Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I've been playing 'nids for two years now and have decided to start my own Imperial Guard force. I'm going with the FW Death Korps of Krieg models and ultimately plan to field an army that is flexible enough models-wise to be true to the Death Korps profile as well as the standard GW Imperial Guard codex. One of the key elements to a DKoK army is the pervasive use of towed artillery. The heavy batteries all have armor ratings and can use cammo netting. Their disadvantages are obvious. Unless you've got a towing vehicle they aren't going anywhere, and if they take a hit they're toast.
My question is, even with those obvious issues, are they really worse than mobile artillery? I don't have my core rule book with me right now, but my understanding is that if you move your Basalisk than you can't fire it so its essentially a static gun platform anyhow. And if you want to fire it and so you don't move it, and it takes a hit of any kind, even if it isn't destroyed outright, it won't be firing in the next turn, or possibly the turn after that. So you're paying more money to move a unit you don't want to move, plus the off chance to survive a round or two of concerted enemy fire. But I'm not sure you get much more than that.
I know I'm flawed somewhere, most likely in my understanding that a moved Basilisk or Medusa can't shoot. Can someone explain the real advantages of mobile over static artillery without defaulting to a "don't take either" argument?
The towed artillery is better because it's cheaper and the Medusa has a much better range. In the towed variety it seems to be mounted as a kind of assault gun rather than a true howitzer. The DKoK one has 120 inch range vs just 36 on the self-propelled version.
As for moving and shooting. You can move and fire ordnance but you can't move and fire as a barrage. However all ordnance barrage weapons can be fired directly. Basically you lower the gun and fire it as a direct-fire weapon the same way as a tank cannon (reduce scatter by BS value). The Medusa can't fire as a barrage at all so it's not an issue there but the Basilisk would need to give up its cover, so if it's moving and firing then it's at least somewhat exposed.
The downside of the static guns, as you said, is that they're static, so you can't run away if nasty things get up close. BUT you're in a unit with the crewmen, so it's easy to get a cover save (so long as the crew are in cover you have the majority of the unit in cover, so the gun gets a cover save) AND (since the Medusa is the only smart choice for the DKoK) you can fire indirectly.
Interestingly, as immobile weapons, if you don't take the towing vehicles they have to /deepstrike/ in a dawn of war scenario.
Since it's cheaper you can take more of the static guns for the same points cost. That's pretty much the start and the end of it really. You give up a certain amount of flexibility but I think if you're using the DKoK list you're probably playing as a friendly game. As a fellow DKoK fan that's certainly what seems to have happened for me.
As for other options, I really like the quad guns. I'd scratch build some. I proxy mine with some other scratchbuilt guns I made.
I wouldn't buy anything that can't be used in a "regular" game. But the way the Basilisk kits work is pretty nice (assuming they haven't changed since the kit redesign). Basically if you leave the plate with the gun on unglued you can slide it in and out of the slots in the Chimera chassis allowing you to mount and dismount the guns as you desire. The gun plate even makes a nice firing platform when they're in "static" mode. The best thing is this setup lets you use the same guns in either game.
Last edited by Korona; February 29th, 2012 at 01:18.
Copy, Improve, Innovate
Thanks for the quick reply. I'll definitely start by purchasing artillery that can go in both GW 40k and DKoK. Do you find most people don't want to go against DKoK as written? And if so, why is that?
The people I've played it against generally seem pretty interested in it and will certainly play it. The problem with it is twofold. The tournaments and other formal events probably won't see it as "official" and it was written primarily for narrative type games.
There is the artillery which is probably under-costed plus the frankly revolting hades breaching drill. If you want to be a cheesy power gamer you can abuse the strengths of the list and leverage the list into something that will probably annoy a lot of people. It's just not intended to be power-gamed.
