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.

So the Space Marine Quad Mortar Battery is one of the new units released by FW and it seems quite awesome doing what the Thunderfire Cannon can but almost at half the point cost for Thunderfire Cannon. My Blood Angel friend is quite excited about it especially since it got 40k rules and the Blood Angels are allowed to use it. He has been telling me how much better it is than the Thunderfire Cannon and at first I was inclined to agree with him, but after comparing the two, I am not so sure. The Thunderfire may be 40 points more expensive but those 40 points go somewhere. And the Quad Mortar does seem versatile, it has a barrage shot doing S5 AP5 with a pinning check at -1 leadership. That is kind of awesome especially when trying to suppress some infantry. Then the second firing mode though differs quite a lot opting to do 4 Heavy shots at S8 AP4 Sunder making it a versatile unit to be able to kill both infantry and vehicles but there is one problem for me...the S8 shot is only 36" which is awfully close for an Artillery unit. Here are the rules from FW for those unfamiliar: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Horus_Heresy/RapierQuadMortar40k.pdf

And it seems really good on paper and it would seem to outclass the Thunderfire Cannon for even Space Marine players since it does "more" and is cheaper but then I started to really compare the two. The Thunderfire Cannon not only has a BS5 gunner in the Techmarine but that Techmarine has a 2+ save and can take getting charged better with his servo harness. Also, when taking three in one unit, the Thunderfire gets bumped up to BS6 which is amazing for any kind of barrage. The three different shots it gets may not people to pin or destroy heavy armored vehicles but you do get more of a tool box. That dangerous terrain can make a good amount of difference as destroying a vehicle. Then you also get the Bolster Defense options because of the Techmarines allowing you for making a more fortified location in case your opponent tries to use high AP weaponry to get rid of your Thunderfire. So those price of the Thunderfire definitely goes somewhere and I think it does make a difference.

If you don't put the Quad Mortar in the back like you would a Thunderfire and put it so that it can use the S8 shots, I think that though you saved points in taking the Quad Mortar over the Thunderfire Cannon, those points will go to waste, especially if your opponent has first turn because they will be able to eat the Quad Mortar with AP3 and make them but a memory. And if you do put them in the back to use the Frag shells, then you aren't using half of the benefits of taking the Quad Mortar unless you are waiting for vehicles to just roll up on your business and then shoot them that way but most vehicles will be able to stay out of range and take care of the Mortar themselves. That 36" range just really kills this unit for me. If it had relentless, I could see it being better but without it, I see more a confused unit role than a versatile one.

Don't get me wrong, for those who don't have the Thunderfire Cannon, like the DA, BA and SW, this is an awesome way to get access to unit like the Thunderfire Cannon but I think fellow Space Marine players will still find the Thunderfire Cannon more useful. What is everyone else's thoughts?

The Ignore Cover shot combined with Tigurius/Telion might be better than the Quad Mortar. The main round of the Thunderfire Cannon also seems better than the pinning one, since so many things now have Fearless, Stubbron or other army specific ways to mitigate the effects of leadership/pinning. Not to mention they might just go to ground if they are getting hit by a barrage from a Thunderfire/Quad Mortar anyways, since the +1 cover save is always good when you are taking 15-20 hits.

If you can, then take both. The techmarnies can even bolster the defenses the Quad Mortar crew is hiding in. The TFC cover ignoring shot makes it extremely versatile and powerful in 40k. That shot alone makes it a better take, IMO, then the Quad Mortar. However 120pts for 8 str 8 sunder shots is a pretty good deal.

The cheapness of the Quad Mortar is what drew me into but as an Imperial Fist player, I use a lot of my heavy slots for other more important things to take advantage of my Chapter Tactics so filling 2 heavy slots with two different Artillery units seems like a waste. I definitely lean more heavily to the tried and true Thunderfire Cannon but wanted to see what everyone else thought.

