Thunderfire Cannons

[breng77]

The problem I see with the argument that they are good at destroying Deep striking termies is that Unless you have 2 of them it is never really going to happen against a good player. If I knew you had multiple template weapons and I was deep striking my termies I am doing 1 of 2 things. If I have tactical termis They will deepstrike in and Shoot the TF cannon and kill it (more than likely), If I cannot get a good place to do this or have assault termies I am going to run after I deepstrike and unless I roll a 1 on my run roll I am going to be at max coherency. SO you are unlikely to cover the bases of all of my termies. This also assumes I have nothing else in my army that can shoot and destroy the TF cannon.

[greatcrusade08]

The problem I see with the argument that they are good at destroying Deep striking termies is that Unless you have 2 of them it is never really going to happen against a good player. If I knew you had multiple template weapons and I was deep striking my termies I am doing 1 of 2 things. If I have tactical termis They will deepstrike in and Shoot the TF cannon and kill it (more than likely), If I cannot get a good place to do this or have assault termies I am going to run after I deepstrike and unless I roll a 1 on my run roll I am going to be at max coherency. SO you are unlikely to cover the bases of all of my termies. This also assumes I have nothing else in my army that can shoot and destroy the TF cannon.

 

your also making the assumption that the t-fire is the only enemy target... you cant approach a unit thinking in these terms ^^^..

my point is that if you can get enough termies under the templates you can cause enough wounds to kill some....

 

i merely put the examples in as a way to counter the argument that t-fires suck against termies.. if you can get two termies covered with a S6 blast template you should cause enough wounds to kill one, if you can get more then the chances go up dramatically.

[Jackelope King]

It frustrates me that people still spout rubbish like "it breaks in even a light breeze", if you believe that then you are a fool. It is a vehicle with AV10, it can go in cover, it can sometimes make that cover give a better save and the hits are randomised between itself and the techmarine who is wearing artificer armour. It is 100 points, its never going to carry your army for you so take it with the knowledge that on turn 3 when/if it perishes its likely drawn enough fire and given enough pain that your army as a whole has profited.

See, you're wrong about that. Most competitive lists are going to pack ranged firepower that will be sufficient to force you to a decision for the lifespan of the Thunderfire Cannon. My biker list packs 3x Rifleman Dreads, 3x Dakka Predators. Any Thunderfire you put on the table will die turn 1, no questions asked. And it doesn't have anywhere near the durability to survive a volley.

 

Let's do the math. I fire a Rifleman Dread at the thing. S7 means on a 3, I glance. Then let's stick it in ruins and give you a 3+ cover save.

 

One hit means there's a 20% chance that I poofed your Thunderfire (either whacked the Cannon or your Tech-Marine failed his save). Odds shoot up to 36% on two hits, 49% with three, and if I hit with all four shots, that's a 59% chance of success. Now if I shoot two Riflemen at it, 5 hits means I have a 67% chance of killing it, 6 hits gives me a 75% chance, 7 give me an 80% chance, and all 8 hits would be an 84% chance. And with a 90% chance of any one shot from a Rifleman hitting, it's not hard to hit that sweet-spot of 6-7 shells hitting, and remember that even just one shooting gives me almost even chances of popping the gun. Without the benefits of the vehicle damage chart, it's equivalent to just needing to score a wound on a T6 Sv- creature.

 

And that's not all of my ranged support. I still have plenty left over to open up transports or tag the rest of your firebase.

 

And this kind of firepower isn't uncommon. A squad of four missile launcher Long Fangs will open it up with similar results. Hive Guard are more likely to need to maneuver into range, but they're also less likely to be targeted in return, and they might even be able to deny you that cover save. Even BA pack reasonably-priced Devastators in Bloodhammer lists. And IG or Tau? Forget about it. Even Orks still get Lootaz, who will happily shoot up your anti-horde weapon.

 

Sure, you're likely to have other threats on the table, but to my Biker list, a Thunderfire and its subterranian shells is likely to be priority numero uno. So it will die. On turn 1, unless you deploy extremely well in such a way that I have no line of sight to your Thunderfire but you have line of sight to me.

