Adeptus Mechanicus Tactica 3.0: Riding the Dunes

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.

**Vineheart01**

i dont think i'd ever try to get omnimask on raiders.
It BARELY works for Dragoons that hit whatever is at the front deployment, and thats only if they daisy-chain a little. Raiders are even faster than Dragoons, and smaller profile/base size.
No character is gonna be able to follow them for a T1 charge in the enemy deployment field.

**U02dah4**

yukishiro1 wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The raiders are seriously hampered by not being infantry and not having fly. They are just begging to be move-blocked, terrain-blocked, or counter-wrapped. A big unit of raiders in particular is a nightmare to use on the table; the combination of huge cavalry bases and the cavalry keyword is miserable on any map with decent terrain coverage.

The only army they're going to seriously disrupt is a gunline without screening units, i.e. a list that is badly built and not competitive anyway. For anything else they're just a free kill that at best serves as a speedbump, and at worst allows your opponent free movement and a wrap as it moves up the board, unless you spend a very costly 2CP.

This may change in 9th if infantry and fly stop being such huge advantages.But right now, I'd much rather have sterylizors instead, which are much more flexible and therefore useful in every game.

if you havn't charged there screen and wrapped them t1 your useing them wrong at 24"+ D6" +Charge + extra if you use a manipulus I cant see many armies you wont reach on most deployments

And then they just counter-wrap *you*, and you've traded several hundred points + gangbusters for a cheap screen and given your opponent the ability to avoid your shooting for a turn as they move up the board.

Against any army with any kind of counter-charge, all you're doing is spending a bunch of points to give them a maxed secondary, free movement, and shooting immunity. Doesn't seem effective in most match-ups.

I can see the argument for them in a stygies melee list or something like that. They're a pretty cheap way to clear screens T1, something ad mech struggle with. But otherwise, I think in most games you're just throwing away points for limited gain, except against badly made or played lists that you ought to be beating anyway.

They can't counter wrap if you do it right because of the run away strat that lets you fallback 12 from combat if another unit charges you. With a unit of 9 cavalry bases you form a pretty big line/block thats hard to surround. While the combat unit doing so ends up stuck in the open while your free to shoot next turn.

Although with 2 units as i intend i will plan to use 1 to tie enemy units up the turn and limit there movement up the board

**yukishiro1**

Raiders are terrible in melee. 3 WS4+ STR 4 attacks, 1 at -1ap, is junk for models on bases that large. The most likely reason you'd be charging stuff with them is to tag or wrap, so why would you want rerolls? That doesn't help you do that.

**Suzuteo**

In my opinion, Mono Mars is the way to go.

One thing I am considering doing is to bring a block of 6x Autocannon Ballistarii for my gunline. The buffs you can stack are pretty gross:

1. Cawl rerolls, Daeda targeting
2. Magos HOWLT explodes on a 6 to hit; Logos HOWLT improves AP-1 on a 6 to hit
3. Mars Canticle adds +1S, making Autocannons S8 AP-1 D2; move 10" and shoot with no penalty
4. Protector Doctrina Imperative adds +2 to hit; advance and shoot at BS3+
5. Pattern Iteration Identified adds +1 to wound against non-Titanic
6. Wrath of Mars adds 1 mortal wound, procs on 5+ due to #5
7. Cognis Overwatch at BS3+

In summary, you have an average of 24x S8 AP-1 D2 shots; BS2 at 58" effective range; BS3 reroll all at 58"+D6 or 58"+2D6 with Dunestriders. Extra hit and AP-1 on 6 to hit, mortal on 5 to wound. T6 4+/6++ and 36 wounds. 360 points.

EDIT: Also need to keep in mind that S8 with +1 to wound against non-Titanic is essentially like S15 against most enemies. These things absolutely shred T6-7 vehicles.

**yukishiro1**

U02dah4 wrote:

They can't counter wrap if you do it right because of the run away strat that lets you fallback 12 from combat if another unit charges you. With a unit of 9 cavalry bases you form a pretty big line/block thats hard to surround. While the combat unit doing so ends up stuck in the open while your free to shoot next turn.

