Thunderfire Cannons

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I try, Grim. I love my TFC; thought about getting a second one!

 

id say go for it, two works sooooo much better than one..

 

But they're such a pain to put together. . .

[greatcrusade08]

But they're such a pain to put together. . .

 

yeah tell me about it

Blood for the bloo..... Emperor ;)

[Tangamarine]

Well then you do this

Behold the plastic thunderfire cannon

[Br0ther Rafen]

Thanks for all of the feedback guys, I didn't think that this topic would get much feedback at all.

Thanks Dues ex Ferrum for the tactica, it is a very solid and simple tactica.

For others, GC08 and Wanniel have made very valid points about it's strengths, and it's weaknesses have been very clearly outlined by Jackelope King and others.

Thanks for the help guys.

[waaanial00]

But they're such a pain to put together. . .

 

yeah tell me about it

Blood for the bloo..... Emperor ;)

 

Youve on the right path guys, the more blood you spill the more luck you have with it :P

 

This is probably the biggest disadvantage of the entire package. The amount of effort it takes to put the model together is prohibative enough to put quite a few people off. I know of at least one person in my group that has been impressed with the Thunderfire but refuses to buy the model, the fact that I told him exactly how much of a pain it was to put together (parts of my thumb are lost forever) might explain his attitude.

 

@Br0ther Rafen - glad you got what you wanted out of it.

[greatcrusade08]

the price is a little scary too.. they would sell alot more were it cheaper IMO

[Br0ther Rafen]

I have found the kit not to hard to assemble.

Not to say that its easy, but after a an hour or 2 it was fully assembled.

Now has anyone tried to assemble the old metal Ven Dread? Now THAT'S a pain in the ;)

[Bartali]

It's fairly sound too; someone who has never used a certain unit is more likely to be unfamiliar with it - I'm not saying take a TFC or two and hope your opponent is an idiot (though idiot-hoping is always encouraged), I'm saying that you can get a decent IC potentially, alongside a fairly deadly weapon for 100 pts.. Can't be that bad?

 

I find this such a strange thing to say....

Personally I'd rather play non-idiots. Either I'll win, and feel good about having my tactics validated. Or I'll loose and learn from my opponent. Can't see any enjoyment in baby seal clubbing to be honest...

 

As for the TFC, the problem for me apart from it's fragility and slowness is what it does to your army selection.

 

I like field units that have dual roles, for the most part each unit will have anti-infantry and anti-tank. Eg MM/HF Speeder, Tac in a Rhino with Flamer and Multi-melta, Dakka Pred etc What this does is make target selection hard for your opponent - if every unit in your list can threaten each of theirs, then no unit can safely be ignored.

 

A TFC is for the most part anti-infantry, which forces you to emphasise anti-tank elsewhere in your list. This makes target priority easy for your opponent - Mech armies will ignore the TFC and focus on anti-tank, foot the opposite.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

I get what you mean Bartali, if everything can threaten anything, you should have all bases covered right? I find that this is actually a little hard to achieve, especially if you want to make use of certain units or ploys. There is also a difference in the potential output of firepower if a squad uses multiple weapons (though not so much vehicle platforms)

 

In cases such as the MM/HF speeder combo its great, but in the case of a tactical squad that uses a MM/Flamer combo, its either close to a horde of light infantry flaming and the MM is going to waste, or shooting at vehicles where the rest of the squad then goes to waste. If it were a Meltagun, MM combo then they'd be aimed at vehicles naturally and probably stand a better chance of ripping whatever it is open, the squads bolters come in to take care of infantry to help out the melta weapons

 

I whole heartedly support making sure units can multi task however, I just felt it worth trying to balance that arguement.

 

But in the case of the TFC, it's job may be singular, but it works to benefit other units and instead of generalising here you have to use the TFC in tandem with something else. In many ways 2 units dedicated to a task (EG Anti-Tank a transport open, TFC the stranded soldiers)work very effectively together as each do their job well and can clean up units perhaps faster than generalists. The downside of course is that if 1 part of the tag team goes, the whole thing no longer works which is why generalising can last longer.

