Kataphron Breachers/Destroyers

[Terminus]

yeah breachers are quite the disappointment i';d ahve to say. destroyers all day, and i'd say both types are better than a breaches for most things.

 

Destroyers i will say are as squishy if not more so than a unit of vanguards, but the ability to move and shoot the grav can be quite great for getting in range for thier grave or shooting a unit trying to hide.

 

Also vel'cona they always shoot 6 shots to my understand as per their special rules.

 

Edit: oh and for cult's best melee unit. Kastelans with phos blaster hands down. Ap 2 attacks, they more or less have fleet due to luminegin, they have move through cover so basicly have assault nades and ignore movement reduction from terrain, and in cohort they get even sillier.

Pretty sure move through cover doesn't let you ignore the initiative debuff from assaulting a fortified position. Not that it matters, with the attacks being I1 or I2 to begin with. Just saying.

[mmimzie]

 

yeah breachers are quite the disappointment i';d ahve to say. destroyers all day, and i'd say both types are better than a breaches for most things.

 

Destroyers i will say are as squishy if not more so than a unit of vanguards, but the ability to move and shoot the grav can be quite great for getting in range for thier grave or shooting a unit trying to hide.

 

Also vel'cona they always shoot 6 shots to my understand as per their special rules.

 

Edit: oh and for cult's best melee unit. Kastelans with phos blaster hands down. Ap 2 attacks, they more or less have fleet due to luminegin, they have move through cover so basicly have assault nades and ignore movement reduction from terrain, and in cohort they get even sillier.

Pretty sure move through cover doesn't let you ignore the initiative debuff from assaulting a fortified position. Not that it matters, with the attacks being I1 or I2 to begin with. Just saying.

 

this is quite true, but i contest i said basicly. i will kind behind my forsight in wording!!!! ~~<3

[Mushkilla]

Yeah the re-rolling to charge is nice combined with move through cover. Of course you still need to make sure you don't kill too many models that you increase your charge distance.

[Vel'Cona]

Well caught, gents. I hate the way Salvo works in 7th; I find it very confusing and an unnecessary complication on the reasonably self-explanatory Rapid Fire rules. That said, I did read it wrong in respect to "Firing as if Stationary" (why couldn't Kataphrons just have Relentless? Such a meaningless distinction), which explains why everyone seems to go frothing mad for Grav Centurions and Grav Bikers in SM armies. Surprisingly, I don't often get spammed on by Salvo weapons so I haven't had many opportunities to learn this rule!

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, in either case! I suppose this means that Destroyers are yet even better than Breachers, which sadly relegates the armored Servitors to a "do not use" category with our poor Electro-Priests. Frankly, compared to Skitarii GW missed the bus a bit on CultMech; for everything good there seems to be something crap in this codex!

[DeStinyFiSh]

Well, I think a few players have been quite successful with the Priests, don't look at them all alone but with all the rules and within a complete army... but that is not on topic here

Regarding the Breachers I still love them. The models look so good and the Torsion Canon sounds like a lot of fun. My advantage for only playing fun games, no need to worry about the best setup

Destroyers are clearly better when it comes to damage output, but Breachers are cheaper and have better saves. I would not count them as "do not use".

Apart from that, I think they will be seen in the Holy Requisitioner Formation quite often. This seems like the only chance besides allies to grab opponents objectives early in the game. And shocking down, pinpoint accurate and being able not only to get VPs for objectives, but also for reliably killing 2-3 vehicles is absolutely amazing!

[caladancid]

Breachers are great against vehicles. The torsion cannons might be pretty decent against MCs, but I haven't done any testing.  The arc weapons thought....those are awesome. Destroyers don't come close to that damage output on vehicles., especially at the increased range from plasma culverins.

[mmimzie]

Breachers are great against vehicles. The torsion cannons might be pretty decent against MCs, but I haven't done any testing.  The arc weapons thought....those are awesome. Destroyers don't come close to that damage output on vehicles., especially at the increased range from plasma culverins.

no i think you missed vel's post.

 

In short two destroyers on average do 1 hp of damage and immobilizes. The third destroyer has a 50% chance to do another 2 Hp due to doing 1 more HP and another imbolize (which stacks are two HPs). Against flyers with cognis it can mess them up kinda bad as well.

