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.

 Yodhrin wrote:
*sigh* GW, why you no write good rules?

I was really looking forward to using the Cybernetica Cohort, but someone over on B&C has pointed out that GW have cacked their pants again over the wording of the special rule.

As-written, you can actually have two Protocols active at the same time; in the normal protocol rule it states that one protocol replaces another when they activate at the start of your turn, and the Mask relic specifically uses that same wording, but the Cohort rules state that you can choose a protocol at the end of your turn and it will "take effect" immediately. Nowhere is there wording which implies it overrides the standard rules for when one protocol replaces another, meaning strict RAW if lets say you had the shooty protocol active, you could choose the FNP protocol at the end of your turn and have it take effect immediately, so you would have FNP AND shooty active in your enemy's turn, but the FNP would not actually replace shooty until the start of your next turn.

Great, so at pick-up games unless I can persuade the opponent to just ignore that rule altogether, I either have to accept the common non-RAW reading of the rule and end up with protocol rules that are actually worse for the formation than 'bots outside of it, or I have to be TFG and make a really pedantic argument to gain a minor advantage.

How do the rules make the formation worse if you read it in the non-RAW reading?

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
*sigh* GW, why you no write good rules?

I was really looking forward to using the Cybernetica Cohort, but someone over on B&C has pointed out that GW have cacked their pants again over the wording of the special rule.

As-written, you can actually have two Protocols active at the same time; in the normal protocol rule it states that one protocol replaces another when they activate at the start of your turn, and the Mask relic specifically uses that same wording, but the Cohort rules state that you can choose a protocol at the end of your turn and it will "take effect" immediately. Nowhere is there wording which implies it overrides the standard rules for when one protocol replaces another, meaning strict RAW if lets say you had the shooty protocol active, you could choose the FNP protocol at the end of your turn and have it take effect immediately, so you would have FNP AND shooty active in your enemy's turn, but the FNP would not actually replace shooty until the start of your next turn.

Great, so at pick-up games unless I can persuade the opponent to just ignore that rule altogether, I either have to accept the common non-RAW reading of the rule and end up with protocol rules that are actually worse for the formation than 'bots outside of it, or I have to be TFG and make a really pedantic argument to gain a minor advantage.

How do the rules make the formation worse if you read it in the non-RAW reading?

Yea, I am failing to see how the non raw wording of you have one go off immediately at the end of your turn is worse... Still raw it actually makes the maniple pretty boss as you can stagger the abilities.

 Leth wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
*sigh* GW, why you no write good rules?

I was really looking forward to using the Cybernetica Cohort, but someone over on B&C has pointed out that GW have cacked their pants again over the wording of the special rule.

As-written, you can actually have two Protocols active at the same time; in the normal protocol rule it states that one protocol replaces another when they activate at the start of your turn, and the Mask relic specifically uses that same wording, but the Cohort rules state that you can choose a protocol at the end of your turn and it will "take effect" immediately. Nowhere is there wording which implies it overrides the standard rules for when one protocol replaces another, meaning strict RAW if lets say you had the shooty protocol active, you could choose the FNP protocol at the end of your turn and have it take effect immediately, so you would have FNP AND shooty active in your enemy's turn, but the FNP would not actually replace shooty until the start of your next turn.

Great, so at pick-up games unless I can persuade the opponent to just ignore that rule altogether, I either have to accept the common non-RAW reading of the rule and end up with protocol rules that are actually worse for the formation than 'bots outside of it, or I have to be TFG and make a really pedantic argument to gain a minor advantage.

How do the rules make the formation worse if you read it in the non-RAW reading?

Yea, I am failing to see how the non raw wording of you have one go off immediately at the end of your turn is worse... Still raw it actually makes the maniple pretty boss as you can stagger the abilities.

If you go with the interpretation that the Cohort chooses a new protocol and it immediately replaces the previous one, it means that if you switch to, for example, shooty protocols when you reach the middle of the board, you will lose your FNP for the entire enemy turn at the moment it will probably be most useful.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I'm not seeing any really top-tier competitive tournament builds for Skitarii/Cult Mech at the moment since the +1 BS Ignores Cover formation turned out to be a dud.

