Raktra Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Isn't that the 5th ed ruling though? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3982128 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesh Kadesh Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Unless it makes mention of that in the main rules, which I din't have to hand, Transport Capacity of a Thunderhawk is 30 models, and may carry Dreadnoughts, Jump Infantry and Bikes. So, if someone could confirm a page numberthatd be great. Nearsst I can find without a book is the FW 6th edition Apocalypse update which allows multiple squads to join. I can't find a page which summarizes the rules for SH so it may be in there, but it is not in the LACAL, LAICL or Book IV which is what I have to hand. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3982347 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolemai Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Thunderhawks have never been able to carry Dreadnoughts. Regarding carry multiple units, the rules can be found under the heading of Super-Heavy Transports in the main rules. Which for me is page 639... Edit: My bad, seems like they can in 30k at the cost of ten models... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3982357 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acebaur Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 They can carry multiple units in 40K as well, it's also under the Super Heavy rules. This thread makes me a little sad. I have an opportunity to purchase a T-hawk at a significant discount and while I've always loved the ship anyway I had hoped to get it to see some game time in large scale battles. While I only play 40K, all of the tactical points made about them in this thread would seem to apply to 40K as well. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3982865 Share on other sites More sharing options...
depthcharge12 Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 They can carry multiple units in 40K as well, it's also under the Super Heavy rules. This thread makes me a little sad. I have an opportunity to purchase a T-hawk at a significant discount and while I've always loved the ship anyway I had hoped to get it to see some game time in large scale battles. While I only play 40K, all of the tactical points made about them in this thread would seem to apply to 40K as well. Don't give up hope, the StormBird may be pretty awesome :) I'm thinking it will carry more units without the Thunderhawk's BFG. Plus it seems to have 4 of those Autocannon turrets and a crapload of other weaponry. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3982922 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOneMarshal Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I feel the thunderhawk was better before all of these other transport flyers came out. Dont forget the thunderhawk can carry bikes so theirs that I guess. The thunderhawk in humongous games with lots of space, the titan works in a big games that the difference I feel. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3982977 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredknight Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 http://i1102.photobucket.com/albums/g449/ben_fabz/Mobile%20Uploads/D5F67E23-D558-450F-8DD5-865C34A11D5F.jpg Do you mean this beast? It also looks like 2 void shield nodes on its back Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3983183 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brofist Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 It also looks like a pair of landraiders and a rhino got glued somewhere up there Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3983545 Share on other sites More sharing options...
depthcharge12 Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 http://i1102.photobucket.com/albums/g449/ben_fabz/Mobile%20Uploads/D5F67E23-D558-450F-8DD5-865C34A11D5F.jpg Do you mean this beast? It also looks like 2 void shield nodes on its back Yup that's it! I think the void shields are there because of things like the Deredeo that would eat something like a flyer for breakfast. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3983569 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acebaur Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Looks hideous IMO. Like a Thunderhawk with a bunch of extra stuff tacked on. All of the descriptions of Stormbirds that I've read about in the HH novels describe them as sleek with folding wings. In contrast the Thunderhawk is described as boxy and smaller than the Stormbird. That thing reminds me more this http://host.trivialbeing.org/up/transformers-20090528-power-up-prime-cg.jpg than the descriptions of it in the fluff. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3983630 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Looks hideous IMO. Like a Thunderhawk with a bunch of extra stuff tacked on. All of the descriptions of Stormbirds that I've read about in the HH novels describe them as sleek with folding wings. In contrast the Thunderhawk is described as boxy and smaller than the Stormbird. That thing reminds me more this http://host.trivialbeing.org/up/transformers-20090528-power-up-prime-cg.jpg than the descriptions of it in the fluff. Its also far from done, by the looks of it; the other angles of the Stormbird showing it in the modelers studio. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3983646 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonstalker Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I feel the thunderhawk was better before all of these other transport flyers came out. Have to agree with this. Before the Storm Raven/Eagle, the Thunderhawk was the only way to get your Marines air-mobile. That gave it a niche and value. Now, I think those cheaper flyers and their distributed hitpoints (not to mention, two Storm Eagles carry more than a single Thunderhawk, while costing far less in terms of $ and points) leave the Thunderhawk without a role. If it tries to compete with the warhound in the warhound's role, it just loses. The warhound's firepower advantage is far too great. If I was playing a scenario where I have to make an opposed landing, using only flyers and whatever I can drop pod (so, I don't have heavy ground units), then hell yeah I want a Thunderhawk. But how often do you play games like that, as opposed to a stand-up fight? