Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Mechanicum (30k)

Given the current state of the army "list", I highly doubt that this needs an entire page to itself. What we had in the Legion List will work just fine unless a sufficient amount of content is revealed in Massacre (which seems unlikely at best right now).--Newerfag (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Meh, Massacre is out and it has the whole army list. On the legion page we've been planning this expansion when legion dropped. The information here is gathered from people with the book. Equally, with the legion list, that's intended for marine players, not for admech players.

Noted, but for right now there's not enough content for it to do much good. --Newerfag (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've signed up an account here just so I can sort this page out. I'm doing some stuff with the various Mechanicum army lists at home and have come to know it well. There's a surprising amount of depth in a pair of small lists. Gimme a week or so, I'll get it tidied up. [Emperors Teeth] 21:00, 10th Feb 2013

Which Book?

Quick question, to play this army do I need betrayal and massacre or just massacre?

• Massacre has the Legio Cybernetica list (robots!) and Betrayal has the Ordo Reductor list (Thallaxi and Land Raiders... I guess?), although the Legio Cybernetica list is more fully-fleshed-out (it has Myrmidons, Thallaxi, and robots). Allegedly, Forge World has said they're different lists, but this page hasn't been updated to reflect that. That being said, Betrayal has most of the wargear (and the full rules for the Space Marine Legions, if you're so inclined, which aren't reprinted in Massacre), so if you really plan to play Mechanicum you'll probably need both. Dok (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this is really helpful

which book 2, electric boogaloo

Which rules are contained in the new book, extermination? Is it just the new ones or all of them?

• Book 3 contains nearly everything you need for running the biggest and most diverse mechanicum army ever, with a few caveats : Some weapons have stats only found in book 1, and one or two things are only found in book 1. That being said, you could build and run an army using only stuff from Book 3, so long as you don't pick stuff that uses gear you don't have stats for, so no Vorax and nothing with Volkite weapons.

A word of thanks

Let's all have a moment of thanks for whoever cleaned the page up. May he forever be blessed by the holy ommnisiah. xXThereforeThereforeXx seconds this

Redoing the page?

As the Tahagmata list, is practically the Ordo-reductor and Legio-Cybernetica combined (It even lets you use Calleb Decima), it may be prudent to make that the majority of the article and heavily reduce the content of the aforementioned lists as its largely repetition of stuff that could be shoved in Tahagmata(Some fucking shit fuck anon who wrote a decent chunk of that page)

• Edit: Some differences do exist; first one I noticed is that Thallax cohorts can no longer take KILLFRENZYKILLFRENZY Ferrox upgrade, but with the addition of Ursaraxs this is largely a non-issue.
  • More: Castellax no longer a potential compulsory choice... yeah some differences are appearing but this article could get extremely cluttered very quickly.

Ya think we should make new pages for the other lists? Gutsm3k (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Battlesmith & Robots

• It seems that some people cannot find the rule that allows battlesmith rolls to apply to restoring wounds on Battle-Automata units. Check the 6th paragraph on page 234 of Extermination, as part of the description of the Battlesmith rule --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Check the last line

• and in Massacre, page 192. I think whoever isn't seeing this must be a troll...

Page clean up

I may go about doing a massive clean up of the page, possibly a slight format change, because there is a great amount of overlap of the units, within the various lists. Following the format of:

• Name of unit (what lists it is available in). Straight forward run down. List what upgrades are available between all lists.
  • List[eg Tahgmata]: Where said unit stands within a list and what upgrades are available when using this list.

Sound alright?

Are all Knights in the Mechanicum?

I've noticed whoever posted the Mechanicum LoW section listed all Knights but I'm having trouble finding where it says some knights (like the Castigator) are a part of the main Taghmata list (like the Lancer) instead of part of the Knights that then have to be allied in. Could somebody please post with the relevant page number that says the knights can be used in the Taghmata list? -- Triacom (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

All right, I've found where it says the Acheron and Styrix can be used as a part of the Mechanicum, it's on Forgeworld's website in their summary and not in their rules, however I still cannot find where it says you can include the Questoris Knight Magaera, the Cerastus Knight Castigator as a part of the normal Mechanicum list. -- Triacom (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

IC Dominus email

Does anyone have a print-screen of the email making Dominii IC's? I WANT TO BELIEVE.

Take that with a massive amount of salt, it was posted by an anon and that was literally the only thing they have ever posted. -- Triacom (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense for an Archmagos though; particularly seeing as the Cortica Primus is literally unusable (without Housing ruling/gentlemans agreement) right now. Frankly if they just had something that let them use relics that would be fine.. --Abokasee (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Calleb Decima, Magos Reductor and joining units

I deleted the statement on the scyllax as aside from it being completely wrong about their current rules (which are in Tempest) it also said that Calleb and the Magos Reductor cannot join units because, while lacking in the ability to join them mid-game, it was iffy as to whether they could be there before the game started, with this in mind I emailed Forge World with this question:

"Hello there, I was curious about some Mechanicus Characters, specifically the Magos Dominus and Calleb Decima, can they be in a Mechanicus unit (thallax or tech-thralls for example) before the game starts and therefore cannot leave it because they lack the Independent Character rule, or do they have to go on their own (or in Calleb's case, only with his retinue)?"

this question got me the following response:

"That's a very good questions and certainly a head scratcher!

