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.

 lash92 wrote:
Since my question got somehow lost in the discussion I repeat it:

How are Breachers performing as a screening unit in comparison to say Guardsman?

Overall terrible with a few exceptions.

If you want them to literally take up space, this could be useful due to their huge bases. They could tie up enemy rifle units for some time. A 3+ save with T5 and 3W with 3 Attacks, means if they were to get into a melee fight with a 5 or maybe even 10 tactical squad they could win. But as soon as a proper melee geared squad gets into them... I doubt they would last.

I have teleported 9 breachers with a TPD behind enemy lines and blown up two chieras with their Arc Rifles and then charged the two veteran squads which piled out. They won easily. But if I attacked like powerweapons/fists or dedicated melee, I would assume the opposite.

 lash92 wrote:
Since my question got somehow lost in the discussion I repeat it:

How are Breachers performing as a screening unit in comparison to say Guardsman?

Poorly

Breachers 120 points.

If i play imperial soup i dont use them. obviously.But as a player i want options in my lists. And when i play Dragoons i want them aggressive. So unless i face something extreme alpha cc i send my dragoon up field and keep on lascbalistarii as screeners back.
troops are not enough. So it works something like this. 3x5-10 Vanguards tasers Graia in front for that one deny and that 6 to deny death. maybe one unit has arc rifles if i got points.
and a second row of defence stygies -1 to hit exactly 12" from enemy deep strike so around 3" from my troops. breachers lascbalistarii enginseers sniper rangers.All those are a bubble for me Cawl star.

stygie smean i can infiltrate breachers and i am in relic maps etc.I also use the stratagem for infrantry unit +1 save and +1 att when i need that one more round. i dont kno how its working for the rest but for me 120 point are a better screener than 10 vanguards and can assist with arc for enemy trasports better than troops. -1froms tygies t5 9 wounds might get a heal can melee with a reroll canticle and if you got one vanguard alive in melee -1 tough. Big bases

For solo ad mech i use them 1x3 unit.

rvd1ofakind wrote:

 lash92 wrote:
Since my question got somehow lost in the discussion I repeat it:

How are Breachers performing as a screening unit in comparison to say Guardsman?

Poorly

Thanks mate.

Yoda79 wrote:Breachers 120 points.

If i play imperial soup i dont use them. obviously.But as a player i want options in my lists. And when i play Dragoons i want them aggressive. So unless i face something extreme alpha cc i send my dragoon up field and keep on lascbalistarii as screeners back.
troops are not enough. So it works something like this. 3x5-10 Vanguards tasers Graia in front for that one deny and that 6 to deny death. maybe one unit has arc rifles if i got points.
and a second row of defence stygies -1 to hit exactly 12" from enemy deep strike so around 3" from my troops. breachers lascbalistarii enginseers sniper rangers.All those are a bubble for me Cawl star.

stygie smean i can infiltrate breachers and i am in relic maps etc.I also use the stratagem for infrantry unit +1 save and +1 att when i need that one more round. i dont kno how its working for the rest but for me 120 point are a better screener than 10 vanguards and can assist with arc for enemy trasports better than troops. -1froms tygies t5 9 wounds might get a heal can melee with a reroll canticle and if you got one vanguard alive in melee -1 tough. Big bases

For solo ad mech i use them 1x3 unit.

The thing is I am playing mechanised Guard and I´m looking for a mechanic screen to not break the theme of my army (so no Infantry Squads).

Based on that, what would you recommend me to add? Dragoon, Breachers or Ballistari?

Well games workshop is trully trying to balance out roles units armies etc.

Dragoons are extremely good atm. And since I recommend always stygies as main battalion no need for Cawl heavy robot teams etc brechers can be of use but.
1*4 Dragoons always take first. Always they get -2 to hit fast unit big bases can screen can charge superb. You can infiltrate them or keep them for defence they use 1 cp to get taser hitting on 1+ and explode on 4+. Superb.

Now after that it's a decision. Ho you will utilise the army. You gonna take an aux then take 1*4 Dragoons.
You gonna make a battalion then breachers can fill one troop choise sure. Or wanna try outrider detachment. Balistarii are not superb in matters of points. They are ok. But I use them fine fas I explained two with -1 to hit especially if I use dominus and I don't want more Onagers.

