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.

Wulfey wrote:

Suzuteo wrote:
You didn't have any Icarus to compare against though.

Icarus is superior to Neutron for most Tau and Eldar units (including their transports and tanks), against Daemon Primarchs, and for when you run into a horde army.

Wulfey wrote:
EDIT: yes, I know, BUT WHAT ABOUT HORDES WULFEY? ICARUS IS SLIGHTLY BETTER AGAINST HORDES? Who cares about hordes. If you are bringing dakka bots then horde armies are just feed. I didn't face a single horde enemy and I wish I did.
I can think of 2 common targets where the Icarus is better. Harlequin/DE tiny tank fliers that have -1 and 5++, and the Chaos flyer mecha dragon that has a 5++. Those are some of the weakest possible opponents and the rest of your army should be able to flatten those things.

Not slightly. Way better. With Neutron, you're dealing a maximum of 3 wounds to a unit of Boyz. Also, 6 Kastelans cannot stop a horde; there is literally no chance because lascannons outrange them, and you need to root yourself to get the efficiency.

Anyhow, I'm not saying everyone should replace all Neutrons with Icarus. Also not saying that 6 Kastelans and 3 Neutron is a bad combination. I just don't think you should be dismissive of Icarus when they are clearly more effective than Neutron against a variety of targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Wave Serpents cannot reduce damage lower than 1. And even in the case of common Eldar flyers without Forceshields, Icarus Crawlers are on-par or superior to Neutron:

Icarus vs. Wave Serpent
41.48 points per wound

Icarus vs. Hemlock
23.30 points per wound

Neutron vs. Wave Serpent
39.37 points per wound

Neutron vs. Hemlock
35 points per wound

I am on my laptop so I can't format my numbers right, but I am not getting numbers like yours.

Neutron v Wave Serpent:
3*0.88*0.33*0.33 + 2*0.88*0.67*((2+2+2+3+4+5)/6) = 3.89 expected wounds on a 3+ to hit rerolling
ICarus v Wave Serpent
4*0.97*0.5*0.5*1 + 5*0.97*0.33*0.67*1 + 1*0.97*0.67*0.16*((1+1+2+3+4+5)/6) = 2.31 on a 2+ to hit rerolling

And all these numbers are actually lower due to the 6+ FNP these things have

Icarus array is a single ranged weapon with three profiles.

Just Neutron Crawler:

D3 = 2 shots average
BS3+ with reroll = 2/3+(1/3)(2/3) chance to hit
S10 vs. T7 = 2/3 chance to wound
3+4 = 6/6 to miss save
(2+2+2+3+4+5)/6 = 3 average damage

2*(2/3+(1/3)(2/3))*2/3*6/6*3 = 3.556
140/3.556 = 39.37

I could add in the Heavy Stubber, but typically, you don't shoot those things at Wave Serpents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And now Icarus Crawler:

1 shot
BS2+ with reroll = 5/6+(1/6)(5/6) chance to hit
S7 vs. T7 = 1/2 chance to wound
3+3 = 1/6 to miss save
(1+1+2+3+4+5)/6 = 2.67 average damage

5 shots
BS2+ with reroll = 5/6+(1/6)(5/6) chance to hit
S6 vs. T7 = 1/3 chance to wound
3+2 = 1/3 to miss save
1 damage

4 shots
BS2+ with reroll = 5/6+(1/6)(5/6) chance to hit
S7 vs. T7 = 1/2 chance to wound
3+1 = 1/2 to miss save
1 damage

1*(5/6+(1/6)(5/6))*1/2*5/6*2.67+5*(5/6+(1/6)(5/6))*1/3*2/3*1+4*(5/6+(1/6)(5/6))*1/2*1/2*1 = 3.134

130/3.134 = 41.48

AdMech thread living up to its fluff with a bunch of people crunching numbers. Too funny.

 ph34r wrote:
Random question:

Is it kosher to change base sizes? I hate the fact that, if your Onagers are not based, they are flat out better because you can fit them in smaller spaces. The 130mm base is huge compared to an Onager particularly if you do not put the extended pads on it.

However, I think walkers without bases look ugly. So I have a choice between, have units I think are ugly, or take bases that make them significantly worse.