We at Forge World encourage the use of “house rules” by this we mean if a specific rule is unclear or may have multiple meanings or indeed different meanings to different people, we would say use the time old tradition of a 4+ roll off or what we prefer more is to follow the theme and storyline of what would happen if the battle were a real conflict. As long as your opponent is okay with you using the chosen rules or models then we say have fun!

For use of Forge World models and rules in events and tournaments we recommend getting in touch with the referees or the tournament coordinator to confirm your request to use the chosen rules and models.

In the mean time we would suggest having a chat with your gaming friends to see what awesome answers you can agree between yourselves till an official FAQ or rules update has been issued.

If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us."

While I'm fairly sure that's just a stock response, if it is then it's the first stock response and was asked after I had asked them other questions and received other responses, it also makes it clear that there's no right answer, and you're just supposed to clear it up with your friends before the game. I will say though that anybody who doesn't let Calleb have his Thallax bodyguard or let that Magos give Relentless to a squad is automatically That Guy.

Here's a pic for proof. -- Triacom (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a small update, but I now actually have received a stock/machine response from Forgeworld about another question (see below), and it turns out their stock/machine message is essentially "We're busy, we'll contact you as soon as possible." I'm guessing the response I got (above) is just one they give when they really don't know what to do with the rules. -- Triacom (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• This question is a head-scratcher because it's stupid. You cannot just put something in a unit before a game if it's not part of that unit when you purchase it from your army list. A character can only join a unit if they have the independent character special rule. The only Independent Character in all four books that have featured the Mechanicum (not Mechanicus, that's 40K) is the Magos Prime. Period.

• Would you mind citing the source you have that says characters cannot be joined/deployed in/by a friendly unit before the game starts? If it was this simple then Forgeworld would have just said "No they cannot join units." Intentionally ignoring what they say about their own fucking book is like saying you know better than they do when they're the people who wrote the thing. If they decide to change something or clarify something, even in an email then it becomes the rules, after all that's the point of FAQ's and Errata's. -- Triacom (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Anon, Forgeworld has always been characterized by their lax rules and their "Houserule it/Roll for it LOL" attitude. Their books are riddled with contradictions and their FAQ time isn't that fast, just take for example Cortica Primus, which is LITERALLY UNUSABLE since Dominus aren't ICs. While I don't think Magos can join MCs (that's the whole Praevian deal), it'd be really Forgeworld stupid if Magos had to go alone in the army. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeated units -> Deletion of "Available to all" + Collapsible sections?

Not a new issue, really. First of all, the section "Available to all" shouldn't exist. After all, some units, like Thallax, are also available for everyone but are used differently. With Thanatars having a Cybernetica Cortex, they'll be used differently by Reductors than by Thagmata + Cybernetica (who have cybertheurgy). This would lead to have the unit repeated 4 times, one in each section. Sure, the purpose of "Available to all" is to list their characteristics so that individual Ordos can just list their particular uses...but you still need to go back and forth to check them out, pretty much what was happening with Primarchs and Legion combos. Sooo, let's erase "Available to all" and make each Ordo collapsible so that they can grow as large as they want without clogging up the page. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• While I agree on making the sections collapsible, I'd like to hold off on deleting the "available to all" section right now, I'm emailing Forgeworld because I'm curious as to whether some units are exclusive to the Ordo Reductor as all four are very clearly under an Ordo Reductor lore section (it seems very odd for that to be there for no reason) and, and only two of those four say on FW's website that any army can be taking by everyone. If the ones in that book are meant to be Reductor units then the other lists would have to (and only be able to) use the rules for the two units on FW's website (as it says there they can be taken by everyone) instead of in the book. -- Triacom (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It turns out there's no need to worry, they can be taken by everyone and that brief bit on the Reductor is just fluff put there for the sake of putting new fluff in the book. -- Triacom (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

New book

My book will be arriving tomorrow, hopefully, alleged changes from what I have found include:

Point Changes in the Mechanicum Red Book

- Castellax are 20 poinst more expensive - Vorax are 10 points less expensive. - Ursarax are 20 points more. - Thanatar +10 points. - Myrmidon Destructors +15 points.

Castellax point cost is, somewhat justified in that Ape-moding everything with 5 man units was pretty potent - particularly the enemy had elected to not bring Artillery. Vorax point cost will make them alot more palatable (although I can't help be feel an assbite of endless-outflank is inbound). Ursarax point change seems pretty curious; this may not be a per model basis. Thanatar's expensive as ever (If only default Thanatar changes then it simply brought it more inline with the newer variants). Destructor point raise (so long as its the flat squad tax) justified imho in that you could just delete any target so long as you had the right equipment with hilarious ease.

Legio Cybernetica feels like it had both the least amount of time spent on it and was hit the hardest by the changes- they no longer score in any way and cost more points ontop of it. No unique units. No unique FOC. For the trouble you get +1 initiative on robots and a 12" bonus to your Cybertheurgy range. Ouch. Bfist

Atop this: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/08/mechanicum-codex-army-list-revealed.html

"imperial knights paladin, errant, magaera, styrix, lancer, castigator and acheron" - So that particular debate is settled. Addition of Ordinatus and Arvus lighter.