 

Now let's compare it to a similar threat in the Landspeeder Typhoon. Point cost is similar (the Typhoon is 10 points cheaper), and the AV is the same. Typhoon is less versatile in terms of Interference but has greater duality in its ability to threaten MCs, light tanks, and heavy infantry. In the same volley from a Rifleman, one hit means I have a 17% chance of killing it outright. Two hits gives me a 30% chance. Three hits gives me a 43% chance. Four hits brings it up to a 53% chance. Slight edge to the Typhoon, as you can see, assuming even the benefit of a 3+ cover save for the Thunderfire Cannon, and not assuming that the Typhoon is able to maneuver out of range or line of sight. But what if the Typhoon flies flat-out and gets its 4+ cover save? I go down to an 8% chance with one hit, a 16% chance with two hits, a 23% chance with three hits, and a 29% chance with four hits.

 

The Thunderfire does indeed "break in a light breeze", especially when compared to other vehicles in the game. Ranged firebases are simply too prevalent in competitive play to expect a Thunderfire Cannon to reliably outrange enemy fire and still enjoy the benefits of improved cover, and without the benefit of the vehicle damage chart, its durability is too low to expect it to last long enough to contribute significantly to the outcome of a game. Again, its damage-output and utility cannot be understated, but the thing isn't even a glass cannon: it's a wet paper bag cannon.

[greatcrusade08]

It frustrates me that people still spout rubbish like "it breaks in even a light breeze", if you believe that then you are a fool. It is a vehicle with AV10, it can go in cover, it can sometimes make that cover give a better save and the hits are randomised between itself and the techmarine who is wearing artificer armour. It is 100 points, its never going to carry your army for you so take it with the knowledge that on turn 3 when/if it perishes its likely drawn enough fire and given enough pain that your army as a whole has profited.

See, you're wrong about that. Most competitive lists are going to pack ranged firepower that will be sufficient to force you to a decision for the lifespan of the Thunderfire Cannon. My biker list packs 3x Rifleman Dreads, 3x Dakka Predators. Any Thunderfire you put on the table will die turn 1, no questions asked. And it doesn't have anywhere near the durability to survive a volley.

The Thunderfire does indeed "break in a light breeze", especially when compared to other vehicles in the game. Ranged firebases are simply too prevalent in competitive play to expect a Thunderfire Cannon to reliably outrange enemy fire and still enjoy the benefits of improved cover, and without the benefit of the vehicle damage chart, its durability is too low to expect it to last long enough to contribute significantly to the outcome of a game. Again, its damage-output and utility cannot be understated, but the thing isn't even a glass cannon: it's a wet paper bag cannon.

 

i love statements like this.. just saying someones wrong doesnt make it so.

i would recommend actually using one (or two) and working out how to make them work rather than just mathhammer them away as rubbish.

 

there are a few people who dare to try them and most have been pleasantly surprised.. mayeb you should give them more credit than just saying "your wrong"

my own army has taken on several ToS armies and have favourable results from many of those matches.

 

i guess those are just bad players huh?

[Jackelope King]

It frustrates me that people still spout rubbish like "it breaks in even a light breeze", if you believe that then you are a fool. It is a vehicle with AV10, it can go in cover, it can sometimes make that cover give a better save and the hits are randomised between itself and the techmarine who is wearing artificer armour. It is 100 points, its never going to carry your army for you so take it with the knowledge that on turn 3 when/if it perishes its likely drawn enough fire and given enough pain that your army as a whole has profited.

See, you're wrong about that. Most competitive lists are going to pack ranged firepower that will be sufficient to force you to a decision for the lifespan of the Thunderfire Cannon. My biker list packs 3x Rifleman Dreads, 3x Dakka Predators. Any Thunderfire you put on the table will die turn 1, no questions asked. And it doesn't have anywhere near the durability to survive a volley.

