PDA

View Full Version : Couple of questions



Sihsboy
09-04-2009, 03:45
2 totally unrelated questions.

First off, the SM thunderfire cannon. Is it just me or is it really just a massive hunk of cheese on wheels? The way i understand it (told by my opponent), it has a 4xsmall blast s6 weapon, while having a 2+/5++ save and being only a meager 100points, or there abouts. Damn thing played hell with my necrons and i make it my first priority to take out, even over land raiders.

Second, does anyone else feel that the heavy reliance on cover in 5th ed gets dull? I've started suggesting down at my local GW that we start taking the terrian down from 6 pieces to say, 3. A place for an objective to hide or something of the like. But i tend to getshouted down by people saying that they're armies won't survive without that 4++ save. But surely, the other guys won't last as long either.

Thoughts? and suggestions for a chaos army to kill thunderfires would be nice.

LordofWar1986
09-04-2009, 03:57
Question #1: Well the thinderfire cannon is definitely worth the meager 100pts for the damage output it can deal out each turn. It isn't as hard to destroy as you might think, taking a good missile launcher round or lascannon and either glancing/penetrating it will destroy the cannon outright/insta-kill the firer. The model firing it has only a single wound, and once he dies the cannon goes with him. It might seem like you have to waste a round of shooting/assault to get rid of it, but it will definitely turn into a big thorn under your skin after about 4 turns.

Question #2: I think both yes and no here. Yes because of the fact that shooting is a huge phase in 40k, and terrain just to drags the game on longer cause models won't die so fast. And no, because no matter how much any unit hides in cover, it won't be able to withstand a closeout assault vs. a kitted out dedicated CC unit. Cover won't work when the fists and kicks start a flying :)

Torga_DW
09-04-2009, 04:18
1: yeah, the cannon has an AV of 10, meaning a good round of bolter-fire will destroy it. I just don't like the look of the cannon, although i do like the look of the tech marine. Now if they only did it in plastic i might buy one.

2: i use the rules straight out of the book. 25% terrain on the table. So the question is, how big is your table that uses 6 pieces of terrain, and how big are the terrain pieces?

Forlorn
10-04-2009, 19:04
Think about it like this. Unless we're gaming in Ancients where open terrain was required for formations/manuevering there will be cover and plenty of it. Why on earth would you or your opponent select a field of battle devoid of terrain? You would select an area where cover was granted for your troops wouldn't you?

I personally use quite a bit of terrain and although it "makes the game longer" I feel it suits the battle better than the typical GW store table terrain of 2 patches of trees and a hill. My 2 cents.

EVIL INC
10-04-2009, 19:09
1. Have not used it or had it used against me so I cannot say for sure. On paper it looks good and appears to be no more "cheezy" then many other options in the marine list or even other codexes for that matter.

2. No. Cover adds a much needed touch of "realism" to the gamerather then "drag a game on" it makes it more interesting as well as adding a depth of tactics to an already tactically rich game.

Barbarossa
10-04-2009, 19:30
Since you are playing Necrons, cover is not that important for you as it is for other armies. Orcs, IG and the smaller Nids all suffer very badly when terrain is lacking, while all MEQs aren't affected as much.

Blinder
10-04-2009, 19:31
1. No clue. Looks like it'll either be great or a waste of points + FOC slot from game to game but I haven't seen anyone actually use one.

2. I agree to a point. (also, "6 pieces of terrain" is 1 piece per 2x2 square on a standard board, which is an older way of doing things but still works out to roughly 25% if you're using an "average" collection) Cover saves can often feel like they've taken over for armor saves these days making a lot of things far more resilient to certain attacks than they probably need to be. On the other hand, I think a lot of the reason for this isn't the new cover system as much as the old terrain collections- A better mix of lighter cover (not to mention less area terrain, which admittedly is the quickest/easiest way to classify something but it does make 25% coverage feel more like 75% when pretty much everything's area) would liven things up a bit IMO and break the "4+ or nothing" feel *all* armies are taking on for shooting.