Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MinscS2 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's small, but when it's 5 vs 6 it's 20%, and it does occasionally matter.

Not on small boards with long range guns.

Thunderkyn can move a maximum of 8".
Havocs can move a maximum of 12".

If you don't see the value in that extra movement in a game of objectives, I honestly don't know what to say.

You mean the objectives other units are already holding? Yeah no, but keep pretending Thunderkyn are fine I guess.

 MinscS2 wrote:

Your comparison is flawed, you're comparing to a unit who can have several ablative wounds to one that can not.
And a 12 ppm difference between models is huge, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.

A better comparison would be Thunderkyn to Havocs;
3 Thunderkyn with Boltcannon: 105/120 points. 9 T5 wounds spread out on 3 models, 9 S6 AP2 D2 shots at 36"
5 Havocs with Havoc Autocannons: 125 points, 10 T5 wounds spread out on 5 models, 8 S7 AP2 D2 shots at 48" + 2 boltershots at 24".

Both can move and fire without penalty.
Thunderkyn ignore dense and can't be re-rolled to wound at.
Havocs are faster, harder to kill (5x2 > 3x3), shoot slightly better, have 2 ablative wounds and have more punch in close combat if they end up there.
I'd say for 120 points, the Havocs are a nobrainer choice at 5 points more.

To quote Auspex Tactics in his latest video about the LoV balance patch: "If there was ever a unit in the codex they probably could've left alone I think it was them", speaking about the Thunderkyn.

No, the comparison was fine, you just didn't like it because it was against a faction which has been around for awhile as opposed to one that just had their codex drop. But even against the havocs you chose to leave out the entire judgement token shenanigans which directly BUFF thunderkyn giving them auto-wounds on 4-6 to hit, and most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them. And movement/CC is kinda irrelevant. 1 if you are relying on movement on a slow unit to cap an objective, you already failed. Its a nice to have option but not important to their primary role. and 2, in CC...yeah no, they are both dead as soon as they get in CC against anything remotely good at CC. 16 attacks at S4 no Ap isn't much better than 6 attacks at S5 no AP. Put into perspective, against a SM Profile the Havocs do 1.7dmg and the Thunderkyn do 0.9 OMG that is almost twice as much! 10 Ork boyz without buffs, without kulture without anything at all do 3.6dmg and they do that at 80pts not 120. So bringing up CC as if it was important is silly at best, disingenuous at worst.

To put it bluntly, thunderkyn are better, especially with synergy into their faction as opposed to havocs who kinda stink atm. Not saying Thunderkyn are broken, but compare them to factions older than 6 months and you realize they are head and shoulders better than everyone's similar units.

SemperMortis wrote:
(...)most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them(...)

And I'm out, no point in discussing this further.

SemperMortis wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

Your comparison is flawed, you're comparing to a unit who can have several ablative wounds to one that can not.
And a 12 ppm difference between models is huge, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.

A better comparison would be Thunderkyn to Havocs;
3 Thunderkyn with Boltcannon: 105/120 points. 9 T5 wounds spread out on 3 models, 9 S6 AP2 D2 shots at 36"
5 Havocs with Havoc Autocannons: 125 points, 10 T5 wounds spread out on 5 models, 8 S7 AP2 D2 shots at 48" + 2 boltershots at 24".

Both can move and fire without penalty.
Thunderkyn ignore dense and can't be re-rolled to wound at.
Havocs are faster, harder to kill (5x2 > 3x3), shoot slightly better, have 2 ablative wounds and have more punch in close combat if they end up there.
I'd say for 120 points, the Havocs are a nobrainer choice at 5 points more.

To quote Auspex Tactics in his latest video about the LoV balance patch: "If there was ever a unit in the codex they probably could've left alone I think it was them", speaking about the Thunderkyn.

