Subscribe Us

header ads

Cult Mechanicus- Detachment Leaks



The Cult Mechanicus codex is not on the release schedule for pre-orders this week, so exactly how these new units we have been seeing will be fielded is still up in the air. It can only be assumed that the codex will come with next week's pre-orders, as we are getting some early insight to the Cult Mechanicus Detachments.


Please remember that these are rumors. This bit mentions the Canticles of the Omnissiah, which we had earlier rumors of. You can see what was said by following the link.
http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/cult-mechanicus-canticles-of-omnissah.html

via anonymous sources on Faeit 212
the detachment for cult mechanicus gives you a reroll for warlord traits and to reuse a canticle of omnissiah once per game.

the detachment allows for a lot of the new kataphron units with up to 8 troop choices! thats going to be a crap load of shooting.

it looks something like this
compulsory 1 hq and 2 troops
optional 6 troops, 4 elites, 2 heavy support, and 1 fortification

Post a Comment

81 Comments

  1. It surprises me that the Adeptus Mechanicum doesn't have access to lords of war, they literally built the damm things and have a whole divisions dedicated to them, from pleadged knight houses to the titan legions, but whatever the can still aly themselves with knights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can also take a CAD so any FW knights are in.

      Delete
    2. Or any of the Knight codex formations / detachments?

      Delete
    3. yep... one of the knight formations is a single knight ( max of 3) so just add that to your army.

      Delete
    4. Buy a Warlord Titan. There's your Collegia Titanica codex. Boom!

      Delete
    5. Didn't the Heresy weekend show pictures of an Ordinatus?

      Delete
    6. They may have built the equipment, but they themselves aren't often the pilots and commanders. Plus, there's no money in making something and keeping it for themselves. It's war time, after all. Furthermore, AdMech may be the best at making the equipment, but that doesn't mean they're the best at piloting it.

      Sikorsky makes Blackhawk helicopters, but they don't keep them for themselves, or even fly them. They sell them to the military and let pilots fly them around.

      Delete
    7. That would be a valid argument if Sikorsky had a private military. The Mechanicum essentially do, so why wouldn't they keep some of the good toys for themselves? Even if it is only in defense of the forgeworld.

      Delete
    8. Half of the stuff they make they don't know what it fully does anyway.

      Delete
  2. I wish the Skitatii codex and this one would have been fused into one proper AdMech codex, but as usual GW knows why release 1 codex for a new army with you can split it into 2 or 3 for double or triple the revenue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's cause of the chapterhouse ruling. They can't release the stats till they have a model. Otherwise others can take their IP off them.

      So any new forces will be initially released as half-dexes.
      Next edition they'll roll them into a single book when there'll be less new units.

      Delete
    2. Thats bolocks! Lol theyve clearly had both codices ready at the same time. There just going at it in a smart way, split one product into two.

      Delete
    3. Almost, the Skitarii codex is £10 less than the normal £30 codex...personally I prefer having two forces as you get twice the traits, detachments & formations...and lore, if that matters (it does). :]

      Delete
    4. Batty, Mauler, please stop posting, it's obvious that you two work for GW.

      Delete
    5. Exactly. And with allies, its very easy to make them one, and basically doubles the formation/detachment shenanigans you can throw together. I feel like people are still treating the game as if it is 5th edition.

      Delete
    6. I wish I worked for GW, with a staff discount it'd be awesome but I don't think they'd pay me enough to be a store manager and I live too far from Nottingham to do anything else :P

      Sorry for not conforming though. It's a character trait.

      Delete
    7. Skitarii were designed with the same ethos as Tempestus Scions.
      They can go out on their own to complete critical objectives where a larger force would make it impossible and provide an elite infantry formation for the rest of the main force on a 'standard' battlefield.

      Makes sense to me that they should get their own book in that case.

      Delete
    8. Uh oh, another GW employee!

      Careful Matt...lol

      Delete
    9. It's got nothing to do with protecting IP. It's a clear shift in how they are releasing models.
      Smaller codexes, multiple factions. They are promoting the use of allies.
      Under the old model, you'd never be able to do a small release like Harlequins. I think we'll be seeing more of that kind of thing. Large factions with multiple smaller armies designed to work together.