4 bs4 st8 tank hunting shots for 60pts on a durable platform is crazy. Thats before you take the blast option or any buffing.

Compare it to the hades autocannon rapier which is considered too powerful by some. Exactly the same range, exactly the same strength, exactly the same ap, the hades has pinning whilst the quad mortar has sunder (tank hunter) and the option of 4 st5 ap5 blasts instead. The hades is 5pts more expensive.
So FW rates pinning as powerful as tank hunter the ability to have an anti infantry choice and 5pts. That is comparing it to something which is already considered very powerful.

Now compare it as you say to the TFC. The TFC has no option to take down decent armour, it has extra blast profiles, but the quad mortar shares its best one. The TFC scatters 1" less. The TFC automatically has a reasonable ignores cover profile. Is the ignores cover profile, a techmarine instead of 2 crew and +1bs worth 40pts and the option of incredibly good tank killing power? Nowhere near imo.
Also, with Tigurius the quad mortars have a very good chance at having ignores cover on a stronger profile and have rending. 3 TFCs cost 300pts, 3 quad mortars with Tiggy cost 365pts. For 65pts you get a very good chance of ignores cover, you get twinlinked, you get rending on the blasts if using them or you get the option of 12 twinlinked ignores cover tank hunting st8 shots. That has a very decent chance at shooting a raven out of the sky (2.75hps on average) and scores 3.3hps on average against a Land Raider and 5.9hps against av13. That's something that TFCs just can't do.
It gets even worse when you look at the blast comparison. If the TFC wants to be st5 it is not ignoring cover, so 12 st5 ap5 barrage blasts compared to 12 tl ignores cover rending st5 ap5 barrage blasts. That will even shred jetbikes and you can walk it around more effectively since it would be twinlinked.

This is one of the most unbalanced units to come out yet. And in all honesty that shocks me because FW usually overvalue things and the times when they undervalue units, its no where near the amount GW usually undervalue by.

Even without Tigurius this unit is crazy. Take 2 lots of 3 for a mere 360pts and you are getting 24 tank hunting st8 shots or 24 st5 ap5 blasts, not just double the amount of blasts 3 TFCs can put out but also having close to the most efficient point for point if not THE most efficient point for point AT option in the game as a choice instead. All for just 60pts more ironically.

I think you may be underestimating the durability of a unit with 12 t7 3+ wounds that will very likely be in 4+ cover. That will take WAY more than is usually required to get rid of 180pts. And if the opponent invests most of their shooting to get rid of 180pts then they have served their purpose in that alone.

The TFC is 10 points on top off a Techmarine with a Servo-harness. That is an insane deal. It also has better ammunition. The quad launcher does have better anti-vehicle, but its anti-troops is less effective due to the inability to ignore cover. As a CF player, I don't need much help with anti-vehicle since I already have Tank Hunters Devastators. The fact that if the TFC gets blown up, I can take that Techmarine gunner and have him function as a standard techmarine is really nice. Pick him up and put him in a land raider if his TFC is blown up. It isn't like the quad mortar is bad, it just isn't as versatile.

Isn't as versitile? It has point for point, probably the best AT in the game. And in direct comparison of 300pts vs 300pts it has 20 blasts compared to 12. Ignores cover anti infantry is nowhere near as powerful as insanely cheap and incredibly effective anti tank in the current meta. Especially when you can put that many templates on infantry instead even if they don't ignores cover.
The reason the Quad Mortar is OP is because it is so versitile, as well as being incredibly effective at both things.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Isn't as versitile? It has point for point, probably the best AT in the game. And in direct comparison of 300pts vs 300pts it has 20 blasts compared to 12. Ignores cover anti infantry is nowhere near as powerful as insanely cheap and incredibly effective anti tank in the current meta. Especially when you can put that many templates on infantry instead even if they don't ignores cover.
The reason the Quad Mortar is OP is because it is so versitile, as well as being incredibly effective at both things.

