Thunder Hammer & SS GKT or Hammer Hand on the BC?

[SamaNagol]

What do you feel is a better option? Paying an extra 10 pts on your HQ for 4 or 5 S8 attacks at initiative or giving up S6 I4 attacks as well as the storm bolter shots for the Thunder Hammer?

 

I am a bit undecided about it. I have converted one Thunder Hammer wielding model, but I feel that Hammer Hand may well be a superior option. Instant Kills aren't a problem when you take a GM, high toughness models aren't much of a problem either with S6 all round. I am veering towards keeping the NFW on all my Terminators and putting Hammerhand on my BC/GM for the off chance I need to punch a Land Raider.

[revnow]

The primary reason to take Hammerhand is to deal with GKT's greatest Nemesis, the Dreadnought. It's worth the 10 points because it lets your BC maintain its I4 utility against infantry, but also go toe to toe with a dread if neccesary. You'll get more attacks with a hammerhand BC/GM and you get to hit before/simul with the dread, which is really nice. Remember, hammerhand counts as dual wielding, so you get 5 attacks with a BC on the charge and 6 with a GM. That should be more than enough to put some serious hurt on any dread other than the new SM venerables.

[SamaNagol]

One clarification: The rule for Thunder Hammers says that if they wound a model but do not kill it, that model strikes at the end of the next assault phase.

 

Does that mean that if I hit with one of my attacks, and then roll to wound and pass but the model subsequently passes an invulnerable save, that model then counts as wounded? Or do I actually need to strip a wound off of the model?

[mega_marines]

As long as the enemy model is hit, he will then strike last. The model surviving the round, however, is all up to how you roll for wounding and if the saves are passed!

[revnow]

@mega_marines & SamaNagol: That's not actually correct. The Daemonhunter Thunderhammer is unique in that you actually are required to cause an unsaved wound in order for the "stun" to take effect on non vehicle models. Vehicles on the other hand only require being hit by the hammer in order to generate a "crew shaken" result.

[SamaNagol]

The wording is exactly as I wrote it.

 

However in the rule book, you allocate wounds before saving them. And the wording in the codex says 'Wounded', not loses a wound. Ergo I would take it literally as if I hit and wound you, regardless of if you save or not, you are stunned and strike last next round.

[jeffersonian000]

We can go one step further: with current rules for wound allocation, can an opponent allocate the "stunning" wounds to any model in the unit, and thus allowing a critical model to retain its initiative in the next round?

 

SJ

[SamaNagol]

Wounds are allocated by the player who owns the model. So he would know who he was choosing to have stunned. I think that's pretty clear and fair. You say it like it is a ridiculous extrapolation of my logic?

[Lord Rao]

Don't know what he meant, but it does create the rather strange situation where the thunder hammer has actually just gotten a hell of a lot less effective. I noticed this last night when playing against an Ork Nobz mob with my SW. But, that's 5th ed. melee rules for you.

 

 

LR

[Mattsama]

But, that's 5th ed. melee rules for you.

 

What is this 'may lay' you speak of, and why aren't you shooting at me from inside your transports???

[Hellios]

The wording is exactly as I wrote it.

 

However in the rule book, you allocate wounds before saving them. And the wording in the codex says 'Wounded', not loses a wound. Ergo I would take it literally as if I hit and wound you, regardless of if you save or not, you are stunned and strike last next round.

 

but making a save negates the wound? and so in fact you didn't wound the model because the save was made and because you didn't wound him he is not stunned.

 

That could just be another way of reading it... I wish GW would standardize equipment so that BBB overrules. Although I'm inclined to say Nemesis force weapons should remain remove from play rather than instant death so you can actually kill daemons XD.

[SamaNagol]

The model did not lose a wound, but I certainly wounded him.

[jeffersonian000]

All I'm saying is that the TH/SS combo really only has its place versus MC's, eternal warriors, and vehicles, where its ability to "stun-lock" a wounded but not dead opponent is useful, while against a retinue or mob, the wounds caused by a TH can be shuffled off on to non essential models preventing "stun-lock" from occurring. This is one of the reasons why our Nemesis weapons are so potent when seeded with a few TH/SS models, as they can deliver a beating at initiative to a group, while our TH/SS models attempt to "stun-lock" the big stuff near the end of the combat phase. Throw in a GM with Nemesis, and we should be able to control the outcome in close combat.

 

SJ

[SamaNagol]

I definitely agree there.

[Thaelion Hexis]

Try the rules forum with that Thunder Hammer issue, if you so wish. You are bound to get a range of answers there. I am personally of the opinion that a model only counts as being wounded when it is wounded, i.e loses a wound.

 

Thunder Hammers are good against the likes of Wraithlords, high Toughness, no Invulnerable Save. Against your T6 bad guys like Daemon Princes with just a 5+ Invulnerable Save, Hammerhand on your BC (GM too, if they have Eternal Warrior), along with his GKTs should more than suffice.

 

I almost always take it as a safety net, for those times when a dread gets too close, or other tasty armour target presents itself, whilst maintaining the Initiative. With marines having uber shields, I just stick to our unique weapons.