The Thunderfire does indeed "break in a light breeze", especially when compared to other vehicles in the game. Ranged firebases are simply too prevalent in competitive play to expect a Thunderfire Cannon to reliably outrange enemy fire and still enjoy the benefits of improved cover, and without the benefit of the vehicle damage chart, its durability is too low to expect it to last long enough to contribute significantly to the outcome of a game. Again, its damage-output and utility cannot be understated, but the thing isn't even a glass cannon: it's a wet paper bag cannon.

 

i love statements like this.. just saying someones wrong doesnt make it so.

i would recommend actually using one (or two) and working out how to make them work rather than just mathhammer them away as rubbish.

Um, GC? I have. I ran two of them in my list for better than five months. I guess I'm a bad player then too, huh? :lol:

[greatcrusade08]

Um, GC? I have. I ran two of them in my list for better than five months. I guess I'm a bad player then too, huh? :lol:

 

i would suggest its one of two things rather than jump to that conclusion..

either you

a: didnt try hard enough or

b: your list doesnt cater for them very well.

[Hellios]

Um, GC? I have. I ran two of them in my list for better than five months. I guess I'm a bad player then too, huh? :lol:

 

i would suggest its one of two things rather than jump to that conclusion..

either you

a: didnt try hard enough or

b: your list doesnt cater for them very well.

 

This stuff is pointless... Unless you can prove (and this isn't at anyone) that your list is breaking GT level lists being played by GT level players (you know the ones who are taking the lists I just mentioned and winning or placing well and not only that but do so in multiple events) then everything is just ash in the wind... Sure thunderfire cannons can be great against certain lists... (all lists? I wouldn't care to say) But one would imagine that against other lists they are not so hot... Now what lists are the big boys taking... will TFCs do well against them? Even if they do could you spend that 200pts in a better manner?

 

One guy will say TFCs rock... the other will say they are not good enough...

 

People have made their points and people will either choose to give TFCs a go (and they may or may not find they like them) or they will decide to try something else...

 

GC... I'm all in favour of using those odd units... hell I do it all the time but I'm also not always playing to win... If you can win with them that is great... but the thing is you say if JK can't do well with them he isn't trying hard enough... I say if you can't kill two Thunderfire cannons at 1,500pts in one turn of shooting then you are not trying hard enough... Hah I wonder how good thunderfire cannons are at destroying thunderfire cannons...

[Jackelope King]

i would suggest its one of two things rather than jump to that conclusion..

either you

a: didnt try hard enough or

b: your list doesnt cater for them very well.

Aha! It wasn't the Thunderfire being a sub-optimal unit, but rather me failing the Thunderfire :lol:

 

Seriously, though, I played with the thing for five months. At first, it was like a dream. It turned hordes of orks into powder. But my opponents wised up. Other people started taking firebases and meching up instead of just running guys forward on foot. A thunderfire's firepower started to lose some shine, but its durability problems really started to show when other people had ranged firebases of their own. So I checked the probability that a Thunderfire would survive (s) and used that to calculate the probability that it would be destroyed (1-s) for any given number of shots from a number of different weapon. These results bore out with my experience at the tabletop. Conclusion: it just doesn't offer enough bang for the buck. In one turn of shooting, especially against infantry, it outdoes everything else in the Marine Heavy Support slot (bar especially tailored situations like Lysander sitting with four Heavy Bolter Devastators pumping shots into Termagaunts out of cover). However, over five turns of shooting, its durability problems become glaring. The probability of it surviving any significant amount of shooting is too low to justify the Force Organization Chart slot that could go better to a far more durable platform with far less utility but an expanded threat profile like the Dakka Predator.

 

It's not a durable weapon-platform. Full stop. And as good as its firepower is, the real beauty of the machine is the interference it can run in theory (hampering Jumper and Biker and Skimmer armies). But without the durability to be around to do that, it's not a good unit.

 

And Helios, just eyeballing it, a Thunderfire Cannon shooting Airburst shells would probably be roughly on-par with a Rifleman, actually, now that you mention it :P

[Mysticaria]

Ork Canons are 20 points each and are AV10 artillery that can be deployed into terrain. They die easy and people say they suck.