I see you wanna play more ad mech so try this.

Stygies outrider +1 cp

Dominus
Breachers
2*1 balistarii lasc
1*4 Dragoons

And you can remove breachers for cheap points or add
An enginseer and 2*5*2 snipers omnispex and make it a battalion. Elaborate with two icarus Onagers and your good to go in any formation with guard you decide . All stygies get -1 to hit above 12" and can spend 1 cp to infiltrate. Breachers for relics Dragoons for a sweet first round charge on exposed enemy line. Or even build 10 staff priests for infiltration and mortals. Stygies. Good point to make your way towards ad mech

Iago40k wrote:

 Yoda79 wrote:
After 300 posts in tactics from many players I find it luckluster to listen to anyone saying we shouting

this.

Mathhammerists willfully ignore many aspects of the game, they are shouting most certainly.

 Yoda79 wrote:
Well games workshop is trully trying to balance out roles units armies etc.

Dragoons are extremely good atm. And since I recommend always stygies as main battalion no need for Cawl heavy robot teams etc brechers can be of use but.
1*4 Dragoons always take first. Always they get -2 to hit fast unit big bases can screen can charge superb. You can infiltrate them or keep them for defence they use 1 cp to get taser hitting on 1+ and explode on 4+. Superb.

Now after that it's a decision. Ho you will utilise the army. You gonna take an aux then take 1*4 Dragoons.
You gonna make a battalion then breachers can fill one troop choise sure. Or wanna try outrider detachment. Balistarii are not superb in matters of points. They are ok. But I use them fine fas I explained two with -1 to hit especially if I use dominus and I don't want more Onagers.

I see you wanna play more ad mech so try this.

Stygies outrider +1 cp

Dominus
Breachers
2*1 balistarii lasc
1*4 Dragoons

And you can remove breachers for cheap points or add
An enginseer and 2*5*2 snipers omnispex and make it a battalion. Elaborate with two icarus Onagers and your good to go in any formation with guard you decide . All stygies get -1 to hit above 12" and can spend 1 cp to infiltrate. Breachers for relics Dragoons for a sweet first round charge on exposed enemy line. Or even build 10 staff priests for infiltration and mortals. Stygies. Good point to make your way towards ad mech

Looks good to me, thanks mate!
Maybe I´ll swap the Dominus for an Enginseer, because he can heal my Russes better.

 axisofentropy wrote:
I like the Cawl price drop because I like playing my Cawl model I spent too much time painting.

But I don't like that Cawl is such an auto-include and that makes Mars the obvious best subfaction.

If it were up to me, I'd move Cawl back up 10 points and the other HQ both down an additional 10. But I'd still play Cawl myself!

Except I play stygies (admittedly only 50% admech lists at 2k) and I have an exceptional record. Cawl makes sense if your going to sit back with dakka bots in a little circle but that's not the only strategy and the second you start mixing factions he is far too expensive and without him there are better tools than dakkabots

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

 Goldenemperor wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If you think the math is misleading, prove it by winning a major. Unless you can show AdMech competing at top tables then for all we know you're just seal-clubbing inferior players at your local scene who look up netlists but don't understand them.

Prove that a pure mathematical approach best by winning a major yourself then? I mean you can try and quantify all of the top lists into pure mathematics but overlooking the tactics and understanding of basic principles of war making is silly. I get psychologically humans want to have 100% control over everything around them (this is usually done via math) even in a game like Warhammer, but there are just some things you simply cannot factor into a war/battle simulator like Warhammer.

Please tell me, why I should use a more expensive, weaker in terms of durability and damage unit instead of a superior unit in all these 3 things, when they fill almost the exact same role?
That's where math comes in. Through 100 games, you will win a lot more often with the more efficient units. Done and done.

For me, when I think of taking kataphrons, ruststalkers, servitors, fistellans, etc... I think "lol, I'm not stupid. They are bad". (this is pre-CA)

I'm not saying "everyone who takes them is stupid", I just can't force myself to do it unless it's a completelly friendly game with a new player.

