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.

On my way to getting three mortar/cannon kits, got two already and scouring internet auctions for a third. While I could magnetise its a bit of a problem as the brackets that hold the barrel would have to be magnetised as well as the barrel itself.

So the long and the short is, I am going to glue.

I have two options:
Two cannon, one mortar
or

One cannon, two mortar.


Three of one or the other is not going to happen and I need to focus on other things after that so I asm not looking for a fourth besides I already also have a Helblaster.
So Dakka which should it be and why?

Do you play in a "comp" environment, like under ETC rules? If so, go 1 cannon and 2 mortars. If you play unrestricted, I'd go with 2 cannons instead. My reasoning is that cannons are better against monsters, and mortars better against troop blocks. You see less monsters in ETC and many other comped environments.

Another possible concern is Bright Wizards. If you enjoy the Lore of Fire, Flaming Sword of Rhun will make cannons auto-wound, a very attractive option. That might make taking 2 cannons a better choice.

Cannon wound on a 2+ I don't see why autowound really makes that much difference.

I was thinking that two cannon do heavy duty work, while one mortar and the Helblaster kill hordes.

I don't know if I am getting the balance right that way.

Need more opinions I think, 4 artillery pieces in an Empire army sounds common enough, so there should be plenty of people with their own ideas for ratios.

For a long time I've been running two mortars, no cannons, and a level 4 of light.(d6 s6 flaming being pretty useful against most of the same stuff as cannons). However, I just went to a tournament and got ruined in two games specifically because I didn't have a cannon, so I'm starting to run one. However, in the metagame where I live, there's a lot of t3 infantry hordes and very few cannon baits that I can't deal with some other way. It's worth looking at what you'll be facing... if there are a lot of things with ward saves (Bloodthirster, abom, hydra, stegadon shield bubble) take two cannons for safety. If you're facing lots of elves, skaven, empire, OnG, etc, lean more mortar-heavy to thin the blocks out before they wreck your face.

What's the rest of the list going to look like? that makes a difference too.

Thankyou, my question is not list based but long term.

I am looking to get plenty of Handgunners, with one massive Spearman block, all taken from 6th edition WFB boxsets. Its going to be for a number of take all comers lists and tailored lists both.

At a glance my 3k list will be something like:

General
Lord on Griffon
Hero BSB
Hero on pegasus
3x Wizard
Warrior Priest
50 Spearmen
2x24 Handgunners
20 Greatswords (possibly 30)
10 Knights (usually less)
5 Pistoliers
20 Flagellants
Helblaster
3 cannon/mortars

Give or take with some characters swappable. Most games will be 2k army lists will be taken from a portion of the above. Cost and expedience largely determines what I am buying, I am building orcs from the same 6th edition boxset sources plus extras. So I want to limit the extras.

I really like 2:2 but if I had to choose I think mortars are better

Both mortars and cannon are inherently unreliable but potentially spectacular, and therefore benefit from being taken in greater numbers. Ideally, you should take two of each, and really the only reason not to take three of each is that your opponents will complain about you (and probably with good reason, games with that many war machines are pretty boring).

If for some reason you really don't want to take two of each, the decision between 2 mortars or 2 cannons really comes down to what you expect to face, and how well equipped the rest of your force is in taking that thing out. If you look at the rest of your army and see masses of infantry with loads of low strength attacks, then you're probably well equipped to take out enemy hordes, but threatened by big monsters. If on the other hand, you have a fair whack of characters with high strength, multi-wound weapons but relatively few low strength attacks, then you're probably better off with the mortars. Being an Empire army, it's probably more likely that you're a little weak in monster defence outside of your cannons, so that's probably your answer.

Oh, and I wouldn't put too much stock in the hellblaster, not only are they unreliable, their limited range allows opponents to keep decent targets away from them, and even when they work they're shooting is often underwhelming. Prehaps consider a helstrom instead - it operates much like a mortar, but is more capable of cracking dangerous targets. It can work alongside a mortar, which then leaves you with two cannons for anti-monster work.

Impy wrote:Another possible concern is Bright Wizards. If you enjoy the Lore of Fire, Flaming Sword of Rhun will make cannons auto-wound, a very attractive option. That might make taking 2 cannons a better choice.

To the contrary, mortars are improved massively by that +1 to wound. While auto-wound sounds wonderful, it's actually only increasing your odds of wounding by 20% (from 83% to 100%). On the other hand, against the standard T4 opponent, a mortar is increased by 50% (from 33% to 50%) and that can be decisive.

2 cannons, 1 mortar is definitely how I would play it.

2 Mortar and 2 Cannon. The hellblaster is a steaming pile of garbage and will explode so often (panicking other units around it) that you will eventually drop it at one point or the other. It has to be the worst unit in the empire book. Save yourself some grief and drop it now.

Park an engineer next to that hellblaster. The errata for 8th lets the engineer make the hellblaster re-roll an artillary die.
It makes that blaster vastly better.

I'd go Cannon x2, mortar, and blaster.
Mortars really help against big units, but should you miss, your infantry still has a chance.
On the other hand, cannons usually shoot at targets that infantry can't deal with, so the redundancy is important.
Hellblaster fills in the ground between, good at killing expensive heavy armored targets. Cannons aren't great vs shallow infantry like chaos warriors, but hellblasters are.
Hellblasters have a good synergy with cannons. Cannons on the outside with hellblaster in the middle. Units closing in on the hellblaster are likely to give the cannon(s) a flank shot.

Most important, it's more fun to have the mix.

-Matt

I agree that mixed options and fun go hand in hand. I fully endorse that policy, most of my armies are large to cover a variety of toys. For Warhammer I will want a large monster in my army, or capable of being in my army, I will want most of the options in the army book/codex also. Its my way of playing. Three of a kind armies are never for me.

I like the Helblaster because it has a psychological effect, the risk is also ofset by the fun and variety. Thats not why it made the list though, my army is new and I was given one. I might not have bought one otherwise.

2 cannons, they hit more often too.