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.

The Whirlwind sucks because, regardless of its points, the ability of every other option to handle AV12+ models puts it out of the running. But what if the Whirlwind Launcher didn't suck? What if a Whirlwind Launcher put out the missile equivalent of a Battle Cannon shot? Same 12"-48" range, but S8, AP3, Ordnance 1, Barrage, Large Blast. It would need to be re-pointed, but just up to around that of the Vindicator.

yeah, but thats not the purpose of a whirlwind. all they're usefull for is keeping amatuers off coverless objectives because use fire some shots at them or putting them on one side of the table and use the "scare factor" of large blast templates to get your enemy to waste their shots killing them. Beyond that they're useless... i don't see the need for a fix when we have vindicators.

Joetaco:

What you imagine to be the point of a Whirlwind is entirely secondary to the point you agreed on: they're only useful against amateurs; they're not a live option for competitive play. Giving them an indirect fire Battlecannon means that they will have both a general firepower role, and offer Space Marine players the unique option of a barrage weapon to complement the other Heavy Support choices.

well, giving them an indirect battlecannon just sounds like it'll make the vindicator a significantly less valuable choice. idk, overall it sounds like you really like the idea of mobile gun battery and wish to see it in game as you imagine it.

Or, I want to have a reason to take the Whirlwind models I own to a game without handicapping myself. The Vindicator remain on pair because it is significantly more useful if its Demolisher Cannon is destroyed, thanks to FAV13. Likewise the Vindicator is better at direct fire, having again better frontal armour, and a more powerful gun with no minimum range. The Whirlwind obviously wins at being able to fire indirectly, hitting the side armour of vehicles on S8/4, and staying out of Line of Sight.

why not take the whirlwinds anyways? the term handicapping makes it sound like, "oh man, can't use those, everyone will think i suck." why not use them in friendly games, or if you like them enough, use them regardless of how good they are? idk it seems to me that the games is going in the wrong direction, where everyone needs their lists to be super and win and where winning takes precednce over fun.

either way, i've given my opinion on the idea and what not and thats the end of that.

the whirlwind used to be MUCH better than it is now. back in the 'guess range' days, the whirlwind was king! 75pts (3rd ed) with indirect fire, was killer. its a hold out from old editions that doesn't compete well in the new enviroment(s) but being a "fan Fav" they haven't gotten rid of it.

But that would make it almost exactly like the Defiler. Personally I think CSM and SM codices are already similar enough.

Addicted to Bleach wrote:But that would make it almost exactly like the Defiler. Personally I think CSM and SM codices are already similar enough.

Apart from the fact defilers are walkers...

And have the option for DCCW's...
And can take lascannons/autocannons...
And don't forget the havoc launcher option...
Along with the fact it is bigger...
And the battle cannon isn't a barrage weapon...
Plus the daemonic possesion...

Lets face it, even this upgrade would leave the defiler no where near a whirlwind, although we know you chaos boys would love to get them

Want to make them good? Bring back the mine templets.

jbunny wrote:Want to make them good? Bring back the mine templets.

This
/thread

IDK, even giving it something simple like the ability to track flyers like the IG Hydra does would make it a valuable addition. I don't think that it needs a stateline boost (you'll end up with a Manticore clone) but an update in ability certainly.

In Epic Armageddon there's an AA version, the Whirlwind Hunter, but yeah, that's a pretty good idea for an upgrade to a battle-cannon Whirlwind Missile Launcher.

That's the thing though, making it into a Battle-Cannon Launcher still won't replace the Vindicator for close support.

I was thinking of something like keeping the current stat-line (S:7 Ap:4 I think?) but allowing it to strip away the 4+ Skimmer save and maybe to re-roll scatter dice. This makes it a lot more accurate then other Ordinance as a trade off for being weaker with shorter range. This also allows it to fill a roll that the Vindicator can't making both options viable without killing the other.

I'd make Whirlwinds fieldable in squadrons. That's the best I can think of without making them overpowered. Giving it Battlecannon power (strength 8, AP3) is ridiculous. Don't forget, this is a piece of light artillery, not a bastion-breacher.

I would say the following changes could be made

Make the standard rockets S7 Ap4
Bring back the Castellans Mines
Maybe it can replace it's payload with AA rockets in Apoc, like the Manticore
Maybe add one more type of missile, such as a Corrosive acid one that could be something like
S4 Ap5 Rending

A 2 whirlwind list took 3 at are ard boyz and he was in the running until the dreaded third round knocked him from a possible first. They can be useful and competitive still, if they are used correctly. A whirlwind is not a good tank hunter and never will be.

I agree they must be used properly, and when used as such can be highly effective, i do however like the idea of making them a squadron, though you should only get 0-1 squadron.... nine whirlwinds on the table at once.... while awesome... could be a bit crazy.

Brother SRM wrote:I'd make Whirlwinds fieldable in squadrons. That's the best I can think of without making them overpowered. Giving it Battlecannon power (strength 8, AP3) is ridiculous. Don't forget, this is a piece of light artillery, not a bastion-breacher.