Skitarii/Flesh Tearers is still solid but functionally it really isn't very different from any other drop pod army.

They also can't handle decurion Necrons at the moment or Tyranid Malanthrope/FMC spam.

How was the Elimination Maniple a "dud"? It was meant to be Eldar bike-spam buster, and it is. Your Kastellan's WILL inflict a wound, unless all math abandons you, and at that point your Kataphron Destroyers (hell, even one of the two in the formation), will easily wipe the bike unit off the table. One round of shooting should take out the biggest threat your army is inclined to face.

Can you guys help me make a 1250pts list with what has been said? Or should I post this on Lists? I've already got around 600 points of Skitarii, but I wanted a list that was mainly Cult and still preformed well in battle.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I'm not seeing any really top-tier competitive tournament builds for Skitarii/Cult Mech at the moment since the +1 BS Ignores Cover formation turned out to be a dud.

Skitarii/Flesh Tearers is still solid but functionally it really isn't very different from any other drop pod army.

They also can't handle decurion Necrons at the moment or Tyranid Malanthrope/FMC spam.

How was the Elimination Maniple a "dud"? It was meant to be Eldar bike-spam buster, and it is. Your Kastellan's WILL inflict a wound, unless all math abandons you, and at that point your Kataphron Destroyers (hell, even one of the two in the formation), will easily wipe the bike unit off the table. One round of shooting should take out the biggest threat your army is inclined to face.

The problem is that the bikes are probably MSU. So your Kastellans fire at BS3, the bikes might be in cover or jink. They get full cover against your Kastellans, but you do a wound. Then you have to fire with another unit to actually kill them at BS4 ignores cover. So you are using 2 units to kill 1 bike unit. That is pretty good when there are 10 bikes, but there is no reason to have 10 bikes. Instead of 3 units of 10 bikes, how about 10 units of 3 bikes. At which point the Elimination Maniple is a total dud against it.

 Exergy wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I'm not seeing any really top-tier competitive tournament builds for Skitarii/Cult Mech at the moment since the +1 BS Ignores Cover formation turned out to be a dud.

Skitarii/Flesh Tearers is still solid but functionally it really isn't very different from any other drop pod army.

They also can't handle decurion Necrons at the moment or Tyranid Malanthrope/FMC spam.

How was the Elimination Maniple a "dud"? It was meant to be Eldar bike-spam buster, and it is. Your Kastellan's WILL inflict a wound, unless all math abandons you, and at that point your Kataphron Destroyers (hell, even one of the two in the formation), will easily wipe the bike unit off the table. One round of shooting should take out the biggest threat your army is inclined to face.

The problem is that the bikes are probably MSU. So your Kastellans fire at BS3, the bikes might be in cover or jink. They get full cover against your Kastellans, but you do a wound. Then you have to fire with another unit to actually kill them at BS4 ignores cover. So you are using 2 units to kill 1 bike unit. That is pretty good when there are 10 bikes, but there is no reason to have 10 bikes. Instead of 3 units of 10 bikes, how about 10 units of 3 bikes. At which point the Elimination Maniple is a total dud against it.

Yup. CM is starting to feel like a book with a lot of overkill in a meta that values MSU. Great against Deathstars, less efficient against a lot of the rest.

 Exergy wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I'm not seeing any really top-tier competitive tournament builds for Skitarii/Cult Mech at the moment since the +1 BS Ignores Cover formation turned out to be a dud.

Skitarii/Flesh Tearers is still solid but functionally it really isn't very different from any other drop pod army.

They also can't handle decurion Necrons at the moment or Tyranid Malanthrope/FMC spam.

How was the Elimination Maniple a "dud"? It was meant to be Eldar bike-spam buster, and it is. Your Kastellan's WILL inflict a wound, unless all math abandons you, and at that point your Kataphron Destroyers (hell, even one of the two in the formation), will easily wipe the bike unit off the table. One round of shooting should take out the biggest threat your army is inclined to face.