 

The breachers do 2.5 Hps on average. So if you look at both them they both do about the same damage to a vehicle. Thus, the destroyers are better by vertue of just doing about the same damage as Breachers and doing more damage to everything else.

 

Sure breachers have a better save, but not really worth it if it doesn't do anything with it.

[Terminus]

I think the only real argument for Breachers is the pinpoint deep strike delivery and Zealot from Holy Requisitioner. If you are planning on podding arc rifle Radiphracts, Breachers are cheaper/have lower buy-in. You lose a point of BS and only have one canticle that can help ranged accuracy, but average dice still kill 3HP vehicles.

[Vel'Cona]

Hmm, cheaper than Arc Rifle Vanguard? Let's take a look:

Holy Requisitioner:

1 Tech-Priest Dominus: 105

2 Kataphron Breacher units: 300

Total: 405

Drop Pod Vanguard (assuming Flesh Tearers Strike Force for DPs and a basic Skitarii Maniple)

1 Librarian: 65

1 Scout Squad: 55

2 Drop Pods: 70

2 Max Vanguard w/ 3 Arc Rifles: 290

Total: 480

I guess I confirmed your point! I was hoping the new C:SM might give us a cheaper buy-in than the FTSF, but even playing CAD with the cheapest HQ option (Tellion) you're still looking at 520 point buy-in for podding Vanguard.

[mmimzie]

Vel'cona and terminus you make a good point

... Except.....

 

Drop pods can come in turn 1 x.x... Also the vanguard groups could be minimal units. Sure its only 4 shots but 4 very accurate shots... Heck those 4 shots would actually do more to a vehicles (average 2.775 HPs) thanks 3 breathers would (average 2.5 hp)

 

The only benefit to breathers I see, and I don't think it's too bad. Is they are tough enough to withstand some shooting and units of 4 will be more than 50% likely to destroy a vehicle a round. This means you don't have to waste say two vanguard unit's shooting at one vehicle (about 290 points) when you could just spend 1 breached unit (200 points). If just more efficient, but only at max range.

[Terminus]

Hmm, cheaper than Arc Rifle Vanguard? Let's take a look:

Holy Requisitioner:

1 Tech-Priest Dominus: 105

2 Kataphron Breacher units: 300

Total: 405

Drop Pod Vanguard (assuming Flesh Tearers Strike Force for DPs and a basic Skitarii Maniple)

1 Librarian: 65

1 Scout Squad: 55

2 Drop Pods: 70

2 Max Vanguard w/ 3 Arc Rifles: 290

Total: 480

I guess I confirmed your point! I was hoping the new C:SM might give us a cheaper buy-in than the FTSF, but even playing CAD with the cheapest HQ option (Tellion) you're still looking at 520 point buy-in for podding Vanguard.

Well, you have to have another pod to drop both units at the same time, but I see where you are going with this, the difference is not huge. Honestly, you can't get much cheaper buy-in than Flesh Tearers. The HQ is not really a tax, since Skitarii don't really have an HQ option unless you count the Dominus from their sister codex, and a level 2 Librarian can answer a lot of questions. The only real tax is the troop unit. Blood Angels scouts are painful now given the C:SM ones, but BA tacticals remain the only ones that can take a heavy flamer (something also lacking in Skitarii). A combat squad with a heavy flamer and combi-flamer in that third drop pod may not be a terrible support option.

Vel'cona and terminus you make a good point

... Except.....

Drop pods can come in turn 1 x.x... Also the vanguard groups could be minimal units. Sure its only 4 shots but 4 very accurate shots... Heck those 4 shots would actually do more to a vehicles (average 2.775 HPs) thanks 3 breathers would (average 2.5 hp)

The only benefit to breathers I see, and I don't think it's too bad. Is they are tough enough to withstand some shooting and units of 4 will be more than 50% likely to destroy a vehicle a round. This means you don't have to waste say two vanguard unit's shooting at one vehicle (about 290 points) when you could just spend 1 breached unit (200 points). If just more efficient, but only at max range.

You need a pistol in the calculation to get the ~2.7 value, but I see your point. *sigh* I wish they could at least get Cognis flamers, it actually makes sense for them to have it. They really had no idea what to do with these guys.

