As there's been a few discrepancies regarding the THT's stats I'd like to clarify what I feel they should be in all lists for the next TP/Compendium in 2015 (please use in 2014 if you can too).

AC/WE Bomber 4+ 6+ 6+ 5+ Heavy Bolter Array 15cm 2x AA5+

100 points each
250 points for the first 2 + 100 points for a third.

I like.these stats (shouldn't be a surprise to anyone however )

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I like those stats.
Tough enough to deliver to a hot spot but not really usable as a bomber formation.
Fits the bill perfectly for me.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Does "spamability" concern you? At 100 points each I would have thought these might be a little too cheap.

Do you have a rundown on why this change is necessary?

_________________
-Vaaish

Lots of individual ones would have been a problem, but all the lists using them have them as 2-3 for 100 each so it should be fine.

It's an interesting statline for a budget version of a thunder-hawk. BTW on the sheet it has 2xAP4+ so I'll assume that remains in the list.
I have two concerns about it though.

Firstly from the point of view of external balance, I will compare it to the Orca which is another aircraft that also fills the transport rather than Bomber role.
It's armour is twice as good (4+ Reinforced vs 4+)
It is 4x as good vs Aircraft (2xAA5+ vs AA6+)
It is 2x as good vs Infantry (2xAP5+ vs AP5+)
It lacks an AT6+ shot (plus a seeker)
It can carry vehicles as well as infantry
It's core rather than air/allies
It has a higher initiative rating (1 vs 2)

And most importantly, it is cheaper (100 vs 150).


Secondly, from the point of view of game balance
[] A cheap WE with reinforced armour that can be placed to take the first hits could make this a flying Gorgon (without the disadvantages and tricky model placement and Armour - Infantry)
[] As a core choice, it is possible to make a list that waits till turn 3, then drop 15 pairs of them on objectives.
[] A formation of 2 or 3 would be genuinely impossible for many armies' AA to shoot down (rather than difficult or challenging or a rare result), and the first casualty could be an empty thunderhawk while the goodies are in the remainder.

Sorry the above is a bit critical, but if any of these issues are legitimate then facing them early in the process could speed up the list's development.

Thanks for raising the issues Matt!


No, as per discussions the FF has been artificially reduced and the AP ability removed in order to focus the unit as being a transport as per it's background. and to prevent/discourage a formation of empty THTs being used as bombers or air assaulters on their own.

Well, yes, sort of, but surely it's similar with a Thunderhawk or Landing Craft? Those are all better armed too.

My feeling is that 100 each is probably too cheap, even with minimal firepower and FF, and that they should be 225 or 250 for 2 +100-125 for up to one more. It might be better to start the points higher and lower if needed than start low and have to raise them though. Discussion and testing can refine them and they're in multiple active lists now so should get tested.

A theoretical problem, though I'm not sure if anyone would try it in practice (they wouldn't be popular!). It could perhaps be limited by making THT formations 0-1 per 2,000 points or part of in the army? The existing SM list allows 1 3k army of 15 Thunderhawks already, though this is worse admittedly.

True, but then this is true of the 5+ Reinforced THT in the Scions list too. There's no really any way to prevent it when the THT carries other formations that can vary in size. Hopefully the unit costs can prevent this happening too much.

Yes you buy them minimum 2 with the option for 3.

The rundown why, is:

A/ they were different across several lists, which is daft
B/ There was a long debate about them being simple transport craft not gunships and these stats cropped up and people seemed to think it was a fair option.



No, as Glyn mentions it has 2x AA5+ and as it's a Bomber it cannot intercept so that flak is highly situational as to where enemy aircraft end up i.e. within arc and 15cm.


Fair points, Matt. Here's my view but we have to take two craft as that's base.
They can't shoot infantry at 45cm
They can't shoot vehicles with 2x 45cm (a particularly handy skill given most flak reaches 45cm).
They cannot perform offensive ground attacks empty like an Orca, so they place no BM ever except vs aircraft.
Granted they can drop vehicles however, at best, two THTs can drop 4 Rhinos and 8 infantry which in comparison the Orca can drop 12 infantry

So given the offensive capabilities of the Orca, the THT is a fairly tame beast.

What they do provide for the 50 points is:
Better armour - which when air assaulting will usually not see a THT get shot down regardless (or an Orca for that matter) barring critical hits, but simply lay a BM for the engagement process. So whether 1 or 2 of them, it provides a similar outcome unless facing multiple AA shots on approach. Obviously more DC means they survive the battle better.
Better initiative - gets you there more often which obviously Marines do better across the board.
Better situational AA - They give 4x AA5+ which is a lot more situational AA.