The problem is that the bikes are probably MSU. So your Kastellans fire at BS3, the bikes might be in cover or jink. They get full cover against your Kastellans, but you do a wound. Then you have to fire with another unit to actually kill them at BS4 ignores cover. So you are using 2 units to kill 1 bike unit. That is pretty good when there are 10 bikes, but there is no reason to have 10 bikes. Instead of 3 units of 10 bikes, how about 10 units of 3 bikes. At which point the Elimination Maniple is a total dud against it.

I say this sincerely not knowing the Eldar FOC options... but what formation lets them field 10 MSU of anything? At that point, if they have abused multiple CAD, etc... just to do that, I would either expect a TO to reign in that kind of abuse. And if not... well, Ad-Mech (both Skitarii and Cult) have enough threatening shooting to wipe out, or force Jink on most of those. The volume of Omnispex, Lumingen, possible allied Auspex on common allies, etc... still renders the most typical Eldar net-lists moot.

 Decay wrote:
Can you guys help me make a 1250pts list with what has been said? Or should I post this on Lists? I've already got around 600 points of Skitarii, but I wanted a list that was mainly Cult and still preformed well in battle.

Go ahead and post it here

My problem with Kataphrons is that there are other units which perform the same task but better.

With grav, Centurions are arguably better. Grav Amp + better BS. BS 3 really kills these guys for me.

With plasma, I would much rather have Leman Russ Executioners with plasma sponsons. Especially if I take them from the Steel Host and make them my HQ tanks. That gives the unit split fire and PE. For someone who already has lots of LR tanks and likes to field them, this seems like a better option compared to Kataphrons.

One option could be the Deep Strike formation with the heavy arc rifles to take out enemy vehicles easily, but then again can still be done just as well with Arc Vanguard in a pod.

So unless I really need Grav for whatever reason, what reason do I have to take Kataphrons? Like I said before, the BS3 is a huge negative with these guys. I play guard so I know how bad BS3 can screw you over.

Ok, I'll post my list for general opinions.

HQ: Dominus: Cognis relic

Troops: 2x3 Breachers: heavy arc rifles, arc claws
2x3 Destroyers: Grav cannons, phosphor blasters.

Heavy Support: 2 Kastelan Robots: full phosphor

Skittarii: 3x5 Vanguard.

If you're taking Breachers, I'd go with Torsion Cannons and take the Relic Scryerskull on the Magos; they mathhammer out about the same against vehicles as Heavy Arc but are far more effective against MCs.

Don't bother with breachers. I recommend talking Arc Rifles on the Vanguard instead. Where are you putting the Dominus?

 ultimentra wrote:
My problem with Kataphrons is that there are other units which perform the same task but better.

With grav, Centurions are arguably better. Grav Amp + better BS. BS 3 really kills these guys for me.

With plasma, I would much rather have Leman Russ Executioners with plasma sponsons. Especially if I take them from the Steel Host and make them my HQ tanks. That gives the unit split fire and PE. For someone who already has lots of LR tanks and likes to field them, this seems like a better option compared to Kataphrons.

One option could be the Deep Strike formation with the heavy arc rifles to take out enemy vehicles easily, but then again can still be done just as well with Arc Vanguard in a pod.

So unless I really need Grav for whatever reason, what reason do I have to take Kataphrons? Like I said before, the BS3 is a huge negative with these guys. I play guard so I know how bad BS3 can screw you over.

Then dont use them if theyre terrible in your mind. If you want to run a cult mech list, you have to use a flavor of kataphron if you want to build at the very least their base detacthment

Yes centurions are better bs/armor/grav amps, they also cost 25 points more and are a heavy support slot whereas kataphrons are troops. I should hope costing more points makes a unit better so its an invalid comparison.

