Thunderhawk VS. Stormraven

[sangrail777]

First off let me say that I own both. 1 Thunderhawk and 3 Stormravens so far.
Why should I even get any more Thunderhawks?
Thunderhawks and Stormravens are both transports and combat fighters. They deliver troops and a major payload of fire power. So Break down.
Thunderhawk:
Points 920 w/torbolaser
Transport: 30
weapons: 4 x Twin linked bolters, 6 H.K.'s, Twin Linked Lascannon, Turbo Laser or Battle Cannon
Armour: 12, 12, 10
Price: 650-700 dollars

Storm Raven
Points: 200
Transport: 12 & a Dread
Weapons: Twin melta or HB, Twin Las/Assault cannon/plasma cannon, 4 blood missles
Transport: 12 & dread
Armour: 12, 12, 12
Price: 66 dollars

Why should I buy another Thunderhawk when it's easier to put together and more reliable on the component shapes of the Stormraven then a Thunderhawk. I could buy more Stormravens for every Thunderhawk. 4 Stormravenss at least for 1 Thunderhwak.
For the points cost of one Thundehawk I can field more troops with Stormravens.
I can have more overall fire power with Stormravens for the point costs.
Target allocation: 4 targets for one with the Stormravens to Thunderhawks.
Armour: Holy crap the Stormraven has a better armour stat then the Thunderhwk.

Why should I bother any more with Thundehawks? I think GW screwed Forgeworld of further Thundehwk sales. Thoughts. Am I missing anything? What does the rest of the BoLS think.

[Defenestratus]

Your nerd level increases geometrically the more resin models you own.

oh and since this thread is bound to be filled with comments like "OMFG STORMRAVEN IS OOGLY" and "HOLY CRAP WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO OWN SUCH AN UGLY MODEL!"....

I'd like to put in the actually useful note that the Thunderhawk provides longer range anti-tank/titan weapons while the stormraven has to get closer and therefore gives up its advantage of its mobility.

[dethangel]

in my opinion, more is better. the fact that for the same points you can field 4? stormravens = more shots and more targets. plus a few bad rolls and thats 900 pts down rather than 200ish. not to mention that the $cost its 10 SR to 1 THawk.

[Denzark]

You forget the superb power of a D strength weapon. Also 30 people assaulting out of the Thawk - or 15 terminators - nothing else comes close.

[jorz192]

I am just thinking more wow, that's a lot of money on toy soldiers.

[DarkLink]

And a Thunderhawk is an actual flyer. Much tougher to kill when you need 6's to hit.

[wittdooley]

Did no one else notice in the newest issue of White Dwarf where the design teams comments on a Plastic Thunderhawk and makes it very clear that they're not out of the question......

I think we'll be seeing those plastic T-Hawks sooner than we think.

[Gir]

First off let me say that I own both. 1 Thunderhawk and 3 Stormravens so far.
Why should I even get any more Thunderhawks?
Thunderhawks and Stormravens are both transports and combat fighters. They deliver troops and a major payload of fire power. So Break down.
Thunderhawk:
Points 920 w/torbolaser
Transport: 30
weapons: 4 x Twin linked bolters, 6 H.K.'s, Twin Linked Lascannon, Turbo Laser or Battle Cannon
Armour: 12, 12, 10
Price: 650-700 dollars

Storm Raven
Points: 200
Transport: 12 & a Dread
Weapons: Twin melta or HB, Twin Las/Assault cannon/plasma cannon, 4 blood missles
Transport: 12 & dread
Armour: 12, 12, 12
Price: 66 dollars

Why should I buy another Thunderhawk when it's easier to put together and more reliable on the component shapes of the Stormraven then a Thunderhawk. I could buy more Stormravens for every Thunderhawk. 4 Stormravenss at least for 1 Thunderhwak.
For the points cost of one Thundehawk I can field more troops with Stormravens.
I can have more overall fire power with Stormravens for the point costs.
Target allocation: 4 targets for one with the Stormravens to Thunderhawks.
Armour: Holy crap the Stormraven has a better armour stat then the Thunderhwk.

Why should I bother any more with Thundehawks? I think GW screwed Forgeworld of further Thundehwk sales. Thoughts. Am I missing anything? What does the rest of the BoLS think.

Thunderhawks make an epic centrepeice. That's the reason I'm gonna get one.

[Mr.Pickelz]

What about a Thunderhawk in the middle of a group of Stormravens? That would add some awesomeness to your game.

