PDA

View Full Version : Griffon Siege Mortar



The Native
05-07-2005, 07:23
This is a simple one.

Does Imperial Armor vol 1 allow use of the Griffon Siege Mortar in a Guard army? And if so, is it able to be used in a tournament? I'll buy Imperial Armor this weekend.

I'm building a city/siege based army based on the Strolkovy Rifle Compaines seen in battles such a Stalingrad.

Myst
05-07-2005, 07:53
IA Vol. 1 does indeed have rules for the Griffon but the issue of being able to use it or not lies with whoever is running the tournament.

The Native
05-07-2005, 08:11
Thanks for that.

Barbarossa
05-07-2005, 09:12
The Griffon rules are also in the old Guard Codex and GW said in a WD that you could still use it if you wanted to. But talk to the tournament guys to be sure 'cause they can allow or disallow things at their tournament as they pretty well please.

The Native
05-07-2005, 10:59
Thanks for the info. I've never played in a tournament but would some day like to.

I'm not a Basilisk fan and wanted to suppletment them with the Griffon.

Luckily I've got the old Guard Codex come to think of it.

highmarshaldave
05-07-2005, 11:05
Well thats lucky! So, tell me. . . why do you not like the Basilisk?

Dave out.

Sniper Kelly
05-07-2005, 11:08
The Griffon was also featured in the Armoured Company rules in WD296 (UK).

highmarshaldave
05-07-2005, 11:09
Erm. . . *looks*. . . yep, I believe so. Although it was in there as a "restricted unit" for doctrines purposes.

The Native
05-07-2005, 11:48
I just don't like it.

I'm not particularly fond of the model, the concept of it or the fact that it's long range artillery piece used in a close range fire fight.

To me, the Griffon is alot fluffier and for my purposes, more effective. I'm going to be fighitng Tyranids a lot.

highmarshaldave
05-07-2005, 12:07
Meh, fair do's. I normally opt forthe shazilbisk: but thats cos i normally play against marines with my IG.

Dave out.

hood_oz
06-07-2005, 00:24
I just don't like it.

I'm not particularly fond of the model, the concept of it or the fact that it's long range artillery piece used in a close range fire fight.

To me, the Griffon is alot fluffier and for my purposes, more effective. I'm going to be fighitng Tyranids a lot.

Honestly, in a tournie, just use the griffon model, and say it counts as a basilisk. And at the tabletop ranges you will fire it, it makes reasonable sense. Like really, those things could fire several tabletops in distance without much trouble. So replacing them so you can have them is no drama. IF you can use the proper rules, then great, if not, 'counts as' is the way to go.

Not the exact answer you wanted, but if you dont like the model, then thats the next best thing. If you dont like the concept of the basilisk, well, replacing it with a griffon model should be fine. Just remember to take the indirect fire option on all of them.... Just to keep it in with the look of the model.

The Native
06-07-2005, 00:37
I can't see it being a problem actually.

I mean; it was part of the old Gurd codex and it isn't hideously powerful. GW have not changed it's rules between 3rd and 4th Edition after all.

highmarshaldave
06-07-2005, 11:31
Some people could whinge about it's ommision fromn the 'dex, but it IS in Imperial Armour vol.1; so there really shouldn't be an issue.

rockywuff
06-07-2005, 12:45
Personally I like the griffon. It's a better and cheaper whirlwind. I don't play guard, but I use a looted griffon in my ork army. :)

The Native
06-07-2005, 20:58
When I look at the points value and abilities of the Griffon and compare them to the points value and abilities of the Basilisk, the Griffon wins everytime.

The Griffon has the same hull and hull weapon, a more practical weapon range and already comes with indirect fire. Sure, the gun isn't flash aginst Space Marines but because of it's minimum 12 inch range it can fire for a longer period of time without having to expose it's self.

The Basilisk's gun strength and AP are it's only advantage. And it costs 125 points if it is too fire indirectly, as opposed to the 75 points of the Griffon.

rockywuff
07-07-2005, 00:39
Right. The basilisk has the 36" minimum range (which some guard players tend to conveniently "forget" about from time to time) which makes it somewhat less useful. It has the advantage of being able to fire directly if needed which the griffon lacks, but then it has to expose itself and AV12/10/10 isn't that much to brag about..

And as said, you can almost get 2 griffons for the price of one basilisk..



Some day I'm going to field an Armored Siege Company with 6 griffons.. :)

Getz
07-07-2005, 01:09
That said, Basilisks are pretty keen at Land Raider busting...

The Native, I though the Griffon didn't have a minimum range.

The Native
07-07-2005, 03:49
It's been known to happen, but I could be wrong.

I thought the Griffon had a minimum range of 12" and a maximum range of 48".

Though, I was reading it from the Armoured Company PDF, and not the old Guard 'dex.

highmarshaldave
07-07-2005, 09:03
Yep, it has R 12" to 48". The rules most folk refer to are on P164 of IA vol. 1 (just under the Basilisk), although these the same os the 3rd ed Codex IG rules.