And since when is a vehicle comparable to a troop? But anyways, that tank by itself is 185 points for 5 36 inch range small blasts, compared to 6 24 inch small blasts at 24 inches. Both bs 3. So an extra 25 points for one tank, armor 14 true but only 3 HP compared to 6 wounds on the kataphron squad.

Centurions also have 6'' less range, one less shot, their secondary weapon options don't have the potential to reduce enemy cover, they can't overwatch, they re-roll to wound and vehicle damage, have better armor, etc etc. A world of differences.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:


I say this sincerely not knowing the Eldar FOC options... but what formation lets them field 10 MSU of anything? At that point, if they have abused multiple CAD, etc... just to do that, I would either expect a TO to reign in that kind of abuse. And if not... well, Ad-Mech (both Skitarii and Cult) have enough threatening shooting to wipe out, or force Jink on most of those. The volume of Omnispex, Lumingen, possible allied Auspex on common allies, etc... still renders the most typical Eldar net-lists moot.

Is running 2 detachments cheese? Jetbikes are troops. They can take 6 units of them in a standard combined arms detachment. instead of 3 units of 10, 6 units of 5. It is hard to call that abuse unless you think just taking jetbikes at all is abuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
If you're taking Breachers, I'd go with Torsion Cannons and take the Relic Scryerskull on the Magos; they mathhammer out about the same against vehicles as Heavy Arc but are far more effective against MCs.

It really depends on the vehicle. Even with reroll, Torsion Cannons will have trouble against AV14. On the other hand, Torsion Cannons will do better against AV10 because they can get 'explodes' results


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 obsidiankatana wrote:
Centurions also have 6'' less range, one less shot, their secondary weapon options don't have the potential to reduce enemy cover, they can't overwatch, they re-roll to wound and vehicle damage, have better armor, etc etc. A world of differences.

+ ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics


One of these days your Destroyers will take 2 wounds and fail their LD test. Centurions never do that.

I see a dominus attached to a squad of breachers with torsion cannons (a unit of 5-6) as a nasty little ministar. Give him the cognis relic, and they threaten basically everything, even flyers.

That unit also becomes and amusing anti-deathstar as well. Torsion cannons are fantastic for multiple multi-wound models, can double out things like paladins, or have a 66% chance to instant kill thunderwolves and centurions if a shot gets through. They aren't slouches in CC either.

I hate arguments like this

Not everyone purely looks at a unit to see its potential cost effectiveness compared to other units.

Might as well not run half the armies in the game if X units/codexes are better

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I hate arguments like this

Not everyone purely looks at a unit to see its potential cost effectiveness compared to other units.

Might as well not run half the armies in the game if X units/codexes are better

+1

We might as well start playing with Unbound armies, picking and choosing the most point effective units from each 'dex for a particular role.

I have the Breachers in my list, because I only have 3 arc rifle Vanguard, so I'm unsure about that. I also was not sure where the Dominus was going, probably with the Destroyers or Breachers because of the Cognis relic.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I hate arguments like this

Not everyone purely looks at a unit to see its potential cost effectiveness compared to other units.

Might as well not run half the armies in the game if X units/codexes are better

+1

We might as well start playing with Unbound armies, picking and choosing the most point effective units from each 'dex for a particular role.

Yea, why bother mentioning stuff like that, this is a tactics thread for Ad Mech, not Imperium of Man.

 gameandwatch wrote:
I see a dominus attached to a squad of breachers with torsion cannons (a unit of 5-6) as a nasty little ministar. Give him the cognis relic, and they threaten basically everything, even flyers.

That unit also becomes and amusing anti-deathstar as well. Torsion cannons are fantastic for multiple multi-wound models, can double out things like paladins, or have a 66% chance to instant kill thunderwolves and centurions if a shot gets through. They aren't slouches in CC either.

That is a 450 point unit that will average 3 hits a turn.

 Exergy wrote:

 gameandwatch wrote:
I see a dominus attached to a squad of breachers with torsion cannons (a unit of 5-6) as a nasty little ministar. Give him the cognis relic, and they threaten basically everything, even flyers.