When the top tier units are bikes and jetbikes, anti-vehicle doesn't mean squat and ignores cover is amazing.

Ignores cover low ap weapons don't mean anything against bikes and jetbikes with a 3+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Id rather have 20 st5 ap5 barrage blasts than 12 st5 ap5 ignores cover barrage blasts against 3+ bikes and jetbikes.

If you want Ignore Cover low AP then a Relic Whirlwind Scorpius fits the bill perfectly.

Also I find it funny how your BA friend said it's better than a TFC...particulary when we don't get it

That said, 36" isn't that bad to worry about. Ork Mek gunz have 36" and the KMK, Traktors and Lobbas (48" but S5 AP5, much like first firing mode) all perform above and beyond the call of orky.

Just run the maths on this against av13 with no buffing:

(4 x 2/3 x 5/9)/60 = 0.0247hps per point

Renegades Rapier battery with MT

(3 x 1/2 x 3/4)/70 = 0.0161hps per point.

Breachers with Heavy Arc Rifles

(6 x 1/2 x 5/6)/150 = 0.0167hps per point

Deimos Vindicator

(3 × 2/3 x 3/4)/130 = 0.0115hps per point

Blood angels Assault squad with 2 meltas and 2 infernus pistols dropping in 3" range and getting to shoot side armour of 11.

(4 x 2/3 x 35/36)/125 = 0.0207hps per point

Pask Punisher (haven't checked my IG dex in a while so off the top of my head Lascannon upgrade comes to 255pts)

((20 x 2/3 x 11/36 x 2/3) + (1 x 2/3 x 34))/255 = 0.0126hps per point.

5 skitarii vanguard with 2 arc rifles and arc pistol podding next to it with bs7 activated
(5 x 8/9 x 5/6)/130 = 0.0285hps per point...... There we go found one! Had to buff in the end though otherwise it would have been 0.0214hps per point. The skitarii are on a suicide mission however with no where near the durability and range and require an allied drop pod.

Without buffing I still can't think of something that can beat it point for point. It massively outstrips anything usually considered top drawer AT.

Then when you factor in its incredibly good anti infantry and its durability I just can't believe the lack of cries for 'foul'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Should have done the Sicaran with Schism of Mars and lascannons... came to 0.0131hps per point. Although all of its shots pen rather than glance av13 automatically due to rending.


So as a summary - this thing is better point for point at taking down tabks than melta suicide squads, doesn't require you to shove its face in the opponents army, has a far more durable platform and can arguably do better against infantry than a TFC due to the fact it gets a ratio of 5 blasts to 3 against it (20:12). It's also cheaper so help with/against MSU builds.

That is some frightening stuff, but that's what happens when you've got a huge rate of fire on strong weapons. Are these the official rules or are they still in the experimental stage?

How well do they stack up against Centurion Devasators with Grav/Firebase Support Cadre Broadsides?

It won't do better against infantry than the TFC especially if we are talking about taking 3 because than the TFC is firing off of BS6 which means you have to be rolling pretty high on those dice to have it scatter significantly.

See, you are talking about spamming this unit when in reality, how viable is that? You did pure math hammer with the expectation of just spamming the unit but is that an actual viable list to make?

You most certainly won't be taking a Gladius Strike Force because the Quad Mortar doesn't have a formation like the TFC does so that is one point down in favor since you won't be taking the thing that gives the SM a bit of an edge over the rest of the codices.

So we are definitely being saddled here with a CAD. Taking two slots out of 3 heavy slots in order to spam this unit just doesn't seem like it's that viable when heavy slots can be used for other units like Grav Centurions or Grav Devastators to take it to heavy infantry. I know you are going to say that stacking on the wounds means that even a 2+ save will fail a lot of the time but what if it doesn't?

I am an Imperial Fist player who uses the Sentinels of Terra supplement which means I have the ability to move Centurions to the elite slot so I can still get my grav in but that means no Tiggy and for others, they can't do this so it severely gimps their heavy support.

