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.

You of course can't forge a narrative without a Citadel Sector Imperialis Board, a Citadel Imperial Sector terrain kit and the entire Citadel Wall of Matyrs collection! All available on GW's website for full price and not a penny less!

 Blacksails wrote:
Ya'll just ain't forgin' hard enough. Forge that narrative harder! Spirit! Forging! Narrative! Money!

Still waiting, send me a PM if you don´t want to derail the thread.

 Blacksails wrote:
Ya'll just ain't forgin' hard enough. Forge that narrative harder! Spirit! Forging! Narrative! Money!

And that's what the Warhammer Experience is all about.
Plus your two birthdays and a Christmas.

 RunicFIN wrote:

However, 3 Winterguard Mortars would´ve done it´s job better for the same points cost, as Kurt´s list was all about ranged firepower used in conjunction with Sorschas feat ( unless he really needed the melee power, I just doubt it since he had Behemoth and Great Bears aswell. I´ll just say fair enough, it can be used in this configuration to decent effect. Other than that, it´s still a horrible warjack for its points, one of the worst in the entire game.

Mortars are Field Allowance 2, you couldn't use 3 of them (and if you take into account Sorscha's warjack points the Destroyer only costs 4 points).

 RunicFIN wrote:

If it being usable in this one ( or maybe two ) configurations is enough to make it good or even decent ( not that you claimed this, just saying in general ) then by same logic any generally useless unit that can have it´s place in one or two army compositions in 40K should be considered good/decent aswell.

And I agree completely with that logic, any unit that fulfils a distinct role in a certain competitive list that would not be fulfilled by anything that is clearly superior or cheaper, should be considered a decent unit. Anything that doesn't fulfil that basic criteria is either under-powered (if every other choice for the same role is distinctly better / cheaper), or over-powered (if every other choice for the same role is distinctly worse / more expensive).

That should be true for every game out there, be it either 40k, WMH, Infinity, etc.

 RunicFIN wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

I can understand this, but you have this in WM/H aswell, it´s just not as harsh. Khador Destroyer for example is a unit that hasn´t seen the light of day in the competitive scene for god knows how long. It´s an awful Warjack. And I´d say it´s meaningful to talk about the competitive side, as you can wield a fluffy crap army in casual 40K games just the same as you could a Khador Destroyer in WM/H.

Kurt Hindman, one of the players that the USA took to the WTC in its "Stripes" team, used the Destroyer in his Sorscha list and he won every game that he made with that list.

However, 3 Winterguard Mortars would´ve done it´s job better for the same points cost, as Kurt´s list was all about ranged firepower used in conjunction with Sorschas feat ( unless he really needed the melee power, I just doubt it since he had Behemoth and Great Bears aswell. I´ll just say fair enough, it can be used in this configuration to decent effect. Other than that, it´s still a horrible warjack for its points, one of the worst in the entire game.

Love to know how you'd go about taking 3 Winter Guard Mortars in a list with either Sorscha as they're FA:2.

The only way she can get that is to take eSorscha's NQ theme force. So, you've restricted yourself on what you can take, taken a very specific list to deal with a narrow amount of threats where they're 100% useful. What was this you were saying about AA in 40k again?

Sure, WMH handles the whole skew list thing better with multiple lists in a tournament setting but to just ill-informedly say "just take 3 mortars" when there is no possible way to do this outside of a secondary theme force (not to mention having to drop the aforementioned GBOG and Big B).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

However, 3 Winterguard Mortars would´ve done it´s job better for the same points cost, as Kurt´s list was all about ranged firepower used in conjunction with Sorschas feat ( unless he really needed the melee power, I just doubt it since he had Behemoth and Great Bears aswell. I´ll just say fair enough, it can be used in this configuration to decent effect. Other than that, it´s still a horrible warjack for its points, one of the worst in the entire game.

Mortars are Field Allowance 2, you couldn't use 3 of them (and if you take into account Sorscha's warjack points the Destroyer only costs 4 points).

They are FA:3 in a secondary eSorscha theme force for NQ. But the point still stands.

