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.

Pedroig wrote:
On Knights, Battle Cannon is about 1.5 times better than Thermal Cannon at damage applied to the enemy from T4 to T8 regardless of saves, on average... And that's within 18", outside, it's not even close, over double...

Yeah... It's so hard to fit it in the list tho :x
And it makes an "all eggs in one basket". Eh, maybe I just got unlucky last time. I'll try it next time again.

Pedroig wrote:
On Knights, Battle Cannon is about 1.5 times better than Thermal Cannon at damage applied to the enemy from T4 to T8 regardless of saves, on average... And that's within 18", outside, it's not even close, over double...

Why is everyone giving their knights thermal then?

Points? Pointwise they basically do the same amount per point, or really points per damage. Since the Battle Cannon is 50% more than the Thermal. However, it is only 30 odd point difference, can't make that much difference in 2000 points..

But Mathhammmer comes out to it is better overall. Way better versus T4, the only place they get close is T9 (which I'm not sure is even a thing, but did it for completeness sake), the difference in the AP is more than made up by the increased number of saves the unit will take.

But ultimately, my answer is I don't have the first clue... I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the army building habits of fellow Dakka members.

Pedroig wrote:
Points? Pointwise they basically do the same amount per point, or really points per damage. Since the Battle Cannon is 50% more than the Thermal.

Yeah, but it is not like the knight itself is free...
Crusader is already insanely expensive, so I'd not try to save couple of points. Thermal might make more sense if paired with the (disappointingly ineffective) reaper sword.

That's my thought as well on the Battle Cannon (I didn't count the macrostubber in). Now the Reaper Sword has a very specific place, that whole Str 16 is a 2+ to Wound against practically everything, so 2/3 of your attacks will hit, and 5/6 of your hits will wound.

Pedroig wrote:
That's my thought as well on the Battle Cannon (I didn't count the macrostubber in). Now the Reaper Sword has a very specific place, that whole Str 16 is a 2+ to Wound against practically everything, so 2/3 of your attacks will hit, and 5/6 of your hits will wound.

It is the gauntlet which is S 16 (Sx2) the sword is just S 12 (S+4), but the gauntlet is -1 to hit.

With 2k points battle cannon is the way to go but with 1850 its not possible. Just have a look at my list a couple of pages ago.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

Doesn't stop overwatch. It's a fixed "hit on 6" thing that only gets altered by rules that have the word "OVERWATCH" in them. Confirmed by testers.
They are also slower in terms of running and charging too.
Like I said, the most annoying thing is that the weapon is really weird. It's good against mutli-wound invul saves and multi-wound no saves. Which are few and far in-between. And even if the opponent has some, he'll make it a PITA for your dragoons to actually charge them.
And I still use them. But I doubt they're "core". But time will tell...

Thermal and Rapidfire comparison

The fact that it has some positioning shananigans you can do where it hits harder in some situations (would you really fire that at IG troops?) makes Thermal better IMO. Obviously I'd take Rapid if it was the same price

Bummer on the Overwatch.

I don't follow. Dragoons always had 0 AP, and if anything, they have even more targets now than in 7th, given there are now Primaris Space Marines in addition to MC, light transports, MEQs, and walkers running around. After all, its damage comes from the sheer volume of high strength attacks. Really, what I am surprised by is how they gave us 2 damage attacks at all; they could have given us 1 damage attacks with the old cost (now 54 due to Taser Lances costing 9), which is much worse in the high-Wound environment we are in.

If your opponent is hiding their high-Wound units from your Dragoons, then they won't be in CC with your artillery, which will be pounding the tar out of everything else. Mission accomplished.

Mm... looking at those results, I am going to have to echo the other comments. Given you are already spending 320 points on the body, you need to give it the tools necessary to succeed. Alternatively, you can build a Warden or Errant...

Iago40k wrote:
With 2k points battle cannon is the way to go but with 1850 its not possible. Just have a look at my list a couple of pages ago.

It is 24 point difference, not that hard to get it in...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
That's my thought as well on the Battle Cannon (I didn't count the macrostubber in). Now the Reaper Sword has a very specific place, that whole Str 16 is a 2+ to Wound against practically everything, so 2/3 of your attacks will hit, and 5/6 of your hits will wound.

It is the gauntlet which is S 16 (Sx2) the sword is just S 12 (S+4), but the gauntlet is -1 to hit.

Correct sir, my bad. S+4 means 2+ on T6 or less, which is most SM vehicles, most transports. And -3 on AP is not bad... If you can mitigate the -1 on to hit, the gauntlet is quite a bit better. Feet are great against infantry, and meh versus vehicles and monsters...

