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.

I've heard it said many times that TFH's are useful and whirlwinds are still a bit naff.

Personally I don't understand this.

With barrage weapons working the way they do, cover saves being determined as if the shot comes from the centre of the marker, I believe that having the option for an AP4 round gives the whirlwind a distinct advantage when it comes to digging medium infantry from behind an ADL or something similar as a unit doesn't get cover saves from members of it's own unit, so essentially gets no cover from the ADL.

Yes the 4 small templates cover more area than a whirlwinds single large template but for the cost of 2 TFCs I could have 3 whirlwinds.

I'm definitely tempted to try 3 whirlwinds in a 2k point game, it seems like they could do a hell of a lot for a mere 195pts.

I think they're both excellent AI heavy support. The WW seems pretty nice at its price point, but I think the TFC gains a fair amount for the 35 points.

*bolster

*12" more range, no minimum range (WW is stuck w/in 12 inches)

*possibly a bonus tech marine if it gets shot down

*it does have those quake rounds, not sure how much of a bonus it equates to

*its one of the cheaper units that can select a drop pod, great for tweaking your alpha strike contents

I think the TFC is better than the WW and it should be, it costs more. You can take 3 WW for 2 TFC, but you can also just take 3 TFC or 2TFC and something else. Burning all of your heavy support slots on three cheap tanks may be undesirable.

It comes down to the rest of your list too. TFC's bolster helps a defensive posture by fortifying your own cover, WW increases your armor saturation and is a tank, if the situation called for it... could always use it in late game tank shock maneuvers etc.

I wonder if people like the TFC better thanks to all of the extra perks, heavy support tends to be an important slot and blowing out all 3 on such a cheap tank may be looked down upon.

My local group usually plays at 2k points so I have 2 focs to fit the 3 whirlwinds into, the other 3 would saved for vindi's or contemptor mortis dreads.

The only unit I tend to hold back in ruins if there are any is a sniper scout squad and my tech marine on a bike provides their cover save buff.

As for the range well it's quite rare that 48" is not enough.

I don't tend to use pods but I'm thinking of changing my tac marines deployment method from rhinos to pods so having all 3 first turn plus some empty pods to screw with LOS could be okay I suppose.

WW has a full 48" range, the first 12 are just "indirect" shots.

But yeah, do to Barrage testing Cover from the center circle and the Higher Str options, range, and number of models that can be covered from 4 Small blasts over 1 large; the TFC is far superior.

Also note that unlike last edition the Techmarine has a full servo Harness so he has that going for him(wall of death if something goes terribly wrong and your TFC gets assaulted)

Thunderfire Cannon is also barrage and has an AP4 shell. Four AP4 shells, I should say.

I have a question, which of the two looks more fitting for CT:Iron hands?

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Thunderfire Cannon is also barrage and has an AP4 shell. Four AP4 shells, I should say.

Typo in my codex? According to my codex TFC has AP5, AP6 and AP- only.

TFC.

It is an extra Techmarine; and they both get FNP.

Although if you are doing a particularly Mech-heavy force, then the WW does not seem out of place and gets IWND.

Yeah that's what I want thinking. They both benefit from the CT so it makes a bit " hmmm..." to pick.

Double checked TFC is ap5 at best so the WW does have an advantage vs medium infantry.

I like them both, but I like my TFC a bit more.

I always feel like a Whirlwind is a great points filler, but with Space Marines the heavy supports choices are usually filled already. So, unless you have dual force org charts the Whirlwind is sometimes difficult to justify over all of the other juicy options in the codex.

I think the TFC's 4 blasts at S6 is something to consider as well. This makes it far more viable against light vehicles and just piling the wounds on Marines. Meanwhile, a Whirlwind is just mediocre if you play against a Marine Army, which is over half of them. about 10% of the time you might find some ill-deployed Scouts to destroy with them, but beyond that Whirlwinds don't do too much. Now, if your opponent is Tau or Guard, then the Whirlwind is suddenly a Godsend (Eldar, Dark Eldar and Nids are all pretty good too), but really so is a TFC in this case.

I feel like in the end the Whirlwind is eclipsed by the TFC. If you have the points (and the model), bring the TFC, otherwise the Whirlwind for a budget-option.

The whirlwind is great, I just find the TFC to *usually* be greater (my primary matchups are against CSM and 'nids, though, so AP4 over AP5 is mostly irrelevant). It tears chunks out of CSM squads through sheer number of armour saves it forces, absolutely eradicates bug swarms, it's pretty good at popping rhinos, and it can even put a wound on an MC on a good salvo. In my experience the Whirlwind is not as effective against MEQ and doesn't seem to put as many wounds on hordes, either. It's still better vs. 4+ armour, however.

Fitting the TFC into my list takes priority over putting a whirlwind in, but I often like to try and use both in a TAC list. As has been mentioned, the Whirlwind is also great if you're strapped for points and can't quite fit in a TFC.

The problem with the Whirlwind is that it is made from wet WC paper and unless you hide it out of LoS, it will be dead before it can kill anything. And even if you do hide it behind some big LoS-blocker, it will be still vulnerable to enemy harassment units and counter-battery fire. On the other hand, the TFC can take some punishment without losing efficiency and you can find it good cover much more easily if you can't hide it.

another advtange a dakka user pointed out earlier this month is the advantage of hit density.

The WW has the advantage of a large area over which to place the maker, but the TFC gets to place its markers over the most populous part of the enemy group if its scoring proper rolls.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Also note that unlike last edition the Techmarine has a full servo Harness so he has that going for him(wall of death if something goes terribly wrong and your TFC gets assaulted)

I did NOT notice that. feth the TFC is amazing then, especially in IH tactics.

IH major problem-you cant possibly fit all the though shells in one army XD.

I use the Whirlwind simply because it can move and still fire, a very important factor in justifying it in my White Scars. The TFC is far too slow to feel right in a biker force, no matter how much more effective it is in the field!

The WW can be used as an LOS blocker if necessary - a bonus which is often overlooked.

 warpspider89 wrote:
The WW can be used as an LOS blocker if necessary - a bonus which is often overlooked.

Maybe for one turn, until it is blown up by pretty much whatever shoots at it. But, that is a good point, it can be used as movable cover.

There are only 5-7 turns anyways so that one turn can really count - especially if it already removed that backfield min-sized cover camping scoring unit of cultists (or equivalent).