That unit also becomes and amusing anti-deathstar as well. Torsion cannons are fantastic for multiple multi-wound models, can double out things like paladins, or have a 66% chance to instant kill thunderwolves and centurions if a shot gets through. They aren't slouches in CC either.

That is a 450 point unit that will average 3 hits a turn.

With the reroll shooting attacks canticle, they fair much better.

Wow, didn't expect all the hate for my criticisms of Kataphrons as a unit. Excuse me for trying to discuss relevant tactics in a tactics thread. This may be an Admech thread but allies exist, people need to stop living in 5th ed wonderland. All the other threads where a faction is discussed people talk about allies.

The Troops vs Heavy Support argument doesn't hold water in a world of multiple detachments, formations, and everything scoring. The time it does is when the Kataphrons are in a CAD getting Obsec, and even then this bonus is relatively situational IMO.

My point in comparing Kataphrons to units that perform the same task (maybe not with the same stat line, or classification, or points cost) is to see what is a better choice bang for buck. People are going to do this any ways so why not discuss it? Or would you rather bury your head in the sand?

I am going to say that given the Mechanicus (in its two books) is an IoM army, and has access to the most battle brother allies of any faction aside from other IoM, the options that CM gives to a Skitarii Army, or running them as a Primary with allies leaves something to be desired on paper. Aside from the Kastellan formation which will soak up wounds and dish them out, I don't really see any reason to take the army at all if someone is looking to min/max. We all know Skitarii are good and have some amazing combos. I just don't see that in CM aside from the Kastellan formation and maybe the Elimination Maniple.

They're not relevant tactics, they stop being 'Tactica Mechanicas" as soon as you go "But X unit is better"

We're discussing the ad mech units and tactics using those units in a list, its pointless to bring up "But x is better" as it serves no purpose to the point of this thread

Yes allies are nice, but Centurions and Leman Russes have already existed, we know what they do.

Kataphrons are brand new, and pardon on trying to think on how to use those actual units for Mechanicus tactics. Bring up unrelated units does nothing for that discussion

And not everyone wishes to discuss min/maxing, nor cares

I come to a mechanicus thread to discuss tactics for mechanius units, not another conversation about Centurions in drop pods

TLDR: Saying X unit is better is not at all helpful when trying to discuss units for the mechanicum and trying to play them.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
They're not relevant tactics, they stop being 'Tactica Mechanicas" as soon as you go "But X unit is better"

We're discussing the ad mech units and tactics using those units in a list, its pointless to bring up "But x is better" as it serves no purpose to the point of this thread

Yes allies are nice, but Centurions and Leman Russes have already existed, we know what they do.

Kataphrons are brand new, and pardon on trying to think on how to use those actual units for Mechanicus tactics. Bring up unrelated units does nothing for that discussion

And not everyone wishes to discuss min/maxing, nor cares

I come to a mechanicus thread to discuss tactics for mechanius units, not another conversation about Centurions in drop pods

TLDR: Saying X unit is better is not at all helpful when trying to discuss units for the mechanicum and trying to play them.

Additionally, some of us like to play a Mechanicus army because.. Well, we're Mechanicus fans and we have other armies for winning tournaments/don't particularly care about winning with it (Elysians, I'm looking at you.)

Good to see that a couple people here in the tactics section care more for burying their head in the sand than actual tactics and looking at the big picture in 40k. Maybe they ought to change the name of the thread to "Tactica Mechanicus (mechanicus units only, no allies, only fluffy builds/combos allowed. Don't talk about min/maxing units either."

Also, if you want to say that you don't like the idea of min/maxing, technically speaking taking min units of grav Kataphrons is min/maxing by definition within the army because of MSU and Canticles. Tread carefully lest you wander into the realm of hypocrisy.

 ultimentra wrote:
Good to see that a couple people here in the tactics section care more for burying their head in the sand than actual tactics and looking at the big picture in 40k. Maybe they ought to change the name of the thread to "Tactica Mechanicus (mechanicus units only, no allies, only fluffy builds/combos allowed. Don't talk about min/maxing units either."