Although with 2 units as i intend i will plan to use 1 to tie enemy units up the turn and limit there movement up the board

There are a lot of problems with this. First, they can likely wrap you back on your turn using the screen you are wrapping, unless you can surround or base the entire unit. It only takes two models to trap an oval base, BTW, so they generally only need one model that isn't based to accomplish it. Even if you manage to wrap them without being wrapped back, all their counter charge needs to do is move to a place adjacent to one of their models that's being wrapped, a bit over 1 inch away, and they've trapped you such that you can't fall back, by using the two units in conjunction.

There are just so many ways to ruin this plan, and even if you get it right, the upside is so small. It would be one thing if getting this off was a game-winning combo, but it isn't - at the very best, you have a turn to shoot at them, whereas without the unit...you'd probably still have a turn to shoot at them?

If all you really fundamentally want to do is move-block someone for a turn, you don't need 18 raiders to do that.

**U02dah4**

Vineheart01 wrote:
i dont think i'd ever try to get omnimask on raiders.
It BARELY works for Dragoons that hit whatever is at the front deployment, and thats only if they daisy-chain a little. Raiders are even faster than Dragoons, and smaller profile/base size.
No character is gonna be able to follow them for a T1 charge in the enemy deployment field.

So manipulus 9" stygies + 7" move + d6+1 advance. +6" aura

=24-29" range on T1 now we add to that a serberys base
And as long as its within an inch of another serberys base it can fight and that serberys can be within an inch of the enemy.

Thats pretty deep into an enemy deployment zone. Not to mention loseing a serberus base CC you can always extend that further. So no its not that difficult

**Suzuteo**

IMO, you should not invest anything in your Raiders. They are a skirmishing unit that does its job if they get brutally wiped on turn one...

**yukishiro1**

Suzuteo wrote:
IMO, you should not invest anything in your Raiders. They are a skirmishing unit that does its job if they get brutally wiped on turn one...

Yeah I think this is correct.

IMO the best thing about them is the ability to moveblock even if you aren't going first, because the scout move happens before the game begins. I revise my opinion a little bit - I think they may have some value for this purpose; it is the only thing I can think of that they do that there aren't really any other candidates for. I'm still not sure it's a job worth doing in most ad mech lists - the risk of the counter-wrap is so large that it really only makes sense in lists where you don't care if they wrap them - but in one where it is worth doing, I can see the value. Certainly not for taking 18, though.

They'd just be so, so much better if they were infantry, though.

**U02dah4**

yukishiro1 wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:

They can't counter wrap if you do it right because of the run away strat that lets you fallback 12 from combat if another unit charges you. With a unit of 9 cavalry bases you form a pretty big line/block thats hard to surround. While the combat unit doing so ends up stuck in the open while your free to shoot next turn.

Although with 2 units as i intend i will plan to use 1 to tie enemy units up the turn and limit there movement up the board

There are a lot of problems with this. First, they can likely wrap you back on your turn using the screen you are wrapping, unless you can surround or base the entire unit. It only takes two models to trap an oval base, BTW, so they generally only need one model that isn't based to accomplish it. Even if you manage to wrap them without being wrapped back, all their counter charge needs to do is move to a place adjacent to one of their models that's being wrapped, a bit over 1 inch away, and they've trapped you such that you can't fall back, by using the two units in conjunction.

There are just so many ways to ruin this plan, and even if you get it right, the upside is so small. It would be one thing if getting this off was a game-winning combo, but it isn't - at the very best, you have a turn to shoot at them, whereas without the unit...you'd probably still have a turn to shoot at them?

If all you really fundamentally want to do is move-block someone for a turn, you don't need 18 raiders to do that.

2 models only if you misposition they want to be positioned in a follow my leader style eg a 5 model length ways cavalry line or the 3x3 L generally they are not moving far enough around

So no your rarely wrapped

So given your not wrapped im counter charged i move 12 away

Sure the unit surrounding tactic works but with 18 cavalry bases thats pretty difficult to do largely because of your surface area and 1 of those units is a sacrifice you really need to get behind them and that takes a CC unit with the fly keyword that didnt DS. Tough day vs BA but nothing is perfect.

E.g a 10 model side on front line is 600mm or 23.6inches not counting small gaps

Sure positioning is cruicial but if your sacrificeing 1 the other is savable

The answer to what i gain is the move block for two turns + kill 2 small characters + smash a screening unit or two.

