IG Thunderbolt vs Avenger Strike Fighter: Rules & Advice.

[Rommel44]

Hey mates, still working on my Mechanized Infantry list and I am liking the idea of fielding the DKOK Grenadier Assault Brigade as one variation of it. With that being said, for my Flyer I am currently debating between the Thunderbolt and the Average Strike Fighter, as the DKOK Grenadier list does not have access to the Vendetta Gunship. 2x things very quickly about the flyers. 

 

1. Can I use the rules of the flyer found in the Army List itself, or do I have to use or is there any generic rules for both of them in 7th edition? If so, can someone share me a link if where I could find those rules if that is the case. 

 

2. Which do you prefer and why? Basically, my list will be a bunch of Storm Chimeras with Grenadiers inside them, supported by either 2x Demolisher Tanks/Leman Russ Varient or 2x Thunderer Tanks. Currently leaning towards the Thunderbolt, as not only does it have 3HP, it comes with 2x Twin-Linked Autocannons and a Twin-Linked Lascannon base, which is pretty solid for the most part. 

 

However I am willing to listen to others opinions so feel free to share. Personally like the Thunderbolt due to it being more durable but I do like the Averager Strike Fighter for its Cannon, just hate the fact that it has only 2HP, if that is true anyways.

[duz_]

Vulture w TL punisher cannons

[CyderPirate]

What role is it going to fill? Anti-air, anti-Armour or anti-personnel? Or somewhere in the middle?

[cypherthefallenangel]

For anti air the thunderbolt. For close air support the avenger.

If you wanted vendettas or vultures you could ally in a armored company (IA1 2ed). They can take 1 squadron of either vultures or the old 130pt vendettas that still carry 12 troops. Plus thunderers and demolishers are troops. Like this.

Hq

command vanquisher w/ beasthunter shells

Troops

2x thunderers or demolishers

Fast

1-3 vultures or vendettas.

I personally use this ally most of the time i run my guard. Good stuff.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

Vulture w TL punisher cannons

DKoK Assault Brigade doesn't have access to those.

 

 

For anti air the thunderbolt. For close air support the avenger.

If you wanted vendettas or vultures you could ally in a armored company (IA1 2ed). They can take 1 squadron of either vultures or the old 130pt vendettas that still carry 12 troops. Plus thunderers and demolishers are troops. Like this.

Hq

command vanquisher w/ beasthunter shells

Troops

2x thunderers or demolishers

1-3 vultures or vendettas.

I personally use this ally most of the time i run my guard. Good stuff.

^^This. I too use the ABG list for my tanks since they get so much more to make them lethal. As for the flyer in question, both are good options. Both have deep strike, so it doesn't need to fly in from your side of the board. you can just plop it down and then shoot stuff up with it, and then fly it around. Unfortunately, that's a limiting factor in regular 40k, since the table isn't large enough to accommodate that kind of movement. You'll end up seeing them fly off the board. Which could be problematic if you roll poorly and have to wait until turn 4 to get it in.

 

It's going to depend greatly on what you're looking for the flyer to do. The Avenger is the typical choice since most people are looking for a CAS platform. Personally I think you'd have a better time allying in the ABG and taking a vulture, simply because of strafing run, vector dancer, and hover being things that the Vulture offers.

[Rommel44]

Appreciate the replies so far mates. However, if I go with the Avenger Strike Fighter, do I use the rules for it in the ABG or would I have to follow a different set of rules?

 

As for my list, currently planning to have/field:

 

* 7x Storm Chimeras w/Autocannon Turret, Hvy. Flamer and PM Hvy. Stubber.

 

* 2x Thunderer Tanks w/Demolisher Cannon, PM Hvy.Stubber (Or a Leman Russ Varient).

 

* 4x to 6x Squads of Grenadiers w/2x Meltaguns (might do 4x Squadsof Grenadiers and 2x Squads of Engineers in the Chimeras depending on points).

 

* Command Squad/Engineer Squad (depends if the DKOK Special Character is am IC).

 

From looking at this list, would you still say the Avenger Strike Fighter is the way to go, or would the Thunderbolt be a good choice?

[librisrouge]

Ok, maybe its just me but...why not both?

 

I've found that one flyer rarely does the job anyway, so two seems to be the place where they start to shine.

[Rommel44]

Ok, maybe its just me but...why not both?

 

I've found that one flyer rarely does the job anyway, so two seems to be the place where they start to shine.

Just planning to get one of these for now mate. Doing a FW order and I am basically one flyer away for getting the 250 deal all squared away. Would like to get both eventually, however I just need one to play in a 2000 point tournament, and n it's not a super competitive one.