No, the comparison was fine, you just didn't like it because it was against a faction which has been around for awhile as opposed to one that just had their codex drop. But even against the havocs you chose to leave out the entire judgement token shenanigans which directly BUFF thunderkyn giving them auto-wounds on 4-6 to hit, and most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them. And movement/CC is kinda irrelevant. 1 if you are relying on movement on a slow unit to cap an objective, you already failed. Its a nice to have option but not important to their primary role. and 2, in CC...yeah no, they are both dead as soon as they get in CC against anything remotely good at CC. 16 attacks at S4 no Ap isn't much better than 6 attacks at S5 no AP. Put into perspective, against a SM Profile the Havocs do 1.7dmg and the Thunderkyn do 0.9 OMG that is almost twice as much! 10 Ork boyz without buffs, without kulture without anything at all do 3.6dmg and they do that at 80pts not 120. So bringing up CC as if it was important is silly at best, disingenuous at worst.

To put it bluntly, thunderkyn are better, especially with synergy into their faction as opposed to havocs who kinda stink atm. Not saying Thunderkyn are broken, but compare them to factions older than 6 months and you realize they are head and shoulders better than everyone's similar units.

Good points about Havoc being better then Thunder'kyn I think tbh.

 MinscS2 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
(...)most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them(...)

And I'm out, no point in discussing this further.

Ah yes, because the exploding hits just for the first turn on Havocs is so much more relevant than the Grudge tokens LOL

Asenion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

Your comparison is flawed, you're comparing to a unit who can have several ablative wounds to one that can not.
And a 12 ppm difference between models is huge, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.

A better comparison would be Thunderkyn to Havocs;
3 Thunderkyn with Boltcannon: 105/120 points. 9 T5 wounds spread out on 3 models, 9 S6 AP2 D2 shots at 36"
5 Havocs with Havoc Autocannons: 125 points, 10 T5 wounds spread out on 5 models, 8 S7 AP2 D2 shots at 48" + 2 boltershots at 24".

Both can move and fire without penalty.
Thunderkyn ignore dense and can't be re-rolled to wound at.
Havocs are faster, harder to kill (5x2 > 3x3), shoot slightly better, have 2 ablative wounds and have more punch in close combat if they end up there.
I'd say for 120 points, the Havocs are a nobrainer choice at 5 points more.

To quote Auspex Tactics in his latest video about the LoV balance patch: "If there was ever a unit in the codex they probably could've left alone I think it was them", speaking about the Thunderkyn.

No, the comparison was fine, you just didn't like it because it was against a faction which has been around for awhile as opposed to one that just had their codex drop. But even against the havocs you chose to leave out the entire judgement token shenanigans which directly BUFF thunderkyn giving them auto-wounds on 4-6 to hit, and most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them. And movement/CC is kinda irrelevant. 1 if you are relying on movement on a slow unit to cap an objective, you already failed. Its a nice to have option but not important to their primary role. and 2, in CC...yeah no, they are both dead as soon as they get in CC against anything remotely good at CC. 16 attacks at S4 no Ap isn't much better than 6 attacks at S5 no AP. Put into perspective, against a SM Profile the Havocs do 1.7dmg and the Thunderkyn do 0.9 OMG that is almost twice as much! 10 Ork boyz without buffs, without kulture without anything at all do 3.6dmg and they do that at 80pts not 120. So bringing up CC as if it was important is silly at best, disingenuous at worst.

To put it bluntly, thunderkyn are better, especially with synergy into their faction as opposed to havocs who kinda stink atm. Not saying Thunderkyn are broken, but compare them to factions older than 6 months and you realize they are head and shoulders better than everyone's similar units.

Good points about Havoc being better then Thunder'kyn I think tbh.

I see Thunderkyn as trash no matter what, its just Shuriken Cannons on 5" move guys. Sure they are tank y ish. But you can also have a Voidweaver for the same cost..... Over all less wounds but just as tanky if not more so (if you can't hit you can't wound, 4++/-1/no rr hits) it also moves 16-22" with fly, and instead of 3 shurikens its 2 + a Pcanon.