      Delete
    10. Although Eldar Craftworlds was actually a bigger book than the last one. The Marine codex is the fattest one already, I wonder how chunky the next one will be? :'(

      Delete
    11. I think there are a couple of decent benefits with smaller codexes. Splitting up the releases gives me more time to earn the money I need to buy all the awesome stuff!

      Secondly, it makes it easier to manage all the new special rules. Half the Mechanicus book would be special rules if they we're put together. In a new edition, they will probably get places (or equivalents) in the rulebook.
      Thirdly, it gives GW more reasons to release small and flexible armies are parts of the 40k (and other) universes. Bring on the Arbites!!!

      Delete
    12. He was fairly open about why they are releasing things in waves. It's because it's easier for people to purchase new items when they have small releases. And separate formations don't matter in a game designed with unlimited detachments.
      It's definitely about making more money but not because they think they will sell two books for 1/3 more money.

      Delete
    13. how about that a rules supplement (codex) filled with special rules....how about that....i mean we only need them for fluff right, we surely don't need them for the special rules to play with our models....i think my sarcasm speaks volumes how idiotic you have to be if you buy purely for fluff and ignore the fact most dexs could have more rules and less fluff bloat. count the rules per fluff ratio and you'll discover i am not wrong .

      Delete
    14. I said this on another site: If they released new AdMech stuff every month like a magazine I'd subscribe. Give me 12 Codexes worth of AdMech. I don't care.

      Delete
    15. I too have recently found out I'm a GW employee, as I have no problem with the current mini-dex releases. Do I get my check in the mail or is it transferred directly into my account?

      Delete
    16. Just look at video games that have content held back on release, only to sell it as 'dlc' a month later.
      People just lap that shit up, and it brings in the big bucks.

      If some extra fluff and 'maybe' a couple of extra detachments because they split it in two is worth another £30 to you, then its all good i suppose.
      If not there is always the consolidated version- that invalidates everything. No doubt released in 18 months.
      £££

      Delete
    17. Haha, Mauler, staff... Lolz....

      He just loves his hobby, acts as a wonderful counterpoint to my natural cynicism and bitterness.

      Delete
    18. I think we get paid in GW online shop discount voucher codes...

      Delete
    19. Why is it that if you say something good about GW you are some sort of paid shill? I actually do and have worked for GW and have said good and bad things about the company. if you hate them so much that anybody who likes them becomes some sort of enemy to you in your mind you really need to seek help.

      Delete
    20. I said this on another site: If they released new AdMech stuff every month like a magazine I'd subscribe. Give me 12 Codexes worth of AdMech. I don't care.

      Delete
    21. It's because people accusing others of being GW shills are just privateer press shills! ;)

      Delete
    22. I prefer small sub codexes because it means more background and more hobby coverage. Also, the collecting perks mentioned above.

      What I do not like is having to switch between codexes during a game. Thankfully, iBooks is coming to the iPhone in the next iOS update so I can have one book open on the phone and another on an iPad or Mac.

      What I wish they would do is offer the army lists for free online and in-store, then make Codex books strictly background and hobby resources. That would allow GW to update any army at will, akin to how Blizzard rebalances Starcraft on a regular basis, mainly for competitive play.

      Delete
    23. The Chapterhouse issue was with illustrations, not unit stats.

      Delete
    24. Starchild: on iBooks for Mac you can have multiple books open at once, it is clutch. I'll be sad when CSM and Daemons get updated, as that will be the end of the perfection that is iBook Codexes for me.

      Delete
    25. ^ Should have been more clear... interactive iBooks are coming to the iPhone.

      Delete
    26. How so? What is different about the Chaos Space Marine and Chaos Daemons iBooks? I ask because I own neither of them.

      Delete
    27. This is a great format. Large, main factions, and smaller sub-factions. By splitting them up, it doesn't really profit them more as the whiners are suggesting. For one, it costs them more time, resources, money, and shelf space to make two books, for what likely amounts to tiny profits (if any), because not everyone who bought book one will get book two.

      What it does give us is more flavorful and specialized forces instead of generic cut-and-paste Marines over and over. It also balances the Allies system. You have to "unlock" pieces of each faction with detachments and formations that, while they include powerful benefits, also have a tax. This means going all-in with one codex, or piecing together several is an equally appealing options. Along with the largely Tactical Objectives based rules and tournaments, it encourages unit variety, and even fluff-driven themes.