[Vel'Cona]

Still not as bad as the Electro-Priests, IMO. While the Kataphrons are a bit confused (with the albeit strong Destroyers), they clearly had no idea how to poise the EPs in this codex. I really think if they'd sold the EPs as a 10 man box with some sort of deployment or movement shenanigans (DS, Infiltrate, Scout, Dunestrider, ANYTHING) and kept them the Troops choice, the Kataphrons would have worked perfectly as an Elites choice (Breachers) and Heavy Support choice (Destroyers). That said, after the excellence of the Skitarii codex I think they were hard-pressed to get a similarly strong product.

[Nehekhare]

has anyone found a good solution to make the weapon options customizable yet?

 

it seems to me GW designers actively tried to avert multifunctionality with the kataphrons...

 

1 ) the breacher CC arms are easy to magnetize, but the destroyer flamer/phosphor arms do not connect to the shoulder, but require an additional shoulder bit, which is not only too tiny for putting a magnet in (I did anyway), but is also only supplied once per kit, so it's still either/or.

 

2 ) the problem I'm facing right now is the main weapon arms. The tubes connecting them to the backpack come in 2 varieties  - the destroyer version is almost a half-circle and holds the weapon in place, but where they connect to the weapon mount they just don't fit inside the breacher weapon! 

a ) you could use only the breacher tubes, but then the destroyer weapon will come loose

b ) you could use only the destroyer tubes, but major drillwork will be needed to make the breacher weapons compatible

c ) you could cut the destroyer tube weapon connection and glue the outer parts to the weapon, the inner to the mount (doesn't quite work because the tubes intertwine)

d ) you could glue the tubes to the weapon (needs some greenstuff with the breachers), leaving then unconnected to the backpack (too small to magnetize, but would propably still stay in place)

 

opinions/help?

[Vel'Cona]

I gave up and just built mine as Heavy Grav Destroyers.

I did magnetize half of the blaster/flamer arms, though, just in case I wanted some extra CC protection. That said, I'm sure you could just dry-fit the main weapon arms with a bit of blu-tac and it would work ok. Not the prettiest solution but it'll work for general play.

[MaulerUK]

has anyone found a good solution to make the weapon options customizable yet?

 

it seems to me GW designers actively tried to avert multifunctionality with the kataphrons...

 

1 ) the breacher CC arms are easy to magnetize, but the destroyer flamer/phosphor arms do not connect to the shoulder, but require an additional shoulder bit, which is not only too tiny for putting a magnet in (I did anyway), but is also only supplied once per kit, so it's still either/or.

 

2 ) the problem I'm facing right now is the main weapon arms. The tubes connecting them to the backpack come in 2 varieties  - the destroyer version is almost a half-circle and holds the weapon in place, but where they connect to the weapon mount they just don't fit inside the breacher weapon! 

a ) you could use only the breacher tubes, but then the destroyer weapon will come loose

b ) you could use only the destroyer tubes, but major drillwork will be needed to make the breacher weapons compatible

c ) you could cut the destroyer tube weapon connection and glue the outer parts to the weapon, the inner to the mount (doesn't quite work because the tubes intertwine)

d ) you could glue the tubes to the weapon (needs some greenstuff with the breachers), leaving then unconnected to the backpack (too small to magnetize, but would propably still stay in place)

 

opinions/help?

 

With my two units I built one as Breachers and one as Destroyers but magnetised the left/secondary weapon arms without using the little shoulder knobble.  Sure, they now sit parallel to the torso and lose a tiny bit of dynamism but it was the easiest way with the least faffing.

 

With the reactor cables I glued them all in place as normal; three for one unit, the other three for the other.  Iif I remember right both types fix to similar places which don't interfere with the main weapon arm mount?

 

EDIT - Was up from 2-3am getting my daughter back to sleep so I'm a bit rubbish today...will check the models when I get home.  But yes, I think one type has slightly loose main weapon mounts which I may sort with magnets down the torso mount and on the weapon mount after chopping a bit off.

[ScottishDunc]

Did we ever figure out the better set up for the Breachers/Destroyers?

[Vel'Cona]

By setup, do you mean loadout, unit size or formations?

 

For loadout, Destroyers are best with Heavy Grav Cannons (because Graviton weapons are OP) and keep the Phosphor Blasters there.  Cognis Flamers can be helpful to delay charges, but they won't stop a dedicated assault without help.  In terms of how many Destroyers to take, 4-5 is a good unit size without tanking your points too much.  IMO, the formation that pairs them with Kastelans is junk.  It restricts their shooting too much if they want to use the formation buff, and Kastelans gain more from the Cohort than anything else.

