I'm going over the Space Marines data in detail (specifically due to working on Black Templar list) and stumbled across two questions specific to the Thunderhawk gunship armament:

1) why does it not have a "2x Lascannon 45cm AT5+ FxF" armament stat?
2) why are the wing-mounted Twin-linked Heavy Bolters only 15cm range instead of the standard 30cm?

From just about any source you check: "The basic armament of the Thunderhawk gunship is that of 4 twin-linked Heavy Bolters located near the front of the craft's fuselage and under the aircraft's main wings, 2 Lascannons located under the wings, and a dorsal-mounted Battle Cannon known as a Thunderhawk Cannon. The aircraft can also be outfitted with up to 6 Hellstrike Missiles, and 6 triple bomb pylons, for a total of 18 bombs. The aircraft can replace its dorsal-mounted Thunderhawk Cannon with a Turbo-Laser Destructor for extra firepower."

The model (Epic as well as FW) have the individual lascannon armaments on the wings (small combat ones near the dorsal cannon.)

Presently, the Thunderhawk Gunship has only one listed "can opener" AT: the battle canon.

Turning next to the wing-mounted twin-linked heavy bolters, they're heavy bolters - 30cm range. Even a heavy bolter on an attack bike has 30cm!

Looking at the actual models (Epic and FW), those front fuselage -mounted twin-linked heavy bolters are not really FxF either. ie. there is no way the ones mounted on the left side of the Thunderhawk could shoot at something on the rightish side of the Thunderhawk. Rather than 2x Twin-linked Heavy Bolter FxF and one Twin-linked Heavy Bolter Right Arc and one Left Arc, would seem better to have 2x Twin-linked Heavy Bolter Left Arc and 2x Twin-linked Heavy Bolter Right Arc.

Changing from:

Name: Thunderhawk Gunship
Type: WE, Aircraft
Speed: Bomber
Armour: 4+
CC: 6+
FF: 4+
Weapons: Range: Firepower:
Battle Canon 75cm AP+/AT4+ FxF
2x Twin Heavy Bolter 30cm AP4+/AA5+ FxF
Twin Heavy Bolter 15cm AP4+/AA5+ Right Arc
Twin Heavy Bolter 15cm AP4+/AA5+ Left Arc

Changing to:

Name: Thunderhawk Gunship
Type: WE, Aircraft
Speed: Bomber
Armour: 4+
CC: 6+
FF: 4+
Weapons: Range: Firepower:
Battle Canon 75cm AP+/AT4+ FxF
2x Lascannon 45cm AT5+ FxF
2x Twin Heavy Bolter 30cm AP4+/AA5+ Right Arc
2x Twin Heavy Bolter 30cm AP4+/AA5+ Left Arc

Obviously, trickle down effect to the other Thundership variants accordingly.

Thoughts? Discussion?

Simply, AFAIK, most of the reasons for the weapon loadouts are historic (Epic:A-wise) and for balance.

Now consider pricing. What price would you put on your altered TH stats?

Price wise, I would increase the cost of the Thunderhawk Gunship from 200 to 250 -- thereby bringing it in line with the Thawk Interdictor (250) and THawk Bomber (250).

It gains:
* 2x AT5+ FxF
* and the wing-mounted twin-linked heavy bolters are brought into line with the same on the Interdictor and Bomber (which makes sense since the Gunship is also an offensive bird.)

It costs:
* +50 points

I could see people shuddering at the points increase. The current pricing matches land speeders or bikes ... yet the THawk has more versatility. It also has less a lot less AT firepower than a set of Land Raiders for 325 points (4 LRs x 2x AT4+ = 8x AT4+ compared to just 1x AT4+ and 2x AT5+). (Note, both a formation of LRs and a TH both have 4x AP4+.)

Coincidentally, I like 250 just as "fair assurance" that too many are not fielded.

Regardless of what thawks are armed with in Imperial Armour X/Y/Z the weapon loadout was decided on for balance reasons, plus they really don't need any more buffs, they're already the best air transport in the game and while they're great at taking chunks out of infantry formations with their mass of heavy bolters, they already do their primary job just fine

I say they ain't broke and don't need fixing!

The range thing is for balance reasons, if the side bolters were 30cm range then you'd get defensive AA against all interceptors and that's just a bit too good

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

What kyussinchains said
This has come up before and it always comes down to the same thing, balance.

_________________
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.

Several thoughts here, backing up what others have said:-

• The original THawk stats were set a long time ago - at least as early as 2003 in E:A, if not earlier in previous rules. The Landing Craft has the improved weaponry (the Lascannon). Adding Lascannon to the THawk would blur the distinction between the two.
• The main role of both units is as an assault *transport*, rather than a bomber or 'strike' aircraft. The Marauder fulfils that role.
• Typically the ranges of air weapons are reduced from their ground based equivalent to reduce their impact on the game as a whole. Consequently the 30cm range is reduced to 15cm. Note the fuselage mounted guns are also an exception to this . . .
• Finally there are a number of cases where the E:A stats do not completely match the 40K equivalents for a variety of reasons, balance, game-play or even because GW have revised the 40K version (often several times ).

I am with the others on this - It ain't broken, so don't fix it.

However if you want to try your stats out in a "house" game, go for it. This sort of invention is totally part of the game, and is also reflected in history - look up the B17 "old 666".

Since the Thunderhawk does appear in pretty much every Marine list, I wouldn't be averse to seeing it get a points increase; and giving it some extra guns makes it a more valuable target.
It's an idea worth playtesting; and I'd be interested to see how them costing an extra 50pts would affect army selection in general.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Thanks for all the responses! Great background discussion on how you all arrived at where the stats and cost are now for the THawk.

Of course have to agree that fun and balance drive any and all rules - versus "accuracy to the IA or other."

Again, was just looking over details and wondered aloud "why".

When we all have endless hours to playtest options over and over for a battery of supporting data, I'll toss in some THawks with lascannons and +50 points! Until then, they fly as printed!

Personally I'd like to have the Thunderhawk's Lascannons represented, but they've been that way for so long and it's a core unit and I don't see it changing outside of house rules.

Many Epic aircraft are undergunned compared to their 40k versions (the Thunderbolt is the worst, having a multi-laser and a storm bolter rather than quad autocannons and a pair of lascannons). I've just accepted the air rules are more abstracted and a big buggered up from how they would ideally.

As to your second point this is a design principle of epic AA weapons that where a weapon is mounted on an all round mount it gets -15cm from it's normal range. It's for balance reasons. Long-Barrelled Autocannons would translate to a 60cm range in Epic so due to it's all round mount the Hydra has a 45cm range.

Note in the current 40k rules a Thunderhawk now comes as standard with either 6 x one shot bombs or 6 x one shot Hellstrike missiles, neither of which are represented on the standard Thunderhawk in Epic. Nor is the option to switch the Thunderhawk Cannon for a half Turbo-Laser.

The laser's the thing I'd most like to see. Out of interest GlynG, how would you stat and price the Thunderhawk for houseruling? I'd appreciate an estimate from a more experienced player for our houserules

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC