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.

I was asked that question a while back and since I'm not a real fluff type of guy. I didn't know what I could've said. But I understand that the thunder warriors were more savage than the astartes. And the emperor gave them a limited life span. They did look pretty good, and they might've been amazing for a faction. But man. If we pitted a few in a warzone and they had to kill each other. Who has the better advantage?\\

According to The Outcast Dead TWs were well able and capable of beating Astartes 1-1. IIRC a TW beat a World Eater and Death Guard(?) in that novel in hand to hand combat.

They were, but the Astartes were more durable/live longer and are also much smarter iirc.

Individually a Thunder Warrior was far more than a match for a Space Marine, its not much of a contest.A thunder warrior is a vastly more powerful being.

However, they were often mentally unstable, had a more human lifespan, were much more intensive to produce, and were never intended for the type of warfare that SM's engage in, they were intended to conquer earth for the Emperor and little else beyond that.

1v1 they are stronger, but their instability really worked against them in larger fights as well.

I voted TW but SM is a just as correct answer since squad VS squad is a much more relevant scenario in practice.

Thunderwarriors, because it's plural vs "A Regular Astartes", in a contest between one Space Marine and an unspecified number of Thunder Warriors it's tough to vote any other way

Physically stronger? Thunder warrior.

Superior soldier? Space marine.

Thunder warriors have strength advantage and are very hard to influence via thousand sons tricks in outcast dead, ie he can not enter there mind.

There a very dangerous close combatant but would not have the same life span or experience a space marine can have.

one on one, thunderwarrior.

Squad vs. Squad, toss up.

Army vs. Army, Space Marines.


The larger the engagement the more tactics and stategy come into play. The centuries of experience and patience that a Grand Master has can not be replicated by a thunderwarrior.

Also, I believe that ThunderWarrior armor only had the upper torso as power armor. The lower legs were completely man-powered.

 cuda1179 wrote:
one on one, thunderwarrior.

Squad vs. Squad, toss up.

Army vs. Army, Space Marines.


The larger the engagement the more tactics and stategy come into play. The centuries of experience and patience that a Grand Master has can not be replicated by a thunderwarrior.

Also, I believe that ThunderWarrior armor only had the upper torso as power armor. The lower legs were completely man-powered.

Belive correct but they made up with the insane strengh they had. And battles they fought, upper body was priority, not much disadvantage to them

Doesnt the first FW 30K book have a story about the World Eaters (before Angron is found) and Thunder Warriors? IIRC some remnant renegade Thunder Warriors take over an asteroid and the World Eaters (called something else at the time) are sent in to deal with it, end up taking vastly more casualties than the Thunder Warriors but evenutally overwhelm them with numbers and savagery.

Ill have to look it up when I get home, they made it sound like each Thunder Warrior was capablr of taking on like a dozen marines or something.

Thunder Warriors were a cut above Astartes, yeah. Astartes were meant to be mass produced for the Legions rather than a one-off conquest force to forge the foundations of a galactic civilization.

Okay, sorry to shift the topic.....

Thunder Warriors vs. Adeptus Custodes.

That's an interesting one. 1 on 1 adeptus custodes are stronger than space marines, in a similar way to thunder warriors. However they are trained more like body guards than soldiers. So space marines start to do better as the fight gets larger.

As for how they compare to thunder warriors, I'm not really sure which is physically stronger. The thunder warriors I'd assume were trained to fight as an army, even if they lack the experience of space marines.

Well the Thunder Warriors were wiped out when they were no longer useful, and since the Astartes were only just being developed it seems like the Custodes would have been the most likely force to wipe them out. But with no more information that's not much to go on in terms of capabilities.

I always got the impression that the Custodes were more like trying turn an existing person into something resembling a Primarch, whereas the Astartes were your trimmed down, mass produced version as it would have been too slow or time-consuming a process to build legions from. Thunder Warriors were also mass-produced to a degree, so it seems like a Custodes would be superior in terms of enhanced capabilities. While their main role is as bodyguards, they're capable of fighting in most combat roles if they have to, and they were always really well equipped.

At the same time, it's worth remembering that Astartes and Thunder Warriors were all similarly equipped; a bolt gun will tear them all to shreds just as easily once their armour fails, so while speed might make a difference physical strength is only relevant in close combat, which a good tactician would try to avoid. The Custodes aren't as clear, but I'd probably assume they have more the equivalent of Artificer armour, plus their halberd/bolter hybrid weapons and other rare goodies. Honour guard often get all the best toys, but at the same time they won't have as much heavy firepower as troops equipped to wage full-scale war.

Lastly, in the discussion I think it's worth remembering that the Thunder Warriors weren't stupid, they're supposed to have some degree of tactical genius, they're unstable sure, which means coordinating them might be difficult, but they shouldn't be thought of as being instantly outclassed by well trained Astartes either. On an army vs army scale the instability might tell, but I'd say it's still a close run thing as they were specifically engineered to fight other well-equipped, genetically enhanced soldiers.

I've been reviewing background stuff. From my best guess, I'd say Custodes are stonger than Marines, but still slightly weaker than Thunder Warriors. They probably have the best equipment (on an individual warrior) of the three though.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Doesnt the first FW 30K book have a story about the World Eaters (before Angron is found) and Thunder Warriors? IIRC some remnant renegade Thunder Warriors take over an asteroid and the World Eaters (called something else at the time) are sent in to deal with it, end up taking vastly more casualties than the Thunder Warriors but evenutally overwhelm them with numbers and savagery.

Ill have to look it up when I get home, they made it sound like each Thunder Warrior was capablr of taking on like a dozen marines or something.

It was more like one to four and the WE is quite possibly the worst Legion to send against them (the least disciplined and tactical Legion, individualistic, favouring melee) as they play to the TWs' strengths.

Yeah, I think I would have sent in the Iron Warriors. That extra strength means nothing when they lure you out and pie-plate you to death.