That time allows me to use other blocking support units. - Dragoons and DS Corpuscarii.

The aim is to keep the enemy pinned as long as possible and board control

**yukishiro1**

I can't imagine you're going to have much success - especially with the idea that anybody's going to let you snipe their characters - but I wish you luck.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, it still cracks me up that the Sterylizor Alpha doesn't have talons even though the rest of his unit does.

**U02dah4**

Im not suggesting they let me - but if you are at their deployment zone or in it with an 18" range your likely in range against most lists. And if they deploy entirely in the back 6 to prevent this ive still blocked them out the deployment zone.

**yukishiro1**

Do you play on empty boards without LOS-blocking terrain? Because if so, your comments make a lot more sense and I agree raiders are a lot stronger.

**U02dah4**

A reasonable amount but not high density. London GT/Nova L's would be a good example. On a stationary unit its a problem why i am not that keen on dakka bots but when you move 24"+ on T1 its pretty hard for most armies to hide most units unless you back 6" but then your doing what i want

**Octovol**

Seen a few people having built doggos and pteraxii now, man are those batmen big! One guy estimates each of them takes up as much space physically as as kastellan! Boy do they look cool though lol

Raiders are nowhere near as cool looking as sulphurhounds, boy do I hate my rules-centric brain at this point.

I also want a stratorapter for cool factor, but at the moment my budget is going on 6 more Breachers/Destroyers (I had 3) 10 Pteraxii, 12 doggos and a new start collecting.

**Aaranis**

Octovol wrote:Seen a few people having built doggos and pteraxii now, man are those batmen big! One guy estimates each of them takes up as much space physically as as kastellan! Boy do they look cool though lol

Raiders are nowhere near as cool looking as sulphurhounds, boy do I hate my rules-centric brain at this point.

I also want a stratorapter for cool factor, but at the moment my budget is going on 6 more Breachers/Destroyers (I had 3) 10 Pteraxii, 12 doggos and a new start collecting.

I'm already painting one of my Sulphurhounds ! The models are gorgeous. I found I'm happier in the hobby when I buy and assemble models I love rather than those with the best rules for the next 3 months.

**Octovol**

Aaranis wrote:
Octovol wrote:Seen a few people having built doggos and pteraxii now, man are those batmen big! One guy estimates each of them takes up as much space physically as as kastellan! Boy do they look cool though lol

Raiders are nowhere near as cool looking as sulphurhounds, boy do I hate my rules-centric brain at this point.

I also want a stratorapter for cool factor, but at the moment my budget is going on 6 more Breachers/Destroyers (I had 3) 10 Pteraxii, 12 doggos and a new start collecting.

I'm already painting one of my Sulphurhounds ! The models are gorgeous. I found I'm happier in the hobby when I buy and assemble models I love rather than those with the best rules for the next 3 months.

I have a great deal of internal conflict right now

**0XFallen**

I like the feel of the sulphur hounds, but the raider's horse's head is so sinister and cool

**Vineheart01**

i imagine the rider will define which is which far more than the mount. I plan to use the horse head from raiders, it looks so much better. Plus i like the idea of them having to open their mouth to breath fire instead of having a flamer-face permanently

**Aaranis**

The Warhammer Daily will talk about vehicles and tanks today, I'm eager to read the article !

**Kanluwen**

-1 to hit when firing during combat, no blast weapons.

**Aaranis**

Kanluwen wrote:
-1 to hit when firing during combat, no blast weapons.

Where have you read that they can't use blast weapons ? The rule doesn't prevent any type of weapon being fired in melee. But yes, -1 to Hit for Heavy weapons, fair trade I think. It's not a total freedom to shoot wherever we want though, so locking Vehicles in CC will still be a thing, it's just that they'll shoot back.

At any rate it's still quite neat. Some options won't be as favoured as others, like a Neutronager will have a hard time cleaning up the horde locking it, while Dakkastelans will have it easier. It's a buff to my Fistelans with flamers as they won't give a damn when bogged down by infantry now. Eat 4d6 S5 AP-1 hits at close range.

EDIT: Seems your claim of blast weapons was said orally in the stream. Weird that it's not written in the rule though.

Here's a list of changes said in the stream, courtesy of the 40k News thread:

- notes by Joe#0064 on the Warhammer 40K Discord.