[march10k]

So...which rules to use is a touchy subject.  It would seem obvious that one should use the most recently updated set of rules for a given unit, no matter where they are found...clearly, this would eliminate the cheap vendetta with a passenger capacity of 12 (for an example other than the avenger), but people are so eager to field that that they are willing to ignore common sense.  Not that there isn't an argument to be made for different points costs and rules for like units in the contexts of different codexes....but that's not really the way GW does business.  If they did, a power weapon would cost less on a guardsman than it does on a marine. At the same time, FW is a special case.  I would say that core GW codexes should trump FW if more recently updated, but that's just my opinion.  The alternative to my opinion would allow you to field squats under 2nd edition rules, since they haven't been superseded by anything...anyway, If you have a FW army list that's newer than the guard codex (or, in the case of the avenger, newer than aeronautica), then I would concede that the newer, fringe, rules should be your guide if you are fielding a detachment under those newer, fringe, rules.  But...if the source of the alternate set of rules is from, say 2003, and the "core" (i.e. IG codex, aeronautica, or whatever) rules are more recently updated, then it's probably the rulesmongering equivalent of "modeling for advantage" to insist on using a version of the unit that is clearly out of date.  Now, I'm only marginally attached to this, and as such have no idea whether the IG rules or the FW rules for the vendetta, or whether the inquisition rules or the IG rules for the chimera (that's a more balanced difference anyway, and a plausible one, more capacity to fire from the hatch versus port-firing weapons) are newer.    But...my opinion is that you should always use the core rules, unless you're fielding a fringe army list that has different rules for a core unit.  In that case, use the fringe rules only if they are newer than the core rules.  I don't want to see anyone running around claiming crazy 3rd edition rules for pure harlequins...!

[CyderPirate]

So...which rules to use is a touchy subject.  It would seem obvious that one should use the most recently updated set of rules for a given unit, no matter where they are found...clearly, this would eliminate the cheap vendetta with a passenger capacity of 12 (for an example other than the avenger), but people are so eager to field that that they are willing to ignore common sense.  Not that there isn't an argument to be made for different points costs and rules for like units in the contexts of different codexes....but that's not really the way GW does business.  If they did, a power weapon would cost less on a guardsman than it does on a marine. At the same time, FW is a special case.  I would say that core GW codexes should trump FW if more recently updated, but that's just my opinion.  The alternative to my opinion would allow you to field squats under 2nd edition rules, since they haven't been superseded by anything...anyway, If you have a FW army list that's newer than the guard codex (or, in the case of the avenger, newer than aeronautica), then I would concede that the newer, fringe, rules should be your guide if you are fielding a detachment under those newer, fringe, rules.  But...if the source of the alternate set of rules is from, say 2003, and the "core" (i.e. IG codex, aeronautica, or whatever) rules are more recently updated, then it's probably the rulesmongering equivalent of "modeling for advantage" to insist on using a version of the unit that is clearly out of date.  Now, I'm only marginally attached to this, and as such have no idea whether the IG rules or the FW rules for the vendetta, or whether the inquisition rules or the IG rules for the chimera (that's a more balanced difference anyway, and a plausible one, more capacity to fire from the hatch versus port-firing weapons) are newer.    But...my opinion is that you should always use the core rules, unless you're fielding a fringe army list that has different rules for a core unit.  In that case, use the fringe rules only if they are newer than the core rules.  I don't want to see anyone running around claiming crazy 3rd edition rules for pure harlequins...!

 

This causes me a lot of headaches, as its near impossible to discern what's deliberately been made different, what's a typo and what's just outdated. Just off the top of my head - Siege of Vraks, for example, gives the Siege Bombard S8 when it's S6 everywhere else, gives Pinning to Heavy Mortars, but not Quad Launchers  (which have a special rule affecting Pinning tests) and have Inferno Cannons with a longer range Torrent. 

My solution is just to explain the situation with my opponent, and try and fudge a RAI decision. That works most of the time for me because my opponents are usually pretty laid back, but that might not be doable in a tournament situation.

 

Marshall Venner's not an IC - he's bought as an upgrade to the CCS (like Straken and Creeeeeed), but his point cost includes his squad.

[sebs_evo7]

Avenger because it's a cross between bbbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrttttttttttttttttttttt and stuka

[librisrouge]

He makes a compelling arguement

[cypherthefallenangel]

I say use the rules for an army list as printed in that army lists book. IA1 2ed isnt much older(like 9months) than the AM codex FW could have adjusted points and unit rules to fall in line with the 7th ed codex but didnt and really so what. "Oh no your paying less for a vendetta" your also paying more for all the russes and almost everything else and you dont get bs op formations. It is perfectly acceptable(to most people and TOs) to use the rules of the most recent edition of that specific book. The rules in that specific book are balanced for that specific army.(well as balanced as any non tau/eldar book out there).

[CyderPirate]

Yeah, that's by fall-back option. I'd rather play with the most sensible interpretation of the rules, but if there's any issues I'll just play straight out of the book, including any bonuses or disadvantages. 

It doesn't really work when there's typos though, like leaving out a point cost for the psyker in the HH Cults and Milita list...

[Rommel44]

Fair enough. I have an idea of what I want to do, however current issue is what rule set I should be using. Basically, it's boiling down to: Do in use the rules and profile of the particular unit from the Army List? Or do I use the most updated rules for that unit? And if it's the most updated rules, what are they?