This, drop points to 75 and make them fieldable as squadrons. The ability to deny cover will have everyone taking them.

I think the last few people posting may have noticed why I was proposing turning the Whirlwind Launcher into a Battle Cannon analog (albeit one that has shorter range, and which can fire indirectly): If the Whirlwind cannot address AV12+ vehicles, there is no good reason to take it. All other Heavy Support options can do this, and the counter-proposals to take more of a bad option miss the point that Whirlwinds need to be able to do this in order to be a competitive option.

Nurglitch wrote:I think the last few people posting may have noticed why I was proposing turning the Whirlwind Launcher into a Battle Cannon analog (albeit one that has shorter range, and which can fire indirectly): If the Whirlwind cannot address AV12+ vehicles, there is no good reason to take it. All other Heavy Support options can do this, and the counter-proposals to take more of a bad option miss the point that Whirlwinds need to be able to do this in order to be a competitive option.

i have always thought of it as cheap cheap anti-infantry, never in my wildest would i think tank killer.

A S8 ordnance barrage weapon isn't a tank killer.

Nurglitch wrote:A S8 ordnance barrage weapon isn't a tank killer.

thats a s8 shot that gets to roll 2d6 (taking the highest result) versus the facing armor. its got a better chance than a krak shot a popping tanks.

Nurglitch wrote:I think the last few people posting may have noticed why I was proposing turning the Whirlwind Launcher into a Battle Cannon analog (albeit one that has shorter range, and which can fire indirectly): If the Whirlwind cannot address AV12+ vehicles, there is no good reason to take it. All other Heavy Support options can do this, and the counter-proposals to take more of a bad option miss the point that Whirlwinds need to be able to do this in order to be a competitive option

this says tank killer, vehicle killer or whatever you want to call it....
but like i said I would never use it as.... vehicle destruction.

Nurglitch wrote:A S8 ordnance barrage weapon isn't a tank killer.

Nurglitch wrote:I think the last few people posting may have noticed why I was proposing turning the Whirlwind Launcher into a Battle Cannon analog (albeit one that has shorter range, and which can fire indirectly): If the Whirlwind cannot address AV12+ vehicles, there is no good reason to take it. All other Heavy Support options can do this, and the counter-proposals to take more of a bad option miss the point that Whirlwinds need to be able to do this in order to be a competitive option.

I'm confused, do you want the Whirlwind to be a tank killer or not?

Joetaco:

Yeah, and what do people use to hunt tanks? Melta Weapons, Bunker-Busters, anything that will either give an extra dice of penetration or a damage bonus.

hcordes:

How you personally would use it is somewhat the point when it comes to whether any hypothetical competitive player would include a Whirlwind in an army, because there's no point in taking one if it can't address AV12+ vehicles.

I chose S8 Ordnance Barrage for a reason: when fired directly it would give the Space Marine army a Battlecannon equivalent mounted on a light chassis, and when fired indirectly it would affect the side armour of vehicles. Nothing to rely on, but competitive with Predators, Vindicators, Land Raiders, Devastators, Dreadnoughts, and Thunderfire Cannons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vladsimpaler:

I want the Whirldwind to be able to address enemy vehicles like every other Heavy Support choice in the Space Marine army. Likewise I want it to maintain its current anti-infantry Barrage power.

Nurglitch wrote:I want the Whirldwind to be able to address enemy vehicles like every other Heavy Support choice in the Space Marine army. Likewise I want it to maintain its current anti-infantry Barrage power.

1. if the whirlwind is made to address enemy armor why would people take predators?
2. you want the whirlwind to take on enemy armor and be an infantry blaster? why stop there? give it av 14 all round, D str weapon and fast. your fix is more than a little wonky.

1. Predators can do it better.
2. Isn't worth addressing. Try harder.

Giving it a damage output like a battlecannon is making the Whirlwind a decent option by making it the same as another unit, which isn’t much of an answer, really. I mean, we could make everything equally good by making it all exactly the same, and we’d have a fair but boring game.

There should be a place in the game for low cost, indirect fire weapons, and priced right a Whirlwind sat hidden away somewhere can be a useful addition to a lot of lists. In larger points games you get pressure for those heavy support options and Whirlwinds stop being as useful. But then, that’s how it’s supposed to work. It’s a light support weapon for a smaller force, once you start looking at big armies you start expecting heavier support options.

Nurglitch wrote:hcordes:

How you personally would use it is somewhat the point when it comes to whether any hypothetical competitive player would include a Whirlwind in an army, because there's no point in taking one if it can't address AV12+ vehicles.

I think it is a mistake to consider unit design purely in terms of their ability to work within the current metagame.

sebster:

I'm not considering unit design purely in terms of unit competitiveness in the current meta-game. I'm considering it in terms of the unit's ability to address other units in shooting combat. It is a fact that the Whirlwind is the only Heavy Support choice unable to address AV12+ vehicles. All the other choices have varying anti-infantry and anti-vehicle capabilities.

Consider it like having sets of choices so that choice-set A gives you [4,3,4], choice set B gives you [2,6,2] and choice set C gives you [3,5]. C is simply not a live option.