T-fire canons are 100 points each and are AV10 artillery that can be deployed into terrain. They do have access to +1 cover save.

 

That +1 cover save is not making me feel like its worth 100 points. Still feels like they are pretty fragile. I know you could still end up with a Techmarine, but honestly that only helps some armies since he's going to be in terrain at the back of the board, might take him a while to get anywhere that he can do anything useful. To me, Thunderfire Canon is all about the offensive output. If you get to fire it a couple times you are probably very happy. If it dies before you get to do anything you are probably not. Not really what I'm looking for in 100 point heavy support unit. I mean, Vindicator is 115 and Preds are 85-120, even WW are less than T-fire.

 

-Myst

[greatcrusade08]

GC... I'm all in favour of using those odd units... hell I do it all the time but I'm also not always playing to win... If you can win with them that is great... but the thing is you say if JK can't do well with them he isn't trying hard enough... I say if you can't kill two Thunderfire cannons at 1,500pts in one turn of shooting then you are not trying hard enough... Hah I wonder how good thunderfire cannons are at destroying thunderfire cannons...

 

Now now hellios you cant scorn me for saying that when JK flat out said Wan was wrong with his assertions..

 

i can probably kill a land raider and two vindies in one turn of shooting does that mae them rubbish..

 

Its this attitude thats wrong here.. the t-fire is more durable than a typhoon or any other speeder and in terrain its more durable than rhinos..

its more durable in assault and has a damage output that is greater than most other anti-infantry vehicles.

 

just becuase its AV10 and is removed from a single glance or pen doesnt make it rubbish, sure it makes it a little delicate but its hardly a wet paper bag.

 

Bottom line is this.. no the t-fire isnt sub optimal.

if myself and wan can make them work then it says alot for those who cant.. maybe instead of moaning about them and rubbishing them to people who actually read these things and want real opinions.. you should either just forget about them OR try harder to make them fit into your list..

only a poor workman blames his tools.. the very best gamers dont need these generic vulkan TH/SS and LR lists to win games.. a unit like the t-fire is deserving of a little more leeway than simple dismissal.

 

but hey what do i care really.. they work for me and work well against the top players from two different games clubs.. ill carry on using them and ill keep winning with them.

if they were truelly rubbish that wouldnt be possible would it?

[Jackelope King]

GC, you don't have to prove anything to anybody. There are no game police waiting to kick down your door for using a Thunderfire Cannon. Every single point I make is meaningless if all it comes down to is "I want it in my army."

 

(There might be waiting to kick down the doors to GW's modeling department for designing the freaking thing... those are seriously two hours of my life that I want back.)

 

However, when you make recommendations, then I'll ask you to back your assertions with hard facts. I haven't been moaning about them being rubbish. I've provided analysis backed by the numbers that are at the foundation to the game and my experience with them (fighting with them and against them). And this analysis leads me to conclude that they shouldn't be recommended, as in most forces, there are better choices for the points and force org chart slots. I'm sure that some forces can make them work, sure. You obviously do. But most forces? I disagree.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

Like all things in the codex the TF fills a role, it has benefits over similar units such as the WW with its different ammo types and long range, but its static platform makes it more of a target and its a little more pricey and weak than its counterparts. Overall its not bad for 100 points is it? Firepower with built in techmarine, should massacre hordes, but suffers death for little firepower, course its only 100 points so we arent expecting much for that price! For me a WW is a tad more interesting as it fills a similar role but has mobility and indirect fire for slightly less..

[greatcrusade08]

And this analysis leads me to conclude that they shouldn't be recommended, as in most forces, there are better choices for the points and force org chart slots. I'm sure that some forces can make them work, sure. You obviously do. But most forces? I disagree.

 

see this is the thing, yopu dont think they should be recommended usinjg your experience, but using mine i think they do.. but you wont find me telling people they are flat out wrong like you did with Wan..

everyone is entitled to thier opinion, and i have agreed with many of your points.. but i definately dont think they are as delicate as you make out!

 

its not about wanting one in my army, i found they made my army more competative, whilst some people have claimed they are sub optimal..