I agree with the units you have pointed out are inferior to a lot of things and personally I never use them in a competitive setting. That is what goes into good list building is finding those units that are CLEARLY quantifiably inferior.

What I am talking about is Mathhammering to the point that there is near negligible quantifiable advantage of taking one unit over the other. But because Unit A shoots (insert small random percentage here) better than unit B, unit B is not to be considered for competitive play. And basically all other non quantifiable forms of the game are completely ignored. Those are the arguments being pursued with religious fervour around here.

 Goldenemperor wrote:

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

 Goldenemperor wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If you think the math is misleading, prove it by winning a major. Unless you can show AdMech competing at top tables then for all we know you're just seal-clubbing inferior players at your local scene who look up netlists but don't understand them.

Prove that a pure mathematical approach best by winning a major yourself then? I mean you can try and quantify all of the top lists into pure mathematics but overlooking the tactics and understanding of basic principles of war making is silly. I get psychologically humans want to have 100% control over everything around them (this is usually done via math) even in a game like Warhammer, but there are just some things you simply cannot factor into a war/battle simulator like Warhammer.

Please tell me, why I should use a more expensive, weaker in terms of durability and damage unit instead of a superior unit in all these 3 things, when they fill almost the exact same role?
That's where math comes in. Through 100 games, you will win a lot more often with the more efficient units. Done and done.

For me, when I think of taking kataphrons, ruststalkers, servitors, fistellans, etc... I think "lol, I'm not stupid. They are bad". (this is pre-CA)

I'm not saying "everyone who takes them is stupid", I just can't force myself to do it unless it's a completelly friendly game with a new player.

I agree with the units you have pointed out are inferior to a lot of things and personally I never use them in a competitive setting. That is what goes into good list building is finding those units that are CLEARLY quantifiably inferior.

What I am talking about is Mathhammering to the point that there is near negligible quantifiable advantage of taking one unit over the other. But because Unit A shoots (insert small random percentage here) better than unit B, unit B is not to be considered for competitive play. And basically all other non quantifiable forms of the game are completely ignored. Those are the arguments being pursued with religious fervour around here.

Now that you have said you and everyone else has said their piece on this topic and the pot has been suitably stirred, I think we should get back to discussing Chapter Approved and speculating strategy/tactics going forward - especially with more Marines inbound with their own flavors we need to account for.

We don't need yet another thread locked.

Suzuteo wrote:
Breachers would not be my first choice for a screen. They are more a troop artillery unit.

Indeed for that sort of price point you could field 2 dragoons for an infinitely better screen.

Octovol wrote:

Suzuteo wrote:
Breachers would not be my first choice for a screen. They are more a troop artillery unit.

Indeed for that sort of price point you could field 2 dragoons for an infinitely better screen.

Sure they have far greater survivability, but they can't contribute to your shooting and they aren't troops and so are lacking objective secured.
I guess it's a bit of a trade off, but I will try both.

 lash92 wrote:

Octovol wrote:

Suzuteo wrote:
Breachers would not be my first choice for a screen. They are more a troop artillery unit.

Indeed for that sort of price point you could field 2 dragoons for an infinitely better screen.

Sure they have far greater survivability, but they can't contribute to your shooting and they aren't troops and so are lacking objective secured.
I guess it's a bit of a trade off, but I will try both.

Screening means those Breachers aren't shooting either, as they are there to eat charges. That is why they are not good to screen. The Dragoon can eat the charge, survive shooting better, and then if it lives it can go on to take unclaimed objectives with their superior mobility.

And I would argue even if Breachers are shooting, are they really contributing?! Their guns are just so mediocre.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 lash92 wrote:

Octovol wrote:

Suzuteo wrote:
Breachers would not be my first choice for a screen. They are more a troop artillery unit.

Indeed for that sort of price point you could field 2 dragoons for an infinitely better screen.

Sure they have far greater survivability, but they can't contribute to your shooting and they aren't troops and so are lacking objective secured.
I guess it's a bit of a trade off, but I will try both.