[Bartali]

In cases such as the MM/HF speeder combo its great, but in the case of a tactical squad that uses a MM/Flamer combo, its either close to a horde of light infantry flaming and the MM is going to waste, or shooting at vehicles where the rest of the squad then goes to waste. If it were a Meltagun, MM combo then they'd be aimed at vehicles naturally and probably stand a better chance of ripping whatever it is open, the squads bolters come in to take care of infantry to help out the melta weapons.

 

A quick Off-topic onto Tactical Squads. A full Tac squad in a Rhino is always primarily anti-infantry with all of those Bolter shots, and a flamer complements this nicely. Ideally you want to Rapid Fire to make best use of them, and midfield is the best place to do it. What the Multi-Melta (a free upgrade don't forget) does is allow you to also threaten tanks from this position, making it very hard to shift the Tacs from midfield. You wouldn't hunt tanks with a Tac Squad, think of the Multi-Melta as a "Keep Away" to enemy tanks and transports.

 

 

But in the case of the TFC, it's job may be singular, but it works to benefit other units and instead of generalising here you have to use the TFC in tandem with something else. In many ways 2 units dedicated to a task (EG Anti-Tank a transport open, TFC the stranded soldiers)work very effectively together as each do their job well and can clean up units perhaps faster than generalists.

The downside of course is that if 1 part of the tag team goes, the whole thing no longer works which is why generalising can last longer.

 

Most definately. Quite a few Eldar players talk about "Synergy" between units - Fire Dragons pop the tanks, Dire Avengers shoot the contents for example. What happens if the Fire Dragons ride gets shot down ?

[Arkios]

A TFC is for the most part anti-infantry, which forces you to emphasise anti-tank elsewhere in your list. This makes target priority easy for your opponent - Mech armies will ignore the TFC and focus on anti-tank, foot the opposite.

 

Funny thing is, Mech armies probably have the most to fear from the TFC. Every time a transport full of infantry pops, the TFC's gunner smiles with wicked glee. Bike / Jump Pack armies have a lot to worry about too, as the TFC can remove a lot of their mobility... and Infantry armies don't even need to be mentioned, as you have just said that "A TFC is for the most part anti-infantry".

 

But the TFC isn't just for killing infantry. There can be so much more than the bilateral ideology of a unit being able to kill Vehicles and/or infantry. What about the fact that the TFC can reach across the board 60 inches? Or the fact that it can be used to take out units in cover that would normally require a unit of yours to close with them and use a flamer? What about the fact that S6 is indeed a threat to AV10 in a pinch? (Im not saying AV10 is the TFC's primary target, But I have had times by the end of a game where Ive killed off all proper targets within sight of my TFC and fired it on a buggy or walker or something).

 

Most importantly IMO, is the TFC's ability to hinder the enemies movement. The subterranean detonation rounds are really the most tactical part of the gun. I have used these to buy 1-2 turns to deal with units like Thunder Wolf Cavalry when they would normally have been in my lines by turn 1. Hit Nob bikers with that same shot, and not only are they taking dangerous terrain tests, but they can no longer turbo boost as they count as being in difficult terrain. Use that tremor shot to support one of your flanking units, by hindering and delaying enemy reinforcements to that flank. You really have a lot that you can do with this, you just need to think outside the box a little.

 

People need to think a bit more in depth about their units then just "Dis'un iz fo killin' Tankz, and Dis'unz fo killin' peepulz"

[Hellios]

All I can say is if the army hasn't won a GT then that means it can't be effective then that means there are loads of other lists out there which are apparently sub-optimal. Only a single army can with a GT therefore that means the others are not good enough.

 

It's the wrong way of looking at things. Personally I found waaanial00's list to be a powerful obstacle to victory. I have also witnessed it perform well against opponents who are Throne of Skull finalists. It's possible I am lying but then it is also possible I'm not ;)

 

See that is by far the most useful comment... Instead of telling me Waanial00 is good or that he has beaten good (well ok you didn't say he beat them but did well at any rate) you have told me he has done well against Throne of Skulls finalists (Obviously I can only read so much into that)... But I can make some assumptions that they know what they are doing... so how well did they do... when he played them were they using their tourny lists or the type of lists they would consider tourny level or just messing around...