Oh and if you say "Well it can have a good Grav' yes at 18", and if you say Beam, well that means they are now 45ppm and worst just than Eradicators outside the range. Yes they can auto wound, but with 3 shots at ap2 thats kind of meh, and you want to be within 15" so meaning you dont care that its 30" range.

Heck, Eliminators are 75pts (a little less tanky, less wounds and toughness but +2 to saves in cover) and has 3 str 8 -3 3D shots, sure Beam can ht more units but at str7 -2, so less likely to kill things but at +55% the cost lol.

Looks like a lot of players who splurged on the new toys are just upset they got relatively toned down before release. Thunderkyn are directly comparable to a host of units and are usually better than them. But apparently that doesn't matter

 MinscS2 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
(...)most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them(...)

And I'm out, no point in discussing this further.

Your refusal to engage looks like admitting that you show a lack of understanding of the codex in question.

Hecaton wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
(...)most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them(...)

And I'm out, no point in discussing this further.

Your refusal to engage looks like admitting that you show a lack of understanding of the codex in question.

When someone assumes that "every unit will have at least 2 JTs before before you shoot at them" and base their entire argument around it, that shows a lack of understanding of the codex in question, I agree.
At that point there really is no point in discussing it further, because you are basing your entire argument around false premises and you are unlikely to change your opinion.

Maybe Thurians are less obviously the way to play after the changes - but when 1 JT=2, I don't think getting 2 on whatever you want dead that turn is especially unlikely.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

you want to be within 15" so meaning you dont care that its 30" range.

No you want to be outside of 15", to get double hits

The quick ban from tournaments, provided it was for the reason that it's 'busted', was an absolutely horrible precedent.

I sincerely hope the swift nerfs were a coincidence because caving to the temper tantrums of literal man babies is a poor decision.

The points hike likely killed half the army competitively alongside breaking all their synergy, so hopefully the ridiculous hysteria can die down and they can all go back to whining about Bloody Rose or something.

 Vilgeir wrote:
The quick ban from tournaments, provided it was for the reason that it's 'busted', was an absolutely horrible precedent.

I sincerely hope the swift nerfs were a coincidence because caving to the temper tantrums of literal man babies is a poor decision.

The points hike likely killed half the army competitively alongside breaking all their synergy, so hopefully the ridiculous hysteria can die down and they can all go back to whining about Bloody Rose or something.

Funny you would say that when its actually precedent that lead to the 'quick ban'. Namely the precedent in WTC that all codexes are banned until their initial faq.

Failing to mention that the ban was perfectly normal doesn't make for interesting clickbait articles to feed the internet drama machine tho.

"OMG Votaan banned. Like every other codex before it" doesn't have quite the same ring.

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vilgeir wrote:
The quick ban from tournaments, provided it was for the reason that it's 'busted', was an absolutely horrible precedent.

I sincerely hope the swift nerfs were a coincidence because caving to the temper tantrums of literal man babies is a poor decision.

The points hike likely killed half the army competitively alongside breaking all their synergy, so hopefully the ridiculous hysteria can die down and they can all go back to whining about Bloody Rose or something.

You realize right the votann were found to be busted in real games?

But yea. Votann plavers salty now they can't autowln with busted asmy. Damn crybabies.

 Vilgeir wrote:
I sincerely hope the swift nerfs were a coincidence because caving to the temper tantrums of literal man babies is a poor decision.

Such man babies, who want their game to be decided by wits and not codex writers...

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.

Good luck turning up to any well managed event with an army entirely made of proxies or clearly ip stolen minis.

Plus if these are the people you were worried about then it hasn't actually impacted GW at all having a ban.

Can we stop saying printing minis is IP theft? That's tantamount to calling Wierd Al a Song thief.

He completely reinvents the song, as most 3d printed minis are complete re-inventions of the sourced material. You know that most are not 1-1 copies, right? That's called "Resin molding" and is actually illegal because it is actual copying for profit.