Is there a third option? Can I just rebase my Onagers onto 100mm bases? Then, rather than swimming in extra room, they would just barely fit.

I'd have assumed the base is mandatory - by removing the base or changing the size, you're making it harder for an opponent to get into HTH combat with it - that's significant.

based on the numbers posted here, the difference between an icarus and neutron onager isnt significant enough for me to pick an icarus over neutron. UNLESS i know there's a boat load of tough fly units to be shot. It's just too marginal considering the icarus is at penalty to non fly.

 MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:
Is there a third option? Can I just rebase my Onagers onto 100mm bases? Then, rather than swimming in extra room, they would just barely fit.

I'd have assumed the base is mandatory - by removing the base or changing the size, you're making it harder for an opponent to get into HTH combat with it - that's significant.

Octovol wrote:
based on the numbers posted here, the difference between an icarus and neutron onager isnt significant enough for me to pick an icarus over neutron. UNLESS i know there's a boat load of tough fly units to be shot. It's just too marginal considering the icarus is at penalty to non fly.

Neutron does well against high toughness targets with no invulnerable save. Icarus does well against any target that flies and any target that has low toughness. Kastelans do well against low toughness targets; Wrath of Mars lets them do well against anything with an invulnerable save.

When you trade Neutron for Icarus, you lose some anti-tank, but gain anti-horde and anti-air (Magnus, Hemlocks, Tau Commanders, Elysians, etc.) ability. They can be compared to Kastelans, which can handle much of the same target set with Wrath of Mars, but Icarus does not need CP to burn things out of the sky. In fact, given that comparison, it might be a matter of trading Kastelans and/or Neutrons for Icarus. (My mix of 4 Kastelans, 2 Neutron, 2 Icarus is essentially trading one each of 5 Kastelans, 3 Neutrons for 2 Icarus.)

 ph34r wrote:
Random question:

Is it kosher to change base sizes? I hate the fact that, if your Onagers are not based, they are flat out better because you can fit them in smaller spaces. The 130mm base is huge compared to an Onager particularly if you do not put the extended pads on it.

However, I think walkers without bases look ugly. So I have a choice between, have units I think are ugly, or take bases that make them significantly worse.

Is there a third option? Can I just rebase my Onagers onto 100mm bases? Then, rather than swimming in extra room, they would just barely fit.

Not if you want to play in tournaments. You must use any base that has historically been supplied with your model. (Crawlers have only ever had 130mm dinner plates--which are very useful for denying pile-in/consolidation tricks, I might add.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can anyone get measurements for stock Earthshaker battery width and height? I'm not sure if Crawlers with the boots are comparable. If so, I might do the ph34r Earthshaker conversion.

The problem is the platform legs. The 130mm base is fine, but it needs platform legs to be right. I saw some guy had 3D printed ones and they were at least 3-4 inches long in 4 directions from the center.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120220215011/warhammer40k/images/d/d5/Earthshaker01.png

EDIT: also, I am thinking of switching to CATACHAN since the CADIAN reroll 1 might not apply for the first turn. Which makes CATACHAN more reliable over the course of the game. I am not doing the "Relic of Lost Cadia" trick again.

RAW you can stick any model on any base now. Or so I heard

gendoikari87 wrote:
RAW you can stick any model on any base now. Or so I heard

As far as I can tell, there used to be rules in the rulebook, or at least a FAQ, dictating base sizes. And now in 8th edition, there is none.

OKay, here is my plan for nov11 at game empire. No celestine means I am not defaulting to throwing away so many secondaries in ITC. This gets me 5CP base after infiltration, but by deploying in right order I get the 5+ to get the refund on the dragoon infiltrate. This is also a 12 drop list, which is low enough to get the +1 against a lot of lists.

MARS spearhead
Cawl + 5xDakkabots + 3xNeutron

STYGIES auxilliary
1x5 dragoons [infiltrated]

CATACHAN battalion
Commander(5+/5+)
Harker for reroll 1s first turn
3x10 guardsmen
1x3 ESBattery

Wulfey wrote:
The problem is the platform legs. The 130mm base is fine, but it needs platform legs to be right. I saw some guy had 3D printed ones and they were at least 3-4 inches long in 4 directions from the center.