Also, what if you aren't in range to shoot at a vehicle? You have to move which means you are snap shooting which probably means an ineffective shooting round and thus gives your opponent the chance to kill those. Also, it makes you choose which shell to use, are you going to decide to go after a vehicle and leave those infantry behind or are you going to shoot those infantry and allow that vehicle possibly blow you to kingdom come.

This is why sometimes it's good to have a unit like the TFC who isn't confused about it's role. It is an infantry death machine and when it has no more infantry to shred, it can perform crowd control duties. People get so hung up on killing power that they don't see the usefulness of things like making an area dangerous terrain. Disabling a vehicle or slowing up a unit to prevent them from getting an objective is just as useful as killing them. The only exception is purge the alien scenario.

The cheapness I think it is where it gets the TFC but that isn't by much. Taking three TFCs getting that BS6 along with Bolster Defenses to build that better cover save turned a 4+ cover into 2+ cover and then having another to spare somewhere else for someone. So the TFC is more accurate with better defenses and isn't confused about it's role.

With my Imperial Fists, I don't need a second rate cheaper TFC with sunder since I have Devastators with lascannons which are far more effective at popping tanks.

There is more to a battle than just calculating numbers and like I said before, I think this is overestimating the usefulness of a weapon with 36" that isn't relentless. The TFC isn't confused about it's role. It sits in the back, lobbing shells of death at the opponent which the Mortar can do but with only one profile of it's two.

It is spammable but it will only leave weaknesses in the army unless you are planning to take multiple CAD which means more infantry taxes to pay for the spamming of this unit but having the slots to take other heavy support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozocrone wrote:
That is some frightening stuff, but that's what happens when you've got a huge rate of fire on strong weapons. Are these the official rules or are they still in the experimental stage?

How well do they stack up against Centurion Devasators with Grav/Firebase Support Cadre Broadsides?

The page that the link is in the original post show experimental rules as of right now. And honestly, I see these guys melting to grav fire but that is a weakness of anything with a high armor save.

Guys, look the FW mortar is amazing as everyone said it is incredibly cost efficient.

Look at it another way

The Psyflemen Dreads are back and better than ever.
+Same Str
+Better Anti-vehicle
+Cheaper
+Alternate firing profiles
+Toughness rather than AV
-12 less range

This thing is utterly ridiculous at 60 ppm. Sure, you can't put it in a gladius, but it's not exactly hard to field allies with extra heavy slots.

BS6 only matters on the initial shot. When you have so many more shots, who cares?

 Envihon wrote:
It won't do better against infantry than the TFC especially if we are talking about taking 3 because than the TFC is firing off of BS6 which means you have to be rolling pretty high on those dice to have it scatter significantly.

See, you are talking about spamming this unit when in reality, how viable is that? You did pure math hammer with the expectation of just spamming the unit but is that an actual viable list to make?

You most certainly won't be taking a Gladius Strike Force because the Quad Mortar doesn't have a formation like the TFC does so that is one point down in favor since you won't be taking the thing that gives the SM a bit of an edge over the rest of the codices.

So we are definitely being saddled here with a CAD. Taking two slots out of 3 heavy slots in order to spam this unit just doesn't seem like it's that viable when heavy slots can be used for other units like Grav Centurions or Grav Devastators to take it to heavy infantry. I know you are going to say that stacking on the wounds means that even a 2+ save will fail a lot of the time but what if it doesn't?

I am an Imperial Fist player who uses the Sentinels of Terra supplement which means I have the ability to move Centurions to the elite slot so I can still get my grav in but that means no Tiggy and for others, they can't do this so it severely gimps their heavy support.