I think list context might matter on the RFBC vs Thermal option. The Avenger already tosses a fair amount of shots against infantry and so do our Robots. Anti-tank in my list is limited to the Neutron, so having another reliable means of busting armor might be worth it (meta depending).

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
I think list context might matter on the RFBC vs Thermal option. The Avenger already tosses a fair amount of shots against infantry and so do our Robots. Anti-tank in my list is limited to the Neutron, so having another reliable means of busting armor might be worth it (meta depending).

This. Crusader might just be additional artillery ontop of our already excellent artillery. Indeed, we may well be stuck in old thinking. Crusader was king in WarCon lists because it benefited from Canticles and free upgrades. However, outside of WarCon, Errant was just as common due to the D on the chainsword.

Besides this, I wonder if we really need a Knight at all. Kastelans seem to outperform in the anti-horde role and Crawlers in the anti-tank role.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
I think list context might matter on the RFBC vs Thermal option. The Avenger already tosses a fair amount of shots against infantry and so do our Robots. Anti-tank in my list is limited to the Neutron, so having another reliable means of busting armor might be worth it (meta depending).

But the RFBC is MORE RELIABLE at inflicting damage, even on armour.

Pedroig wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
I think list context might matter on the RFBC vs Thermal option. The Avenger already tosses a fair amount of shots against infantry and so do our Robots. Anti-tank in my list is limited to the Neutron, so having another reliable means of busting armor might be worth it (meta depending).

But the RFBC is MORE RELIABLE at inflicting damage, even on armour.

Does this factor in the 5+ squad perk? The pick-highest at half range? Or the fact it is d6 vs d3 damage?

Yes it does...


Ok, was going over, double checking and realized left something, just a tad important out...

The chart gives Allocated Wounds that make it to the model, not Damage

Short and sweet. Outside 18" TC will do 5.26 damage, inside 6.01 damage. The RFBC does 4.43. Invulns lower this to a worst case of TC 2.72 and 3.11, RFBC 2.59

Simple misclick combined with cut and paste of the formula looks like....

My apologies. TC is better Anti-Vehicle, RFBC will kill more 1 W models.

On topic of "do we need a knight". The problem is that we either go knight or:
run out of heavy support spaces
have to run kastelans in squads of6
have to lose CP in one way or the other

Gotta love the meta nature of two ad mech players arguing over data.

Hail the omnissiah.

Pedroig wrote:
Yes it does...


Ok, was going over, double checking and realized left something, just a tad important out...

The chart gives Allocated Wounds that make it to the model, not Damage

Short and sweet. Outside 18" TC will do 5.26 damage, inside 6.01 damage. The RFBC does 4.43. Invulns lower this to a worst case of TC 2.72 and 3.11, RFBC 2.59

Simple misclick combined with cut and paste of the formula looks like....

My apologies. TC is better Anti-Vehicle, RFBC will kill more 1 W models.

Yeah and having to shoot a 100 pts weapon at 1W models makes me want to kill myself :p

also post the full thing

If we had another HQ choice that wasn't over 130 points I'd consider a second detachment over a Knight. Otherwise like it's been said, since Dunecrawlers cannot be run in squads anymore you run out of slots fast.

The alternative is to run the heavy slot detachment, but that sacrifices 2 CP.

One possibility would be to have one main detachment that is pure admech so it can use canticles, then a heavy-slot detachment in addition that is just "imperium" so it can be a single Astra Militarum Company Commander and a bunch of stompy robots. Basically, a 30-point tax to get a bunch of heavy support slots and a command point.

Because remember, those restrictions are always on a per-detachment basis.

The downsides of course are that the second detachment wouldn't be able to use canticles (but most of your army would be in the first detachment, which can), and a Company Commander running around leading a bunch of Kastellans/Dunecrawlers is kind of unfluffy. Though with some conversion work you could try to pass him off as the rare and elusive Skitarii Commander.

Had a hand full of 2k games and even a 3k game this weekend.

My thoughts and comments from the games:

Vanguards are just better. No reason to use Rangers. I use them to bubble wrap the kastallens and give -1T for that needed melee if charged.

Priests, both types suck. They are cheap, but over all useless. they need to kill a unit first to be good, which they are usually killed first.

My second box of destoryers is never getting built, a waste of time painting the first box! Useless

Til a codex comes out, Cawl is a auto take

Fr 2k, min robots id run is 2 units of 2. they are quite overpowered. Easily see them getting more expensive in the coming times.

Laser Walkers and anti air walkers are also close to a auto include, both are amazing.

TPD is a requirement, whish I could take a cheaper HQ, but he baby sits the tanks.