Screening means those Breachers aren't shooting either, as they are there to eat charges. That is why they are not good to screen. The Dragoon can eat the charge, survive shooting better, and then if it lives it can go on to take unclaimed objectives with their superior mobility.

And I would argue even if Breachers are shooting, are they really contributing?! Their guns are just so mediocre.

I still dont get why there's so much hate for the heavy arc rifle. Show me another troops weapon you get 2 -2 ap D6 dmg shots for 6 points? I'ts only 2points more expensive than the arc rifles you can take on vanguard/rangers and considerably more than doubly effective. Is it purely because it wounds or 4s and 5s? because only the heaviest of weapons wound on better outside of plasma and melta. and those come with considerably price premiums.

Octovol wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 lash92 wrote:

Octovol wrote:

Suzuteo wrote:
Breachers would not be my first choice for a screen. They are more a troop artillery unit.

Indeed for that sort of price point you could field 2 dragoons for an infinitely better screen.

Sure they have far greater survivability, but they can't contribute to your shooting and they aren't troops and so are lacking objective secured.
I guess it's a bit of a trade off, but I will try both.

Screening means those Breachers aren't shooting either, as they are there to eat charges. That is why they are not good to screen. The Dragoon can eat the charge, survive shooting better, and then if it lives it can go on to take unclaimed objectives with their superior mobility.

And I would argue even if Breachers are shooting, are they really contributing?! Their guns are just so mediocre.

I still dont get why there's so much hate for the heavy arc rifle. Show me another troops weapon you get 2 -2 ap D6 dmg shots for 6 points? I'ts only 2points more expensive than the arc rifles you can take on vanguard/rangers and considerably more than doubly effective. Is it purely because it wounds or 4s and 5s? because only the heaviest of weapons wound on better outside of plasma and melta. and those come with considerably price premiums.

Low wound T5 model that hits on 4's. It only does d6 damage against vehicles, which means we are wounding on 4's and 5's (usually the latter, because most stuff is T7+), as you said. So we may hit with one shot and maybe we will wound a third of the time? Just awful.

@octovol Yeah, you really have a bad way of looking at things. The cost of the weapon means nothing. At all. At. All... Forget it in any strategy discussions.

What matters is model + weapon combined cost and WS/BS/S the weapon is used with. Now we have an overpriced body that's somewhat durable for the points cost but is really bad at shooting with, in his case, the arc rifle.

 Aaranis wrote:
Well that's it, I'm borderline hating my army right now. Played a game against our best player today, 1500 pts, 40 little Brimstones (the ones who don't split), a few flamers, exalted chariot, Tzeentch Heralds, Changeling, 2 Daemon Princes, Ahriman, a Terminator Sorcerer, and a few more stuff. Got obliterated, but I hold my ground for 6 turns ! Seriously, there was no way I could beat this list. Smite spam is just uncounterable as AdMech. And who on Earth thought giving a 4++ to a 3 pts model was a good idea ?

I tried Graia with this list and it was utter garbage, it saved like 4 guys in total who just died to more smite, and I used the stratagem to deny 3 times and it worked once. But had I chosen Stygies as usual it would've been useless against his list. Maybe I would've hold my ground better if I deployed as a big backfield gunline, but not even sure, and there were objectives to capture. If I have to play as an immobile gunline at the back of the table while waiting to table my opponent if I want to have a balanced game against a good list I might as well wait for FoC. If it sucks well... I'll sell my army probably. My meta is becoming too much hardcore for my armies, and when an opponent agrees to run a "fun list" and I obliterate him I feel guilty as hell and so in the end no one has any fun. Don't know what to do. Dragoons are exceptional but too expensive if I have to buy 3 more boxes to have a decent list.

Already looking forward for the Drukhari codex, hoping it will be good. It's the same concept of glass cannon army but where you trade toughness for speed, but even then the Drukhari players of the forum are complaining of the state of the army as it is, and the absence of anti-psyker abilities too. And I can forget about my nice snipers too.

Dark Angels codex looks promising, I don't know. I'm confused as hell guys.