[sangrail777]

Thunderhawks do make a nice center peice. When ever people enter my house there is a large red Thunderhawk there to great them in the living room.
It does look good with a bunch of little Stormravens around it.
The turbo laser (str-D) mounted on the Thunderhawk really isn't that special if you consider the rate of fire 4 Stormravens can put out.
As far as range 96 compared to 72 inches neither really matters because I'm still gonna ram Thunderhawks and Stormravens down an opponents throaght to drop off my favorite payload (Infantry).
Speaking of payload:
T-hawk: 15 Terminators
3 S-raven's: 18 Terminators (and again cheaper)

[sangrail777]

The Thunderhawk is a great heavy transport. What I think though is it needs some rule changes to keep it viable.
Such as:
Transportation- make it like the caestus ram, terms count as 1 maybe even Jumppack troops count as one.
Armour- by the god emporer increase the stat line. f-13, s-12, r-12
points- maybe a lil' drop in points, ya know shave off like 100-200 points

[steelmage99]

When comparing the two are we only allowed to consider them in the light of their rules on the table (and apparently also their IRL price)?

Or are we allowed to also consider their aesthetic, heritage, design and sheer awesomeness?

[sangrail777]

Comparing how they look the Thunderhawk is hands down more impressive.
I do like the way the Stormraven looks but it could never compare to the legacy of the Thunderhawk.

[plawolf]

And a Thunderhawk is an actual flyer. Much tougher to kill when you need 6's to hit.

Actually, the latest WD released APOC data sheets for the SR when states that the SR is to be treated as a flier for APOC, which puts it on par with the THawk in that department.

The SR has better rare armour as well as melta-nerfing special rule.

[Gir]

Actually, the latest WD released APOC data sheets for the SR when states that the SR is to be treated as a flier for APOC, which puts it on par with the THawk in that department.

The SR has better rare armour as well as melta-nerfing special rule.

Thunderhwak has the melta nerfing rule too.

[eldargal]

Also, we ladies love a Thunderhawk. ;)


Not really.

But it is a nice model. I like the Stormraven too, so coming down firmly on the side of 'have both'.

[Smotku]

Much of what I have to say is a repeat but still...

1. the question is a false choice you can have both!
2. The Thunderhawk and storm raven perfprm different roles.
3 The thunderhawk is incredibly hard to shoot down - in several Apoc games we have had at our FLGS this one guy has an awesomly painted Dark Angel Thunderhawk. It was never destroyed until other people got Flyers...Go Go Barracuda! yes the rear armor 10 is a glaring weakness of the Thunderhawk against other flyers.
4. Probably most important The Thunderhawk is just awesomely Epic on the battlefield. When we play apoc games and the thunderhawk is on the field alot of people actually just stop by to watch (kinda inconvienient sometime)

[Tynskel]

Well, I like the idea of 10 Sanguinary Guard, Dante, Mephiston, Sanguinary Priest, Astorath, and the Sanguinor, Deep Striking out of a Thunderhawk and charging, but hey, that's me.

Oh, and 3x2x6 bombs. Oh, yeah, 4 twin-hv bolters. 2 lascannons, and a Thunderhawk Cannon/Turbolaser. Don't forget those 3 structure points.

The Thunderhawk model, itself, has always been a collectors piece. You get one because you want to build a redonkulously awesome model.

Stormravens are awesome, but fulfill different roles.

[Lockark]

Also, we ladies love a Thunderhawk. ;)


Who needs a fast car, when you have a Thunder Hawk!

[gwensdad]

Also, we ladies love a Thunderhawk. ;)



I'm about to do a very bad meme joke because of you. Warning you now...

[sangrail777]

I have both a Thunderhawk and Stormravens, I even bought 2 Thunderbolts (to protect the rear of the Thunderhwk)
They really do fullfill the same role (on the table top)
:drop off troops in vital area and then strafe for super heavies, tanks, and elite infantry in that order):
So why should I get anymore Thunderhawks.
For the "prestige" the "centerpeice", I already have one built and painted.
Talking to anybody about 40k models, as soon as I mention my Thunderhawk conversation ends.
Durability the Thunderhawk is good (mines' never been shot down)
But still only dropping of 30 slots as compared to droping off 48 slots and 4 dreads for 120 points less.
I just want the rules to be changed to give me the reason to buy more Thunderhawks.

[Gir]

I don't think you ever need more then one. A single Thunderhawk plus a heap of Stormravens is what you need.

[Cherub]

There is an amazing apoc formation that uses 3 BA thunderhawks.