What the majority of 3d printed STLs are these days are clearly knockoffs. Ala going to a street vendor in NY and buying a Rollex watch. It's clearly a rip off cheap Rolex, as no one would sell Rolex with real diamonds for 20$ on a street corner.

That space Marine Terminator off the STL website is a refashioned model of a very old design, that is often no longer in print.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop saying printing minis is IP theft? That's tantamount to calling Wierd Al a Song thief.

He completely reinvents the song, as most 3d printed minis are complete re-inventions of the sourced material. You know that most are not 1-1 copies, right? That's called "Resin molding" and is actually illegal because it is actual copying for profit.

What the majority of 3d printed STLs are these days are clearly knockoffs. Ala going to a street vendor in NY and buying a Rollex watch. It's clearly a rip off cheap Rolex, as no one would sell Rolex with real diamonds for 20$ on a street corner.

That space Marine Terminator off the STL website is a refashioned model of a very old design, that is often no longer in print.

If they're printing out a 1:1 land fortress, ip theft has been conducted. If it's a "reinvention" it's a proxy. Both would at the minimum need checking with the event organiser. Which is what I said.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.

Good luck turning up to any well managed event with an army entirely made of proxies or clearly ip stolen minis.

Plus if these are the people you were worried about then it hasn't actually impacted GW at all having a ban.

Interesting. How many events have you been to? I've been to several, and seen many, that I would consider well managed and proxies, recasts, etc. are rarely an issue.

 Rihgu wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.

Good luck turning up to any well managed event with an army entirely made of proxies or clearly ip stolen minis.

Plus if these are the people you were worried about then it hasn't actually impacted GW at all having a ban.

Interesting. How many events have you been to? I've been to several, and seen many, that I would consider well managed and proxies, recasts, etc. are rarely an issue.

Sorry, this is in the context of "the ban robbed GW of sales", if people are 3d printing an army then they're by definition proxies at this stage due to the kits not existing. Most events usually want proxies etc to be checked beforehand. I've not been to many but conversions/proxies are generally asked to be checked before games kick off/at list submission.

I find it hard to believe that GW could ban people from playing with OG squat models as "counts as" which are practically indistinguishable from 3d printed models at this point.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I find it hard to believe that GW could ban people from playing with OG squat models as "counts as" which are practically indistinguishable from 3d printed models at this point.

They would still need to ask first though. Plus imo if you're printing out 30 year old sculpts for any reason other than liking those specific aesthetics you're doing it wrong.

I have to say though fezzik it does seem more like you're trying really hard to justify 3d printing your armies rather than actually addressing the topic.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I find it hard to believe that GW could ban people from playing with OG squat models as "counts as" which are practically indistinguishable from 3d printed models at this point.

Many models from that age are quite likely to not be allowed at GTs though, so banning squats from counting as completely different units doesn't seem that unbelievable to me.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.

Good luck turning up to any well managed event with an army entirely made of proxies or clearly ip stolen minis.

Plus if these are the people you were worried about then it hasn't actually impacted GW at all having a ban.

You act like there were no 3rd party companies offering space dwarves. The only thing new is GW offering rules and badly written ones at that.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.

Good luck turning up to any well managed event with an army entirely made of proxies or clearly ip stolen minis.

Plus if these are the people you were worried about then it hasn't actually impacted GW at all having a ban.

You act like there were no 3rd party companies offering space dwarves. The only thing new is GW offering rules and badly written ones at that.

I'm not at all, again, if you want to rock up to a tournament with a full army when you can't even buy the units, it'll all be proxies anyway. I.e. not GW minis, so those people being banned didn't hurt GW.

Dudeface wrote:
\
If they're printing out a 1:1 land fortress, ip theft has been conducted. If it's a "reinvention" it's a proxy. Both would at the minimum need checking with the event organiser. Which is what I said.