 

@ GC... I realise the internet dosen't carry over ones meaning very well so I shouldn't have made the comment about the thunderfire as in fact I've never used one in a tourny... but even if I had won the throne of skulls 10 times in a row... if I had done it without using a thunderfire it wouldn't matter... If I'd taken a thunderfire and lost I could only say it didn't work with my list or that it let me down (it could have done well by itself but that is meaningless as it is used in a list) and If I had won then I would be supporting the thunderfire?

 

As for competitive... How competitive something isn't the same in everyway as how good something is. You could have a really tough environment but not be as good (and that isn't what I'm saying... the thing is I can't judge your environment what I think of as hard could be super-duper hard for you or it could be easy for you).

 

Let me put it like this When the kids 40k club is run some of them are very competitive within the kids group... however if you take them out of that group and put them against one of the mid level vets... the vet may well be better (I've met some great kids in my time but I hope you get what I'm saying) than them even if in the vet environment they are not as competitive... the people who play in the competitive vets environment would eat the kid... 3rd division footballers vs 2nd vs 1st... I'm sure just because they are in lower leagues they don't just think we won't compete but you might be willing to admit that those from the 1st have an advantage.

 

Now personally I don't think just because you play in a tourny you are god... infact I no some really good players who have no interest in such events... but I think we can all admit at the top level of tournies you do get a number of good players? Now I know what that level is... I've played some of these people and I've watched others so if Idaho says Waanial00 is doing well aginst finalists (and as I've said that is a bit vague) I can go hmmm so he is ok to one degree or another... It means more than even saying he is the best person in your play group... because your play group means nothing to me... some of the lists I've seen look pretty good! But as we all know in the age of the net-list (and I'm not saying you guys have net-lists) that just because someone has a good list you can't make the assumption they know what they are doing.

 

I'm sorry if I seem hostile, if I look like an :( or that I'm trolling (FYI if I was trolling you wouldn't know :P) but it is how I like to do things... I find that by being stubborn (to the point of being unreasonable) I can get a great deal from people. Normally I choose who I do this to (because it won't work on everyone) but on the internet I can't tell what kind of people you are and it is my fallback stance... and since I've trained people in a certain sport to world class level by being an ':cuss' I'm happy it works... I was never world class myself... being stubborn alone isn't enough :P

[Captain Juan Juarez]

If I'd taken a thunderfire and lost I could only say it didn't work with my list or that it let me down...

 

Why does that mean that the Thunderfire is bad and not your list? You put a list together that that all the parts work together so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, you don't take a Mech list and then drop in a TFC because you have a few points spare, it just wouldn't work.

 

 

The simple fact is that any unit has to be considered both on its own merits - it's potential to cause damage Vs. how easy it is to destroy - and on how it will work within your army.

 

Until you use a list that factors in the Thunderfire Cannons, saying "well if I lost with one in my list that'll be to blame" is both pointless and rather counter-productive because you are working on assumptions rather than fact.

[greatcrusade08]

All I can say is if the army hasn't won a GT then that means it can't be effective then that means there are loads of other lists out there which are apparently sub-optimal. Only a single army can with a GT therefore that means the others are not good enough.

 

It's the wrong way of looking at things. Personally I found waaanial00's list to be a powerful obstacle to victory. I have also witnessed it perform well against opponents who are Throne of Skull finalists. It's possible I am lying but then it is also possible I'm not :)

 

See that is by far the most useful comment... Instead of telling me Waanial00 is good or that he has beaten good (well ok you didn't say he beat them but did well at any rate) you have told me he has done well against Throne of Skulls finalists (Obviously I can only read so much into that)... But I can make some assumptions that they know what they are doing... so how well did they do... when he played them were they using their tourny lists or the type of lists they would consider tourny level or just messing around...