I'm not quite sure how you mean take the first hit. Do you mean in an Air Assault? Can you give an example?
Perhaps a caveat of may only take as many as required to transport the formation etc could work so you can't take extra?


Yeah understood but almost the same situation could be created with 15 Thunderhawks, but with 2xFF4+ and 75cm Battle Cannons and multiple Heavy Bolters each, which is a much more offensive outcome. I've yet to see this done by any player as you wouldn't be a popular lad, plus, who owns 15 Thunderhawks?! Agreed it's a possibility some ass-hat might try it but then there are many lists that can be abused. Not trying to use this as an excuse though.


I hope I covered this above. Not sure.


No worries. That's why we discuss things

What this means is that the THT perform an aerial assault, placing the landing craft slightly closer to the enemy than the ranged unit (eg devastators) they carry. The first 4 to 6 hits the opponent causes will be on the 4+ RA instead of on the devastator's 4+ armour. The result is to reduce the amount of casualties, and skew combat resolution in favour of the Marines.
Other formations in the game do this, for example Kreig Gorgons, but it's a challenge to get both WE in the front, to get all the infantry into FF, and to creep up on the enemy etc. The principle would be the same but THT has almost complete control over where and when it assaults.



It's similar to the TH, but the TH costs more and can't tank as many hits. It's not taking one or two hits on RA that's the issue, it's taking up to the first 6 hits on RA. Since aircraft clip better than anything else, a lot of formations won't put enough hits back in return to hit anything but RA.
Add in some cheap DC to count towards outnumbering and this is extremely powerful.



The capacity is pretty similar (2 Vehicles + 4 Marine stands = 6 Crisis Suits or 12 firewarriors), and as far as offensive capability goes Orca's extremely rarely air-assault so don't often get to add DC to engagements or soak wounds.




Initiative to get models onto the battlefield, AA for defence on the way, and armour to ensure the expensive cargo don't die are all that really matter in a transport.
I really doubt you'd disagree that the orca's AP5+ and AT6+ aren't anything like compensation for the above.

By which I mean one THT should cost more than one Orca, or something is wrong with one or both unit entries.





Objection your honour!
It is unacceptable to use the "ass-hat defence" at the army-building stage! The vast majority of lists have restrictions placed on how many formations can be taken from each part of the army list, what has to be an upgrade, what is support and how many points can be spend on air or allies, and when no other restriction will accomplish it, points costs are used. There is a reason for those restrictions, as demonstrated by the precedent of 275pt ass-hat-resistant Warhound.

It is the prosecution's view that it is the army designer and AC's job to ensure that a list is balanced, and ensure that if a list could make the players using it in an entirely legal manner that is within the boundaries of its options and restrictions 'unpopular', 'lose their friends' or be 'ass-hats' that the designers should be required change it until it can be used without such ass-hattery.

I rest my case, Milord.

However, I believe the AC and army designer is allowed a period whereby to balance a list which shall be called the trial period.... whereby players at first work out a set of stats to use then undertake tasks called playtests to ascertain issues in play. Until said tasks are performed, all theory and possibility shall be put aside until such time that these issues are proven.

Further to the case, the oft-raised All Marine Scout or Land Speeder One Trick Pony Army that can theoretically sweep certain army lists aside has still yet to be seen across any table top to anyone's knowledge as it would be deemed easily defeated by several other army lists thus defeating the concept of the "take on all comers" list for tournament play.

Objection over ruled At least for now.

Matt: I agree with you, but I've been trying unsuccessfully to get the thunderhawk and lander put in the aircraft restrictions for years so unfortunately the asshat defence is indeed apparently enough to overrule a balance consideration

Dobbsy: FWIW, I have atleast 30 thunderhawks...

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

That's nice. Would you field them in a tournament?


Yes because you seem to fail to grasp the concept that the list is air assault oriented. IG do armour. Orks do masses. Eldar do skippy and swift. Marines do air assault.

I can't comment on whether he grasps it or not, but in case it's not clear my own criticism of the THT is based on a thorough understanding that the list is air assault orientated. My issue is simply that it has the potential to make the list incredibly good at something it is currently very good at.

Marines do air assault, at this price the THT improve that dramatically.

Another way of looking at it is that it might just be that the point value of the 'shooty' aspect of the standard TH are being over estimated. When being converted from TH to THT what is being removed from it is similar to the weapons of a single Leman Russ, and the result isn't that it's worth 100pts less to the Marine army.

My recommendation is to increase its shooting ability slightly, and price it at 150pts or 275 for 2.
If it regains a bit more firepower and the return of its CC and FF stats it would become a lot simpler to balance - IMHO it is the fact that it is so cheap for something so extremely useful to Marines that's going to make it hard to balance;

After all, Marines do air assault

Fair enough. Recommendation noted mate. Cheers.