[sangrail777]

Cherub
That formation is not amazing enough to suggest spending $2,000 dollars or so to get 3 Thunderhawks that 12 Stormravens for $792.00 can do better or just as well even without the save.
The actual price tag that goes along with these formations is insane.
(even for me and I own alot of Forgeworld) (2 Reaver Titans, Warhound, Thounderhawk, 2 Thunderbolts, 2 Hell Blades, and lots of small charectors and bits)

It's easy to say the Thunderhawk is amazazazing(spelled that way cuz I wanted to) and the Stormraven is ugly. But I'm thinking all around.
Looks
Rep.
Points
Transportation
Weapons
PRICE!
Rules

Honestly with some rule changes/point drop I would think better of my Thunderhawk.
Does no one else feel the same?

[Xas]

tbh I've allways felt that way about all the superheavy fliers bar the vampire hunter (which is quite cheap considering its a flying TL pulsar).

even without stormravens the thunderhawk isnt worth 920 points. nor is the marauder worth 400.

cestus style transprot (all coutns as 1) and icnrease to 36 (cause you want to fit charachters to the full-man squads :D) as well as 13 13 12 would prolly do the trick and be worth the hefty price tag.
decreaseing the cost is something that doesnt fit the awesome model. it has to be strong AND costy to mtch its appearance.

[Legoklods]

You forget the superb power of a D strength weapon. Also 30 people assaulting out of the Thawk - or 15 terminators - nothing else comes close.

WRONG!

You can take 3 stormravens everytime you take a thunderhawk. So forth from the thunderhawk comes 15 termies... np. we can just counter that with 3 dreads with blood talons and what have you, plus 36 raging death company pshycos:eek:
anyone who disagree?

[Legoklods]

...
I'd like to put in the actually useful note that the Thunderhawk provides longer range anti-tank/titan weapons while the stormraven has to get closer and therefore gives up its advantage of its mobility.

while that is true you seem to be forgetting one thing - movement. Since we're dealing with apocalypse gaming (no other way to field a thunderhawk) your stormravens can get a move of (if I'm no mistaken:confused:) 72" BEFORE they shoot a tank/titan with twinlinked multimelta... So while strenght D is better than 8+melta you will have more shots of Strnght 8+melta.
Bottomline:
Range of weapons doesn't matter as much when mounted on aporcalypse flyers, as in none-aporcalypse games.

[Welder]

I am going to have to say that those of you that want to up armor the thunderhawk are insane. The armor value of flyers was already good enough. It takes a 6 to hit any flyer if the weapon isnt AA mounted and all AA mounted weapons are usually at most, Str 7. Template weapons cant touch a flyer so that makes most Str D and high str Apoc Weapons out of the question, unless the flyers are in hover mode. The Tau manta is the biggest flyer in the game and it is only 13 12 11. Pretty muych all other flyers in the game are all armor 10. The exceptions to this rule come from the most recent Codex entries that are armor 12 all around like the storm raven or armor 12 on some areas like the valk. These units need these armor values so that they can be viable in a normal 40k game, but it seems that it really wasnt thought out how these would act as flyers in Apoc. Even if the Stormraven wasnt transporting anything it makes a ridiculous flyer. In flight mode it moves a minimum of 36" and has no max range, it subtracts 12" from the range of anythign trying to shoot at it, it takes 6s to hit it with normal weaponry, a str 7 AA mounted weapon (should you actually find one, most people dont tend to bring AA weapons unless they happen to have hydras, and the pintle mounted Str 5s cant touch AV 12) will need a 5 to glance and a 6 to pen, then you will get a 4+ cover save for being a flyer.

I am sure that there are some flyer rule changes in the future, but in terms of Apoc the Stormraven is currently a very potent flyer. My 2 structure point Tigersharks are only armor 10 all around, same with Marauders. So it isnt really that the Thunderhawk is underpowered its more that the new flyers that GW is trying to bring into the standard game are too powerful when made into full fledged flyers in Apoc.

Welder

[sangrail777]

I have come to the conclusion that I love my Thunderhawk and will probably even get another.
I do hope the armour gets upgraded to 12 all around
and the transportation capacity is increased to be like the Caestus ram. IE: (30 slots)
Terminators, Power Armoured Marines, Jump Pack Marines each count as 1
Bikes count as 2
Dreadnaughts count as 10

This is the only changes I would like to be made.

[Gir]

You can't really compate the stormraven to other flies, it horribly unbalanced because it's armour.