I maintain my disagreement with that. I quote here a 40k wiki:

Turret Emplacements can be armed with a wide variety of turret-mounted weaponry, most commonly the turret weapons taken from Leman Russ main battle tanks or Chimera transports. The most common Turret Emplacement mounts its turret upon a metal structure that houses the turret ring and electric motor used to rotate the turret. This structure is also the location of the primary entrance and exit into the emplacement. There are other, less common types of emplacement in use such as those made out of rockcrete. The Turret Emplacement is capable of being armed with a set of twin-linked Heavy Bolters, a Heavy Flamer, a Battle Cannon, a Multi-Laser, a Lascannon, an Autocannon, twin-linked Autocannons, a Plasma Cannon, a Plasma Destroyer, a Missile Launcher or twin-linked Missile Launchers, a Multi-Melta, a Demolisher Cannon, a Vanquisher Cannon, or an Inferno Cannon. The emplacement can also mount a Tarantula Sentry Gun armed with twin-linked Heavy Bolters, a Multi-Melta, or twin-linked Lascannons. It is also believed that the Turret Emplacement can be armed with fixed versions of the Hydra Flak Cannon, Manticore Missiles and launcher, or an Earthshaker Cannon.

Wulfey wrote:
OKay, here is my plan for nov11 at game empire. No celestine means I am not defaulting to throwing away so many secondaries in ITC. This gets me 5CP base after infiltration, but by deploying in right order I get the 5+ to get the refund on the dragoon infiltrate. This is also a 12 drop list, which is low enough to get the +1 against a lot of lists.

MARS spearhead
Cawl + 5xDakkabots + 3xNeutron

STYGIES auxilliary
1x5 dragoons [infiltrated]

CATACHAN battalion
Commander(5+/5+)
Harker for reroll 1s first turn
3x10 guardsmen
1x3 ESBattery

Seems good to me. Not sure if Harker is 100% needed for only 3 earth shakers, though. Reroll 1s on 4+ to hit is 7/12 to hit rather than 6/12 to hit, or 40 points worth of value at 17% improvement per 80 point earthshaker. Looking at those numbers actually, it seems pretty good, though I will say for myself, I often put one earthshaker in a far corner away from my main castle, so there is no way it is actually benefiting from the reroll aura.

EDIT: I also like the thought of the Auxiliary detachment for Stygies Dragoons. Often the concept of Stygies Dragoons is saddled with splitting them into 3 groups and/or taking HQ and troops tax. Auxiliary seems worth it for only -1cp if you have the cp to spare. I will say however that makes your list a bit anemic on the command point front.

On command points. In one game I had like 13 CP with 6 starting CP. In another game I ended up with only 8. The 5+/5+ giveth and it taketh away. I generally believe that CP are best spent in a huge alpha strike.

EDIT: yes, running harker hurts the castle. But I think that my one opponent who called me out on it was right, that CADIA doesn't get the reroll 1s on the first turn. Which blows. I saw some mathhammer elsewhere that CATACHAN is like 20% and CADIA is like 16% improvement or something. It is close. I would need to run some ruby simulations to know what CATACHAN does. The other bonus of CATACHAN is leadership8 guardmen if I put the officer in just the right spot. Post commisar nerf, that LD8 is going to be necessary.

EDIT2: I am now reading that turret emplacement text. Very interesting. I guess that does make sense. Do you know where in what book that might be from?

 ph34r wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
RAW you can stick any model on any base now. Or so I heard

As far as I can tell, there used to be rules in the rulebook, or at least a FAQ, dictating base sizes. And now in 8th edition, there is none.

Tournaments have their own rules for this, and they aren't budging on bases and MFA

Wulfey wrote:
On command points. In one game I had like 13 CP with 6 starting CP. In another game I ended up with only 8. The 5+/5+ giveth and it taketh away. I generally believe that CP are best spent in a huge alpha strike.

EDIT: yes, running harker hurts the castle. But I think that my one opponent who called me out on it was right, that CADIA doesn't get the reroll 1s on the first turn. Which blows. I saw some mathhammer elsewhere that CATACHAN is like 20% and CADIA is like 16% improvement or something. It is close. I would need to run some ruby simulations to know what CATACHAN does. The other bonus of CATACHAN is leadership8 guardmen if I put the officer in just the right spot. Post commisar nerf, that LD8 is going to be necessary.