Chickenwalkers are not bad, used twin las and did alright. Its cheap, but if it gets shot by anything big its doomed.

I use knight with gatling, stubbers and RFBC. RFBC is better all around, though expensive. If I know I'm playing someone who brings lots of vehicles ill switch it out but so far its a all star.

Overall, its fun to roll a bucket load of dice, but it gets pretty boring fast. Just not a lot of options right now so lists will pretty much be the same every time.

Also if you don't go first that can be really bad. You want lesser number of units. You got to bubble wrap the robots and tanks with a line of vanguard. Second they deep strike in and lock you up its game over.

Admech is pretty much a one robot-spam tick pony at the moment


also, cantilces how I read it is you get to pick, but never use again OR you roll for the whole game. One or the other. I don't play to cheese out bad GW wording or my opponent (the robots are bad enough) with TPD, this really isn't a issue unless you roll a 1 on the table, otherwise you can give yourself cover every turn.

But its at least a good one trick pony so that's cool.
Vanguard are probably just better once again but rangers are for standing on top of ruins near objectives. They serve a different role that nothing else in the army can effectively.. Also they can take sniper rifles, which I've seen both hated an praised
I keep seeing everyone saying priests die. Well bloody hide them better >.<
Also didn't mention infiltrators which are a MUST as a source of deep strike without allies.
Otherwise I agree with most points you made.

Sadly there's now way for me to buy a 110€ single model, I'll have to pass on the Knights. I prefer to play an army more numerous anyway, always found it odd to have this big model on this tiny table.

As said before, running a Detachment that is pure AdMech and another from the Imperium to fill some holes in our army is not a bad idea, I thought about adding a Vanguard Detachment to include the Tempestus Start Collecting and my 2 units of 5 Sisters of Silence with Swords.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:


On topic of "do we need a knight". The problem is that we either go knight or:
run out of heavy support spaces
have to run kastelans in squads of6
have to lose CP in one way or the other

Yeah, I am thinking the only reason why we would run a Knight is to avoid paying the Dominus tax to bring in an Outrider or Spearhead Detachment.

str00dles1 wrote:Had a hand full of 2k games and even a 3k game this weekend.

My thoughts and comments from the games:

Vanguards are just better. No reason to use Rangers. I use them to bubble wrap the kastallens and give -1T for that needed melee if charged.

Priests, both types suck. They are cheap, but over all useless. they need to kill a unit first to be good, which they are usually killed first.

My second box of destoryers is never getting built, a waste of time painting the first box! Useless

Til a codex comes out, Cawl is a auto take

Fr 2k, min robots id run is 2 units of 2. they are quite overpowered. Easily see them getting more expensive in the coming times.

Laser Walkers and anti air walkers are also close to a auto include, both are amazing.

TPD is a requirement, whish I could take a cheaper HQ, but he baby sits the tanks.

Chickenwalkers are not bad, used twin las and did alright. Its cheap, but if it gets shot by anything big its doomed.

I use knight with gatling, stubbers and RFBC. RFBC is better all around, though expensive. If I know I'm playing someone who brings lots of vehicles ill switch it out but so far its a all star.

Overall, its fun to roll a bucket load of dice, but it gets pretty boring fast. Just not a lot of options right now so lists will pretty much be the same every time.

Also if you don't go first that can be really bad. You want lesser number of units. You got to bubble wrap the robots and tanks with a line of vanguard. Second they deep strike in and lock you up its game over.

Admech is pretty much a one robot-spam tick pony at the moment

also, cantilces how I read it is you get to pick, but never use again OR you roll for the whole game. One or the other. I don't play to cheese out bad GW wording or my opponent (the robots are bad enough) with TPD, this really isn't a issue unless you roll a 1 on the table, otherwise you can give yourself cover every turn.

I aim for two layers of defense. The outer layer being Dragoons and the inner layer being bubble-wrap Vanguards.

Sad to hear that about the Destroyers.

If you recommend two units of 2x Kastelans, it means we only get one Crawler in a Battalion. So Icarus or Neutron? My plan so far is to run a Crusader in lieu of my second unit of Kastelans, and go with double Icarus or Icarus + Neutron. However, I might be overestimating the flyer threat and underestimating the tank threat.

Why not just playing one big single Kastelan unit of 3-6 ? Sure you'll have less terrain covered but that frees up a slot for another Dunecrawler that will cover this terrain just as fast and without any movement penalties. I think the Robots should be set up on a central position with a bunch of your army around (like the TPD for rerolls), it's likely you'll face a better CC army in front of you and so you set up your defense point on the center and split-fire everything. Meanwhile you send your capturing units (like Infiltrators, Dragoons, Vanguards) to go well, capturing.

