KO Thunderer GHB2017 Changes Information Gathering Poll

[Lord Veshnakar]

I feel that this was more of a "how it was originally intended" adjustment.  And because squads of all aethercannons or mortars buffed by Khemists was really really good. 

[FractalRain]

I am confused by the changes myself and also think they should have just tackled "stacking buffs" in general rather than nerfing Thunderers.   The Khemist is practically useless for buffing them now as you can only select one weapon. Especially with the expensive ships and limited units, what we will see are more Arknaughts and Endrinriggers and less Thunderers.  It is just not worth taking them over Arknaughts,  especially since their range is worse. 

[Kevin K]

I agree that Arkanaught Company was already better in general. KO did/do have a problem that spamming a single powerful weapon is clearly the best way to play them. The correct fix was to deal with the Khemist. This just removes one unit from reasonable use while keeping the same problem.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Kevin K]

One thing I will say, to be clear. I'm glad they are willing to adjust both points and warscrolls to deal with problems. I also like the expected way to play the unit to match the model kit. A change in general here was fine. They just really got the implementation wrong in this case.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Percivael]

I think that part of GWs motivation to change the scroll was that they had created models of special weapon team Duardin but the warscroll meant people weren't using them like that. You had these really cool looking weapons such as Decksweepers and Fumigators just sitting on sprues - This can't of been the designers intention, so a change was made. 

[Paul Buckler]

18 minutes ago, Percivael said:

I think that part of GWs motivation to change the scroll was that they had created models of special weapon team Duardin but the warscroll meant people weren't using them like that. You had these really cool looking weapons such as Decksweepers and Fumigators just sitting on sprues - This can't of been the designers intention, so a change was made. 

I Think your right with the reason, GW need to say this though and apologise for not writing the scroll correctly in the first place, should never have made the tome if that was the intention.  Wonder what they are gonna do with the Tomes and ref cards?  Keep selling them with a bogus scroll? Or withdraw and reprint.

[Rhellion]

16 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

I'm sorry you feel like people were trying to "purchase wins". Some of us were just trying to play the rules and build units that were aesthetically pleasing (rather than looking like a mob stumbling out of an armory).  

Tom, you have talked about how powerful the list could be. 

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Just a reminder to people to keep it calm please as I don't want this thread descending into the abyss! 

@Rhellion - Whilst I can see the point you are making, bit less direct poking please!

@Thomas Lyons - Can I ask you to be careful with any replies as well please

[Rhellion]

3 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Just a reminder to people to keep it calm please as I don't want this thread descending into the abyss! 

@Rhellion - Whilst I can see the point you are making, bit less direct poking please!

@Thomas Lyons - Can I ask you to be careful with any replies as well please

Understood

[FractalRain]

4 hours ago, Percivael said:

I think that part of GWs motivation to change the scroll was that they had created models of special weapon team Duardin but the warscroll meant people weren't using them like that. You had these really cool looking weapons such as Decksweepers and Fumigators just sitting on sprues - This can't of been the designers intention, so a change was made. 

I agree somewhat -creating more use for all weapons is a good thing, but this isn't really doing that -it's nerfing one weapon and then trying to make them work well together..  Against certain armies, the other weapons would be preferable.  In a tournament setting, the mortars and cannons were better because of the type of units you face in that setting and your unknown armies/scenarios.  But now, the longest range weapon we have are 24".  Mortars to 12" is mind-boggling for an artillery unit.  I mean, they are duaradin!  The mortars were the only weapon with range which could encourage other spellcasting/shooting armies to advance. No we are forced to advance or go the one-drop route.  I just feel most of these changes limit our unit options and strategy, rather than diversifying them, and that is unfortunate as we don't have many options as-is and apparently still no "battleliine-if" formations!  And, I'll just clarify that I have only played up to 1500 pts and only ever took 10 thunderers with cannons and one Khemist.  We hit on a 4+ for almost everything, so the Khemist really helps.  So, I'm in the boat where the rules were never abused and now the army options are more limited. 