EDIT2: I am now reading that turret emplacement text. Very interesting. I guess that does make sense. Do you know where in what book that might be from?

I have numbers for Catachan. What comparison do you want done?

I am also very tempted to go with 3x Earthshaker, by the way.

Wulfey wrote:
On command points. In one game I had like 13 CP with 6 starting CP. In another game I ended up with only 8. The 5+/5+ giveth and it taketh away. I generally believe that CP are best spent in a huge alpha strike.

EDIT: yes, running harker hurts the castle. But I think that my one opponent who called me out on it was right, that CADIA doesn't get the reroll 1s on the first turn. Which blows. I saw some mathhammer elsewhere that CATACHAN is like 20% and CADIA is like 16% improvement or something. It is close. I would need to run some ruby simulations to know what CATACHAN does. The other bonus of CATACHAN is leadership8 guardmen if I put the officer in just the right spot. Post commisar nerf, that LD8 is going to be necessary.

EDIT2: I am now reading that turret emplacement text. Very interesting. I guess that does make sense. Do you know where in what book that might be from?

Math wise, the Catachan Earthshaker gets about 4.96 shots average or something, with the normal (Cadian) earthshaker getting around 4.46 shots. Rerolling 1s provides a 16.66% increase in firepower, which if applied to 4.46 shots, equals 5.2 shots without rerolls, which is a mere 5% stronger than Catachan with no rerolls.

The page, which is on warhammer40k.wikia.com under Turret Emplacement, references:

"Imperial Armour Volume One - Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy, pp. 198-202
Imperial Armour Volume Five - The Siege of Vraks - Part One, pg. 166
Imperial Armour Volume Six - The Siege of Vraks - Part Two, pp. 144, 189
Imperial Armour Volume Seven - The Siege of Vraks - Part Three, pg. 187"

I'll see what I can dig up.

I agree with you on the Alpha Strike command points. Turn 1, emplace robots, wrath of mars, and a couple miscellaneous ones (like Take Cover! which we can't do any more) can easily have you spend 5 of a starting 7 command points in one turn.

EDIT: I have looked through the Imperial Armour books and they do not contain an option for a Turret Emplacement with Earthshaker cannon. Many many other weapons, but not earthshaker. I have seen such a model converted at least once I am pretty sure. Not sure if I can find it.

EDIT: I'll be keeping my earthshaker batteries just how they are. The old Forgeworld Earthshaker legs are needlessly huge. The current forge world carriage is pretty small. A 130mm base seems fair. I was getting pushback from my community even for wanting to base them 130mm, because the bigger the base the better they are for blocking deep strike. Longer legs would also be better for blocking deep strike.

None of my opponents complained about the size of my earthshakers. The only guy who said it needed to be bigger was the one guy in the room who had those 3d Printed leg things. My knight base should be enough. If no one says anything 130mm should be fine. I am rethinking trying to glue on another set of struts unto mine. Mine are for sure way bigger than legit resin carriage batteries.

By the way, Icarus Onager is more durable :p
Which is why every upgrade should be substantially better as they don't change the durability

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
By the way, Icarus Onager is more durable :p
Which is why every upgrade should be substantially better as they don't change the durability

how so?

gendoikari87 wrote:

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
By the way, Icarus Onager is more durable :p
Which is why every upgrade should be substantially better as they don't change the durability

how so?

No clue, maybe he means 130 points vs 140 points = "more durable per point"

EDIT: for anyone interested, I plan to take the Catachan Leman Russ Conqueror to the battlefield this weekend, vs either the Perfidious Elfdar or the Iron Warriors.
165 points, 2x2d6 pick highest strength 8 AP -2 with rerolling all misses if I get to 24". I'm hoping to use it to plug the gap between backfield Onagers that need to stay within 6" of Cawl, and threats farther from my castle deployment that need heavy anti tank. It's my answer to the Third Onager Question. My assembly is almost complete, missing heavy leg armor plates (from defiler):

It's really simple. The pts cost increases, the durability stays the same. Therefor all upgrades have to be a lot better than the basic equipment to compensate for the decrease in durability

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
It's really simple. The pts cost increases, the durability stays the same. Therefor all upgrades have to be a lot better than the basic equipment to compensate for the decrease in durability

The Icarus is 8% more durable per point. By that metric, you would want the Neutron to be at least 8% stronger in firepower.

 ph34r wrote:

 MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:
Is there a third option? Can I just rebase my Onagers onto 100mm bases? Then, rather than swimming in extra room, they would just barely fit.