Also, what if you aren't in range to shoot at a vehicle? You have to move which means you are snap shooting which probably means an ineffective shooting round and thus gives your opponent the chance to kill those. Also, it makes you choose which shell to use, are you going to decide to go after a vehicle and leave those infantry behind or are you going to shoot those infantry and allow that vehicle possibly blow you to kingdom come.

This is why sometimes it's good to have a unit like the TFC who isn't confused about it's role. It is an infantry death machine and when it has no more infantry to shred, it can perform crowd control duties. People get so hung up on killing power that they don't see the usefulness of things like making an area dangerous terrain. Disabling a vehicle or slowing up a unit to prevent them from getting an objective is just as useful as killing them. The only exception is purge the alien scenario.

The cheapness I think it is where it gets the TFC but that isn't by much. Taking three TFCs getting that BS6 along with Bolster Defenses to build that better cover save turned a 4+ cover into 2+ cover and then having another to spare somewhere else for someone. So the TFC is more accurate with better defenses and isn't confused about it's role.

With my Imperial Fists, I don't need a second rate cheaper TFC with sunder since I have Devastators with lascannons which are far more effective at popping tanks.

There is more to a battle than just calculating numbers and like I said before, I think this is overestimating the usefulness of a weapon with 36" that isn't relentless. The TFC isn't confused about it's role. It sits in the back, lobbing shells of death at the opponent which the Mortar can do but with only one profile of it's two.

It is spammable but it will only leave weaknesses in the army unless you are planning to take multiple CAD which means more infantry taxes to pay for the spamming of this unit but having the slots to take other heavy support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozocrone wrote:
That is some frightening stuff, but that's what happens when you've got a huge rate of fire on strong weapons. Are these the official rules or are they still in the experimental stage?

How well do they stack up against Centurion Devasators with Grav/Firebase Support Cadre Broadsides?

The page that the link is in the original post show experimental rules as of right now. And honestly, I see these guys melting to grav fire but that is a weakness of anything with a high armor save.

Ok so scattering 2" less but far less templates so no - the quad mortar will in most circumstances be better anti infantry.

I did the damage it would do per point. Whether you have 1 or 10 that will be the same.

Spamming OP units is a very viable.

You can easily afford a gladius and a CAD, but I will show a CAD below with these in it. You can take these and grav, thats the advantage of being 60pts a piece.

It's not confused about its roll. A land raider with lascannons is confused about its roll, this thing however knows it wants to sit in 24-36" range and pound absolutely ANYTHING that doesn't have a 2+.

((3 x 2/3 x 3/4) + (1 x 5/6 x 3/4))/150 = 0.0142 IF las devs are only just over half as efficient as this thing per point.

How is delaying a vehicle/unit for a turn more effective than actually wiping it out?

No artillery has relentless, no one else seems to worry about that. It is designed to sit back and shoot. If you HAVE to move for a turn, its no big deal as a full battery only cost 180pts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just off the top of my head:

Tigurius

5 scouts

5 scouts

5 scouts
Land speeder

Drop pod

3 grav cents with omniscope

3 quad mortars

3 quad mortars

Typhon
Ceremite

Strormwing
Raven

Talon with SH missiles

Talon with SH missiles

1850pts. Pretty much has everything covered.

Heres an even more effective one made by FlingitNow (I just really wanted to slip a Typhon in the list):http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/659688.page
Only thing I would change about his list is get rid of the command squad and second mastery level on the libby, take a cullexus in a pod, upgrade 2 melta bike squads to have grav + combi grav and give mbs to the remaining 2 melta bike squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sentinals of Terra single CAD with Cullexus ally:

