Moscovian wrote:
Emplacements mean a new unit. Are we really at this point that we need to add a new unit to the list?
Well technically they aren't units they are terrain

They give vehicles 5+ save and -1 to hit - in this case save you having to site them in terrain on the table.
Quote:
The 2-3 option isn't "gamey", Chris. It was designed because a lot of Squat players don't have gobs of these models. Thunderfires are rare and -given the army's dependence on them- the idea was to provide reasonable flexibility in fielding them.
The 2-3 isn't gamey - it is the way it is implemented. 100 for 2 or 175 for three? I wish I could reduce all my 3 strong flak to two for a 40+% price reduction. I would get a higher activation count and sacrifice next to nothing. A 3 strong unit breaks with 1 cas and comes back with 1 BM. A 2 strong formation comes back with no BM. 3-4 is a difficult choice, 2-3 isn't.
Quote:
We've actually discussed reducing the range on the Thunderfires to 45cm in the past, but my hunch is that it would result in players fielding even more of them to compensate, creating an even larger flak barrier and a greater degree of castling.
Why wouldn't you field as many as you can if they are that good? The flak bit is incidental. If you can build a castle that can't be touched from the ground, do so. Every game. The AA being 45 or 60 is just icing on the cake. If the castle doesn't win you the game, why are you bothered? If it does you have bigger problems than this gun.