No one likes the Incendine Combustor ? Now that it's been buffed I really like it. 12" D6 hits, now at S5 AND -1 rend. Set them up in Protector protocol and no horde will survive entering your 24" bubble of prometheum and phosphor death.

 Aaranis wrote:
Why not just playing one big single Kastelan unit of 3-6 ? Sure you'll have less terrain covered but that frees up a slot for another Dunecrawler that will cover this terrain just as fast and without any movement penalties. I think the Robots should be set up on a central position with a bunch of your army around (like the TPD for rerolls), it's likely you'll face a better CC army in front of you and so you set up your defense point on the center and split-fire everything. Meanwhile you send your capturing units (like Infiltrators, Dragoons, Vanguards) to go well, capturing.

No one likes the Incendine Combustor ? Now that it's been buffed I really like it. 12" D6 hits, now at S5 AND -1 rend. Set them up in Protector protocol and no horde will survive entering your 24" bubble of prometheum and phosphor death.

Yeah but most of them have a big tanky dude to absorb it. Doing big kastelan units is really risky. 1 mistake and you're f'd for tbh little reward

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
Why not just playing one big single Kastelan unit of 3-6 ? Sure you'll have less terrain covered but that frees up a slot for another Dunecrawler that will cover this terrain just as fast and without any movement penalties. I think the Robots should be set up on a central position with a bunch of your army around (like the TPD for rerolls), it's likely you'll face a better CC army in front of you and so you set up your defense point on the center and split-fire everything. Meanwhile you send your capturing units (like Infiltrators, Dragoons, Vanguards) to go well, capturing.

No one likes the Incendine Combustor ? Now that it's been buffed I really like it. 12" D6 hits, now at S5 AND -1 rend. Set them up in Protector protocol and no horde will survive entering your 24" bubble of prometheum and phosphor death.

Yeah but most of them have a big tanky dude to absorb it. Doing big kastelan units is really risky. 1 mistake and you're f'd for tbh little reward

I'm sorry, to absorb what, the Incendine Combustor ? Not sure if you're talking about this line. If you do, well...don't shoot the Combustor at the big tanky dude ? Even if hits the only target he can eat 4d6 S5 -1 hits + the Phosphor so that's that.

Sure you'd have to be more strategic in your placement and escort them, a few Lascannons can ruin their day. They'll ruin their day whether they are in one unit or two anyway isn't it ?

 Aaranis wrote:

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
Why not just playing one big single Kastelan unit of 3-6 ? Sure you'll have less terrain covered but that frees up a slot for another Dunecrawler that will cover this terrain just as fast and without any movement penalties. I think the Robots should be set up on a central position with a bunch of your army around (like the TPD for rerolls), it's likely you'll face a better CC army in front of you and so you set up your defense point on the center and split-fire everything. Meanwhile you send your capturing units (like Infiltrators, Dragoons, Vanguards) to go well, capturing.

No one likes the Incendine Combustor ? Now that it's been buffed I really like it. 12" D6 hits, now at S5 AND -1 rend. Set them up in Protector protocol and no horde will survive entering your 24" bubble of prometheum and phosphor death.

Yeah but most of them have a big tanky dude to absorb it. Doing big kastelan units is really risky. 1 mistake and you're f'd for tbh little reward

I'm sorry, to absorb what, the Incendine Combustor ? Not sure if you're talking about this line. If you do, well...don't shoot the Combustor at the big tanky dude ? Even if hits the only target he can eat 4d6 S5 -1 hits + the Phosphor so that's that.

Sure you'd have to be more strategic in your placement and escort them, a few Lascannons can ruin their day. They'll ruin their day whether they are in one unit or two anyway isn't it ?

Absorb overwatch :x you can't target other units when overwatching

Oooh okay now it's clear for me haha sorry about that. Sure you're right then

Pedroig wrote:

It is 24 point difference, not that hard to get it in...

Actually in this specific list yes it is. You have to take power swords and stubcarbines on the infiltrators in order to even get the knight with thermal into that list. Otherwise you have to kick out a unit. And there is basically no unit you want to leave at home.

So, for a unit of 5 with two Transuranic Arquebuses, Rangers or Vanguard? I know that the general thought is Vanguards, but Rangers have a bit more range (ha...) to them.

I am thinking(all 5 man) two units with 2x Arquebuses, one with 2x Plasma Caliver (definitely Vanguard here), and one with unknown. I am probably going to get two more Start Collectings, so two 10 man units to form a wall around my Onagers is also on the table.