      Not to mention extra books mean more relics, wargear, Warlord Traits, Tactical Objectives, etc. More options for everyone = good.

      What's more, the rules for each (since Necrons) have been written clearer than anything GW has ever produced.

      Delete
    28. This is a great format. Large, main factions, and smaller sub-factions. By splitting them up, it doesn't really profit them more as the whiners are suggesting. For one, it costs them more time, resources, money, and shelf space to make two books, for what likely amounts to tiny profits (if any), because not everyone who bought book one will get book two.

      What it does give us is more flavorful and specialized forces instead of generic cut-and-paste Marines over and over. It also balances the Allies system. You have to "unlock" pieces of each faction with detachments and formations that, while they include powerful benefits, also have a tax. This means going all-in with one codex, or piecing together several is an equally appealing options. Along with the largely Tactical Objectives based rules and tournaments, it encourages unit variety, and even fluff-driven themes.

      Not to mention extra books mean more relics, wargear, Warlord Traits, Tactical Objectives, etc. More options for everyone = good.

      What's more, the rules for each (since Necrons) have been written clearer than anything GW has ever produced.

      Delete
    29. Lol @ people blaming Chapterhouse for AdMech being split into two codexes/releases. I cant imagine what its like to be this naive/dense.

      Delete
    30. How dare you all enjoy the hobby you spend so much time with! You give the term 'fanboy' a bad name. More negativity is what this hobby needs.

      Delete
    31. @McDoogle: Agreed, especially the point about Space Marines. They have been done to death and I'm frankly ill from all the half painted, glue string Tactical Squads, Rhinos, and Land Raiders I've seen over the past 20 years. I hope the sales of Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus are well enough for GW to continue investing time and resources into the new model range.

      Delete
    32. I have to admit I collect am pulled to a army mainly because of fluff. Thats why I like the Vlka Fenryka. With 2 or more books you can fill in alot of back round fluff. Thats why I love the Champions of Fenris codex. Brilliant stories and rules.

      Delete
  3. Unless Canticles end up being absolutely amazing (and the rumors so far don't suggest such) I don't see much use for this one over either a CAD or the rumored formations.
    A CAD offers already plenty of Troops as well as more HS and HQ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well it was suggested that one of them gives re-rolls to shooting, which is brilliant for the destruction maniple. min squad of destroyers with grav will be awesome with re-rolls. and having the benefit for two turns is great

      Delete
  4. I was thinking about using cult mech and skitarii with a macro cannon strongpoint manned by a vindicare. I could use skitarii to scout into or out of the building as bubblewrap against drop melta, and use the vindicare to grant ignores cover on the already prodigious macro cannon with a void shield. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds sketchy. What's the wording of the Vindy's rule?

      Delete
    2. Only rolls to hit ignore cover with the vindy. Macro cannon doesn't roll to hit ergo no ignoring cover.

      Delete
    3. I dont think you can transfer ignores cover to fortifications.

      Delete
    4. This is similar to using a Skitarii warlord's Preferred Enemy to reroll 1's when firing an emplaced weapon. I'm just not sure it should be allowed.

      Delete
    5. Why not? He's firing the weapon.

      Delete
  5. Question: contrary to the Skitarii, those guys do have an HQ, so do you think someone could still use the normal CAD for an ally detachment and only bring 1 HQ + 1 Troop ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could field a Skitarii maniple and an Allied Detachment of Cult for 1 HQ and 1 Troop choice but your Warlord would have to be Skitarii.

      Delete
    2. Might be better to take Cult Mechanicus as your CAD with the Skitarii Maniple as the additional detatchment.

      Delete
    3. The thing is I don't think an Ally CAD (1 hq, 1 troop) could ally with a Skitarii maniple detachment as i think an ally CAD can only attach to a normal CAD (1 hq, 2 troops) correct me if im wrong

      Delete
    4. The reason i ask is because i'm working on the most awesomely fluffy army with a Vostroyan primary detachement with a Skitarii maniple, an Imperial Knight, an Ordo Machinum Inquisitorial detachement and I only have place for the Cult Machanicus HQ and one Troop (by far my 2 favorite units from the book)

      Delete
    5. I was thinking of allying Vostroyans with A:.M:. too. It would look magnificent. Might be best to take the Cult Mechanicus Maniple (or whatever it will be called) instead of the Allied CAD. If I understand correctly there are no restrictions on multiple detatchments other than the minimum required units.