 

the thing about them not fitting every force is a good thing IMO.. you shouldnt be able to simply pick up a codex and make the most uber awesome list going, if it doesnt take time and practice then the codex is overpowered (thats how i see it anyway).

 

i get irked by talk about sub optimal and not competative.. every single unit in my army has at one point been labelled as rubbish.. yet the army is IMO tournament standard.. riddle me that?

one mans trash is another mans treasure.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

Well GC, I personally think that every unit in the codex is capable of performing reasonably well given the right synergy and circumstance. Whether or not other units are more reliable and perform better over any number of games is debatable.

 

Thing is you just cannot write off any unit, sure it may perform underpar in many situations, but if you give it room to shine and display its true potential you could find yourself rapidly losing men. The thunderfire to me seems a large threat, a longe range, array of ammo...it seems that if i don't remove it, it'll kill off more than enough to justify its appearance. If i target it earlier im dedicating firepower to it rather than elsewhere.

 

As a tactical element it seems perfectly suitable in almost any given army list considering points, the only time i'd say its silly is if you put it in a pod to land in close proximity to the enemy as this makes no use of the TFs abilities. Effectively using something for a purpose it wasn't built for, otherwise every unit can perform.

[Jackelope King]

The difference, GC, is that I was willing to show you the analysis to back up my experience. That experience and that analysis lead me to only one conclusion, which I've already stated before.

 

Now if you discount my experience and say your's is better, that's fine. It doesn't GET us anywhere, but my experience is not inherently better than yours without us being jerks and comparing records and saying how much better we are than each other. That won't accomplish a darn thing. At best, we can conclude that we honed our lists in different environments.

 

But I've done the math. The math shows that several of the conclusions reached in this thread don't jive with what amounts to reality for 40k. Even accounting for the random assignment of hits between crew and artillery, a Thunderfire Cannon with the benefit of a 3+ cover save for being in ideal conditions in ruins is inferior in terms of durability that other common vehicles, including the Land Speeder Typhoon. This durability problem makes it less optimal. And if you disagree, I challenge you to back up your assertion with quantifiable data.

 

And like it or not, there is such a thing as a bad unit. Can players make them work? Probably. Again, you obviously have. But that still doesn't make it a good unit. And that doesn't make you a bad player, clearly. Again, your record speaks volumes to the opposite.

 

But I'd sooner recommend another unit for players seeking a reliable firebase in Codex: Space Marines :lol:

[Shadowstalker Grim]

I think you bring up a point here JK, in that yes there are more reliable units. BUT thats not to say 'sub-optimal' units CANNOT have such an effect, they are merely harder (sometimes much harder) to garner the same performance. But I wouldn't have thought the TF has such a poor feedback from people.....

[Hellios]

Herer we go people... I'll give you free heavy support choices and you compare them for me...

 

Bargin basement option: Whirlwind...

 

Mid-range: Thundefire Cannon...

 

Big Spender: Land Raider Achillies...

 

Now people compare them and give me your thoughts...

[Captain Idaho]

I can vouch for waaanial00's list being a powerful list. It has a Rifleman, pair of Typhoons in a squadron, a Lascannon Dread and Thunderfire as it's fire support, plus 3 units of Marines and Sternguard in Rhinos. The sheer amount of firepower you are under from turn one (all that 48"+ firepower) means you can't just casually fire at that Thunderfire as you have other problems to deal with, especially as the Thunderfire is generally miles away!

 

And there is a strength in having a 100pts unit taking long range anti-tank firepower from turn one, as it forces your opponent to target what you want.

[Hellios]

I can vouch for waaanial00's list being a powerful list. It has a Rifleman, pair of Typhoons in a squadron, a Lascannon Dread and Thunderfire as it's fire support, plus 3 units of Marines and Sternguard in Rhinos. The sheer amount of firepower you are under from turn one (all that 48"+ firepower) means you can't just casually fire at that Thunderfire as you have other problems to deal with, especially as the Thunderfire is generally miles away!

 

And there is a strength in having a 100pts unit taking long range anti-tank firepower from turn one, as it forces your opponent to target what you want.