Librarian
Bike, combi-grav, auspex

3 bikes
2 grav

3 bikes
2 grav

4 bikes + attack bike
2 melta, combi-melta, multimelta

5 scouts
Melta bombs

5 scouts
Melta bombs
Land speeder storm

5 scouts
Melta bombs
Land speeder storm

3 grav centurions
Omniscope

3 grav centurions
Omniscope

Pod

Pod

Pod

2 quad mortars

2 quad mortars

2 quad mortars

Cullexus

1850pts


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gladius

Captain
Auspex, combi-melta

Chaplain
Auspex, combi-melta

5 tacs
Melta, Combi-melta
Razorback with assault cannon

5 tacs
Melta, Combi-melta
Razorback with assault cannon

5 tacs
Melta, Combi-melta
Razorback with assault cannon

5 tacs
Melta, Combi-melta
Razorback with assault cannon

5 tacs
Flamer
Razorback with heavy bolter

5 tacs
Flamer
Razorback with heavy bolter

5 assault marines
2 flamers
Razorback with heavy bolter

5 assault marines
2 flamers
Razorback with heavy bolter

5 Devestators
Razorback with twin linked lascannon

5 Devestators
Razorback with twin linked lascannon

5 scouts
Melta bombs

5 scouts
Melta bombs

5 scouts
Melta bombs

CAD
Techmarine

5 scouts
5 snipers

5 scouts
5 snipers

2 quad mortars

2 quad mortars

2 quad mortars

1850pts

Easier way.

Siege Assault Vanguard

-HQ-
Siege Master or Tig
-Troop-
Tactical Squad
Tactical Squad
-Elite-
Centurion Devastator Squad
-Heavy Support-
3 Quad Mortar
3 Quad Mortar
3 Quad Mortar
3 Quad Mortar

I mean I doubt it would do GOOD, but yea you can pretty much fit however many you want in a list. Imagine Siege Master giving a Squad Interceptor, or Monster Hunter. Toss in a Aegis for a C:SM version of DKoK Siege line.

Just remember gotta either table or grab the siege objective to win. Otherwise its a tie at best.

Before you all get over-excited, isn't this an experimental rules unit?

Yes. That's been mentioned many a time. We are all aware. AS IT STANDS it is OP.

It's a less Anti-Infantry oriented Wyvern with the twin offspring of a krak missile and an autocannon taped two it.

 Frozocrone wrote:
That is some frightening stuff, but that's what happens when you've got a huge rate of fire on strong weapons. Are these the official rules or are they still in the experimental stage?

How well do they stack up against Centurion Devasators with Grav/Firebase Support Cadre Broadsides?

Grav devs in 12" range

15 x 2/3 x 11/36 = 3.05556
-1
2.05556
X2
4.1111111
+1
5.111111
÷250
=0.0204hps per point

The latter part is due to every hp after the first gives 2hps thanks to immobilised. Against Superheavies they will be nowhere near as points efficient. They have to be 3 times closer, are not as durable and still aren't close to being as efficient per point.

It being experimental rule set is one thing that is off putting and I wouldn't go as far to say that the Quad Mortar is OP, underpriced but not OP seeing as it has some good hard counters like grav and plasma weaponry that would destroy a line of these.

You talk about no artillery having relentless and that they are designed to sit back and shoot. Something I agree with but that is my main point of why the second firing profile doesn't do it for me. If you put it back where it can act like artillery and not a heavy weapons team, you negate the whole reason why you are saying this is good. You put it in the position of a heavy weapons team and open yourself up to a lot fire from your opponent to take out them out before they have had a chance to do anything.

I would have to agree with Quickjager, you may have found a way to spam this unit but can those lists do anything in an actual game/tournament? You are getting a lot of firepower but what can it actually do in objective based games? I just doubt the tactical edge here in an actual game and I definitely see opponents able to dance around this unit easily. The best one is your last list which isn't the Gladius Strike Force. You only took the full company by taking two Demi-Companies, you need at least one of the auxiliary formations to make it a Gladius Strike Force which will eat at those points even more.

That first list doesn't put much on the table and I can see opponents being able to deal with it quite easily especially in the face of Eldar and Necrons.

I guess at this point, I would want to see some play testing. What we are arguing right now is simple numbers and list building. Actual games have shown whether some of these units may seem really awesome on paper but in practice, they didn't live up because they didn't function like we thought they were going to function.