      Delete
    6. Frederik, Allied detachment can be allied to anything. it does not require you to have a CAD. they are two completely independent detachment which just have a similar benefit.

      Hope it helps. I am thinking of having a skitarii maniple, cult allied detachment and the destruction maniple formation myself.

      Delete
    7. Yup, for a Battle-forged army you just need everything to be in Detachments and any Detachment can be taken with any other Detachments.

      Delete
  6. Adeptus mechanicus codex should have encompassed skitters. Oh well.. Wait till Xmas for a combined codex pdf.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Am I the only one who doesnt believe that there will be a combined admech codex. I mean they may be all codex ad mech but theres eldar craftworld and harlequins and they wont be in a combined super wldar dex with the dark kin. Nor will they combine all the space marine dexes into 1 even though they are all going to be codex adeptus astartes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm also thinking the same way

      Delete
    2. yeah your not alone in thinking that. why make one combined dex when you can make more money supporting minimally both factions-within-factions....makes more GW sense to not make a combined dex....but the people wishlisting can dream on if they so desire.

      Delete
    3. Put it this way: after releasing craftworlds and harlequins, would they really release a combined eldar codex? Bearing in mind both are battle brothers anyway?

      Delete
    4. No combined codex for Adeptus Mechanicus. This means they can add the Auxilia Myrmidon codex later.

      Delete
  8. I don't get why people complain that it's 2 smaller Codexes?

    Think of it this way. If it where a combined codex you wouldn't be able to take your basic force as 2 units of Skitarii, and I guarantee you that Kataphrons would NOT be Troops in a combined dex and would move to elites or HS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it's physically impossible to do that in a combined codex.

      Delete
    2. Personally, I have no issue with the split codicies, and honestly hope they'll be doing more. (Ordinatus? Reductor? Myrmidon? Cybernetica? Yes please.)

      Honestly, the cost of the codex is negligible to the price of the models anyway, and the production quality is fantastic. (Seriously, do you remember the 3rd ed codicies? They were pretty crappy, production wise...)

      That said, I've heard that they will be combined into a single codex sometime in the future. (Speculation was sometime after 2016, once all Ad Mech faction elements had been released.) However, this would combine all the faction specific rules under one umbrella. It was compared to Scions on their own with their orders flexibility, and Scions as a part of an Astra Militarium army.

      Delete
    3. That is only an assumption. The codexes will more likely remain separate. There is no need to combine them under the 7th edition detatchment and formation rules.

      Delete
    4. Exactly, and to be honest I very much welcome the idea of them doing books for Cybernetica, Myrmidons and Ordo Reductor. Although seeing as we have Robots and a Cybernetica Data Smith in this codex, I doubt there will be anything more outside of Forgeworld in regards to Cybernetica.

      The other two would also be covered if they do an IA Mechanicus book.

      Delete
    5. well they can have a codex mechanicum auxiliaries where they include some units from cybernetica, myrmidons and ordo reductor.

      And then FW Imperial Armour just expands on them.

      To be fair Myrmidons could have more than 2 units that FW has and with cybernetica there are so many things they can still do. Same goes for ordo reductor...

      They could even expand into even smaller subfactions in such a codex. Plus I really want a new enginseer and normal servitor models. And M.O.L.E, ! Give me a burrowing transport :D

      Delete
    6. I got sick of the old gorilla handed servitors, so I started making my own from Empire Flagellants and leftover bitz. I can't wait to cannibalize some bitz from the Kataphron sprues so I can finally finish them. So yeah, hopefully ordinary servitors and Tech Priest Enginseers will be part of the new codex.

      Delete
    7. ^ fun fact: servitors can be made using ANY human model in 40k. from space marines to ogryns.

      Delete
    8. BUT.....but flaggies do make good ones. i got a few plasma gun armed flaggies, some combat flaggies and some armored flaggies.

      Delete
    9. I will have to try flagellants... I used catachans to build mine with some half helmeted CSM heads and other gas mask or augmented heads, with a ton of wires and random metal bits :)

      But I just want to add to that with the redone actual plastic models not fine cast or metal techpriest..

      Delete