I regard Admech as an inherently soup based faction. Pure admech has a whole lot of hard counters ... namely any other pure faction with a codex. The good news is that Primaris psykers are 45 points and you can easily convert some skitarii guys without helmets to be admech psyckers if you give them modified fulgurite staves. Due to the various nerfs ... greyfax is now getting back to points efficient as well. She is 85 points for 2 denies that deny at +1. And she can cast a WC6 power that turns off overwatch (perfect for assisting your dragoons). Damn now I wanna run greyfax again.
, a T
EDIT: to the above, yeah, the Dragoon devours half the units in the admech codex. Why ever bring Sicarians, Fulgurites, Vanguard, Breachers, FistKastelons, extra TPDs, etc. An additional dragoon is always better than any of those options.

Admech psyker.... how many levels of tech heresy is that? That’s gotta be like your 12th level class ability as a heretech

gendoikari87 wrote:
Admech psyker.... how many levels of tech heresy is that? That’s gotta be like your 12th level class ability as a heretech

He is channelling the omnnissiah's light. He doesn't need to know what it is.

EDIT: if I can manage to source the basilisks (everywhere is sold out), I am seriously considering running something that isn't Cawl and Dakkabots. I think that this might be competitive in a tyranid heavy meta. STYGIES + CADIA, this has 20 points left over. You end up with 13 base CP and get refunds on a 5+ for an expected ~17CP. You would have enough CP to run the +2 to hit admech strategem and +1 to hit CADIA strategem and double repairs every turn

STYGIES Brigade
TPD + 2 Enginseers [these guys have a lot of things to fix]
2 Neutrons, 1 Icarus Onager
1 Dragoon, 1 Dragoon, 1x4 Autocannon ballistari (efficient at shooting versus hive tyrants with +2 to hit strategem)
3x1 Cybernetica Datasmith (think of this as a unit of 3 terminator characters)
4x5 Rangers, 2x5 Vanguard

CADIA Spearhead
Commander (5+ WLT, Relic of lost cadia for the damage) [deploy him first so you can get 5+ refunds on STYGIES infiltration]
5x1 Basilisks [hide at the corner of the board, hopefully out of LOS, feed the +1 to hit CADIA strategem as much as you can]

The Stygies chaff units spread out and die over the course of the game, while the artillery battery, onagers, and ballistari shoot as much as they can. The big problem right now for admech is that the Tyranid codex flat out devours our army. We have zero answers to melee hive tyrants and have no non-LOS shooting. Without being able to shoot out of line sight means that the artillery double shooting hive guard can go all game removing a unit a turn and you can't answer them. Admech must have basilisk support or else your opponent's non-LOS shooting will just dump all over your immobile units. I was worried about daemon primarchs before, but their supporting units are weaker now and relic of lost cadia can help balance out the lack of dakkabot firepower.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Admech psyker.... how many levels of tech heresy is that? That’s gotta be like your 12th level class ability as a heretech

On loan from the Divisio Telepathica?

Suzuteo wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Admech psyker.... how many levels of tech heresy is that? That’s gotta be like your 12th level class ability as a heretech

On loan from the Divisio Telepathica?

I argued that my converted astropaths were Mechanicus Navitae

I don’t see why we can’t have psykers...mechanicus-enhanced brains ought to be adept at channeling the powers of the omnissiah as we see fit. Hell if canticles aren’t already a form of mech-enhanced psychic power then what are they lol

Octovol wrote:
I don’t see why we can’t have psykers...mechanicus-enhanced brains ought to be adept at channeling the powers of the omnissiah as we see fit. Hell if canticles aren’t already a form of mech-enhanced psychic power then what are they lol

The 40k equivalent of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n15UKexKf4k

I've been working on finishing up the last couple units for my army, I will be fielding this on the weekend. Very excited for the Turtlesword class Shadowsword to reach the battlefield:

++Mars++
240 Archmagos Phobos
47 Enginseer
35 5 rangers
35 5 rangers
35 5 rangers
330 3 robots
140 neutron onager
140 neutron onager
++Catachan++
31 Company Commander, bolter, warlord, relic
108 Basilisk, heavy bolter
108 Basilisk, heavy bolter
108 Basilisk, heavy bolter
108 Basilisk, heavy bolter
30 Master of Ordnance
50 5 Stormtroopers, bolt pistol
50 5 Stormtroopers, bolt pistol
++Superheavy Auxiliary++
404 Shadowsword

1999

My group has started playing ITC missions so that will probably be my first experience with them. Looking forward to fielding the Shadowsword aka Turtlesword

That actually looks rather creepy.

