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.

Those two are almost same tanks (armor, gun). But Thunderer is only 140 point costs and can make 12"+D6 march to come closer to enemy. Demolisher can move only 6" and probably will not use his short range gun first and second turn.
What do you think, which one is better?

I have not had a chance to try the thunderer yet myself. This Saturday if I keep my list the same will be running two. I think I'll like them because they can move 12'' plus flat out and I like the point cost. Only thing that worries me is that the thunderer only comes with the cannon. So a wep destroy means its only good for ramming and tank shocks.

You gain some and loose some. There really isn't an overall better between the two but only better for your play style.

I like the thunderer because the flatout move is great and I can get more in a list with them. I also love the model. You can get a stubber pintle to help with weapon detroyed results BTW.

The demolisher is a different beast. The big advantages being that an immobilized result does not limit the firing arc and a weapon destroy is not always a crippling damage. I have also been trying them out with sponson 3x HB setup to fire as I move forward. Does a bit of damage and usually gets more turns of firing than a HWS.

I like to think of it like this:
25 points for a Heavy Bolter, and a turret mount for your Demolisher cannon.

It really depends on how often you take advantage of a turret. If I really don't want to expose my side armor to one unit, but need to plate another, I'd take a Demolisher. Immobilization is less of an issue, and weapon destroyed result could just be your heavy bolter.

I really like naked Demolishers. I haven't used Thunderers, but the turrets and extra weapon have definitely come in handy. Worth 25 points? Maybe.

The minimum cost for all intents and purposes for the Thunderer should be considered 150 with a pintle stubber, as you're mad if you take it barebones.

You are, as others have said, paying 15 points for a turret mount and a heavy bolter.

The turret mount has two crucial advantages:

1) If you're immobilized, you can fire in all directions still and it can't be avoided.

2) If you need to shoot at something with a Thunderer, you have to reposition your facing which means you will probably expose your side armour in a number of cases, which is an absolute no-no for me. The Demolisher can just turns it turret in comparison and keep presenting its AV14 to the most pressing AT threats.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
The minimum cost for all intents and purposes for the Thunderer should be considered 150 with a pintle stubber, as you're mad if you take it barebones.

I don't think that a stubber is worth the extra points. Weapon destroyed results are pretty rare, and the whole point of the Thunderer is to be as cheap as possible. Use them up front as a shock unit, attracting fire away from your more vulbnerable units. If you lose your main gun then you can still tank shock and get use as mobile cover.

Overall neither is better, but each will be better in different situations.

Thunderer is of course cheaper, and capable of relocating faster.

Demolisher is more heavily armoured,and can use its turret to better protect its flank and rear arcs whilst still firing its ordnance.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

Demolisher is more heavily armoured,and can use its turret to better protect its flank and rear arcs whilst still firing its ordnance.

It isn't better armored, both have the same armor.

Personally, I like the no-nonsense approach of the thunderer's design. It's just a demolisher cannon on tracks. What else could someone need?

rowenstin wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

Demolisher is more heavily armoured,and can use its turret to better protect its flank and rear arcs whilst still firing its ordnance.

It isn't better armored, both have the same armor.

Personally, I like the no-nonsense approach of the thunderer's design. It's just a demolisher cannon on tracks. What else could someone need?

One could make a tenuous argument that the Demolisher has higher armor in practice, since the only concern in orienting the Demolisher is presenting a high AV to the opponent. The Thunderer must compromise (somewhat) to accommodate the use of its hull-mounted cannon.

But do remember that even hull-mounted weaponry has a 45 degree firing arc and you need not face your target directly.

It isn't better armored, both have the same armor.

Ah my bad, I was thinking of the demolisher vs the vindicator