I'll say it again...the ships really needed to come down in cost....they have lots of wounds, but the save is horrendous, the special rules when assaulted only occurs 50% of the time, and they are easily taken down in a round or two if you are unlucky or if someone gets a double-turn.  There are many fast armies out there, and the risk that they surround and down the ships is a real concern in some games.  Don't get me wrong, risk and reward are definitely a good thing, the problem is now the ship+Thunderers is less of a threat and even more likely to get wiped off the table if someone tries the drop-list (for the record, I haven't tried that approach yet myself).

As they are open to changing things, I sure hope they continue to monitor these changes and move us in the right direction, but it doesn't feel that way for now.

[Mikester1487]

Well I bought 4 boxes of these and built 10 rifles while waiting on the side to see which special options would be better.  I have not seen the scroll, but it sounds like I've doged a nasty change! 

Fluff wise it makes more sense for them to have a bunch of separate weapons as they are hired guards who are there to support the companies for a share in the profits.  At least that's how I interpereted it.

When assembling these it came off almost as a space marine box where the rifles were your standard bolters and the special weapons would be limited.  GW should have definitely made that clear on the scroll, and it does not make sense to me why they didn't put out an early faq on this.  

As for other changes I was hoping to see some kind of buff/change to the skyhold rules.  I say that as a Barak Zon player though so that ones my own infliction.

[Chikout]

The warscroll change was briefly mentioned warhammer live today. They said that they had made a mistake with the original warscroll as the rules did not represent the contents of box. They said the reason for waiting was the desire to have the change in print.

They also said that the plan is to never do this again (no more mistakes) but at the very least warscroll changes should be very rare.

Finally the said that they read tga so I am sure this thread has been seen.

[Thomas Lyons]

5 hours ago, Rhellion said:

Tom, you have talked about how powerful the list could be. 

I did indeed talk about it it could be competitive.  But indeed there is a difference with a list/unit being competitive and "purchasing wins," is there not?  This unit was a strategic tool in the KO tool box.  A high cost per wound unit of all specialized weapon users, rather than those units that had special weapons mixed in.  They're tied for highest cost per wound for any non-ship, non-hero.  Now, they aren't even reasonably playable.  This is my concern.

4 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Just a reminder to people to keep it calm please as I don't want this thread descending into the abyss! 

@Rhellion - Whilst I can see the point you are making, bit less direct poking please!

@Thomas Lyons - Can I ask you to be careful with any replies as well please

Will do.

1 hour ago, Mikester1487 said:

When assembling these it came off almost as a space marine box where the rifles were your standard bolters and the special weapons would be limited.  GW should have definitely made that clear on the scroll, and it does not make sense to me why they didn't put out an early faq on this.  

It was my understanding given the warscroll and their wound and prior matched play profile that they were a specialized artillery force rather than a mishmash of short range weapons or a mediocre mid range weapon unit.  To put things into perspective, 10 Company who are equipped with either ranged option will outperform a Thunderer unit at range, whether they are at 12", 18" or 24"... and they have almost double the wounds while being almost the same cost (the Thunderers being 20 points cheaper).  If the desire was to have these guys as a heavy short range, diverse weapon firing squad, then the weapon profiles on the five troops needed to be improved.  

But they didn't and so we're left with 2.5 viable troop units and only one unit that can amass bodies in any significant way to actually claim objectives in the new GHB2017 world.  

[FractalRain]

You summed up my concerns well Thomas!

[stato]

57 minutes ago, Chikout said:

The warscroll change was briefly mentioned warhammer live today. They said that they had made a mistake with the original warscroll as the rules did not represent the contents of box. They said the reason for waiting was the desire to have the change in print.

They also said that the plan is to never do this again (no more mistakes) but at the very least warscroll changes should be very rare.

Finally the said that they read tga so I am sure this thread has been seen.

Well its good that its been addressed by them in some form.  Looking forward to getting the book and working out how I want to build and play my KO now. Seems like you want at least some of the weapons all of the time, and all of them maybe only situation-ally or for a certain tactical approach.  Ive got 15 so ill likely build a mix to suit different army builds.

[Mikester1487]

That's a fair point Tom and I totally see why people went with specific weapon types.  As a quick question for you, if they gave Thunderers 2 wounds in addition with this change would they be more balanced?