Only if it's sold or distributed. In order for theft to occur you have to take something from someone else. At least in my country.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
\
If they're printing out a 1:1 land fortress, ip theft has been conducted. If it's a "reinvention" it's a proxy. Both would at the minimum need checking with the event organiser. Which is what I said.

Only if it's sold or distributed. In order for theft to occur you have to take something from someone else. At least in my country.

This concept of 'IP theft' is a purely fanboi invention to justify indignation at people not buying gws models but still playing the game.

GW is just as guilty of the same definition 'ip theft' as used here. By the definition of 'reinvention' above, space marines are proxies of storm troopers from star wars as that's what they were based on when they were first designed.

The only thing that legally protects these are TM or copyright infringment, neither of which cover 'ip theft' as it is used here.

Scanning a land fortress and printing it would be copyright infringment - the protection of copying. But someone that scults their own model that looks the same has still made their own model, they can't use any TMs to describe it, but they aren't prevented from making space amour, space swords, NASA rover tanks etc.

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop saying printing minis is IP theft? That's tantamount to calling Wierd Al a Song thief.

He completely reinvents the song, as most 3d printed minis are complete re-inventions of the sourced material. You know that most are not 1-1 copies, right? That's called "Resin molding" and is actually illegal because it is actual copying for profit.

What the majority of 3d printed STLs are these days are clearly knockoffs. Ala going to a street vendor in NY and buying a Rollex watch. It's clearly a rip off cheap Rolex, as no one would sell Rolex with real diamonds for 20$ on a street corner.

That space Marine Terminator off the STL website is a refashioned model of a very old design, that is often no longer in print.

If they're printing out a 1:1 land fortress, ip theft has been conducted. If it's a "reinvention" it's a proxy. Both would at the minimum need checking with the event organiser. Which is what I said.

And pretty much no tournament I have gone(make that no tournament) has issue with non-official.

Big wheeled vehicle with big gun and dwarven runes. TO's won't have issue. And if it's not obvious to the opponent what vehicle it is then the opponent is unlikely to be able to play 40k anyway

I don't really care for the technicalities of 3d print legality. My was and is: people who were going to 3d print a votann army because they were op are the only ones who have been immediately impacted by any votann ban in place thus far, in which case GW won't give a rats ass because they wouldn't have sold them anything anyway.

Personal opinion is a proxy army of 3d printed sculpts are fine, 1:1 copies are not, simple as that. Support the amateur and minor sculptors.

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop saying printing minis is IP theft? That's tantamount to calling Wierd Al a Song thief.

He completely reinvents the song, as most 3d printed minis are complete re-inventions of the sourced material. You know that most are not 1-1 copies, right? That's called "Resin molding" and is actually illegal because it is actual copying for profit.

What the majority of 3d printed STLs are these days are clearly knockoffs. Ala going to a street vendor in NY and buying a Rollex watch. It's clearly a rip off cheap Rolex, as no one would sell Rolex with real diamonds for 20$ on a street corner.

That space Marine Terminator off the STL website is a refashioned model of a very old design, that is often no longer in print.

If they're printing out a 1:1 land fortress, ip theft has been conducted. If it's a "reinvention" it's a proxy. Both would at the minimum need checking with the event organiser. Which is what I said.

And pretty much no tournament I have gone(make that no tournament) has issue with non-official.

Big wheeled vehicle with big gun and dwarven runes. TO's won't have issue. And if it's not obvious to the opponent what vehicle it is then the opponent is unlikely to be able to play 40k anyway

Proxies and conversions are usually fine at most tournaments, especially non-GW ones. The only slight issue with the Land Fortress is similar to the problem that befell the Ork Kill Rig: it's a brand new model so we don't have anything to compare a proxy to for size. I can see tournaments banning proxies for LoV vehicles for that reason, at least until they are released.

I think it's less likely you'd see proxies of the various unreleased infantry banned, assuming the proxy was at least vaguely representative of the unit.