Also, if you want to say that you don't like the idea of min/maxing, technically speaking taking min units of grav Kataphrons is min/maxing by definition within the army because of MSU and Canticles. Tread carefully lest you wander into the realm of hypocrisy.

Good to see you continuing to miss the point. We're not here to discuss tactics about other units, we're here to discuss Ad Mech unit tactics. How about we discuss how well the units work before conversations about "X unit is better, why dont you use Y allies" That serves no purpose and if you'd rather use those units, play those armies.

Its hardly min/maxing taking a squad as designed by the codex constraints. Hardly hypocrisy if you're playing it as its written without game-breaking ally combos or cheese

I'm not going to go into a space marine thread and tell a guy asking about attack bikes "Hur dur jetbikes are better"

How about instead of automatically dismissing a unit because another unit is hypothetically better, how about you try to discuss how a unit can work? Yknow, Tactics, using Ad Mech units. In a Ad Mech tactics thread. Heresy I know, but it shouldnt be that hard for you, unless all you see is stuff TFG would see.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ultimentra wrote:
Good to see that a couple people here in the tactics section care more for burying their head in the sand than actual tactics and looking at the big picture in 40k. Maybe they ought to change the name of the thread to "Tactica Mechanicus (mechanicus units only, no allies, only fluffy builds/combos allowed. Don't talk about min/maxing units either."

Also, if you want to say that you don't like the idea of min/maxing, technically speaking taking min units of grav Kataphrons is min/maxing by definition within the army because of MSU and Canticles. Tread carefully lest you wander into the realm of hypocrisy.

Good to see you continuing to miss the point. We're not here to discuss tactics about other units, we're here to discuss Ad Mech unit tactics. How about we discuss how well the units work before conversations about "X unit is better, why dont you use Y allies" That serves no purpose and if you'd rather use those units, play those armies.

Its hardly min/maxing taking a squad as designed by the codex constraints. Hardly hypocrisy if you're playing it as its written without game-breaking ally combos or cheese

How about instead of automatically dismissing a unit because another unit is hypothetically better, how about you try to discuss how a unit can work? Yknow, Tactics, using Ad Mech units. In a Ad Mech tactics thread. Heresy I know, but it shouldnt be that hard for you, unless all you see is stuff TFG would see.

Keep it kosher guys. As well, let's not jump the gun with regards to the validity of comparing the Ad Mech units, to other units in other codices as that is part of determining the "tactics" for using such units. Now (and this is not saying this is what was said) labeling something as unusable without testing, or "these do that better" is no way to discuss it either. With that out of the way, back to the topic.

Grav centurions vs grav destroyers is an interesting debate, as they have on par accuracy to each other (canticles vs twin linking and such) one has higher firepower, both have good support units. I will agree that since they are not Obsec, the troops vs heavy is moot to a point, where the troops vs heavy comes into play though is that a really good unit is also a tax unit (destroyers) where as a really good unit needs tax units (tacticals or scouts for centurions). Both have nearly equal stats (marines having better general stats). Where I think grav destroyers gets terrifying though is that they are a spammable unit unlike the usually 1 per army cent squad. MOST of the time, cent squads are part of mini-stars or deathstars, where as Ad Mech can just spam the f*** out of the destroyers and have an entire army with crazy amounts of grav. I think that is where destroyers will come into their own as unlike the centstar, which usually rolls with invisibilty, destroyers have safety in numbers and force your opponent to face a literal WALL of grav.

Ugg, just the thought of facing 72 grav shots in an alpha strike from just 4 min squads...does not sound appealing hahahaha

 gameandwatch wrote:

Ugg, just the thought of face 72 grav shots in an alpha strike from just 4 min squads...does not sound appealing hahahaha

The problem is that 4 things melt, and then nothing else. I wish GW gave a way for the Kataphrons to split-fire too, via formation. Also, I find it weird that servitors can fail morale checks and fall back... I thought these things were programmed with entire chunks of their cortex removed...