[Thomas Lyons]

1 hour ago, Chikout said:

The warscroll change was briefly mentioned warhammer live today. They said that they had made a mistake with the original warscroll as the rules did not represent the contents of box. They said the reason for waiting was the desire to have the change in print.

They also said that the plan is to never do this again (no more mistakes) but at the very least warscroll changes should be very rare.

Finally the said that they read tga so I am sure this thread has been seen.

The other question obviously is if they are going to do this with Arkanaut Company since their contents don't represent their builds, as you only get 1 of each weapon even though you can equip them with three of any weapon.  Are they going to ruin Company too and, if not, they seem less than consistent with their reasoning.

[Thomas Lyons]

3 minutes ago, Mikester1487 said:

That's a fair point Tom and I totally see why people went with specific weapon types.  As a quick question for you, if they gave Thunderers 2 wounds in addition with this change would they be more balanced?

Maybe?  The problem is that, as they are with the GHB2017 changes, they don't have a function on the battlefield.  What are they doing?  

With a wounds increase, and a focus on short range weapons, they might be able to serve as tanks/anvils for the army, especially with their 4+ save and the fumigator's ability to reduce attacks.  Having an anvil unit like this would fill a niche, but they're competing for valuable space given the high price on the ships (behemoths with generally bad attacks and saves for their points) and the requirement that KO armies must ALWAYS have at least 3 units of Arkanaut Company (since there are no other battleline units in the faction and you can't use allies to fulfill battleline requirements).  

So, increasing their wounds would help, although they're competing for space in a faction with high unit prices and no alternative battleline options.  Both of these factors would likely limit how many of these guys hit the table.

[Naflem]

On 8/20/2017 at 8:40 AM, Thomas Lyons said:

I suspect a misprint.  Bob reported thunderers at 100 and Khemists at 140.  The French version has thunderers at 140 and Khemists at 100 :-/

Weird.  it seems to me in all the tournament lists I've seen that Khemist/Endenrigger was more of a real life power play than Khemist/Thunderer (I suppose some of that could be because Endenriggers were easier to model for max cheese, but my suspicion is that they were better than Khemist Cannon units math-hammer wise and probably better than morter chemist for at least some armies and in some sizes). 

[Mikester1487]

5 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Maybe?  The problem is that, as they are with the GHB2017 changes, they don't have a function on the battlefield.  What are they doing?  

With a wounds increase, and a focus on short range weapons, they might be able to serve as tanks/anvils for the army, especially with their 4+ save and the fumigator's ability to reduce attacks.  Having an anvil unit like this would fill a niche, but they're competing for valuable space given the high price on the ships (behemoths with generally bad attacks and saves for their points) and the requirement that KO armies must ALWAYS have at least 3 units of Arkanaut Company (since there are no other battleline units in the faction and you can't use allies to fulfill battleline requirements).  

So, increasing their wounds would help, although they're competing for space in a faction with high unit prices and no alternative battleline options.  Both of these factors would likely limit how many of these guys hit the table.

Ah gotcha.

With their role in mind and only having 1 wound I may just drop them entirely at this point and focus on company and riggers.  I plan my armies out for adepticon right now as I'm a slow painter.  Thanks for replying!

[Thomas Lyons]

6 minutes ago, Mikester1487 said:

Ah gotcha.

With their role in mind and only having 1 wound I may just drop them entirely at this point and focus on company and riggers.  I plan my armies out for adepticon right now as I'm a slow painter.  Thanks for replying!

For perspective, if you wanted to grab a tank unit, you could grab a massive block of 30 Vulkite Berserkers with shields for 330 points.  This block of Berserkers are 4+ in close combat when they don't charge, and have a ward/FnP save that scales from 4+ to 6+ based on how many models they have in the unit and allows you to shake both normal damage and mortal wounds.  The unit, when it charges, rolls a dice for every one of its models and ever 6 is a mortal wound to a unit it charged (so an average of 5 mortal wounds to any unit they charge); they get to reroll one of their charge dice too.  Once they are into melee, each model has 2 attacks at 4+/4+/-1 rend/1 damage.  And for icing, they all have an 8" ranged attack that might do a couple wounds when used en mass.  

