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.

I'm considering adding a Macharius heavy tank to my army but I was wondering if it's worth it's weight in steel. So, is it any good or just a worthless piece of resin?

I think the best way to find that out would be to proxy one and try it for yourself.

Yeah, you're probably not going to come across that many people who have experience with this particular vehicle.

Use of forgeworld stuff is still relatively rare compared to codex stuff in general, and those who do use forgeworld guard stuff tend to use only the more popular things, which the macharius isn't.

I use the Macharius Vanquisher as my regimental command vehicle. It's like the middle ground between the Baneblade and the Leman Russ.

I use it because it looks fething awesome and is 175 points cheaper, so I can afford another russ with upgrades to support it.

The Vanquisher variant isn't too shabby at taking out other superheavies either.

Ah, I figured. I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction since the tank looks sweet. Maybe the fact that it isn't used much is a pretty good sign of it's usefulness.

If you're playing a "normal" 40k game with a Macharius added it's a decent unit, assuming you get the Vanquisher or Vulcan versions. It's probably worse than its points in Leman Russes, but not by such a huge margin that it's going to cost you the game.

If you're playing Apocalypse and care about winning it sucks just like anything else that doesn't carry a STR D weapon.

If you're playing Apocalypse to bring cool models either of the good versions will probably kill something and will look cool doing it.

 Peregrine wrote:
If you're playing a "normal" 40k game with a Macharius added it's a decent unit, assuming you get the Vanquisher or Vulcan versions. It's probably worse than its points in Leman Russes, but not by such a huge margin that it's going to cost you the game.

If you're playing Apocalypse and care about winning it sucks just like anything else that doesn't carry a STR D weapon.

If you're playing Apocalypse to bring cool models either of the good versions will probably kill something and will look cool doing it.

That's what I thought. I was hoping the battle cannon version was good but the Vanquisher variants looks good too. If all else fails I'll run it as a "Count as" Shadowsword.

TheCustomLime wrote:
That's what I thought. I was hoping the battle cannon version was good but the Vanquisher variants looks good too.

Well, the Vanquisher version does everything the standard one does for only a small point increase (unlike the LR Vanquisher it still has blast shells) so there's really no reason to take the standard one.

If all else fails I'll run it as a "Count as" Shadowsword.

This is a very bad idea. The Macharius is a much smaller model, the guns look completely different, the sponsons are completely different, the Macharius has a turret and the Shadowsword doesn't, etc. It just looks nothing like a Shadowsword. That makes it a confusing proxy in a small game, and an extremely bad one in a giant game where there's so much going on that the tolerance for "counts as" models is much, much lower.

[

If all else fails I'll run it as a "Count as" Shadowsword.

This is a very bad idea. The Macharius is a much smaller model, the guns look completely different, the sponsons are completely different, the Macharius has a turret and the Shadowsword doesn't, etc. It just looks nothing like a Shadowsword. That makes it a confusing proxy in a small game, and an extremely bad one in a giant game where there's so much going on that the tolerance for "counts as" models is much, much lower.

The base-variant Macharius is pretty overpriced for what it does; there's no reason to take it over two normal Russes. If you're going to get one the Vanquisher variant is fair and the Vulcan variant is pretty good, though.

TheCustomLime wrote:
[

If all else fails I'll run it as a "Count as" Shadowsword.

This is a very bad idea. The Macharius is a much smaller model, the guns look completely different, the sponsons are completely different, the Macharius has a turret and the Shadowsword doesn't, etc. It just looks nothing like a Shadowsword. That makes it a confusing proxy in a small game, and an extremely bad one in a giant game where there's so much going on that the tolerance for "counts as" models is much, much lower.

Oh. I thought they were roughly the same size but I'll be sure not to do that if that's the case. Ah, well, it's still worth it. RoC and all that.

The Mecharius is slightly larger than a LRBT lengthwise and about the same width. It is not a super heavy tank sizewise.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Mecharius is slightly larger than a LRBT lengthwise and about the same width. It is not a super heavy tank sizewise.

Significantly larger, actually. I just measured mine and it's 7.5" long and 4.5" wide, so very definitely superheavy size even if it's not as large as the Baneblade hulls. If you put one next to a Leman Russ the size difference is very obvious. You might be thinking of the Malcador variants which are about the size you mentioned but still look a lot bigger than a Leman Russ.

Ahhh right. I always get those 2 confused.