Vexicus Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Hail Brothers and Sisters, I got to thinking this afternoon about the tank we have avilible to us and realised that I have never seen a Whirlwind in any game I've played or been anywhere near or even watched on the internet. Why is this? Is it not competitive or effective? I would like your thoughts on this. I think they look cool and will get one just for the sake of having one, but to me it only looks like they would be useful agains Tyranids or maybe Orks. Many Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gearhead Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I use one, "Rynn's Rain". Most people don't use it because they've got their eyes on the vindicator. It's useful against anyone who likes to abuse cover; Orks under a KFF, Entrenched guard, Eldar under conceal or Rangers, 'nids, and especially Tau Fire Warriors and Kroot. The problem is none of that crap's in the metagame, so nobody takes the old whirly. It's saved my bacon before though with lucky pins and taking out units that I otherwise couldn't see to shoot. It with a couple of Typhoon is an absolute nightmare for infantry. For 85 points I don't knock it, but most people jump on the vindy instead for their big blastin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maturin Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Its role is also shared with the Thunderfire Cannon, which seems to have replaced the whirlwind in many peoples' lists (including my own). I'd rather take 4 small blasts than 1 big one - you're much more likely to hit something. The thunderfire has more ammunition types available, and you get a (free?) techmarine + servoharness 2/3 of the time after the thunderfire is wrecked. You do lose indirect fire and ordnance barrage, and have slightly worse AP, but they're not big losses in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyRhino Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 One significant difference between the WW and TFC is the ability to move and fire. The Whirly can move 6" and still fire in direct mode, which is useful for coming onto the board from reserve and still being useful. Thunderfire Cannons are useless if they move at all. I run a Heavy Support contingent from time to time that consists of two Whirlwinds and one Thunderfire. I tend to run it as fire support for a bike and speeder force. Of course, I'm not a metagamer and will run oddball lists and units like this whenever I can. The thing that limits the Whirlwind in the wider world is the prevalence of cheap transports. Yes, a Whirlwind can glance a Rhino or Razorback with some good rolls, but you constantly need those 6s. Unless you have reliable anti-transport firepower to crack the armor so you can drop the bombs on the passengers, you're throwing rounds downrange that don't have much effect. One of the most efficient anti-transport units in the Marine codex is the Predator, which competes with the Whirlwind for a Heavy slot. Add in the geneal lackof cover on "national" scale events, and you've got a recipe that doesn't favor the Whirlwind. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdOfEntity Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Mobility. That's the real difference. Against a more agile army that will abuse cover it helps to have the additional movement so you can get a direct firing line. I also appreciate the ability to get just within range of an entrenched unit sitting on an objective to bombard it while a CC unit gets in to finish the job. On an open field I'd prefer the Thunderfire. In a city battle I think I'd prefer the Whirlwind. Unfortunately, how often do you really get to cater your list to the terrain? Capmaigns maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak-73 Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 The TFC doesn't need much mobility due to long range and cover ignoring ammor. You just need to see the fraction of a model to place your blast templates. Whirlwind doesn't even need that but he's more difficult to hide. If you regularly use LOS blocking scenery, Whirlwind is an option. Otherwise the TFC is better because it can be used against vehicles as well. (up to 4xS6 hits). Both are glass cannons who don't live long generally. Against infantry they don't need to live long to make a mark. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ming Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 There is an apocalypse formation that uses 3 whirlwinds and a landpseeder; the combination gives the whirlwinds full-table tange, and LOS to targets can go thru the speeder with no penalty. I'd recommend it as a cheap formation for games where you can... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warp Angel Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 In my opinion, it comes down to versatility. On the vast majority of tables, against the vast majority of targets, the Thunderfire Cannon Kills more and doesn't die any faster. Just the presence of the TFC gives my army a bonus to cover on certain tables as well. In some tables, against some targets, the Whirlwind is better. If I'm making an army list, I know which one I'm picking between the two. If I'm concerned about move and fire anti-infantry, a Dakka Pred is probably a better choice, again for versatility. It's more durable, has a similar damage output if moving when shooting light infantry (taking into account deviation and misses), and a dramatically higher damage potential against more targets if static. It's better against Monstrous Creatures as well, since it has the possibility of multiple wounds. But, on some tables, against some targets, the Whirlwind is better. Or... conversely... On most tables, against most targets, the Whirlwind is worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ming Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I agree. A TFC at 100 points for 4 blast templates at 60 inches AND a free bolstering techmarine vs a 48-inch indirect capable large blast 85 point AV11 whirlwind? The TFC Outclasses the whirlwind in every category. I just wish they (thunderfires) were out in plastic right now. Or resin. Or just plain available (GW has a hold on their production). Heck, compare a TFC vs a dev squad with 4 MLs....100 pts vs 150 pts for horde killing power? This is a back edge or corner camper that can go a long way to bolster the SM list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koremu Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 It's great against the things it is great against. It's pants against everything else. Hence it is a poor choice for most pickup-and-play or tournament lists, but good for scenario games where you know what kind of force you are facing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zid Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I'm actually contemplating taking one for my Deathwing force... that barrage template could be just the thing I need to lessen horde armies coming toward my 30 terminators! Combined with Speeder and VIndicator fire support I think it will work well; I should have no issue spilling things from transports to get blown away by my templates of doom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I find them incredibly useful, and with the rise of the new necron codex its usefulness has expanded aswell. Indirect fire, and simply a higher AV, make it far more durable than the TFC in my experience- wich is often destroyed in the first turn of shooting by ones opponent. That alone endears it to me. Offensively speaking I rarely miss the extra point of strength, though it does come up from time to time, because of the wonderful side-armor rules for ordnance barrage and the general 3+/2+ wounding anyways. Against DE the TFC wins out a little with its ability to S6 them, but otherwise I prefer the large blasts hitting power and the AP 4 with good strength for wiping out hordes of firewarriors or necrons. The other fire mode, ignoring cover, has allowed me to deploy the whirlwind against objective holding units like Pathfinders and SM Scouts with a reasonably priced and efficient way of killing the enemy while removing their greatest defense. If nothing else the plethora of cheap objective campers with horrid armor saves would cause me to field the WW reliably. Either way though the ability to pin multiple units, or at the least force multiple tests, makes the Whirlwind a more efficient platform for delivering pinning tests to my opponent than snipers- particularly in a C:SW force, where sniper scouts are one of the least effective ways to use our more veteran scouts. Ive never regretted bringing a whirlwind to a fight for its points. I highly reccomend having one in your force, but if not... thats fine. Underestimating its abilities is one of the more common mistakes my opponents make and for that I thank all of you who discount it :devil: and hey, if it stays sidelined perhaps GW will make it overpowering in some future incarnation, wich would be fun for the man who has three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticaria Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 and hey, if it stays sidelined perhaps GW will make it overpowering in some future incarnation I hate that this is true... :) -Myst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.