TheCustomLime wrote:You of course can't forge a narrative without a Citadel Sector Imperialis Board, a Citadel Imperial Sector terrain kit and the entire Citadel Wall of Matyrs collection! All available on GW's website for full price and not a penny less!

If you go now, you can get it all using only 1 click of your mouse! Beat your local government clicking ration and save today!

liquidjoshi wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Ya'll just ain't forgin' hard enough. Forge that narrative harder! Spirit! Forging! Narrative! Money!

And that's what the Warhammer Experience is all about.
Plus your two birthdays and a Christmas.

Unfortunate really. Take Smaug. Definitely a good looking model, and its cool how big it is. But for that price? Yikes.

PhantomViper wrote:
Mortars are Field Allowance 2, you couldn't use 3 of them (and if you take into account Sorscha's warjack points the Destroyer only costs 4 points).

I was talking about the Destroyers point efficiency, and making an example with a unit that does the same thing for less points, and better. Didn´t talk about fielding 3 in an actual game. The point was that 3 of them cost the same as a Destroyer but deliver more, making the Destroyer seem really weak for its points. Not sure how to elaborate it well in english. I´ll go with "I was comparing performance."

The Destroyer is to WM/H what a LR:Godhammer is to WH40K. It tries to be two things at once, it´s pricey, and it does neither very well.

 RunicFIN wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Mortars are Field Allowance 2, you couldn't use 3 of them (and if you take into account Sorscha's warjack points the Destroyer only costs 4 points).

I was talking about the Destroyers point efficiency, and making an example with a unit that does the same thing for less points, and better. Didn´t talk about fielding 3 in an actual game. Not sure how to elaborate it well in english. I´ll go with "I was comparing performance. )

They don't do "the same thing" though. Not even close. The might both have AOE weapons but that is where the similarity ends. If you we're informed on the game you'd see how odd it is to compare light artillery pieces to a warjack.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Mortars are Field Allowance 2, you couldn't use 3 of them (and if you take into account Sorscha's warjack points the Destroyer only costs 4 points).

I was talking about the Destroyers point efficiency, and making an example with a unit that does the same thing for less points, and better. Didn´t talk about fielding 3 in an actual game. Not sure how to elaborate it well in english. I´ll go with "I was comparing performance. )

They don't do "the same thing" though. Not even close. The might both have AOE weapons but that is where the similarity ends. If you we're informed on the game you'd see how odd it is to compare light artillery pieces to a warjack.

In a Sorcha pop 'n' drop dakka list the Destroyers main role is ranged assassination. Kurts list included the Behemoth and the Great Bears for melee power already ( Behemoth doubledipping on both roles in this army setup equally asfar as I´m concerned ) the rest was mostly shooting and support. If you were well informed in the art of reading you´d know I´m fairly well informed on the game, and writing in a condescending manner won´t change that. If however you didn´t mean it like that, then ignore that last bit, just came out that way to me.

Being familiar with your back catalogue of posts is not a requirement of participation on Dakka.

Being familiar with every post in all 15 pages of this thread is not a requirement to post in it.

Play nice.

EDIT
Ok you edited your thread to mitigate your tone. FYI, it would be nice if when you edit your posts for anything other than spelling or grammar, you mark the edit, it stops the rest of us looking like tools when we respond to something you later delete or change. Thanks!

Nope, not worth the fight.

AZ, with that in mind I bow out...

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nope, still not told me how a warjack is similar to light artillery.

You remind me of a guy at my local GW years ago. It became a running joke to repeat his infamous line of "The average High Elf archer is very similar to a Skeleton Spearman"

I´ll leave you to wonder how a ranged warjack with an inaccurate AOE might be similiar to light artillery with inaccurate AOE´s in a list that is completely built around on shooting at a Stationary army ( mainly the Warcaster/Warlock ) instead of talking Warmachine synergy and list building in a thread that is about 40K´s "spirit." You can PM me should you require more advice regarding the matter.

Well, that was educational. But I think we're done here.