 

Breachers, if you must take them, are almost always best in the Requisitioners formation since this puts them almost exactly where you'll want them and gives them a clear objective (literally).  For my money, the Torsion Cannon is cool but ultimately pointless UNLESS you can get the Breachers the full Canticle ranged accuracy buff, which is reasonably challenging unless you're playing pure CultMech (or a War Convocation).  In terms of pure anti-armor power, the Heavy Arc Rifle is actually better for most situations, since it's more likely to do damage, though the Torsion Cannon is reasonably strong vs. MC/GC.  Don't bother giving the Breachers Hydraulic Clamps; 10 ppm is ridiculous and, once again, the Arc Claw will do more damage on average to armored targets.  Since Breachers are cheaper than Destroyers, you may be tempted to take more, but 4-5 per unit is still a reasonable number for most setups.

[ScottishDunc]

By setup, do you mean loadout, unit size or formations?

 

For loadout, Destroyers are best with Heavy Grav Cannons (because Graviton weapons are OP) and keep the Phosphor Blasters there.  Cognis Flamers can be helpful to delay charges, but they won't stop a dedicated assault without help.  In terms of how many Destroyers to take, 4-5 is a good unit size without tanking your points too much.  IMO, the formation that pairs them with Kastelans is junk.  It restricts their shooting too much if they want to use the formation buff, and Kastelans gain more from the Cohort than anything else.

 

Breachers, if you must take them, are almost always best in the Requisitioners formation since this puts them almost exactly where you'll want them and gives them a clear objective (literally).  For my money, the Torsion Cannon is cool but ultimately pointless UNLESS you can get the Breachers the full Canticle ranged accuracy buff, which is reasonably challenging unless you're playing pure CultMech (or a War Convocation).  In terms of pure anti-armor power, the Heavy Arc Rifle is actually better for most situations, since it's more likely to do damage, though the Torsion Cannon is reasonably strong vs. MC/GC.  Don't bother giving the Breachers Hydraulic Clamps; 10 ppm is ridiculous and, once again, the Arc Claw will do more damage on average to armored targets.  Since Breachers are cheaper than Destroyers, you may be tempted to take more, but 4-5 per unit is still a reasonable number for most setups.

 

That is what I was looking for.  I come across WK and other MC/GC fairly regularly so I have been looking for a way to deal with them in my lists.  I had seriously considered the Torsion cannon since the Heavy Grav Cannon doesn't have the re-roll wounds and I've been looking to use them in groups of 3 for both Breachers and Destroyers (possible D/Pod deployment). 

 

I agree with the formation for the Destroyers and I will eventually (probably only occasionally) run the War Convocation but I want flexibility so my opponents won't know exactly what I'm bringing.  Is there something else you'd recommend for dealing with WK and other MC/GCs?

[mmimzie]

By setup, do you mean loadout, unit size or formations?

 

For loadout, Destroyers are best with Heavy Grav Cannons (because Graviton weapons are OP) and keep the Phosphor Blasters there. Cognis Flamers can be helpful to delay charges, but they won't stop a dedicated assault without help. In terms of how many Destroyers to take, 4-5 is a good unit size without tanking your points too much. IMO, the formation that pairs them with Kastelans is junk. It restricts their shooting too much if they want to use the formation buff, and Kastelans gain more from the Cohort than anything else.

 

Breachers, if you must take them, are almost always best in the Requisitioners formation since this puts them almost exactly where you'll want them and gives them a clear objective (literally). For my money, the Torsion Cannon is cool but ultimately pointless UNLESS you can get the Breachers the full Canticle ranged accuracy buff, which is reasonably challenging unless you're playing pure CultMech (or a War Convocation). In terms of pure anti-armor power, the Heavy Arc Rifle is actually better for most situations, since it's more likely to do damage, though the Torsion Cannon is reasonably strong vs. MC/GC. Don't bother giving the Breachers Hydraulic Clamps; 10 ppm is ridiculous and, once again, the Arc Claw will do more damage on average to armored targets. Since Breachers are cheaper than Destroyers, you may be tempted to take more, but 4-5 per unit is still a reasonable number for most setups.