 

is this a good time to say ive beaten 4 different ToS players with my list (and therefore t-fires).. but it carries less wieght IMO than the dozens of other armies ive beaten in the past year.

how can you assume idaho isnt lying or Wan wasnt cheating.. those were the two accusations i recieved when i said i had success with them.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

those were the two accusations i recieved when i said i had success with them.

 

I think they should just handicap you by banning Scouts in your lists GC! :)

[greatcrusade08]

i just cant be dealing with this double standard tbh..

why is my opinion worth less than anyone elses?

[Captain Juan Juarez]

i just cant be dealing with this double standard tbh..

why is my opinion worth less than anyone elses?

 

The only opinion in this thread that isn't worth anything is actually mine.

 

That said, everyone here makes a point based off experiences with the unit.. Barring Hellios who has preconcieved notions about the Thunderfire Cannon.

 

That said, if you think that people don't value your opinion GC.. I have to say I have nothing but respect for you.

[Bannus]

I am finding all points of view on the topic helpful. If one opnion is being valued less, the reason probably has more to do with supporting a pre-conceived notion than anything else.

[Silber]

Soooo.... what do I do with my Thunderfire in a Dawn of War deployment? How doesn't loosing a turn of shooting and not being able to set up in cover in a favourable position simply ruin the Thunderfire? I cannot quite see that....

[greatcrusade08]

Soooo.... what do I do with my Thunderfire in a Dawn of War deployment? How doesn't loosing a turn of shooting and not being able to set up in cover in a favourable position simply ruin the Thunderfire? I cannot quite see that....

 

its not quite as bad as that, if you ge first turn your fine, you walk it on first turn near/in cover and with night fighting your oppoent cant shoot it turn one anyway.

if you go second things get a little more sporting, just need to be brave

[waaanial00]

@silber - It is an annoying situation, however its not a hugely problematic situation. What you lose out on in positioning you gain in unpredictability.

 

Your enemy cannot simply out deploy the cannon because it does not know exactly where it will be deployed. Couple the fact that long ranged shooting is largely inneffective in Dawn of War because of night fighting (which in itself is something a shrewd player can work around using searchlights) and I dont see it as a massive loss.

 

Its a definite draw back though, something which tanks to a large extent dont suffer so much from. However I would point out that artillery takes dangerous terrain rather than difficult, so at least the mobility through terrain is not hampered. You could also potentially mitigate the problem (if you knew beforehand that you would only be playing Dawn of War) by taking a drop pod. Something which isnt massively advisable but is certainly an option.

 

Remember that the techmarine can still fire so it can walk on and plasma/flamer a close unit if there is one, not likely in DOW but certainly has been known to happen.

[Hellios]

If I'd taken a thunderfire and lost I could only say it didn't work with my list or that it let me down...

 

Why does that mean that the Thunderfire is bad and not your list? You put a list together that that all the parts work together so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, you don't take a Mech list and then drop in a TFC because you have a few points spare, it just wouldn't work.

 

 

The simple fact is that any unit has to be considered both on its own merits - it's potential to cause damage Vs. how easy it is to destroy - and on how it will work within your army.

 

Until you use a list that factors in the Thunderfire Cannons, saying "well if I lost with one in my list that'll be to blame" is both pointless and rather counter-productive because you are working on assumptions rather than fact.

 

My list could be bad but the OP isn't interested in my list they are interested in the TFC... I'm sure I could build a list where the TFC is pretty much my best unit... but the list itself might not be good. The fact that the thunderfires do well means little if the list is doing well... maybe I have to sacrifice to much to let the TFCs do what they need to do for example. So what could I say... I could say that they didn't work with my list (and this is assuming that everything did ok but the synergy wasn't there) or I can say the rest of my list did fine but my TFCs didn't do what I needed them to do.

 

I can only tell you how awesome they are when they are doing what they need to do and my army is also doing what it needs to do. So that is why I'm asking for results against a play group I can estimate the abillity of rather than I defeated the mighty Mike master of middle England using thunderfires... I have no idea who mighty mike is.

 

 

 

All I can say is if the army hasn't won a GT then that means it can't be effective then that means there are loads of other lists out there which are apparently sub-optimal. Only a single army can with a GT therefore that means the others are not good enough.