As a narrative list, I think if you use it with the right spirit, (i.e. take one breaching drill because /they're really damn cool/ rather than 6 because they ZOMGROFLBBQPWN) then you'll have a lot of fun and be fun to play against. Ideally you'll find a like minded player, get some trenches mocked up and have a fun old time sending human wave assaults at each other.
The bottom line of it though is that this way of playing is very different to the casual "back of the book mission" type games most people play. The DKoK list isn't really suited to play it and some casual games and pretty much all tournaments will prevent you from using it. While narrative games are fun I think the more casual games are pretty fun too so it seems smart to design the army from the ground up as capable of doing both.
Copy, Improve, Innovate
The breaching drill is that good?! Good to know. When playing a standard match or even tournament have you ever had anyone object to the DKoK models, specifically infantry? I can't imagine they would but I also wouldn't be surprised because they aren't official GW pieces.
Glad to know the models will be okay with most if not all players. Its unfortunate the rules are universally rejected. I presume its because most players won't be familiar with them and therefore won't be prepared to compete effectively. The DKoK rules certainly don't favor them. Increased WS and lowered chances of being swept are certainly offset by the loss of Chimeras, the absence of special characters, inability to field mixed heavy weapons teams, loss of rockets, etc., etc. etc. It will be a while before my army is ready to play and I'm already expecting to be spanked numerous times before I get the hang of things.
1) Bad play-testing. There is no overview committee for Forgeworld products and no-one from the design studio at GW looks over anything produced by forgeworld. They are frequently unbalanced (most of them are very weak and sub-standard and a few are over-powered).
2) No standardization of design. Similar to above.
3) And this is my biggest. It is not accessible to every player. Forgeworld can't be found in game stores, it requires the purchase of rulebooks not published by GW that can't be found in stores, models are extremely over-priced, are exclusive, and can't be found in stores. IE, they are not available to everyone like GW models. It's like if you bought a chess set, but could then go to a separate entity and buy a special rulebook and special pieces that are different and do crazier things that the standardized set.
Forgeworld has no place in tournaments what-so-ever. Hell I'll refuse to play against forgeworld rules even in most friendly games as I do not support this kind of gaming/business model tripe.
No if GW took a more active role, put out codex expansions or alternate lists from the design studio (y'know, like battefront does with Flames of War....and does it very well) then I'd be on board with that right. Right now the whole forgeworld system (rules wise anyway, then models are nice) is just garbage.
Their designs are focused on making cool toys that will be fun to play with, not with creating balanced units that will be fair to use against any army in a competitive environment.
They're trying to enable narrative games and they're only balanced inside of rather specific scenarios. If you're playing assaults against the right kind of list then the siege regiment makes a lot of sense, but I've used a Krieg list against a marine biker army and it was just a ridiculous game (of course marines on bikes are inherently ridiculous but that's a different issue!).
FW books /are/ in the GW stores though, at least here in the UK. I don't get the idea that there's somehow an absurd barrier to entry around FW that isn't there in the mainstream game. I see FW books the same way I see the enemy forces codicies. Noone actually buys them all right?
Copy, Improve, Innovate
It is unfortunate that there isn't greater synergy between FW and GW. I mean come on, one owns the other, and both are making models for the same basic game. Why some models are perfectly aligned but so many others aren't is a wierd business model. I agree based on just what I've read in various comments on boards that FW game designing isn't on the same level as GW. That said, every GW army fan-board can tell you exactly what part of their GW codex is poorly written, which models are over/underpowered, etc. And regarding Forgeworld game designs in general but DKoK specifically, the general opinion seems to be that, apart from being an unknown commodity to most GW gamers, they're not as good/strong/deadly/synergistic/etc. as the 40k codex armies and so, as in Korona's example of a siege army list vs. a Marine biker army (Who among us really thinks that marines wielding chainsaws on bikes with massive tires on a wartorn battlefield would actually be any good?!?!) its an uphill slog to say the least. If GW and FW actually worked together instead of mostly parallel, I think most of the issues would go away quickly creating a much larger, richer, and varied universe within which to game.