 

How many GTs has it won?

[greatcrusade08]

But I've done the math. The math shows that several of the conclusions reached in this thread don't jive with what amounts to reality for 40k. Even accounting for the random assignment of hits between crew and artillery, a Thunderfire Cannon with the benefit of a 3+ cover save for being in ideal conditions in ruins is inferior in terms of durability that other common vehicles, including the Land Speeder Typhoon. This durability problem makes it less optimal. And if you disagree, I challenge you to back up your assertion with quantifiable data.

 

problem is certain factors arent quantifiable.. range for example.. i call on an example from a recent game (my results are my quantifiable data btw).. my opponent set his ML havocs in a bastion near one edge of the table, apparently to counter the threat of my LSS and scout bikes getting tun one charges on them.

so i set my t-fires on the opposite corner outside of his range but inside of mine.

how can you quanitfy this in terms of durability?

 

becuase 9/10ths of my army can infiltrate i find refusing flanks very easy and can minimise the number of shots coming my way for the first turn or two.

 

not everything is about maths, ive never really mathammered anything in my gaming life and i dont intend to start now....

 

Now if you discount my experience and say your's is better, that's fine. It doesn't GET us anywhere, but my experience is not inherently better than yours without us being jerks and comparing records and saying how much better we are than each other. That won't accomplish a darn thing. At best, we can conclude that we honed our lists in different environments.

 

When have i said my experience beat yours?, if i wanted to get all school girl id bring up the fact that ive been using them for the best part of two years which beats your 5 months.. thats not it, and ive never suggested you dont know your stuff.

what ive been saying all along is they work with a list that suits them.. they cant just be put in any old list an expect results, many such units have this same issue as any competative gamer will tell you.

 

in the right list they arent sub optimal, thier inherant weaknesses can be reduced or negated.

 

on the comparison front t-fires beat whirlwinds hands down.

[breng77]

I think there are two problems here.

 

1.) Using personal experience as an argument for why TF cannons are good. No one has any idea how good your competition is (it could be very good or not so good). Most of the gaming clubs around me are not what I would call highly competitive (I win games with necrons, and Dark angels way more often than I lose), and at GTs I am around 50-50 in many cases. So using experience as an argument has flaws to some extent. That is not to say that you cannot recommend something but it is just a weak argument as to why.

 

2.) Most units can work if you build a list to make them work. They can even be highly effective in said list. That said this is what makes them sub-optimal. An optimal choice is one that works in any list and is always a strong choice. I would by no means say that you should never take a thunder-fire cannon. I would also not recommend its addition to any old SM list.

 

 

Finally for the argument that if you hit 2 termies with your template you will do enough wounds to kill a few, the answer (on odds) is that you will Kill 1. This does not mean that you have a bad list or that it does not work. It means that for killing terminators TF cannons are sub-optimal.

[greatcrusade08]

I think there are two problems here.

 

1.) Using personal experience as an argument for why TF cannons are good. No one has any idea how good your competition is (it could be very good or not so good). Most of the gaming clubs around me are not what I would call highly competitive (I win games with necrons, and Dark angels way more often than I lose), and at GTs I am around 50-50 in many cases. So using experience as an argument has flaws to some extent. That is not to say that you cannot recommend something but it is just a weak argument as to why.

 

2.) Most units can work if you build a list to make them work. They can even be highly effective in said list. That said this is what makes them sub-optimal. An optimal choice is one that works in any list and is always a strong choice. I would by no means say that you should never take a thunder-fire cannon. I would also not recommend its addition to any old SM list.

 

 

Finally for the argument that if you hit 2 termies with your template you will do enough wounds to kill a few, the answer (on odds) is that you will Kill 1. This does not mean that you have a bad list or that it does not work. It means that for killing terminators TF cannons are sub-optimal.

 

all these points are nonsense and ill explain why.

 

1: if not personal experience then what? mathhammer? how things look on paper?.. how about tournaments?

