guy is absolutely awesome.
Not 30 euro awesome but still.

 Enigwolf wrote:

migooo wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I just need the Electro Priest heads to make it to Bitz sellers for my Emperor's Children Marines.

Which ones?

Ill send them you but be handy if you told me.

I think there's only one set of heads in each box...

i don't like those heads anyway, as i planned to convert my spare Skitari ones

Well, if they're really spare then I'll gladly cover your postage and chuck you a few quid for them!

So.. if one wants to build a 1850 point admech and stuff army.. what would be a smart and "cheap" way to go?

I love the asthetics, but unsure what to buy. There aren't enough choices to NOT go admech and skitaririiria, right?

You can definitely do pure Skitarii or Cult Mechanicus.

Which interests you the most?

Not sure... ad mech I guess? Big stompy robots and stuff What could go wrong!

You're looking at the ability to do 8 Troop slots consisting of Kataphron Breacher or Destroyer units, of up to 12 models each, and 2 Heavy Support slots of Kastelan Robots consisting of up to 6 robots and 3 Datasmiths.
Add in a Magos-Dominus for HQ and you can probably get those points way up there.

Also, they have a number of formations as well which you can use as supplemental points/slots.

That seems rather boring I must say. Just spam a single kind of troops? (breachers and destroyers are the same for my taste).

Well, you also have 4x Elite slots for Electropriests of either flavor.

Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus seem to be intended for a single "core" detachment with supplemental formations with some very nice rules to add in.

It's also worth mentioning that Cult Mechanicus are VERY points-hefty so getting to those 8 Troop slots is very unlikely unless you're doing MSU like crazy.

So now that the Kastellans are out in the wild, does anyone have a pic of Kastellan andf Castellax together for a size comparison?

T

timd wrote:
So now that the Kastellans are out in the wild, does anyone have a pic of Kastellan andf Castellax together for a size comparison?

T

I have an unassembled Castellax lying somewhere around.. If I find it I'll blue-tack it together for a picture.

When in doubt...

nudibranch wrote:
When in doubt...

Spoiler:

Is he.. pointing his... pinkie?

Before he replaced 90% of his body with robotics he was part of the British royalty.

timd wrote:
So now that the Kastellans are out in the wild, does anyone have a pic of Kastellan andf Castellax together for a size comparison?

T

From Facebook:

God, those Castellax really make the Kastellans look like Fisher Price toys.

agreed.

That is... Certainly not a flattering comparison.

All that being said, the black visor makes the Kastellan a little bit less derpy in my eyes.
Not enough to warrant me using them over Castellaxi, mind you.

Its the stupid head :\

I actually prefer the plastic one, side by side like that.

Already thought they both had merits, but the classic sci fi robot is really well handled.

Mind you, a little conversion effort makes the Kastellan better than either's base look.

RoninXiC wrote:
Its the stupid head :\

It's the stupid everything. It's not often that GW makes really poor kits but IMO the Kastellan definitely is one. They took the 1950's retro-toy look too far and ended up with a retro 1950's toy. The arms are too oversized with fingers that can't barely touch each other (which was acceptable only back in the 90's when dreadnoughts first appeared), the body is a bit silly, armor plated egg that looks like one of Dr. Robotnik's boss suits, and the head is lacking of any good esthetic. None of the conversions I've seen have saved the model, and mind you, the people doing the conversions are really really good modellists. It's just the kit which is so wretched.

 Accolade wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
Its the stupid head :\

It's the stupid everything. It's not often that GW makes really poor kits but IMO the Kastellan definitely is one. They took the 1950's retro-toy look too far and ended up with a retro 1950's toy. The arms are too oversized with fingers that can't barely touch each other (which was acceptable only back in the 90's when dreadnoughts first appeared), the body is a bit silly, armor plated egg that looks like one of Dr. Robotnik's boss suits, and the head is lacking of any good esthetic. None of the conversions I've seen have saved the model, and mind you, the people doing the conversions are really really good modellists. It's just the kit which is so wretched.

Any pictures of the conversions? I've only seen a handful around, most were pretty simple. If there were truly some awesome modelers who felt strongly about the kit, I imagine they'd have done some pretty drastic work on it. Mind you, I'm not a fan either, and I'm not an awesome modeler, but I just ordered a bunch of bits from ebay to see what I can't do about fixing it.

The best I've seen have been Krautscientist's Khornate renditions, which have been extensively modified (I think they're very good, but they're so different than the original model).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2100/432972.page

Outside of that, I've seen a lot of head modifications, but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the model is gak.

I wonder if people realize that the Kastelan Robots are designed to come from a time before even the Imperium itself and that's why they look so out of place in the current 40k universe. Of course they're gonna look way different compared to something built 10,000 years ago when they themselves were built 20,000 years ago.

To me that's why I like them so much. They pretty much embody the Mecanicus creed of repurposing ancient tech. Because it's so different you know they didn't build it, but they'll still happily slap guns, cogs, and Eagles on it and use it for war.