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3983726 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOneMarshal Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Also don't forget their are other variants of the stormbird. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3983884 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memento Of Prospero Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Considering a warhound cannot shoot at a thunderhawk who can turbo laser it all game, I wouldn't discredit it too fast. The thunderhawk doesn't eat up all your fast attack slots either for unit you really want to put in it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3984034 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredknight Posted March 22, 2015 Author Share Posted March 22, 2015 When I bought the th, we were still playing 5th ed, so flyers were very hard to bring down. I think the thunderhawk should be re ruled (yet again) or its points value brought to something that represents it, it's far to expensive and can't compete with other things. It has 1 strength d weapon and some heavy bolters, so not that amazing. Maybe an option to change out the hvy bolters for other weapons would help a little. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3984036 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonstalker Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Considering a warhound cannot shoot at a thunderhawk who can turbo laser it all game, I wouldn't discredit it too fast. The thunderhawk doesn't eat up all your fast attack slots either for unit you really want to put in it. A warhound could shoot at a thunderhawk if it takes a vulcan megabolter. That's a very silly comparison, however. The warhound's purpose is not AA. And the Thawk's turbolaser and two lascannons (a hilariously pathetic armament) will take half the game to eat through the Warhound's void shields in the first place. Neither is really meant to fight the other on its own, trying to put them head to head in a vacuum doesn't make sense. Fast Attack slots are also some of the least contested slots for your average 30k list, so letting flyers soak them up isn't exactly troubling, especially when the choice is between giving up some low-value fast attack slots for some decent flyers or spending your one and only Lord of War slot on a sub-optimal albatross. On top of that, the size of games where you unlock warhounds/thunderhawks as LoW options are on the verge of being Apoc-scale. So, even just going to a slightly higher points level, you're just doing away with the FoC entirely by moving into Apoc. And on top of all of that, you could take a sub-orbital strike wing LoW choice of 3 Storm Eagles, and not use a single Fast Attack choice to get your flyers. I think the thunderhawk should be re ruled (yet again) or its points value brought to something that represents it, it's far to expensive and can't compete with other things. It has 1 strength d weapon and some heavy bolters, so not that amazing. This is really problem. A Storm Eagle has 2/3 the transport capacity, 1.5 times the lascannons, 1/4 the heavy bolters, 1/3 the hull points, 1/2(ish) the missiles, all for less than 1/3 the cost. The Thunderhawk has some advantages, like having enough HP that taking it down in a single turn can be quite troublesome (meaning it has a good chance of delivering its cargo), but when it does deliver its cargo it will be incredibly vulnerable - a 12/12/10 (or 12/12/12, if you throw more points at it for the Void Hull upgrade) skimmer that's as big as a barn. Or two. The Storm Eagle, of course, has nothing comparable to the Thunderhawk's cannon or turbolaser. But for the cost of a Thunderhawk with turbolaser, you could have a Storm Eagle AND a Falchion AND upgrades for both AND bring them at a lower points level than you'd even think of seeing a Thunderhawk in. And that's all assuming that air transport for your guys is something you even want in the first place. I'm still in the camp of it being far too dangerous to flyer and occupants in the current rules. Flyers don't survive hover mode very well, and the troops inside don't seem to have enough parachutes to go around. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3984114 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memento Of Prospero Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Considering a warhound cannot shoot at a thunderhawk who can turbo laser it all game, I wouldn't discredit it too fast. The thunderhawk doesn't eat up all your fast attack slots either for unit you really want to put in it. A warhound could shoot at a thunderhawk if it takes a vulcan megabolter. That's a very silly comparison, however. The warhound's purpose is not AA. And the Thawk's turbolaser and two lascannons (a hilariously pathetic armament) will take half the game to eat through the Warhound's void shields in the first place. Neither is really meant to fight the other on its own, trying to put them head to head in a vacuum doesn't make sense. Fast Attack slots are also some of the least contested slots for your average 30k list, so letting flyers soak them up isn't exactly troubling, especially when the choice is between giving up some low-value fast attack slots for some decent flyers or spending your one and only Lord of War slot on a sub-optimal albatross. On top of that, the size of games where you unlock warhounds/thunderhawks as LoW options are on the verge of being Apoc-scale. So, even just going to a slightly higher points level, you're just doing away with the FoC entirely by moving into Apoc. And on top of all of that, you could take a sub-orbital strike wing LoW choice of 3 Storm Eagles, and not use a single Fast Attack choice to get your flyers. I think the thunderhawk should be re ruled (yet again) or its points value brought to something that represents it, it's far to expensive and can't compete with other things. It has 1 strength d weapon and some heavy bolters, so not that amazing. This is really problem. A Storm Eagle has 2/3 the transport capacity, 1.5 times the lascannons, 1/4 the heavy bolters, 1/3 the