 

It's the wrong way of looking at things. Personally I found waaanial00's list to be a powerful obstacle to victory. I have also witnessed it perform well against opponents who are Throne of Skull finalists. It's possible I am lying but then it is also possible I'm not :P

 

See that is by far the most useful comment... Instead of telling me Waanial00 is good or that he has beaten good (well ok you didn't say he beat them but did well at any rate) you have told me he has done well against Throne of Skulls finalists (Obviously I can only read so much into that)... But I can make some assumptions that they know what they are doing... so how well did they do... when he played them were they using their tourny lists or the type of lists they would consider tourny level or just messing around...

 

is this a good time to say ive beaten 4 different ToS players with my list (and therefore t-fires).. but it carries less wieght IMO than the dozens of other armies ive beaten in the past year.

how can you assume idaho isnt lying or Wan wasnt cheating.. those were the two accusations i recieved when i said i had success with them.

 

That is more useful but since pretty much anyone can turn up at the ToS... it would be much better if you could tell me they were top table players or something like that.... and were they using throne of skulls lists? I can make armies to fight in tournies... but they probably wouldn't be what I would normally use... If I took by 1ksons list to a tourny I wouldn't expect to win unless it had theme and comp and so on... then I might do ok. The thing is I could beat hundreds of armies with ease using chaos dreads, spawn and other units considered bad in the chaos codex... but that would depend on the quality of the player and the list they are taking. Your local gaming group may have a higher standard than the ToS... on another note they may have problems understanding how you roll dice. If someone tells me they placed well in the ard boys finals not only do I know they have done well in multiple qualifying rounds (I think that is how it works for ard boyz... I'm not in the states) but they have then done well against players who have done well in multiple qualifying rounds.

 

As for the cheating thing you brought up that the guy who won ToS was cheating and so tournies can't be trusted... so is everyone else at the tourny cheating? I would like to think most players are honest and so in general we can use the tourny as a good level... If we assume all the tourny players are cheating I may as well assume all other players cheat as well... have you never met a cheat or been told a story about a cheat outside of a tourny environment?

 

My aim wasn't to imply that you are a cheat but that the whole X is a cheat really has no major impact on what I say... except if everyone is so great why are they letting cheats get away with it... do you not punish such sinners by means of dreadsock?

 

I could do a thing in my sig that said W:12893 D: 33.3333 L:-8 and someone could see it and go wow he is good! (lets assume that those stats are real) The thing is he has no idea of what I'm playing against. Your wins against a zillion people may well mean more to you... and mean more to those who know you and who you play and that is cool because you have context to put those games in. Someone like me has never had the pleasure of meeting you or playing you or watching you play (as far as I know) and so everything you say has no context. If you tell me you've beaten ToS top table players while they are using ToS lists I now have a context in which I can put those games... and with context things have meaning.

[greatcrusade08]

As for the cheating thing you brought up that the guy who won ToS was cheating and so tournies can't be trusted... so is everyone else at the tourny cheating?

 

care to quote me saying that?

 

in my opinion, your putting too much stock in GTs.. indy tournaments can be just as competative and so can friendly LGS games.

now ive told you that the t-fire is brilliant and that the synergy and usefulness in my lists is great.. if your only counter to this is "your opponents could be noobs" then id suggest all your doing is trolling.

i dont enjoy clubbing baby seals never have.. anyone who follows my progress knos i play as many competative matches as i can because i learn more from them

[waaanial00]

Hellios - Given that you dont play anymore I dont think its worth proving anything to you. Couple that with the fact that you dont want to be competitive or you were lying it make even less difference.

 

@GC I wouldnt bother replying to him anymore, given he doesnt understand how much he is trolling and going down a route which is completely unimportant he will never understand what you are trying to say to him anyway.

[greatcrusade08]

@GC I wouldnt bother replying to him anymore, given he doesnt understand how much he is trolling and going down a route which is completely unimportant he will never understand what you are trying to say to him anyway.

 

yeah i know i shouldnt even rise to it.. theres a small part inside me that realises some people can be damaging to new players/readers .. it doesnt sit well with me