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.

Which is better?

Which has proven more useful for people in battle?

Depends on how much ranged anti-tank you are facing. Plus, as BA, I don't get thunderfires.

They both suffer from "I can't hit stuff in the middle of a building" syndrome now.

Thunderfire wins, hands down.

The Thunderfire is crewed by a techmarine in artificer armor with a power axe or a power fist. A whirlwind is WS 0 or 1, and destroyed by two or three good krak grenades.

The Thunderfire can easily benefit from cover of any sort, and as a smaller model, can get out of LOS much easier.

S6 is better than S5 for things like sniping IG officers or Primaris Psykers, or Ethereals, or Farseers.

When it comes to killing light armor, 4 templates at S6 will strip a vehicle of hull points far faster than one at S5 that rolls twice and takes the highest, since the single S5 hit down't have an AP that gives it a bonus to results.

Sounds good thanks forthat. Excuse the nooby question but what is the hull points/ armour / toughness or whatever of the Thunderfire? I cant find it anywhere , I only see the techs stats.

It's artillery... Check the rule book for its stats.

I'm pretty sure it's in there.

The updated thunderfire is the terror of the ADL campers.
And that means most of the current top armies.

It is also nasty against pretty much anything else to boot.

Only downside is it now follows the rules for multiple barrage so if you miss on that first shot you miss hard. But yeah, it got a massive boost. Also the above left out that you get to fortify a terrain piece just by taking a Thunderfire as well.

The Thunderfire was already much better than the Whirlwind in the old Codex, and now it's been buffed? Thunderfire Cannon all the way. I've been using this unit since 5th edition, when it was very difficult to protect, and now it is just plain crazy.

Barrage makes the Thunderfire Cannon stronger overall but also higher variance. The solution is to take two Thunderfire Cannons!

Well, many of my BA lists get all their "ignore cover tech" from overpriced whirlwinds, but they seem to do the job fine. That's the most compelling job for both weapons systems, because I"m not crazy about the small blast template.

So the Thunderfire blast gets resolved against a vehicles armor that facing it. EG Vindicator front would be 13.

But now (new codex which I dont have yet) Thunderfire has barrage so would resolve against Vindicators side armor of 11?

Exactly

Jeeesus that makes the Thunderfire pretty versatile. I might have to splurge on one. I hear its a metal model should look the part^^

scommy wrote:
Jeeesus that makes the Thunderfire pretty versatile. I might have to splurge on one. I hear its a metal model should look the part^^

It's been Finecastified.

Guess I'm in the minority here, as I preferred Whirlwinds. Getting Bolster Defences etc. is great and all, but you do get what you pay for. At 65pts Whirlwinds are a steal.

I run a Skyshield, so two sitting on top of that are far from vulnerable. I also more keen on accuracy, and with the move to Barrage the TFC became a bit more inaccurate, as if the initial blast misses (more often than not) then the rest are likely to miss. It is much easier to hit with a single large blast.

Also, I prefer the Whirlwind's ability to clear out Ork/Guardian/Guardsmen hordes from terrain with the AP5 ignores cover shot, as the TFCs shot is only AP6. I know mathematically it isn't much different, but I prefer the guarantee.

Two final points; I think the argument about enemy ranged AT the be bogus as anything that threatens a Whirlwind can easily take two wounds from a TFC as well. Also, I just don't have another 70pts to spare in my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to see the math on these two however. The likeliness of each hitting certain types of targets and which is better against what.

Labmouse?

Thunderfire Cannons look to be awesome just from the glance of the rules. Now reading it from you all perspective makes my thoughts of buying one even more firm! Thank you DakkaDakka

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Also, I prefer the Whirlwind's ability to clear out Ork/Guardian/Guardsmen hordes from terrain with the AP5 ignores cover shot, as the TFCs shot is only AP6. I know mathematically it isn't much different, but I prefer the guarantee.

Aren't most Ork saves 6+?

 streamdragon wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Also, I prefer the Whirlwind's ability to clear out Ork/Guardian/Guardsmen hordes from terrain with the AP5 ignores cover shot, as the TFCs shot is only AP6. I know mathematically it isn't much different, but I prefer the guarantee.

Aren't most Ork saves 6+?

Haven't a clue to be honest, because I haven't seen an Ork in well over a year. What I do see are Guardians and Guardsmen however. Whirlwind also has that nice AP4 mode to tackle Fire Warriors hiding behind an Aegis Line.

T-Fires are barrage now... hide them oos and hit vehicles on their side armor!

If you take lots of scouts, take TFCs

If you take lots of vehicles, whirlwinds are good

If you don't do either, it's up to you, though TFCs have better utility overall

 juraigamer wrote:
If you take lots of scouts, take TFCs

If you take lots of vehicles, whirlwinds are good

If you don't do either, it's up to you, though TFCs have better utility overall

You might want to run through that in detail.

What synergy is there between Scouts and TFCs that you think Scouts make them an auto-include?

And why do you think TFCs have better utility?

