Topic: Compare the mortar to 8th edition alternatives

[pippin_nl]

Let's compare the mortar to some other 8th edition war machines:

Mortar (100) S2(6) D3 wounds under the hole, AP, large template
Rock Lobber (85) S3(9) D6 wounds under the hole, small template
Magma Cannon (145) S5 D3 wounds, flaming, flame template (range 24 inch)
Screaming Skull Catapult (90) S3(9) D6 wounds under the hole, small template, auto panic (option at -1)

All seem much better.

[commandant]

Both of the rock lobbers do less damage against hordes and the range of the magma cannon is tiny.   Yeah they are all much better

[Finlay]

rock lobbas are infinity times better than mortars now.


cheaper, stronger, able to somewhat perform the role of a cannon.

[rufus sparkfire]

Stone throwers are more versatile, because they have that nice S9 d6 wounds hit as well as the template. They also don't have to use the horrible gunpowder misfire chart!

A S2 mortar is way too depressing to actually use. Maybe at 50 points!

[pippin_nl]

Both of the rock lobbers do less damage against hordes and the range of the magma cannon is tiny.   Yeah they are all much better

Suppose a T3 10 x 5 horde:

Lobber: 21 hits, 10,5 wounds
Mortar: 33 hits, 11 wounds

So versus a horde the mortar is slightly better, but against anything else... Magma cannon has 24 inch range, not tiny

[rufus sparkfire]

I'm guessing a magma cannon is also from your funny chaos dwarf list?

[Uryens de Crux]

Slightly better for 15 more points. 

[Spiney]

Both of the rock lobbers do less damage against hordes and the range of the magma cannon is tiny.   Yeah they are all much better

But all of the rock lobbers are much better against monsters and large, multi-wound models than the mortar.

My problem with the mortar is not just that it is at least 25pts overcosted for what it does (which is damage horde infantry) but the fact that it is utterly non-versatile, it is ok against horded T3 infantry and utterly, deplorably useless against everything else. At least if there are no hordes to shoot at my rock lobber can fire at a monster and reasonably expect to significantly injure, or possibly even kill it. If T3 hordes did actually show up in every army then mortars might be viable, but when your talking about a unit that probably shows up in half the armies you are likely to face you're bringing a unit that is only going to be somewhat useful in half the games you play. N to a receipt for success in my book

[rufus sparkfire]

Mortars being both worse than stone throwers and more expensive reminds me of fourth edition.

[Finlay]

Both of the rock lobbers do less damage against hordes and the range of the magma cannon is tiny.   Yeah they are all much better

But all of the rock lobbers are much better against monsters and large, multi-wound models than the mortar.

My problem with the mortar is not just that it is at least 25pts overcosted for what it does (which is damage horde infantry) but the fact that it is utterly non-versatile, it is ok against horded T3 infantry and utterly, deplorably useless against everything else. At least if there are no hordes to shoot at my rock lobber can fire at a monster and reasonably expect to significantly injure, or possibly even kill it. If T3 hordes did actually show up in every army then mortars might be viable, but when your talking about a unit that probably shows up in half the armies you are likely to face you're bringing a unit that is only going to be somewhat useful in half the games you play. N to a receipt for success in my book

I use my rock lobbas in reverse form you.
Counter battery and monster hunting first, then infantry.

[commandant]

So versus a horde the mortar is slightly better, but against anything else... Magma cannon has 24 inch range, not tiny

Unless things have changed greatly there is no way that the flame template is 24 inches

[Finlay]

Arguing that the book is fine, is fine.

but arguing that mortars are better than rock lobbas is ridiculous.
At least try and be credible.

[rufus sparkfire]

So versus a horde the mortar is slightly better, but against anything else... Magma cannon has 24 inch range, not tiny

Unless things have changed greatly there is no way that the flame template is 24 inches

I think it's from some forge world list that almost no one has heard of.

[Warlord]

Mortars being both worse than stone throwers and more expensive reminds me of fourth edition.

A lot of 8th edition reminds me of 4th edition.

[Uryens de Crux]

Its depressingly so isnt it.

8th ed migh be called "monsterhammer" but its really just "herohammer" by another name.
The facets that got me back to WFB in 6th Ed are slipping away to be replaced by the things that stopped me playing after 3rd ed.

[Tayrod]

So versus a horde the mortar is slightly better, but against anything else... Magma cannon has 24 inch range, not tiny

Unless things have changed greatly there is no way that the flame template is 24 inches

As far as I can remeber, you put the flame template within 24' of the cannon and roll an artillery dice. The effective range is thus 26-34 + template

[Algovil]

We have cannons to kill monsters, more reliable than stone throwers in that role, therefore the fact that mortars are worse vs multiwould creatures is not that important. Most O&G use stone throwers and find them worth the points as far as I know, but then again they are used for sniping a lot. Our mortars are really only useful vs T3 enemies or in combination with shadow magic. That is a pro for S3 with D6 under hole, vs higher toughness enemies and for sniping.

Vs smaller units, yes, ordinary stone throwers does more damage, but only if you roll a HIT, a big template has a bigger chance to at least hit some models. Therefore I think the two are somewhat comparable in that regard.

Mortar has armour piercing rule which is really nice, ordinary stone throwers does not have any modifier to armour at all. Plus for mortar.

Black powder misfire chart is worse, another negative factor for mortar.

Overall I find that rock lobber and mortar are about equal, mostly because we have cannons for sniping monsters. Therefore a cost of about 85pts would be fine for mortars, from 75pts up to 90 max is acceptable. Now I find it strange that other armies, which rely on close combat have just as good or better template weapons as the Empire, which is our strength now?

[Nexus]

Well, the large template do have that small niftyness that it's more likely to hit at least something even if it scatters. Granted, at S2 a few hits don't do much of a difference, but still...

Edit: Ninja'd 

[Athiuen]

Has no-one mentioned the Plague Claw catapult.  100 points for s2 no armour save large template.

[Algovil]

Better than Mortar in every way?

[pippin_nl]

So versus a horde the mortar is slightly better, but against anything else... Magma cannon has 24 inch range, not tiny

Unless things have changed greatly there is no way that the flame template is 24 inches

You can place the flame template up to 24 inches away, roll an artillery die and then see if you hit something.

[rufus sparkfire]

Has no-one mentioned the Plague Claw catapult.  100 points for s2 no armour save large template.

Dodgy 7th edition book that doesn't count!

[Finlay]

Its depressingly so isnt it.

8th ed migh be called "monsterhammer" but its really just "herohammer" by another name.
The facets that got me back to WFB in 6th Ed are slipping away to be replaced by the things that stopped me playing after 3rd ed.

Eh? Steadfast and stepping up say hi.

[w7west]

It's almost as if there is some secret plan to get people to stop auto including mortars in their army.

[commandant]

Because the chaos dwarfs are not dodgy???