Ultimately, not all that much far as new units go. So, hope remains that they add a sizeable number of upgrades. However it's also fit into a 120 page book, rather than HH3, with a tonne of photocopies sticking out the edges. No knowledge of stat changes atm, or even if they added new relic/fixed the broken one.

• Book arrived this morning, had a game, was alot of fun...alot of work needs to be done to update it. I would largley suggest completely scrapping the entire page and doing it from the ground up - mostly because of the way Ordo-Reductor and Legio-Cybernetica are done now (in that they have a small number of additions, special rules, and some demanding compulsory choices and restrictions).

• Collapsible sections, I suggest collapsible sections. Thus, it won't be repeated entries, as they will differ from ordo to ordo in their specific use. Zerghalo2 (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is it possible to create some kinda "WIP"/Prototype page? Abokasee (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2015 (GMT)

• If the army is done so differently why not just make a new page? For example the new army is the Taghmata with formations for the other two, so leave this as Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Mechanicum (30k) and make the new page Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Mechanicum: Taghmata. Also put a blurb on the top of the page explaining that it's the old army, just like the 5th edition/6th edition tactics pages. -- Triacom (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. --Abokasee (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• I also agree. --Vasari Vorastra Kultorask (talk) 8:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Why splitting the page is actually detrimental

Argument has been made for the separation of the Mechanicum lists, but they're not that dissimilar amongst themselves. The book even says they are akin to rites of war, yet we didn't split the tactics page into a page for each Legion, and we did write paragraph after paragraph of combos so specific for one legion that were almost nonsensical to use for another. Legio Cybernetica is pretty much Taghmata with a specialized Magos (who is pretty much a Consul), with compulsory-but-upgraded MCs that get better Cortexes in exchange for their scoring ability.
Hell, I pretty much just summarized the entire Cybernetica in one sentence, and they have more pronounced meta changes than Reductor. Does this change the way Cybernetica players game compared to Reductor players? Of course it does, the same way Iron Hands play different than Raven Guard, yet they share the same page. In fact, the choice of High Technoarcana matters more that the choice of going Reductor instead of remaining Taghmata. Meanwhile, Thallax (among many others) are used the same way by all branches. Ok, but then why not split? Because standarization. Just compare the "Myrmidon Secutors" entry between the Taghmata and the Cybernetica. It expands what was supposed to have been read in the other section. Thus, before splitting the pages we would need to standarize entries first and then go separate ways. But by the time standarization is achieved, we won't have need for splitting, and that's why I'm against it. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding, I think the page should be split from the former list into the updated list with the updated name, not splitting the Reductor, Cybernetica and Taghmata into their own pages. -- Triacom (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oooooh I see, srry. But I think I'm still misunderstanding, tho. By "former list" you mean the now outdated rules found in the previous 5 books? I thought the Mechanicum Red book was a compilation/actualization of the rules, not a new version of them. I'm asking this to see if I should resume edition of the page or not. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The new list is a complete revision of the old rules, not a compilation of them though I can see why you'd think that given how the Isstvan books turned out. I think the old page should be left as is, just like the old versions (5th edition, 6th edition) of previous books since the new Mechanicum list does change it by quite a bit, though feel completely free to make a new page and add a link from the old page to the new one explaining that it's the current/legal rules now. -- Triacom (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So, we'll revert changes to this page until the September 17th version, move it to "Warhammer 40,000/6th_Edition_Tactics/Mechanicum_(30k)" and create the updated page at "http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/7th_Edition_Tactics/Mechanicum_(30k)", is that right? -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sooooo, do I go to the 6th edition page, eliminate the redirect thingy and paste the old rules there or what? I NEED AN ADULT -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Phase Walker location

Not in Taghmata book. Neither is contagium mechana. Or cortica primus. Any ideas where?--Vasari Vorastra Kultorask (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• HH4 Conquest p.223 onwards "Relics of the Dark Age of Technology". -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Karacnos Assault Tank

It kind of needs an article as well, it's been out for well over two years. --Sperg (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you mean it needs a unit entry, or if it needs its own article. If it's a unit entry, then it does have one in the Taghmata tactica, which is the most recent tactica for the Age of Darkness game (this tactica we're talking on are for a previous edition where I'm pretty sure the tank didn't exist). If you mean it needs an actual page, feel free to make one, it probably doesn't have one yet because I've never seen anyone field it or talk about it specifically. -- Triacom (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Outdated Information

This page has since been replaced by the current 30k Mechanicum page.--Enurta (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

No shit, it says that at the top of the page. We don't delete old tactics pages though. -- Triacom (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Then this should be removed from the current 30K category and placed somewhere else. You don't have 5th, 6th, 7th on the 8th edition category. Only stuff that should under the 30k category is stuff that is current to HH 1st edition. --Enurta (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Except we do have older tactics articles linked in our current template. Have you not looked at the 40k tactics template? -- Triacom (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)