I'd have assumed the base is mandatory - by removing the base or changing the size, you're making it harder for an opponent to get into HTH combat with it - that's significant.

One might think that, but it seems pretty common for people to not base their Onagers at all.

 Tsol wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

 MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:

Is there a third option? Can I just rebase my Onagers onto 100mm bases? Then, rather than swimming in extra room, they would just barely fit.

I'd have assumed the base is mandatory - by removing the base or changing the size, you're making it harder for an opponent to get into HTH combat with it - that's significant.

One might think that, but it seems pretty common for people to not base their Onagers at all.

I have not based mine for two main reasons, I have no idea how I want my whole army bases to be and second, its so fething big it makes it impossible to transport.

Magnetize the bases and transport them sideways or half of them upside-down.

But yeah, definitely do not base them on 100mm bases. People will call you out for MFA.

The list Is simple and nice but. Harker is elite. Missing one more hq. Cadian provide buff easier for vehicles and 2* commanders n do for infantry and orders and warlord los. Cheap. Catachan for me works if you invest points for melee straken priest for extreme melee. But does not synergise with dakka walls. 3* earthshkers is nice but its fw . Better have alternative like 2 basilisk and astropths. And I have to say for really competitive fights 2* basilisk and 2*astropths for 10 points difference worked better for me. More durable more anti psych etc.
Same goes for dragoons I can't seem to use more than 3 effectively. Dragoons are nice screener but their large bases for offensive are an issue. Experimenting I found an outrider with enginseer healing basilisk and lasc balistarii works wonders. Since my enemy usually throw some extra shots on ironstriders not all their heavy guns healing works. So 2*1 lasc balistarii with -1 to hit sides of my robots provide screener and 48" next to robots for enemies trying to out range my onagers. 3-4 dragoons with -2 are a lot more flexible and will do the work. You can survive going second and either way you don't have dragoons for their offence. Not to mention one less dragoon and a stygia outrider can also take 1*5 priests. You won't loose the cp and you still got all you had.

I understand if fw is allowed I'd use 2 earthshkers and astropths with balistarii rather than 3* earthshkers. That's me. I prefer to have. Deny inside my lines maybe if the game goes wrong for me. Healing and -1 to hit all over for obvious reasons.

Food for thought.

I'll trade 8% durability for something that works on all armor, the Icarus is just so situational it seems not worth it

gendoikari87 wrote:
I'll trade 8% durability for something that works on all armor, the Icarus is just so situational it seems not worth it

The Icarus is hardly situational. If anything, the Neutron is actually more situational; the Icarus is more well-rounded because it's essentially a 48" BS4+ volume-fire tank that gets BS2+ against air.

I think this debate has everything to do with the meta you think you will face and the rest of the admech army composition. Admech has two things that wound T8 on a 3+ at range: neutron and ballistari. That is it. And the +2 to hit strategem really hurt the utility of the icarus against the targets it was better on. If people start bringing lots of 1 wound models against I could see mixing in icarus at 2-1. But the meta is dominated by big bad T8 vehicles and I can't count on 5+ to wound.

Correct. We're a reactive army. Composition must be tailored to kill the things that kill us in the metagame.

You're probably right. I have not played recently, and with the Conscript nerf, it does seem like hordes are becoming less problematic.

I'm planning on going to a tournament in early November.

I'd like to start researching the top units in other armies. Can we compile a list of high-threat target units and assess their weaknesses on a codex-by-codex basis with respect to the ITC missions?

Magnus and Mortarian:

If you didn't bring 5x dakkabots and Cawl, you lose. Nothing in the codex can efficiently hurt these guys because we don't have a source of mortal wounds that isn't 90 shots with Wrath of Mars.