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

What synergy is there between Scouts and TFCs that you think Scouts make them an auto-include?

And why do you think TFCs have better utility?

Bolster Defenses is the answer for both questions i suppose. Technically speaking, the Thunderfire Cannon itself only costs 25 points because you get a 75 points Techmarine with it. And that should be something!

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

What synergy is there between Scouts and TFCs that you think Scouts make them an auto-include?

And why do you think TFCs have better utility?

Bolster Defenses is the answer for both questions i suppose. Technically speaking, the Thunderfire Cannon itself only costs 25 points because you get a 75 points Techmarine with it. And that should be something!

While I thing the TFC is probably better than the whirlwind, I think this is a disingenuous argument. How much would I actually pay for a techmarine in most lists? Zero points. It's not doing anything for me, and even if it was, it has to stay in coherency with with cannon, so it isn't able to repair my immobilized tanks unless they were backed up to him already. The entire 100 points is being paid for the cannon, and the techmarine is a weird little bonus thing that might come into play 1 game out of 10.

EDIT: I forgot about Bolster Defenses as I was writing this. That's probably worth 15 points or so. So, between 80-90 for the cannon, 10-20 for the marine.

Well correct me if I am wrong but the new codex changes things a bit. I note someone mentioned 65 points for a whirlwind now? When I posted they were 85.

I have not seen the new codex yet but if it is 65 and tfc is still 100 then they are perhaps not directly comparable?

scommy wrote:
Well correct me if I am wrong but the new codex changes things a bit. I note someone mentioned 65 points for a whirlwind now? When I posted they were 85.

I have not seen the new codex yet but if it is 65 and tfc is still 100 then they are perhaps not directly comparable?

That's the correct point values, but they serve more or less the same function, so they are very much directly comparable. That doesn't mean they are equivalent, but this is not comparing apples to oranges. This is more like comparing granny smith apples to fujis.

 tomjoad wrote:

scommy wrote:
Well correct me if I am wrong but the new codex changes things a bit. I note someone mentioned 65 points for a whirlwind now? When I posted they were 85.

I have not seen the new codex yet but if it is 65 and tfc is still 100 then they are perhaps not directly comparable?

That's the correct point values, but they serve more or less the same function, so they are very much directly comparable. That doesn't mean they are equivalent, but this is not comparing apples to oranges. This is more like comparing granny smith apples to fujis.

Good point. Thinking carefully about it Granny Smiths are normally bigger and cheaper so they must be the Whirlwinds.

Again, both of these weapons systems provide "no cover save" tech. That's their big appeal to me. I haven't had any trouble nailing things like Eldar rangers with my Whirlwind.

My codex isn't in front of me, but TFCs have 12" more range than the Whirlwind, right? That's just enough to be significant, I think.

Also, and this may be just a function of the boards I tend to play on, but a TFC will be much easier to hide if I want to, and will nearly always be easier to give a cover save if I cannot hide it.

The fact that one single auto/lascannon shot can't ever kill a TFC is also pretty significant.

And, one last point in favor of the Cannon, I don't expect to use many vehicles in my Ultramarine army. Drop Pods and Stormtalons, yes, but having just one or two Whirlwinds as the only rhino chassis in my army will guarantee that any deepstriking anti-tank, or lascannons that can see them, will have no better target than said Whirlwinds. Obviously, this point will only apply if you build your army with next to no tanks in it.

People keep saying they can hide their TFC easier, but last I checked Artillery can't move, so the only way to hide it is to deploy out of LOS. And sure, it has Barrage now, but 66% percent chance of full scatter with the all shots hinging on the first one hitting; you want to be firing directly instead.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:


You might want to run through that in detail.

No one asked for details, unless your asking, in a somewhat asinine way.

It all depends on your army list and playstyle. That's it really. Both have their pros and cons.

TFC are barrage now.

The good: Vehicles are hit on the side armor. Ignore cover shots may not be needed as cover is determined from the center of the blast often ignoring an aegis wall. Character and special weapon sniping is possible.

The bad: The lead shot will miss a lot, and with all the trailing shots being small pies the weapon is terribly inaccurate. After the lead pie plate lands the rest of the pie plates scatter off the position of the previous pie plate, if you're not 100% sure what I'm talking about re read the multiple barrage rules in the main book.

The ugly: When I said terribly inaccurate I meant terribly inaccurate. If I were to say it's pretty much shooting at ork BS it's an insult to ork BS because ammo runts make orks more accurate with big lobbas than marines are with a TFC. Prescience is hardly an option because an allied SW/BA/DA psyker that costs 65 to 100 points shouldn't be buffing a 100 point unit, and even less so for the C:SM level 3 psyker with divination. 66% of the time it's going to miss by an average of 3" which means it's going to be very common to see all 4 pies whiff.

Last but not least in comparing to the Whirlwind the best way to do it is comparing 2 TFC at 200 points to 3 whirlwinds at 195 points. It's 2 groups of inaccurate multiple barrage 4 small pies versus 3 accurate large pies.