Dave out.

Jonik
07-07-2005, 10:31
The griffon is much better than the basilisk. And it is actually feared more by my marine opponents than my demolisher or Leman...

Something about me not having to see and still wounding on 2s :)

The Native
07-07-2005, 11:14
Exactly.

The thing about the Griffon I think a lot of people overlook is that it wounds most infantry on a 2+.

Consider these points;

1. The Griffon has a more applicable range (12" - 48") to typical 40K battlefields.
2. It wounds most infantry on either a 2+ or a 3+ and has an AP of 4.
3. It can hide behind cover for the duration of the battle.
4. It costs 75 points, standard.

The first 3 points combined allow the Griffon to fire longer, at more targets whilst not allowing those targets to fire back and ultimately, killing more models.

Combine this with the 75 point value and you've got one bad ass bargain. Hell, if your lucky and manage to land the shell on the back of a vehicle, say a Predator, you've got a good chance of knocking that 100 odd point lump'o'metal out of the game.

ZING!

rockywuff
07-07-2005, 12:05
Except that nowadays damage versus vehicles from barrages that hit it are always resolved against the armor that is facing the firer.. And if it lands outside it's only S3 so can't harm even AV10 anyway.

Adept
07-07-2005, 12:07
I prefer the Basilisk myself. It wounds everything bar the Wraithlord on a 2+, it is an excellent tank-busting weapon, and it ignores power armour. AP4 is okay, but it means two thirds of all the wounds it inflicts on Marines will be saved. Which makes it pants against the most common infantry types encountered.

The Native
07-07-2005, 12:15
Well, it shows that I'm getting back into 40K then doesn't it?

To me the Basilisk is a big amount of points for something that isn't flexible enough.

I would think that the Indirect Fire points cost is far too expensive for an "upgrade" that is so one dimensional. And then once it has no viable targets it has to move out from behind cover to target models and therefore exposing it's weak armor to enemy anti tank weapons.

Adept
07-07-2005, 16:13
Well, if anything I would think the Griffon is more one dimensional. It is only really effective against light infantry, and even then only against people who bunch their models together. A heavy weapons squad with heavy bolters would be cheaper and more effective. A Basilisk can reliably take out heavy infantry, light infantry, and vehicles of any stripe.

The indirect fire is worth its weight in gold in night-fight scenarios. And while the minimum 36" range is limiting, I rarely have to move my Bassie. Nine times out of ten, if placed carefully, you should have multiple targets. Careful selection is all that is required. Place the Bassie on the end of your lines, in order to shoot at the other end. Use it to take out the enemies stationary heavy support choices. Pick on Assault units in the first few turns, and as they get too close switch to shooting units. Rarely should you have to move it.

The Native
07-07-2005, 19:07
We'll have to agree to disagree.

Though I should point out I'll be fighting Tyranids most commonly so it is a better choice for me, and if not, I prefer to invest in Anti-Tank squads etc to take down heavy armor for various reasons.

However, I doubt a Heavy Bolter Squad would be more effective than the Griffon. It's five points more expensive (though thatís negligible really); it has strength 5 as opposed to strength 6 and both have AP 4. The Griffon does use the Ordinance template and with template rules now, you're guaranteed to hit as many models as possible whilst it can sit behind cover and rain shells down whereas a Fire Support Squad has to be out in the open and therefore vulnerable to enemy fire.

EmperorsChamp01
07-07-2005, 19:31
Doesnt the Basalisk use the Ordance template and the Griffon use the Small template? If they use different templates take the one thats bigger. Basalisk. And if you want mortars use put them in your squads. Its more flexable that way

Fockar out.

The Native
07-07-2005, 19:40
No.

As I said in the post above, it uses the Ordinanace template.

Adept
08-07-2005, 02:48
We'll have to agree to disagree.

Though I should point out I'll be fighting Tyranids most commonly so it is a better choice for me, and if not, I prefer to invest in Anti-Tank squads etc to take down heavy armor for various reasons.

Understandably. Big bugs require multiple high strength, low AP shots to bring them down, unlike actual Armour where a single lascannon hit can spell explosive freeming doom.


However, I doubt a Heavy Bolter Squad would be more effective than the Griffon. It's five points more expensive (though thatís negligible really); it has strength 5 as opposed to strength 6 and both have AP 4. The Griffon does use the Ordinance template and with template rules now, you're guaranteed to hit as many models as possible whilst it can sit behind cover and rain shells down whereas a Fire Support Squad has to be out in the open and therefore vulnerable to enemy fire.

Yeah, but most people with a bit of sense and enough room will make full use of the 2" coherency limit. Meaning that, if your template lands on target, you might be lucky to get three hits. Two of which Marines will ignore with their power armour.