I actually disagree a bit with your thoughts on elimination maniple. I think the formation is a great way to bring a few units of destroyers and kastelans if you want both if these units. It reduces you tax of takinga domi. While the domi is pretty great I feel he's not all that strong in a destroyer unit. His range with the eradication ray would be short compared to the grave and the relics arnt particularly amazing for the unit. The only good one would be cognis for anti air. So the formation saves you 105 points if you want destroyers and kastelans. The bonus is really just kind of a nice extra, and not the major selling point.

 

I feel similarly for cohort cybernetics.

[Brother Amarel]

I think the Torsion Cannon is a little under-rated, given the amount of Haywire we have access to from other sources. Personally I'm finding, with both the Destroyers and Breachers, that this is one of the units were I actually like to mix weapons up a little (however, it is worth bearing in mind, that due to the points limitations that come with using the War Convocation I'm just using a unit of 3 of each).

[Vel'Cona]

Hmm, I guess mmimzie has a point.  I really like the Dominus, but I suppose I can understand why some would rather save the points.  That said, I like the CultMech detachment because it gives us the reusable Canticle, which you won't get from just taking the formation.  It's true that the Dominus isn't amazing with Kataphrons from an offensive standpoint, but he makes a solid tank for them with his Wounds and saves, especially when you consider that he's healing a Wound 5/6 turns per game.  If he pulls the EW Warlord Trait (which is reasonably likely thanks to the Detachment re-roll), this is even more true!

[Marshal Ommadon]

I have tried Torsion twice now and quite frankly it sucks.  So far the D3 wounds helped me to kill an Assault Bike...Yeay!  Heavy Arc Rifle all the way now.  Thank god I magnetized!

[Vel'Cona]

Did you pop the ranged To Hit Canticle when using the Torsion Cannon?  At what level did it qualify (if you used it)?

[Marshal Ommadon]

I play versus some very tournament savvy players, which pretty much forces me (I probably would anyway) to run the Shroudpsalm Canticle twice back-to-back (turn 1 and 2).  This effective limits the Torsion Breachers effectiveness during the first two turns as the 1 shot at BS3 (and my dice) suck.  Should they survive and they pretty much always do since my enemies know to try to take out my Grav-Destroyers first; I'd typically then use the To Hit (Shooting) Canticle.

 

This last game (another loss) my problem was I spread myself out too much.  During this game my enemy got a devastating turn one Alpha Strike off against me and was able to load up the board opposite the Breachers.  This pretty much neutered their effectiveness as it took some time to maneuver them all while trying to stay out all his Devastator's range.

 

Oh and please watch out for massed Heavy Flamers in Drop Pods (ie Ironclads or Sternguards).  My opponent last game was playing pure Salamanders and he completely owned my Grav-Destroyers in Ruins with Shroudpsalm active (what would have been a nice 2+ Cover Save).  I think I should have stuck with my original plan and have the Tech-Priest attached to this squad to tank those kinds of Wounds.

[mmimzie]

I play versus some very tournament savvy players, which pretty much forces me (I probably would anyway) to run the Shroudpsalm Canticle twice back-to-back (turn 1 and 2). This effective limits the Torsion Breachers effectiveness during the first two turns as the 1 shot at BS3 (and my dice) suck. Should they survive and they pretty much always do since my enemies know to try to take out my Grav-Destroyers first; I'd typically then use the To Hit (Shooting) Canticle.

 

This last game (another loss) my problem was I spread myself out too much. During this game my enemy got a devastating turn one Alpha Strike off against me and was able to load up the board opposite the Breachers. This pretty much neutered their effectiveness as it took some time to maneuver them all while trying to stay out all his Devastator's range.

 

Oh and please watch out for massed Heavy Flamers in Drop Pods (ie Ironclads or Sternguards). My opponent last game was playing pure Salamanders and he completely owned my Grav-Destroyers in Ruins with Shroudpsalm active (what would have been a nice 2+ Cover Save). I think I should have stuck with my original plan and have the Tech-Priest attached to this squad to tank those kinds of Wounds.

Even with the priest a good player could more than likely drop a pod where the priest wasn't and get atleast 2 put of the three destroyers. Torsion I think is the best of the two if you have that skull relic so the torsion is good against both tanks and mcs

 

That said torsion or arc does nothing a grav destroy can't do... Well maybe arc is a little better against hordes style infantry.....