The most I can say is that now the BA, DA and SW have some good artillery to take if they show choose while SM players will be going back and forth which is better.

For BA, DA and SW having Artillery for an Objective Game shouldn't be a problem.

BA have Fast Vehicles and Jump Packs en mass to get to places.
DA have bikes with re-rollable Jink saves to stay alive.
SW have TWC to get to places. Heck even Wolfstar with Iron Priests and Cyber Wolves has a huge footprint to contest.

The Quad Mortar does give them Barrage, which to my knowledge doesn't exist in those Codexes. Now they have access to sniping important models reliably, such as a Painboy in Greentide.
SM will obviously have to decide if a Gladius/TFC or CAD and Quad Mortar is better.

Although you could just take an Allied Detachment with them in. Make them Raptors and give them Scout to reposition them so that they can fire the 12 S8 shots, or out of sight to make use of Barrage.

If nothing else, this is a beautiful GW Approved TFC stand-in that circumvents the need to use failcast.

Frozocrone wrote:For BA, DA and SW having Artillery for an Objective Game shouldn't be a problem.

BA have Fast Vehicles and Jump Packs en mass to get to places.
DA have bikes with re-rollable Jink saves to stay alive.
SW have TWC to get to places. Heck even Wolfstar with Iron Priests and Cyber Wolves has a huge footprint to contest.

The Quad Mortar does give them Barrage, which to my knowledge doesn't exist in those Codexes. Now they have access to sniping important models reliably, such as a Painboy in Greentide.
SM will obviously have to decide if a Gladius/TFC or CAD and Quad Mortar is better.

Although you could just take an Allied Detachment with them in. Make them Raptors and give them Scout to reposition them so that they can fire the 12 S8 shots, or out of sight to make use of Barrage.

If taken in an Allied Detachment, it has to be a different Chapter. The one that wins the most are those three codices. Even without taking the Gladius, I still think I prefer the TFC until we see what it can do. Luckily, my BA friend is so excited by this that he is buying three right away so I will get to see what it can do before I decided to shell out the money for one.

obsidiankatana wrote:If nothing else, this is a beautiful GW Approved TFC stand-in that circumvents the need to use failcast.

This is what I was originally going to use the Quad Mortar for because I thought it was going to be a 30k only model but then FW decided to release 40k rules for it.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Ignores cover low ap weapons don't mean anything against bikes and jetbikes with a 3+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Id rather have 20 st5 ap5 barrage blasts than 12 st5 ap5 ignores cover barrage blasts against 3+ bikes and jetbikes.

Go tell that to the Ravenwing. 2+ rerollable cover saves everywhere. If you can ignore their cover saves you can't kill any of them.

The thunderfire cannon is good if you know your opponent is going to try to kill it from long range with single shots (>cough< assasin >cough< because when it goes down you have a techmarine to fix stuff with. It's ignores cover shots make it invaluable against eldar and then being able to plonk down a spot of difficult terrain caused a few headaches for my opposition. the apoc formation with it's massive template was pretty cool and made a mess of infantry! nice that as long as you placed it right every shot counted and there was no ambiguity of how far and which way it scattered.

I prefer the quad mortar option personally - although you dont get the funky ammunition it's still pretty hardcore in blast form against infantry and because it's 'barrage', most of the time you ignore cover anyway (centre of the template LOS for it). another point to the quad mortar is you can take multiples in one unit, so if your first shot misses by a lot you can use subsequent hits to creep the templates back to your original target or include other stuff nearby - warp spiders do not like this.
It's direct fire option is okay as a light vehicle killer and the range is not to be sniffed at, but you should really have these behined a building and in cover; direct fire is then for outflanking vehicles like skimmers and walkers that didn't take them out when they came on (or maybe you found a way to give them interceptor?)