A heavy bolter squad will get four or five hits. Against light infantry. Wounding on 2's or 3's, and ignoring saves. Plus it's more resilient to heavy weapons itself, a single crack rocket isn't going to ruin it's day. It's all much of a muchness, really, I just think the uses of a griffon are extremely limited (only good against light infantry) while the basilisk is more useful, but more expensive. On the plus side, the bassie does look much cooler.

The Native
08-07-2005, 12:16
Like I said; Iíll be fighting Nids a lot and the Griffon is a better choice for me.

Hell, I can get two indirectly firing Griffons that donít have to expose themselves to enemy fire for the games duration for only 25 points more than a Indirectly firing Basilisk.


I'll be sticking with the Griffon.

Plus, the Basilisk is *****.

Pendragon
08-07-2005, 13:39
Personally I like the griffon. It's a better and cheaper whirlwind.


Indeed it is. Us marine players have to improvise...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a259/Penpenpen/PICT0010.jpg

Still a WIP. Got a nice black basecoat yesterday and now it looks real promising. Now I just need to add a servitor loader and perhaps some kind of gunshield. Seeing that the Rhino is a fair bit taller tha the griffon, crew around the gun would be very exposed...

/Joel

Darkness
08-07-2005, 13:43
lol, nicely done Joel :D

Indeed, the Griffon by all means is my favourite IG tank. As rockywuff has said, it's simply got a better gun with an extra Strength than the Whirlwind, also has a better front armour value, and is yet still cheaper in points by something like 20 - What a deal! Not to mention it looks kickass too.

Getz
11-07-2005, 01:20
Yeah, but most people with a bit of sense and enough room will make full use of the 2" coherency limit. Meaning that, if your template lands on target, you might be lucky to get three hits. Two of which Marines will ignore with their power armour.


At which point you nail them with a unit of rough riders or some-such and butcher them horribly as such a strung out formation is impossibly vunerable to assault.

Seriously guys, where does the idea that this ultra spread out formation solves everything come from? Forcing your opponent to adopt such a weak formation which is sub-optimal for just about everything but receiving ordnance fire is a result in itself... If you can force the enemy to behave in a predictable manner and then punish them for it then you'll win, plain and simple.

Adept
11-07-2005, 02:57
At which point you nail them with a unit of rough riders or some-such and butcher them horribly as such a strung out formation is impossibly vunerable to assault.

It depends. If you assault a unit that is spread out to 2" for coherency, then the number of kills you can inflict is limited. A crappy infantry unit (using Guardsmen as an example, since that's what I play) will probably die in droves if they hang around. Letting you kill all the Guardsmen in base contact prevents you from making a sweeping assault, which limits you to a 3" consolidation move and means my unit has a chance to rally and stay in the game.

Tougher troops (marines) will probably pass their LD test and pile in anyway, having suffered only minor casualties since their kill zone was largely empty.

Being spread out makes it harder to kill anything, but it also makes you harder to kill in return.


If you can force the enemy to behave in a predictable manner and then punish them for it then you'll win, plain and simple.

Options for punishment are limited. You can assault them (but not kill many of them, and not run them down) but that is about it. Non template shooting is just as effective, and templates are less effective. And unless you have a combat unit within assault range, even the minimal punishment of assaulting them is a closed option.

The Native
11-07-2005, 03:34
Spreading out at max coherency is a catch 22.

Small units might benefit from it but then if they are that small an ordnance template should cover most of them anyway, unless they are arrayed in a dead straight line which in turn makes them unwieldy and prone to overlapping any cover that they may be trying to use.

If a large unit, such as a Gaunt brood, is spread out at max coherency it takes up a lot of space on the board. Also, depending on where said ordnance template lands, the Gaunts may lose value movement getting back into coherency.

Though I till say the Griffin kicks ****.

hood_oz
11-07-2005, 04:24
Spreading out at max coherency is a catch 22.

If a large unit, such as a Gaunt brood, is spread out at max coherency it takes up a lot of space on the board. Also, depending on where said ordnance template lands, the Gaunts may lose value movement getting back into coherency.

Just try using a swarm army on a standard size gaming table. you FILL the deplyment zone and in some cases have to use the reserves rule cause they dont all fit. (and I am talking large point genestealer invasion force, or the gretchin army of death) True, you lose a bit in consolidating back into coherency during the movement phase, but really it isnt enough to stop me using it for most of my armies.

The best part is you cant get past a wall of flesh. you have to assault something to get through to the deployment areas, and guants with the without number rule can be very telling on an opponent. Just keep churning them out....

Adept
11-07-2005, 05:10
Also, depending on where said ordnance template lands, the Gaunts may lose value movement getting back into coherency.

Just one thing - Casualties caused by Ordnance weapons no longer have to come from under the template. So the Gaunts shouldn't need be taken out of coherency if the Nid player is smart about which models he chooses as casualties.