hull points, 1/2(ish) the missiles, all for less than 1/3 the cost. The Thunderhawk has some advantages, like having enough HP that taking it down in a single turn can be quite troublesome (meaning it has a good chance of delivering its cargo), but when it does deliver its cargo it will be incredibly vulnerable - a 12/12/10 (or 12/12/12, if you throw more points at it for the Void Hull upgrade) skimmer that's as big as a barn. Or two. The Storm Eagle, of course, has nothing comparable to the Thunderhawk's cannon or turbolaser. But for the cost of a Thunderhawk with turbolaser, you could have a Storm Eagle AND a Falchion AND upgrades for both AND bring them at a lower points level than you'd even think of seeing a Thunderhawk in. And that's all assuming that air transport for your guys is something you even want in the first place. I'm still in the camp of it being far too dangerous to flyer and occupants in the current rules. Flyers don't survive hover mode very well, and the troops inside don't seem to have enough parachutes to go around. You might want to ask the raven guard, white scar and EC players about those fast attack slots. The TH is a great option for armies that need the specific assets it brings. It brings speed and rapid deployment of infantry. It is a valid comparison because you cannot bring a variety of Lords of war in most games. You choice usually boils down to one. In a 4,000 point game where I can either bring a warhound or a Thunderhawk, the thunderhawk takes more specialization to deal with. I actually have to bring in Lightnings and Fire Raptors in my campaign to deal with one. The titan does not do any of this. It's just another AV 14 target that can be shot from anywhere on the board. I will be using the same things to kill a Warhound that I would to kill a spartan. I can't say the same for a TH. I am not saying that it's a better choice, but that it simply deserve more credit than you give it. It can't be shot off the board turn 1 by a lucky SD hit or two. The TH is also ridiculously resilient for a flyer and has the critical mass to become a problem. When compareed to 2 troop carrying storm eagles (or 3) I know which one will guarantee the delivery against a Deredeo or Mortis Dread. Multiple reserve rolls make bringing more units harder to coordonate, and easier to pick off specific units. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3984126 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dono1979 Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Agree with Wolf_Pack, the Thunderhawk has its roels (often limited) in fun lists and games. Point for Points, certainly you are getting better value out of a Warhound, but on saying that if I see a warhound on the field (meaning we are playing reasonably high points), I normally have enough firepower to kill it without too much of an issue. Also two of the Rites of War preclude any other Super Heavy except a Thunderhawk, the Orbital Assault and Angels Wrath. But after all has been said and done, the Thunderhawk is certainly not a model you buy for its efficiency and performance, it is the iconic Marine flyer which people buy as a centrepiece for their armies. It is dog ugly but it is Astartes through and through. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3984610 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonstalker Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 You might want to ask the raven guard, white scar and EC players about those fast attack slots. Fast Attack slots are also some of the least contested slots for your average 30k list It is a valid comparison because you cannot bring a variety of Lords of war in most games. You choice usually boils down to one. In a 4,000 point game where I can either bring a warhound or a Thunderhawk, the thunderhawk takes more specialization to deal with I am not saying don't compare them. I am saying that it is absurd to just put them head to head in a vacuum. It's like saying a Spartan is worse than a Contemptor because the Spartan can't fight in melee. It's absurd. The Spartan's job isn't to fight in melee, it's to be one of the best damn assault transports in the game - who cares if it can't fight in melee. Likewise, the Warhound is a mushroom-cloud laying mother****er. Who cares if it's naff at shooting down planes? That is not its job. You take the Warhound to have enough anti-whatever that you can afford to spend other points on the anti-air to protect it. There are points to be made here in the Thunderhawk's favor: the thunderhawk takes more specialization to deal with. I actually have to bring in Lightnings and Fire Raptors in my campaign to deal with one. And I agree with you. That's a good comparison. But saying the Thunderhawk has one up on the Warhound because the Warhound can't shoot at it is both demonstrably false and a silly, senseless comparison. This, as well: It can't be shot off the board turn 1 by a lucky SD hit or two. The TH is also ridiculously resilient for a flyer and has the critical mass to become a problem. When compareed to 2 troop carrying storm eagles (or 3) I know which one will guarantee the delivery against a Deredeo or Mortis Dread Is something I agreed with you on, even in the post of mine that you quoted. IMO? For competitive sake, the Thunderhawk needs a serious points drop. It should be competing with the Falchion and Fellblade - with the turbolaser upgrade, competing with the Glaive. It should come with the upgraded rear armor as standard. What kind of transport gunship dies to bolters? Maybe this is actually the niche the Stormbird will fill. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3984690 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredknight Posted March 22, 2015 Author Share Posted March 22, 2015 Having had a thunderhawk, I used it once in 2.5 years, the guy it went to has Titans etc, wanted to complete the set I guess, Tactically speaking, no imo the hawk is overcosyed for what it brings, and taking the 3 stormraven blood angel thing is more useful. Anyway, I have this warhound to play about with now. Looking forward to fielding it!! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/304632-titan-v-thunderhawk/page/2/#findComment-3984731 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.