So i think it's down to how long you think your opponent is going to let it live; the secondary usefulness of the TFC requires your gun to be killed and your lone operator to survive wheras the quad mortar requires one operator and the gun to survive.
But the secondary use of the TFC can only be used once the gun is dead.

The TFC wins on overwatch though (i dont think the artillery pieces themselves can fire overwatch - i'm not familiar with 7th edition) because the techmarine can use the flamer on his servo-harness and it's plasma cutter (TL plasma pistol!) and the quad-mortar teams only have a bolt pistol each.

I think it's worth mentioning that using the 30k list you can get a quad-mortar rapier and a legion techmarine for 105pts - it lacks much special rules and wargear but it is at least analougous to a single TFC while being nearly the same points and allows the techmarine to do stuff while you still have the gun alive.

 obsidiankatana wrote:
It's a less Anti-Infantry oriented Wyvern with the twin offspring of a krak missile and an autocannon taped two it.

Sunder makes each hit 50% (((3/4)/(1/2)-1) x100)more effective at stripping a HP per shot against av12 compared to krak missiles, 67% more effective against av13 (((5/9)/(1/3)-1) x100) and 83% more effective against av14 (((11/36)/(1/6) -1) x100) And it has 4 shots rather than 1. So it is 500% more effective at stripping a HP (assuming hits) against av12 than a single krak missile (50% + 150%x3). It is 567% more effective than a single krak missile against av13 and 632% more effective than a single krak missile against av14. Thats 'more' effective as well, it is 732% of the effectiveness of a single krak missile all together (om the pen roll).
I am talking about the pen rolls here, the to hit rolls have not been factored in.
Granted the wyvern has better anti troop. But this is the most efficient point for point av killer in the game (that I've found so far), which happens to also have the option of very decent anti troop on a platform more durable than a wyvern. If the wyvern had much better durability and the option of very decent AT and stayed the same points, then we would be talking same level.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Sunder makes each hit 50% (((3/4)/(1/2)-1) x100)more effective at stripping a HP per shot against av12 compared to krak missiles, 67% more effective against av13 (((5/9)/(1/3)-1) x100) and 83% more effective against av14 (((11/36)/(1/6) -1) x100) And it has 4 shots rather than 1. So it is 500% more effective at stripping a HP (assuming hits) against av12 than a single krak missile (50% + 150%x3). It is 567% more effective than a single krak missile against av13 and 632% more effective than a single krak missile against av14. Thats 'more' effective as well, it is 732% of the effectiveness of a single krak missile all together (om the pen roll).
I am talking about the pen rolls here, the to hit rolls have not been factored in.
Granted the wyvern has better anti troop. But this is the most efficient point for point av killer in the game (that I've found so far), which happens to also have the option of very decent anti troop on a platform more durable than a wyvern. If the wyvern had much better durability and the option of very decent AT and stayed the same points, then we would be talking same level.

I think you massively overthought my statement. AP4 of Autocannon + Str8 of Krak Missile + Blasts of Wyvern was literally the extent of substance in my remark. It's a versatile platform. That's all I was saying.

 SirDonlad wrote:


I prefer the quad mortar option personally - although you dont get the funky ammunition it's still pretty hardcore in blast form against infantry and because it's 'barrage', most of the time you ignore cover anyway (centre of the template LOS for it). another point to the quad mortar is you can take multiples in one unit, so if your first shot misses by a lot you can use subsequent hits to creep the templates back to your original target or include other stuff nearby - warp spiders do not like this.
It's direct fire option is okay as a light vehicle killer and the range is not to be sniffed at, but you should really have these behined a building and in cover; direct fire is then for outflanking vehicles like skimmers and walkers that didn't take them out when they came on (or maybe you found a way to give them interceptor?)

.

With the new 7th edition of the Space Marine codex, you can now take 3 TFC in one unit and if you take 3, they get a special rule of getting BS6 for doing it so that is a point in favor for the TFC.