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.

Hello Dakka,
I have recently been wondering what peoples thoughts on Thunderers are. They are essentially demolishers which are lacking their hull weapon, a turret mounted main gun and the heavy rule, exchanging this for a much lower silhouette. With this they become much faster, and are 25 points cheaper too. They remind me of the german Brumbaar tank in ww2, with a massive limited traverse seige cannon
Do people run these? Are they good? they seem quite good.
Thank you

I'm not really impressed. 25 points isn't much of a discount for a unit that loses the turret (if you get immobilized you're probably screwed), and you lose 10 points of that discount if you buy a pintile gun to avoid having "weapon destroyed" be as good as "explodes". Losing the hull gun hurts less than before GW gave a giant **** YOU to IG players by removing lumbering behemoth, but overall IMO it's still just a pretty model with bad rules.

iI's not really good (but not awful), but it looks awesome !
And it's reason enough to take it in my book

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm not really impressed. 25 points isn't much of a discount for a unit that loses the turret (if you get immobilized you're probably screwed), and you lose 10 points of that discount if you buy a pintile gun to avoid having "weapon destroyed" be as good as "explodes". Losing the hull gun hurts less than before GW gave a giant **** YOU to IG players by removing lumbering behemoth, but overall IMO it's still just a pretty model with bad rules.

I diagree with you on that point. For me the very limited speed on the demolisher (6" movement, no flat out) is a deal breaker, because in 5th edition I always had trouble getting it in range to fire. I admit that I haven't played the demolisher in 6th edition yet, but since it only got slower, and its hull and sponson weapons only can snap fire now due to the demolisher cannon being ordnance, I see the thunderer as equal choice compared to the demolisher.

Thanks for your feedback guys. I think I may proxy one at some stage to see if it works with my army build
And yes they definitely look awesome

They seem really good. All you are losing is a turret and a 50/50 save against weapon destroyed. How often does that even happen? If taking three of them over three demolishers gets you a unit, why not?

 Trickstick wrote:
All you are losing is a turret and a 50/50 save against weapon destroyed. How often does that even happen?

Very often. Losing the turret is a huge drawback. It commits you to firing at a single target that you have to choose in the movement phase (45* firing arc and only 24" range usually means everything else will be out of range and/or arc) and you waste the shot if some other unit kills the target first, and if you get immobilized you probably aren't going to shoot again. Add in weapon destroyed being an automatic kill and even AP - penetrating hits have a 3/6 chance to permanently "destroy" the tank. The cost reduction IMO just isn't enough to justify it.

if you get immobilized you probably aren't going to shoot again. Add in weapon destroyed being an automatic kill and even AP - penetrating hits have a 3/6 chance to permanently "destroy" the tank

I agree with this part, but in terms of the turret (or lack of), you should be firing the demolisher cannon first anyway, as it already suffers from a short range, and as a blast, it should be placed first for efficiency, so the unit can be finished off by high rof weapons.

Just spotted the main advantage of the thunderer over all of the russes, can't believe no one spotted it.

It isn't heavy.

This means it is quite fast when compared to out other armour, making it a very durable tip of the spear for an attack. Having it out the front also works well with it being cheap, as it is fewer points lost over having a demolisher. It can flat out and smoke on turn 1, giving cover to the squishy mechvets hiding behind. They then absorb damage and die, or survive and start pilling on the pie.

It at least seems a niche that guard don't have covered: rapidly moving ordnance.

Also, if the cannon is lost it can ram, unlike slow russes that sort of suck at ramming.

Immobilized being a kill doesn't match my experience with Space Marine Vindicators, which I've found to be quite effective in 6th edition. If you're mindful of your arcs, immobilized results can be more or less ineffective, as your vehicle can continue to threaten important areas of table space. However, this requires thinking ahead to an extent which many players don't seem to consider.

To me the Thunderer seems better than the Leman Russ Demolisher, but still inferior to the Vindicator.

Immobilized being a kill doesn't match my experience with Space Marine Vindicators, which I've found to be quite effective in 6th edition. If you're mindful of your arcs, immobilized results can be more or less ineffective, as your vehicle can continue to threaten important areas of table space. However, this requires thinking ahead to an extent which many players don't seem to consider.

To me the Thunderer seems better than the Leman Russ Demolisher, but still inferior to the Vindicator.

How is a Thunderer inferior to a Vindicator?

Just spotted the main advantage of the thunderer over all of the russes, can't believe no one spotted it.

It isn't heavy.

This means it is quite fast when compared to out other armour, making it a very durable tip of the spear for an attack. Having it out the front also works well with it being cheap, as it is fewer points lost over having a demolisher. It can flat out and smoke on turn 1, giving cover to the squishy mechvets hiding behind. They then absorb damage and die, or survive and start pilling on the pie.

It at least seems a niche that guard don't have covered: rapidly moving ordnance.

Also, if the cannon is lost it can ram, unlike slow russes that sort of suck at ramming.

Yeah, I've come to a similar conclusion myself. I compare the Thunderer to the Medusa. Medusa has more range but the Thunderer has much better armor.
I've played with both, and to be honest - it is hard to decide which is a clear winner.

My breakdown of the Medusa and Thunderer:
The extra range on the Medusa is nice, but the extra armor on the Thunderer is equally nice.

More often then not I use my Medusa to take bastion breacher shells. Thunderer for standard shells.

I find that the Thunderer meshes much better with a platoon/russ wall. Where as the Medusa meshes better with a mechanized veteran list.

The point costs are similar, so it is a wash there.

Overall Grade:

Thunderer ( ) out of ( )

Medusa ( ) out of ( )

Anecdotal explanation: AV14 makes my opponents cry, AV12 open-topped makes them laugh)