All for 330 points, and they're even Duardin. 

[Mikester1487]

I'll move to the KO chat so this does not get derailed, but the berserkers sound like the perfect take and hold with company  for fire support.

[Nico]

I've run some maths ont he new buffs within the unit - so rerolling the number of shots for Decksweepers and rerolling hit rolls and damage rolls for the cannons. I did this for 20 models with:

• 4 Mortars (to trigger buff)
• 4 Decksweepers (to get buffed
• 4 Cannons (to get buffed)
• 8 Rifles

I went pure offence - not taking any Fumigators. 

The average damage output with a Khemist buff on the Cannons was actually 17.9 damage against a 4+ save. This compared with 13.8 damage for a unit of 20 Rifles (i.e. 42+20 = 62 shots).

The smaller buff is the number of shots one - to model this I assumed that half the time you roll a 4+ (and don't reroll), so (0.5 x 5) and half the time you roll a 1-3 and do reroll and you get 3.5 on the reroll (so 0.5 x 3.5. This comes to 4.25 - compared to 3.5m which is a 21.4% buff to the Decksweeper.

The hit roll becomes 3/4 for the Cannon, while the damage goes up to 2.33 from 2.

This is interesting (if maths is right) as it suggests that Thunderers aren't a complete waste of space (assuming they are still only 100 points).

[Thomas Lyons]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

I've run some maths ont he new buffs within the unit - so rerolling the number of shots for Decksweepers and rerolling hit rolls and damage rolls for the cannons. I did this for 20 models with:

• 4 Mortars (to trigger buff)
• 4 Decksweepers (to get buffed
• 4 Cannons (to get buffed)
• 8 Rifles

I went pure offence - not taking any Fumigators. 

The average damage output with a Khemist buff on the Cannons was actually 17.9 damage against a 4+ save. This compared with 13.8 damage for a unit of 20 Rifles (i.e. 42+20 = 62 shots).

The smaller buff is the number of shots one - to model this I assumed that half the time you roll a 4+ (and don't reroll), so (0.5 x 5) and half the time you roll a 1-3 and do reroll and you get 3.5 on the reroll (so 0.5 x 3.5. This comes to 4.25 - compared to 3.5m which is a 21.4% buff to the Decksweeper.

The hit roll becomes 3/4 for the Cannon, while the damage goes up to 2.33 from 2.

This is interesting (if maths is right) as it suggests that Thunderers aren't a complete waste of space (assuming they are still only 100 points).

An Arkanaut Company, backed by 1 Khemist, at the same range (12") will do 15.25 against non-heroes, non-monsters against a 4+ save (with no rerolls).  Against a hero or monster, under the same factors, will do 21.12 (no rerolls).  Oh, and they have 50% more models, such that they'll maintain their damage for a much longer time since they kill chaff and are able to keep the big guns around.

At a 18" range, the unit is doing 10 damage and 14 damage respectively against a 4+ (with no rerolls).

At a 24" range, the unit maintains this same damage...and the Thunderers can't touch anything that far out.  

Edit: For the record, it should be noted that the Arkanauts are clocking in at 40 less points in this comparison (360 vs. 400 of the Thunderers).  

[stato]

6 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

An Arkanaut Company, backed by 1 Khemist, at the same range (12") will do 15.25 against non-heroes, non-monsters against a 4+ save (with no rerolls).  Against a hero or monster, under the same factors, will do 21.12 (no rerolls).  Oh, and they have 50% more models, such that they'll maintain their damage for a much longer time since they kill chaff and are able to keep the big guns around.

At a 18" range, the unit is doing 10 damage and 14 damage respectively against a 4+ (with no rerolls).

At a 24" range, the unit maintains this same damage...and the Thunderers can't touch anything that far out.  

Edit: For the record, it should be noted that the Arkanauts are clocking in at 40 less points in this comparison (360 vs. 400 of the Thunderers).  

It's an interesting comparison. But you have to also consider the transport capacity of the vessels and ability to deliver firepower where you need it.  Also add in the other defensive abilities of the Thunderers and I think their new level of damage output is potentially acceptable for certain builds.