Thunderwolf warlord

[Rune_Priest_Rhapsody]

I also think that almost anything that can be hurt by massed 'bolter' fire will die to enough of it, as Skeletoro stated. For me it really is about the price reduction allowing either more models or better equipment or both now. The lower cost make's it a much more desirable unit to take (which is why we will see LOTS of them allied to almost any army) whether it dies to fire or not.

 

End of Line

[Grimtooth]

I am not telling you what happens on a chalkboard, I am telling you what happens on a game board.  Opponents do not measure the threat presented to a GH pack as they do against TWC.  If you want a realistic example instead of one to one standard, take your GH pack facing one unit of massed fire and compare it to a TWC unit taking 3 units of massed fire, because that is what happens in the real World of Wahammer 40k as opposed to theorycrafting match mechanics.

 

People use heavy bolters, frag missiles, auto cannons, and assault cannons to wipe out terminator squads, certainly not because of their ap factor, but due to the volume of fire forcing save upon save.  The exact same applies to TWC and is exactly what happened once the shock and awe factor wore off with our last codex.  The TWC deathstar became more of a liability and points sink then it did as an actual field advantage.  Cost has not removed this factor.  The unit might be able to withstand one more round of fire due one or two more additional TWC with the points reduction of each individual TWC, but at that point are they still the deathstar that you originally intended them to be?  Not at all.

[Rune_Priest_Rhapsody]

You and I play different games, Ramses. In a competitive kitted out, every point counts kind of game maybe it's not a deathstar. In the thematic fluff driven games that I play, the idea of this kind of unit is exactly how I would describe a deathstar. I am sure you understand that, and are talking more to the competitive side of the packs understanding. There are those of us who don't care about those things and I am only defending my earlier comment in this regard. I am aware of the mathematical and problematical side of this argument, I just choose to hold it in less importance when building an army list.

 

End of Line

[Grimtooth]

You and I play different games, Ramses. In a competitive kitted out, every point counts kind of game maybe it's not a deathstar. In the thematic fluff driven games that I play, the idea of this kind of unit is exactly how I would describe a deathstar. I am sure you understand that, and are talking more to the competitive side of the packs understanding. There are those of us who don't care about those things and I am only defending my earlier comment in this regard. I am aware of the mathematical and problematical side of this argument, I just choose to hold it in less importance when building an army list.

 

End of Line

That was directed towards Skel and not you.

 

From a fluff perspective, my thunderlord and accompanying unit will probably not win efficience awards or comp list reccomendations.  I had no problems last edition maxing out my thunderlord just because he was supposed to be the baddest mofo on the board.  However, in terms of deathstars being points savy, I would like to get other fun stuff in my list by not going full geartard on him and his twc unit.  I see no difference in the rush to make TWC deathstars in 5th edition when our codex hit and now, with the full expectation of the same result when people got over the initial shock and awe.

[skeletoro]

thing is though Ramses, if the shock and awe factor leads your opponent to make poor choices (ie use autocannons against TWC rather than rhinos) then that's an advantage to you.

 

 

 

if your opponent is making better choices because of the shock factor (all other things being equal it is often a good idea to focus fire) then perhaps that's a disadvantage to TWC. BUT if they're taking a lot of fire, the points reductions certainly do help because it means your opponent will have to fire more at the TWC before they can start killing your other, squishier units.

 

if you're having 3 units target your TWC well, that's 3 units that will likely destroy a smaller proportion of your army than if they'd shot your grey hunters (in terms of points). If your 500 point TWC contingent has swelled in size from 6 models to 8 models and you're sucking up 4 squads of shooting rather than 3, then that's not bad. And the points cost are very clearly relevant to survivability in this case.

[Grimtooth]

Did you ever play any TWC or thunderlord builds before 2014? I ask this because I played them during their rise to power, when they were countered, and during their fall. It didn't matter if your opponent was directing fire at your deathstar, because most people built their armies around said deathstar and once it was made ineffective, the rest of the army collapsed. The writing was on the wall and the deathstar went the way of the dodo and was toned down by the players to spread points around to other aspects of the army that were going to make a bigger impact. I remember telling members here that my GH had become my blunt instruments of war while my TWC gave up that role and became a surgical tool.

 

The era of the TWC deathstar had its time and as the codex aged in relation to others, it ended. But go ahead and buy and build. The same people that went crazy over MSU razorspam did the same thing and we're shocked when they stopped being as effective as well.

[Wispy]

Ramses, you're arguing against the sky being blue. Bigger squads, more wounds, same price = more survivable.

[Frater Cornelius]

My biggest issue with TWC is that you are not allowed to take singles or 2 wolf squads anymore. A minimal of three kitted out can get expensive really fast, but that ain't the issue. The biggest problem is that instant death shots and torrents of fire can potentially remove the entire unit. With solo or dual TWC it is harder to justify pointing an entire unit at them and it leaves you more points for other threats. As for effectiveness, even a single TWC can do much but preferably you charge 2 solo or 1 dual wolf into the enemy. This also helps to deal with heavy overwatch.

As it stands, I will possibly do a dedicated Harald list at some point with TWC, mounted Iron Priests and Lords and FW.

Now thought I feel drawn way more to a Krakendoom style play because we got an awesome flyer/dedicated transport and because I enjoy METUL BAWKSES.

[Wispy]

Player psychology isn't a problem. If they're using less efficient tactics do to shock and awe, that's an arrow in your quiver.

 

I used to field two single, super kitted out TWC units and they were sooo much. The base dude was 50, +30 for a storm shield, + another 30 for thunder hammer. Now I can field a whole, vanilla unit for 3 for a similar cost.

[The Rose Princes]

Also remember Harald gives all units of cavalry or beasts Stubborn if he's your warlord just by existing.... you're not getting that with any other build unless you roll lucky.

 

also, in Skeletro's math, are we at all counting the movement distance as TWC will get in to combat much faster to prevent shooting before the Terminators do, or is that so much more/different/euclidean math that we don't want to bother?

[skeletoro]

I didn't include that because it's so hard to express in terms of wounds or points costs. But yeah, it's a pretty big benefit.

[Frater Cornelius]

The TWC I took were mostly just with SS. 80 points a head weren't too bad, that is 2 naked TWC today.

 

By the way, if you take Harald, have him be the first model when charging a massive Flamer overwatch (like Burna Boys) and have you biggest smirk on when you are explaining to your opponent that those 30 flamer hits aren't going to hurt him :D

[Evilmerlin]

That put a serious smile on my face.