===== RULES =====

- tanks can now shoot into combat. They may engage units within an inch as well. -1 to hit if you're shooting with your Tank/Monster at something you're in combat with. You can't fire blast weapons either.

- reasons for change; as an example, it was frustrating and immersion breaking that a Nurgling could stop a Land Raider firing in combat. Ultimately, for balance and narrative reasons.

- Monsters benefit from the changes to fighting in buildings; e.g. a squad of Guardsman on the first floor is no longer safe from the Hive Tyrant eye-level to them.

- Stu Black; "Tyranids and Imperial Guard will benefit greatly from the new rules. In general, anything that is a mechanised force or able to field plenty of monsters."

- "sticking a model together because it looks great" is less of an issue now. Specialised / general loadouts on models are much more useful.

- the changes should encourage more dynamic / mobile play, as opposed to "WW1 bunkers engaging each other at a distance."

- challenges; changes to terrain make it harder to get a clear view of the battlefield, so units will need to move around more.

- -1 to hit for moving and firing a heavy weapon only applies to infantry.

- Stu Black; "with the new CP / Detachments I think we'll see more vehicle/monster-heavy armies as a result."

- Eddie Eccles; "people have rightfully pointed out that the Land Raider (and variants) will benefit greatly from the changes."

Love that the penalty for heavy weapons is gone from vehicles, Ballistarii become less paradoxal that way.

**Vineheart01**

yeah heavy flamer type weaponry got a lot more tasty in 9th. Flamers big problem is you generally couldnt use it unless you were wicked fast or only really got to use it once before being stuck in combat.
Now vehicles/monsters can just keep firing them. That is super useful.

**Kanluwen**

It was literally the first thing said with regards to this whole thing. Blast weapons aren't mentioned, because the rules for them will apparently mention that they cannot be used in Engagement Range.

The whole "shooting into combat" thing seems to be conflating the rule of them being able to fire while engaged as "shooting into combat".

Personal wishlisting tidbit:
Cognis weapons ignore the -1 to hit penalty for Heavy fired in Engagement Range. It would open up a whole new aspect to the relatively limited usage associated with Overwatch.

**Aaranis**

Kanluwen wrote:
It was literally the first thing said with regards to this whole thing. Blast weapons aren't mentioned, because the rules for them will apparently mention that they cannot be used in Engagement Range.

The whole "shooting into combat" thing seems to be conflating the rule of them being able to fire while engaged as "shooting into combat".

Personal wishlisting tidbit:
Cognis weapons ignore the -1 to hit penalty for Heavy fired in Engagement Range. It would open up a whole new aspect to the relatively limited usage associated with Overwatch.

I didn't listen to the stream, hence my ignorance, just read the article. Thanks for the clarification

**Vineheart01**

if blast is indeed denied shooting into combat, seriously hope flamers dont end up being considered blast.

**The Forgemaster**

Now that vehicles no longer have -1 to hit, would this change what army people take. e.g. to Lucius instead or is the +1 Strength on heavy weapons still better?

**Vineheart01**

trying to think of what that mars canticle even affects if vehicles normally ignore heavy penalties.
All i can think of is the pointless HQ guns we generally dont care about or Arquabus, which is denied shooting in general if it moved anyway.

That being said, Mars still has Cawl and Wrath of Mars strat. So its still a tough choice to use something else, the S+1 is the tipping point for a lot of our heavy weapons.

**Colonel Cross**

Haha yeah that canticle just became really odd considering this new rule reveal ...

**Thairne**

Didnt you know? It was written with 9th ed in mind!

Fistelans look better now. Dakkastelans finally can move and do something. Same for Ballistari
With the canticle, you can.. uh... move your Arquebi and Servitors....
But tbh, the best part is the +1S. That one is still tremendously powerful.

I do wonder though if the effective removal of quite a few abilities will be compensated tho... Onager, Dunerider/Disintegrator

**Colonel Cross**

Haha exactly. Their statement is completely invalidated by this new universal rule, lol.

Why do you think fistelans are better now? Just because they can fire their flamers in melee? Have yours ever remained in combat that long? Mine will delete something with punching twice and then just get focused, if they ever made it that far to begin with.

And yeah, that was the biggest special rule to our tanks. So what now?