 

2: if the pre requisite for optimal is to work in any list without some work then everyone should run vulkan and TH/SS termies only.. its a fallacy that you can open a dex and build the perfect list, synergy and force multipliers are important for list building and your defintion of optimal doesnt cut it IMO.

you also have to factor that people have thier own preferences, just becuase one person calls something sub-optimal doesnt make it so, its just thier opinion (of course the counter is true also)

 

Thirdly i dont undertand why everyone comes back to the termy subject, its unimportant, only raised becuase someone said they couldnt work against them.. i explained that every time i use them they DO kill termies.. if your idea of optimal is to be able to kill everything with the one weapon then i would advise the linebreaker list for you.. as vindies would be the only thing to fit the bill

[greatcrusade08]

I tire of this subject tbh.. either you play the t-fire or you dont... either way i care little and like Wan wont be returning to this thread as my points have already been raised questioned and responded too

[waaanial00]

Well you guys have succeeded in drawing me into making a second comment, first off lets draw ourselves back to the first thing that the OP said

 

Hi guys

I just wanted to start a tactica based on the Thunderfire Cannon.

 

Read it again, he is wanting a tactica, not a discussion about what is better or worse in the codex. There are more than enough bitching sessions by people on this forum spouting their mathammer and opinions dressed as fact about why A is better than B. Do we really need this to descend into further ruin down this line of argument?

 

Now I think most of the basic pros have been pointed out, however with such a wealth of experience no one is really adding much on the tactical application front.

 

How many GTs has it won?

 

All I have to say on this subject is FOOL! How many times a week do you run into a GT list run by a GT top player? Are we all making lists which have to be effective against this tiny slice of the gaming fraternity? My local meta is nothing like a GT meta, I will wager that most of the people on this forum rarely turn up to their club and see top flight GT players playing their top flight GT lists. So what kind of comment was this? Other than a foolish one liner?

 

To answer your question though my list is undefeated at a GT because I have never attended one, I have only a slight interest in going to one and that is for social reasons (looking at you Idaho). I have played in Indy tournaments and done reasonably well, however I wouldnt be screaming to the high heavens that my success or lack of it is down to me taking a single 100 point unit. It has done well in all of the games I have played it, whether it has done well through baiting or actually killing things is up for debate however I have never regretted running it.

 

And to those of you who are saying that I would do better with a Typhoon, well I have 2 in my list already. They dont do the same thing for me so its a red herring to suggest it.

 

Honestly if the subject returns to tactical applications I will waste more of my time on this, if however the frater just want evidence about how I can possibly make a thunderfire cannon work then I wont be bothering. How anyone can assert that in all cases they are so easily killed is absurd, statistically my whole army can take it out with near certainty, however then you have the rest of the army to deal with and it was worth the effort. In a real game it isnt high enough on the threat radar to be shot at with enough force to guarantee its destruction first turn, if your opponent does then bully to them.

 

One final thing, @JK a year ago you were pimping thunderfire cannons, now you are pimping predators. Why should people believe your advice now rather than your advice then? Especially when your advice can and probably will change in about 12 months? Follow what is said on the Internet with a whole bag of salt, what seems like certainty today can be shown to be nothing more than ignorance tomorrow.

[Trel]

The T-Fire may be a little situational, but I love it against non-MEQ armies.

 

Against Orks and Tyranids especially, I like to take one to splatter big, but squishy, units like Gaunts or big mobz o' Boyz. It slows them down and kills them in droves. More importantly, though, it means I don't have to worry about those units killing my Tacs via weight-of-dice. Additionally, I don't have to worry bother equipping my Tacs with things intended to kill tons of weedy units (like Heavy Bolters) and can instead focus on giving them some heavier artillery or anti-armor stuff.

 

Against Eldar and Tau infantry as well, it does the trick and, again, the T-Fire can focus on taking out clumps of troopers from afar while the more mobile Tacs can focus on taking out vehicles.

 

From a more meta-game-y perspective, the T-Fire works because no one's ever seen it lined-up against them, but it sure looks nasty. They spend a disproportionate amount of energy trying to get rid of it simply because four templates sounds terrifying.