I love these onager-legged Guard vehicles; baseline Guard stuff always looks really boring to me, the walker conversions are a huge step up.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 lash92 wrote:

Octovol wrote:

Suzuteo wrote:
Breachers would not be my first choice for a screen. They are more a troop artillery unit.

Indeed for that sort of price point you could field 2 dragoons for an infinitely better screen.

Sure they have far greater survivability, but they can't contribute to your shooting and they aren't troops and so are lacking objective secured.
I guess it's a bit of a trade off, but I will try both.

Screening means those Breachers aren't shooting either, as they are there to eat charges. That is why they are not good to screen. The Dragoon can eat the charge, survive shooting better, and then if it lives it can go on to take unclaimed objectives with their superior mobility.

And I would argue even if Breachers are shooting, are they really contributing?! Their guns are just so mediocre.

Breachers guns are actually quite good (if they have their ideal targets) its their poor BS that makes them meh at shooting. Heavy Arc Rifles are excellent and firing 6 shots at a tank or transport is likely to cripple it (I'm assuming rerolls to hit are involved). Torsion cannons are very scary for your opponent as few things even get a save against them, too bad they almost always miss for me, even with Cawl.

 ph34r wrote:
I've been working on finishing up the last couple units for my army, I will be fielding this on the weekend. Very excited for the Turtlesword class Shadowsword to reach the battlefield:

Spoiler:

++Mars++
240 Archmagos Phobos
47 Enginseer
35 5 rangers
35 5 rangers
35 5 rangers
330 3 robots
140 neutron onager
140 neutron onager
++Catachan++
31 Company Commander, bolter, warlord, relic
108 Basilisk, heavy bolter
108 Basilisk, heavy bolter
108 Basilisk, heavy bolter
108 Basilisk, heavy bolter
30 Master of Ordnance
50 5 Stormtroopers, bolt pistol
50 5 Stormtroopers, bolt pistol
++Superheavy Auxiliary++
404 Shadowsword

1999

My group has started playing ITC missions so that will probably be my first experience with them. Looking forward to fielding the Shadowsword aka Turtlesword

Read page 132 of the guard codex very carefully before you run that list.

"If your army is battleforged, all REGIMENT units in an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment (excluding those in Super heavy aux detachments)[u] gain a regimental doctrine ...

Wulfey wrote:
Read page 132 of the guard codex very carefully before you run that list.

"If your army is battleforged, all REGIMENT units in an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment (excluding those in Super heavy aux detachments)[u] gain a regimental doctrine ...

Yup, I'm aware. I considered the utility of having the doctrine on it, and honestly without any buffs at all I think the shadowsword is still going to obliterate whatever it shoots at. No need to throw more points buffing something that is already overkill?

 ph34r wrote:

Wulfey wrote:
Read page 132 of the guard codex very carefully before you run that list.

"If your army is battleforged, all REGIMENT units in an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment (excluding those in Super heavy aux detachments)[u] gain a regimental doctrine ...

Yup, I'm aware. I considered the utility of having the doctrine on it, and honestly without any buffs at all I think the shadowsword is still going to obliterate whatever it shoots at. No need to throw more points buffing something that is already overkill?

I pondered bringing some kind of baneblade equivalent but I kept running into problems keeping it alive. You can heal it twice with the admech strategem which is nice. You could turn those stormtroopers and master of ordinance into 3 primaris psykers and make the shadowsword a VALHALLAN shadowsword in a supreme command detachment, that way it won't take penalties until it is down to 6 wounds. The primaris have two spells that can buff the tank's survivability (+1 to saves and -1 to be hit). But if you go second and the other guy has -4 weaponry ... you just can't keep that tank on the board cause it doesn't have an invul.